Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
Is there anything wrong with being in collision with the Holy Book ?
Would the sinners and non believers who go back to God have a better understanding of Gods forgiveness because they gave into their selfish desires and wants etc and learned through pain and utter spiritual upheaval what it is like to cross the Kedron like Jesus did ?
After all it is a life time journey from conception to death or from baptism to the last rites.0 -
Northclare wrote: »Is there anything wrong with being in collision with the Holy Book ?
Would the sinners and non believers who go back to God have a better understanding of Gods forgiveness because they gave into their selfish desires and wants etc and learned through pain and utter spiritual upheaval what it is like to cross the Kedron like Jesus did ?
After all it is a life time journey from conception to death or from baptism to the last rites.
I think it would be safe to assume that if a person went from being atheist to being religious they would become very evangelical about it. It's typical of other things like Politics for instance, the marxist who learns life lessons that sets them on a course to becoming fiscal libertarians. it becomes central to their story.
You'll notice if you go to see motivational speakers a lot of them will have a story that begins with them living in cars under bridges.
The "neo conservatives" often describe themselves as ex liberals who were robbed by reality only to realise the dangerous world they live in. it gives them a narrative.
Any good speaker on religion will have their tale of dark years as a non believer.0 -
It is you making the grand claim. As I said to Phil, the burden of proof is on you. Frankly, though, I really do not care if you're religious or not. I have nothing to prove, literally.
nonsense ! Above yo claimed :
We are not born believing in god only to reject it later on. It is an idea, or meme which we are forced by coercion and propaganda into having to take seriously.
you seem like one of these people who went for the popular anti theist elements who promoted memetics and its journal before the whole idea collapsed into its own logic.
we have been over the voer reliance in quasi scientific theories like memetics which try like eugenics to attribute biological concepts like "evolution" to sociological contexts.0 -
All these states you speak of were not based on "there is no god" they were communist authoritarian regimes.
No they werent. china was atheist and zanti religious and atheist. when they relaxed their enforced atheism they still remained communist and authoritarian. But they began to prosper.
Cuba is communist but not anti Church. It has ta higher literacy rate than the US!the leaders sought to replace traditional religion with one of their own, namely the state/great leader/economic system is the new god.
The old shell game of defining anti religious expressedmly atheist countries as "religious"
But you cant define anti christian states as christian can you?
So how come all the atheist anti christian states failed or committed genocide and few if any of the christian ones did?You cannot blame atheism on this. Even though, you do so regularly, it appears you have that talking point on speed dial.
I have the stated pôlicieds of "there is no god" states Guess what the definiution of atheims is? Hint: there is no god
Whenever in history atheism was central to any movement it resulted in piles of corpses.
you cant claim "there is no god"=ATHEISM by definition is religion!
well you can but you would be logically incorrect.Atheism does not cause genocide or economic collapse. centralised power that ignores the masses in favour of military spending causes the latter. Revolt by said or fear of leads to genocides and mass murder.
Cuba non atheist with huge military presence -no genocide
Yugoslavia under Tito centralised power huge Military spending - no atheism and no genocide.
whatever OTHER excuse you come up with there are exceptions . Except atheism.
How come that?I consider my self hard atheist, yet, I do not favour state sanctioned atheism. rather, secular governance. People should be free to worship whatever and whoever they like. The state should not promote any religion.
But secular countries and religious countries do not always have genocide . atheistic countries always do! Totalitarian ones dont always or communist ones or religious ones or dictatorships or authoritarians. Just officially atheist always do. how come?0 -
No, that is where you are wrong. This thread refers to atheism and Christianity in general, not just in Ireland. And this little segment of the thread was initiated by Joseph Brand's snide little dig at philologos about evangelical megachurches - complete with a photo of one of their buildings from the United States.
For goodness' sake, read your own quotes. Facepalm time.
Now you have changed from challenging the report which clearly states that the religious are not more generous than those of no faith. You are trying to now claim that our discussion was not in the context of Ireland,
Check this out:
My Post 2425: Lets face it: the vast majority of churches do not have a soul in them i.e. empty.
The reason is that there are a lot of people turning against either organised religion or religion altogether. Its a shame that so much money is spent on keeping such large edifices maintained and heated when some people cant afford to keep their homes going.
Your Post 2426 in response : Surveys have shown that people who attend church regularly actually give more money on average to non-religious charities than do non-churchgoers. If you really feel compassion for people who can't afford to keep their homes going then you would be better off digging into your pocket and helping them rather indulging in petty criticism of those who do the most to help them.
Even ISAW knew comments were in reference to Ireland Quote “a Masters thesis in business 2005 looking at donations over the Celtic tiger years. I have no intention of doubting the source. If alan Matthews examined it and approved oit it has attained a level of credibility”
Your post again showing you understood we were talking about Rep of Ireland:
So you were referring to megachurches in the Republic of Ireland then? That's interesting. And how many such megachurches in this country do you think there are?
My response to above:
You are confused - I never mentioned megachurches. I did note that your statement that religious were more charitable was incorrect.
Perhaps you wished to address that issue. No problem.
Post 2442 You continued to refer to the Republic of Ireland report but misunderstood the findings ; quote: “The report states that, in both 1994/1995 and in 1999/2000 those who gave donations to churches were also more likely to give to non-religious charitiable causes. It also states that, of those who gave donations, the size of donations given by church donors were larger in the earlier survey but not in the later survey.”
Incorrect and you continue to thrash around rather than just accept you were wrong and have tried to find quotes to fit your case,
No Problem we all make mistakes
Understand how difficult it is to give up childhood beliefs.0 -
Advertisement
-
ISAW: I'm not going to bother countering your revisionist nonsense. I'll just let your post sit there and speak for itself.0
-
Which, in the eyes of the law, is exactly where it belongs. And, since I was talking to an atheist, I wouldn't expect them to accord any more importance to religion than to fancying pigeons. Of course, if they were logical, they would spend as much time on pigeon forums arguing than they do here.
That's nonsense, because mega-churches are drawn from many different theological traditions - including RC.
OK maybe your right, I associate them with 'prosperity gospel' and AFAIC thats a heresy.
They aren't designed to be a PR tool. They are designed to hold the large numbers of people who wish to attend. Supply and demand etc.
I disagree, any building is designed to say something about it occupiers, cathedrals, banks or megachurches.
I would disagree. Most small denominations are growing. Their flexibility and adaptability make it much easier for them to respond to the challenges of doing church in western secular societies. It is the big denominations, with more monolthic policies, who are experiencing decline.
I didn't mean in that sense, more a pr campaign to normalize religion in public life.
At this point converts are just a measure of how many crazy people subscribe to that club. The rest of the population just looks on with tolerant amusement or suspicion.
Religion has lost the argument that it's anything other than an esoteric pigeon fanciers club.
(sorry missed this post in the fast pace of this thread)0 -
ISAW: I'm not going to bother countering your revisionist nonsense. I'll just let your post sit there and speak for itself.
Have come to the same conclusion with my discussion No point if when something is proven that there is no grace around to accept a mistake and that is what I find on this board Too much school yard name calling is a problem,0 -
By the by joseph brand was criticising my faith. I live in a British context :pac:
Hasn't this discussion become silly!
0 -
Now you have changed from challenging the report which clearly states that the religious are not more generous than those of no faith. You are trying to now claim that our discussion was not in the context of Ireland,.
Come, come. Surely you can disagree with me and still remain reasonably truthful?
I never challenged the report. I challenged your failure to read the report properly - and I still do.
I also pointed out that our discussion has never been limited to the Irish Republic. After all, as I alluded to earlier, we were talking about megachurches. I am unaware of any megachurches in the Irish republic.
Then admit your mistake instead of quoting a report and then contradicting it.Have come to the same conclusion with my discussion No point if when something is proven that there is no grace around to accept a mistake and that is what I find on this board Too much school yard name calling is a problem,0 -
Advertisement
-
It is you making the grand claim. As I said to Phil, the burden of proof is on you. Frankly, though, I really do not care if you're religious or not. I have nothing to prove, literally.
There's nothing grand in the simple proposition that is possible for an infinite spirit to exist. The fact remains, I have yet to see a single convincing argument for the Atheist position. So, if you've got a decent one, post it up.0 -
La Petite Fleur wrote: »There's nothing grand in the simple proposition that is possible for an infinite spirit to exist. The fact remains, I have yet to see a single convincing argument for the Atheist position. So, if you've got a decent one, post it up.
Why would anyone do such a thing ? it is all around you , in science, maths, biology, evolution, etc . If you can't see it or you still need more and so take that ''step'' of faith - good luck to you .
You use an unusual phraseology in your post -'' the simple proposition that is possible for an infinite spirit to exist''- of course it is possible.
But to me the evidence means that it is unlikely. If more evidence becomes available I would revisit the proposition . Can you say the same ?0 -
Come, come. Surely you can disagree with me and still remain reasonably truthful?
I never challenged the report. I challenged your failure to read the report properly - and I still do.
I also pointed out that our discussion has never been limited to the Irish Republic. After all, as I alluded to earlier, we were talking about megachurches. I am unaware of any megachurches in the Irish republic.
Then admit your mistake instead of quoting a report and then contradicting it.
You know you are wrong and try to divert from Ireland to the US and the world. You are a poor loser and dont know how to accept your incorrect reading of a report which clearly comes to the conclusion that the religious are not generous. Am not surprised going by the general bad form of those christians on this thread.
The report on charitable giving in Ireland considered that it was "likely that the falling attendances" was the reason for church goers not being generous - no wonder when there are fewer and fewer of them to keep it up!
Why no accept that you are wrong big time and accept that as a moderator you should be the last to support a lost cause.
Will not post again because you ruin this thread with your devisive tactics and general unhappy personna.0 -
You use an unusual phraseology in your post -'' the simple proposition that is possible for an infinite spirit to exist''- of course it is possible.
But to me the evidence means that it is unlikely. If more evidence becomes available I would revisit the proposition . Can you say the same ?
Indeed I would. Now what evidence has atheism got to offer ? I've never seen it offer any to date and I'm most keen to see it presented if you have it.Why would anyone do such a thing ? it is all around you , in science, maths, biology, evolution, etc . If you can't see it or you still need more and so take that ''step'' of faith - good luck to you .
I adore science, maths, biology, evolution, etc. but I've never seen any of these disiplines ever present a single convincing argument for atheism (never mind evidence), so I'm most intrested in seeing one if you have it, because if you do, I have no issue in becoming an atheist.0 -
La Petite Fleur wrote: »I adore science, maths, biology, evolution, etc. but I've never seen any of these disiplines ever present an argument for atheism, so I'm most intrested in seeing one if you have it.
Indeed I would. Now what evidence has Atheism got to offer ? I've never seen it offer any to date and I'm most keen to see it presented if you have it.
Do you mean what evidence does atheism have to offer ?? if that is the question the answer is none - why should it ?
Atheism is the result of the process . The evidence is there in science evolution maths geology etc.0 -
philologos wrote: »RichieC: The thing is all I've ever seen from your posts is just moaning about Christianity. Nothing you've presented actually gives me a positive reason as to why I should be an atheist rather than follow another religion. Even then, I haven't seen much that would devastate my Christian faith into pieces. Yet, throughout the years, there have been a lot of Christians offering positive reasons for why they believe in Jesus and trust in Him.
It seems a little bit disproportionate. The more and more I go on the less and less satisfied I am in the new-atheist cop out (and it is fairly recent - within the last decade) that the burden is not on them. However, if they want to convince me to become an atheist and reject Christianity, to a certain degree the burden is on you to convince me that God is a fable. Much of the new-atheist argument is simply repeating what they claim ad-infinitum without any positive contribution to the argument. E.G God doesn't exist, God's a fable, God's a delusion, God's like Santa for grown ups. The big question is Why is He any of these things? Answers are forthcoming on those really.
Atheists don't believe God exists because we don't believe there is evidence for his existence, but "burden of proof" is not a rule of logic. Lack of evidence for X does not imply X is false. So you can argue that lack of evidence for God does not necessarily show that God does not exists, or that we are arbitrarily relying on evidence to decide what is true and is not true, or that "there is no evidence for the non-existence of God". But it is ultimately a moot point. I do not know of any Christian who believes in God because "There is no evidence that God does not exist.". All Christians I know of believe in God because they believe there is evidence for God.
This is why the argument usually revolves around critiquing lines of evidence for God, whether the evidence is scientific, historical, societal or otherwise. A Christian, if they wished, could always fall back on the "reassurance" that there is no evidence for "no God", just as there is no evidence for "no Thor" or "no Zeus", but it is not compelling to anyone, Christians included.0 -
La Petite Fleur wrote: »Indeed I would, so what evidence has Atheism got to offer ? I've never seen it offer any ?
Sorry but what you're asking for is evidence of nothing. It cant be done. Not logically anyway. We can test if God dose any of the things that are claimed of Him. We can offer alternative explanations. But to prove a negative is impossible.
Everything that theists say God has done can be explained by other means. Well not everything, not salvation, or resurrection. But salvation is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and resurrection, well we have to take the word of people who heard about it for that one.
Anyway an eternal flame spirit is your hypothesis, the burden of proof is on you.0 -
-
-
I don't. I believe without evidence. But then I use believe to mean something different from I believe water is wet ,when talking about God. Come to think of it I use God pretty loosely too.Morbert;
All Christians I know of believe in God because they believe there is evidence for God.0 -
Advertisement
-
That is an downright falsehood. I know I am right because, apparently unlike you, I read the report.You know you are wrong and try to divert from Ireland to the US and the world.
Stop throwing a tantrum and read the report. It says religious people are more likely to give to charity, but the size of the gifts do not differ significantly from those of the non-religious givers. What is so difficult to understand about that? It's hardly rocket science.You are a poor loser and dont know how to accept your incorrect reading of a report which clearly comes to the conclusion that the religious are not generous. Am not surprised going by the general bad form of those christians on this thread.
Just because I'm a moderator does not oblige me to allow an illiterate reading of a report to go unchallenged.Why no accept that you are wrong big time and accept that as a moderator you should be the last to support a lost cause.0 -
La Petite Fleur wrote: »First I've heard of that, can you prove this claim please ?
Back to Russell's teapot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot0 -
ISAW: I'm not going to bother countering your revisionist nonsense. I'll just let your post sit there and speak for itself.
You can run away from the issue if you want. It still wont support your claims and wont validate any shell game of "atheist" . time and again we hear atheists say all it means is there is no god or gods and have a go at any belief in supernatural things only to discover that when pressed on their own definition and what relevance it has for society to run away from the actual historical record of any atheist state that ever existed! All of them were a mess and they provided nothing useful good or beneficial to society! And the person I quote frequently on this Fasgnadh - is an agnostic! not alone that but i rarely if ever bring my own beliefs into the issue. I rely on objective arguments logic reason science and scholarship. The same thing the atheists claim to support. But when confronted with the actual published record they turn tail and run. Usually only to reappear some time later posting the same rubbish.0 -
Atheists don't believe God exists because we don't believe there is evidence for his existence, but "burden of proof" is not a rule of logic.
As an argument from ignorance it is a logical fallacyLack of evidence for X does not imply X is false.
"proving a negative" is a different fallacy to "argument from ignorance"
"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does" is a burden of proof fallacySo you can argue that lack of evidence for God does not necessarily show that God does not exists, or that we are arbitrarily relying on evidence to decide what is true and is not true, or that "there is no evidence for the non-existence of God".
If they believed "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does" they would be committing a fallacy -the burden of proof fallacy.But it is ultimately a moot point. I do not know of any Christian who believes in God because "There is no evidence that God does not exist.". All Christians I know of believe in God because they believe there is evidence for God.A Christian, if they wished, could always fall back on the "reassurance" that there is no evidence for "no God", just as there is no evidence for "no Thor" or "no Zeus", but it is not compelling to anyone, Christians included.
If they believed "You cannot prove that God/Thor/Zeus does not exist, so He does" they would be committing a fallacy -the burden of proof fallacy.0 -
La Petite Fleur wrote: »First I've heard of that, can you prove this claim please ?
Is absence of evidence of life on Mars evidence of absence of life on mars?0 -
I don't. I believe without evidence. But then I use believe to mean something different from I believe water is wet ,when talking about God. Come to think of it I use God pretty loosely too.
Not only that but "evidence" may be used to mean different things too. Scientific evidence or formal proof is one thing. But science itself is not sufficient for society. scientists know that.0 -
Actually I also think your reading is incorrect as the report clearly states that where before you were correct, things have changed and Christians are no longer the most generous group in Ireland.
As a newby I am surprised that there is so much nastiness over this issue and have no wish to cause more upset but its time to cool and read the report which clearly favours Zorbas position as far as I can see.
If I am to be corrected - please do so without rancour as its unseemly and does not make for happy bunnies.
Fair enough. It is important in reading any survey or report to be clear in understanding what is being measured. Unfortunately clarity tends to be the first thing that goes out the window when people google to mine quotes to support a preconceived argument.
The report in question measured two distinct things.
1. How likely people are to give (ie. out of a given demographic what percentage of that group gives to charity?)
2. How large were the donations (ie. for those who did give, how did the size of their donations compare to other groups?)
In regard to the first point, the report states that in both the earlier and the later surveys, the religious are more likely than the non-religious to give to charity.
In regard to the second point, it says that in the earlier survey the religious donors gave more than the non-religious donors, but that was not the case in the later survey.
Now, that data, when put together tells us this:
a) In the earlier survey, religious people were more likely than non-religious to give to charity, and when they did so their average size of donations were also larger than donations given by non-religious donors.
b) In the later survey, religious people were still more likely than non-religious to give to charity, but now their average size of donations were no larger than donations given by non-religious donors.
Now, without any point to prove, think about that.
If 70% of group A gives to charity, and only 60% of group B gives to charity, and if the average size of donation from each group is no different, then it is logically inescapable that those in group A, on average, are more generous in their giving to charity than group B.
The findings of this report are similar to studies carried out in the US (as already cited) in Canada, and in other countries. Frequency of attendance at worship (not just Christian worship - this applies equally to other religions) is an indicator of a greater level of giving to charity. Even when churches and religious charities are excluded, regular worshippers still tend to give more to non-religious charitable causes than do the non-religious.0 -
You can run away from the issue if you want. It still wont support your claims and wont validate any shell game of "atheist" . time and again we hear atheists say all it means is there is no god or gods and have a go at any belief in supernatural things only to discover that when pressed on their own definition and what relevance it has for society to run away from the actual historical record of any atheist state that ever existed! All of them were a mess and they provided nothing useful good or beneficial to society! And the person I quote frequently on this Fasgnadh - is an agnostic! not alone that but i rarely if ever bring my own beliefs into the issue. I rely on objective arguments logic reason science and scholarship. The same thing the atheists claim to support. But when confronted with the actual published record they turn tail and run. Usually only to reappear some time later posting the same rubbish.
You are describing yourself. I have frequently attempted to engage your "historical record" nonsense (see my last post to you), but you never engage. You run and hide, only to spout the same nonsense at a later time.0 -
That is an downright falsehood. I know I am right because, apparently unlike you, I read the report.
Stop throwing a tantrum and read the report. It says religious people are more likely to give to charity, but the size of the gifts do not differ significantly from those of the non-religious givers. What is so difficult to understand about that? It's hardly rocket science.
Just because I'm a moderator does not oblige me to allow an illiterate reading of a report to go unchallenged.
I think you may be wrong in this instance because I know the report Zorbas mentioned and it does say that in the last research religious people were not more generous than the rest of the populace.
That does not prove much but the facts speak for themselves and where before religious people were more generous, they no longer are.0 -
Advertisement
-
Actually I also think your reading is incorrect as the report clearly states that where before you were correct, things have changed and Christians are no longer the most generous group in Ireland.
no it does not! Appendix A clearly shows statistical significance at the one percent level that "holy" people co,ntributed more in 1995 than they did in 2000 compared to non "holy" people (dont blame me it is the term used in the statistics)
It at no point states "holy" people are ever measured as giving less than the non church goers just that the overall amount declined. It even offers an explanation -there were less holy people i.e less people going to church meant church gate collections were down.As a newby I am surprised that there is so much nastiness over this issue and have no wish to cause more upset but its time to cool and read the report which clearly favours Zorbas position as far as I can see.
If I am to be corrected - please do so without rancour as its unseemly and does not make for happy bunnies.
Oh stow it! I already corrected the statistical significance several times. Page 141-145 under the variable HOLY Then you show up as an avatar of decorum as if you think it somehow shows they cant moderate discussions here. the report is limited in scope and does NOT show religious people in Ireland or anywhere else contribute less than they did. What it seems to show is that as people get less religious donations decline.
By the way i was asked about older people contributing more.
Read the same report!
Page 64 table 3.6 which shows average contribution by older people is higher.
Particularly considering pensioners with less income but possibly more disposable income. They contribute more.
On page 77 he lists FIVE other researchers who concluded religion correlates positively with donation.
On page 78 you will note that households that donate to church donate about three times as much to charity compared to households that dont donate to a church. It is assumed donate to a church are churchgoers i.e practice their religion. the money donated to the church collection and to a charity are different.
By the way most parishes dont usually allow charaties collect outside church In the roman Catholic church with the exception of the odd st vincent de Paul. There arez usually two church collections one ges into a fund which pays salaries to priests. the other goes into a fund to pay for building new churches. Occasionally the second collection is replaced with another church related charity . maybe one of these
http://www.dublindiocese.ie/content/diocesan-agencies
anyway the figures are
1995 religious - 1.32 non religious 0.48
2000 religious - 1.63 non religious 0.56
Have you got the picture now? They contribute MORE!
edit: Page 78 in case you cant be bothered actually reading through the report you cite.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement