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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

1…4950525455…196

Comments

  • #2552
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    La Petite Fleur wrote: »
    Pop up another one there.

    Ok.

    There is no evidence for God.


  • #2553
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    philologos wrote: »
    Morbert: I think Russell's understanding was lacking as a lot of philosophy can be.

    Zombrex: Not at all, because there's still the fundamental question of how all this came to be. It seems pretty clear on a number of grounds that there must have been an ultimate cause to this universe. I've presented a number of arguments for God's existence, which have been flat out ignored time and time again in what seems a mere matter of personal preference. Ultimately, I believe it's down to you if you want to earnestly consider God's word, and ultimately I believe that He is the only one who will make that change. No argument how good, how lofty, how intellectual will break down the barrier that you have created. I'm convinced of that.

    It is pseudo-psychology, it's atheists trying to explain away what is a genuine philosophical issue. The new-atheists simply fuse opinion with fact without consideration. Sam Harris has done it and Richard Dawkins certainly has done it.

    That is not really the case though philologos, correct me if I am wrong ( and I may well be) but that last time this discussion came up was as an adjunct to Dawkins or Harris refusing to debate that chap - can't recall his name . Now ruthlessly paraphrasing the arguments we came to the conclusion that the simplest explanation the fit all the fact was the one most likely to be true . I said the non existance of god fit the bill nicely- you said no and inserted a prime mover into the chain - and when queried you shut down the discussion.

    So to have a debate as to the existence of god etc is against the rules is it not ?


  • #2554
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    But is it just a matter of proving God exists?
    What if we prove that God dosn't exist? How dose that help? What part of me will be better off without God? Without God mind not without religion, priests, holy texts and all the ritual and regulation thats attached to believing in God. Remove God and all the bullsh1t will remain, it'll just morph into some other set of rituals and regulations. Well still kill each other, rob, lie and cheat just because theirs no God wont make any difference.
    We are people and people divide into tribes and in groups and out groups, seek to dominate, love and hate and justify themselves to themselves.
    I believe in God because I refuse to accept that love, truth, beauty and justice find no echo in an empty cold universe. Its a defiant assertion in the face of adversity not a dogma to preach.


  • #2555
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,009 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    I believe in God because I refuse to accept that love, truth, beauty and justice find no echo in an empty cold universe. Its a defiant assertion in the face of adversity not a dogma to preach.
    That reason just sounds like you believe because you feel like it - which is your choice - but a pretty lazy and lousy reason to me.

    I believe in things when there is a good rational reason and I'd prefer the truth warts or all rather than some delusional fantasy just to make me feel better.

    If there's a God - grand, but show me the evidence - any of you (thor, zeus, Christian God, whoever...) show me a good reason you exist outside people's imagination.

    Respect.


  • #2556
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    I believe that there is 'evidence' of God, sometimes it's more aesthetic, like Tommy mentions there, and sometimes it's to do with justice and nature; sometimes it's to do with both those things and 'Christ' is the ultimate reason for Christians - but it's not the sort you put under a microscope, or indeed a telescope - it's something you feel or don't feel, sense or don't sense, love or don't love, seek or don't seek, and ultimately is perhaps the one decision that can change a course of your life.

    Christians believe that God exists beyond nature - so natural studies are not in conflict and not a proof either. No problem there.

    Anybody familiar with Ecclesiastes will sense the deep meaning beneath the words for that time and place, pretty much that time and knowledge are of nothing to God, his ways are not ours - but can't ( well I can't help) be blown away by the tremendous insight, especially for over 2,300 years ago that a writer could understand or be 'led' to write such knowledge about time and place that we don't fully understand today. Fabulous! :)


  • Advertisement
  • #2557
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    That reason just sounds like you believe because you feel like it - which is your choice - but a pretty lazy and lousy reason to me.

    I believe in things when there is a good rational reason and I'd prefer the truth warts or all rather than some delusional fantasy just to make me feel better.

    If there's a God - grand, but show me the evidence - any of you (thor, zeus, Christian God, whoever...) show me a good reason you exist outside people's imagination.

    Respect.
    Dont match.

    Why is it lazy? More of concern is why is it a lousy reason?
    How is it irrational or at least anymore irrational than believing in love or that good should win. Rationality would say that might makes right but we don't subscribe to that or maybe you do?


  • #2558
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    lmaopml wrote: »
    I believe that there is 'evidence' of God, sometimes it's more aesthetic, like Tommy mentions there, and sometimes it's to do with justice and nature; sometimes it's to do with both those things and 'Christ' is the ultimate reason for Christians - but it's not the sort you put under a microscope, or indeed a telescope - it's something you feel or don't feel, sense or don't sense, love or don't love, seek or don't seek, and ultimately is perhaps the one decision that can change a course of your life.

    Christians believe that God exists beyond nature - so natural studies are not in conflict and not a proof either. No problem there.

    Anybody familiar with Ecclesiastes will sense the deep meaning beneath the words for that time and place, pretty much that time and knowledge are of nothing to God, his ways are not ours - but can't ( well I can't help) be blown away by the tremendous insight, especially for over 2,300 years ago that a writer could understand or be 'led' to write such knowledge about time and place that we don't fully understand today. Fabulous! :)

    That is all great for you Imaopml and you have found your God, but really when you start using words like 'aesthetics'' ''justice'' ''nature'' you are accepting that scientifically it is impossible to prove the existence of God.
    If you could you would,and we would all agree.

    You are describing exactly what I feel when reading Homer Dante Joyce or Proust.

    But just say for a minute you had proved it -then I would ask which God and why that God ? The Christian God- The God of Islam- Yoruba deities ?

    Some would say in reply that in fact there is only the one God and lets say this were so , then we can dispense will all the religious paraphenalia , and the pomp and ceremony, and the diktats and prohibitions and move toward world spirit vagueness type of stuff.

    I always find it surprising that believers are contantly looking for ''proof''- an actual man called Jesus existed, that Nazereth existed, that the Turin Shroud is genuine..whatever, who cares ? If you have faith it is surely irrelevant, or is it like Thomas with that little seed of doubt always nagging away in there.


  • #2559
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    marienbad wrote: »
    That is all great for you Imaopml and you have found your God, but really when you start using words like 'aesthetics'' ''justice'' ''nature'' you are accepting that scientifically it is impossible to prove the existence of God.
    If you could you would,and we would all agree.

    Um, yes, that's exactly what I am saying...you won't put God under a microscope or telescope should probably have given you a clue no :) - that's my own opinion, and I don't mind if you think it's 'great' for me or even if you think it's not - feel free.
    You are describing exactly what I feel when reading Homer Dante Joyce or Proust.

    Yes, exactly, I would say that they are kind of one and the same thing, but not exactly, that may be your aesthetic side Marien that is probably rather pointless in the big scheme of things to other folk who don't share it, but awakens your sense nonetheless how you see fit and gives you 'feelings'. Great choices by the way....one of the guys who translated Homer's Illiad is a favourite writer of mine, Alexander Pope, another fabulous guy.


  • #2560
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Um, yes, that's exactly what I am saying...you won't put God under a microscope or telescope should probably have given you a clue no :) - that's my own opinion, and I don't mind if you think it's 'great' for me or even if you think it's not - feel free.



    Yes, exactly, I would say that they are kind of one and the same thing, but not exactly, that may be your aesthetic side Marien that is probably rather pointless in the big scheme of things to other folk who don't share it, but awakens your sense nonetheless how you see fit and gives you 'feelings'. Great choices by the way....one of the guys who translated Homer's Illiad is a favourite writer of mine, Alexander Pope, another fabulous guy.

    Indeed Imaopml

    ''A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring''


  • #2561
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »
    psychological reasons for why humans would both invent something like a god and why such an idea would propagate through human culture, ...
    To me these present a much more plausible explanation for the existence of human religion at a far greater level of detail than any religion explanation does.

    Really? Okay then care to give us a list list these psychological reasons and theories and how they are plausible? I hope you dont include memetics.


  • Advertisement
  • #2562
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    Indeed Imaopml

    ''A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring''

    I think I earlier stated "a little learning is a dangerous thing" :)


  • #2563
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Dont match.

    Why is it lazy? More of concern is why is it a lousy reason?
    How is it irrational or at least anymore irrational than believing in love or that good should win. Rationality would say that might makes right but we don't subscribe to that or maybe you do?

    But might is right in the end. Whether you subscribe to it or not. That is why we have bomb-making facilities and weapons research institutes etc.

    Ultimately, might does rule.

    Further evidence for the absence of a 'just' God of creation.

    Ice ages are more evidence of a lack of care from a deity who loves His human creation.

    In fact, I think it is pretty safe to say that the Universe appears to be evolving just as one would expect if a Universe was left uncreated, undisturbed and to its own devices.

    If there is a God-governed Universe, it certainly ain't this one.

    I think the question should be, 'What kind of Universe would we live in if it was governed by a benevolent God?'.

    I think it would be a nicer place than the places described in the Bible.


  • #2564
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ISAW wrote: »
    Really? Okay then care to give us a list list these psychological reasons and theories and how they are plausible? I hope you dont include memetics.
    ISAW, how do you explain the myriad of religions and concepts of God/s that do not agree with yours that are out there?
    Where do they come from if their Gods aren't real?
    Why do people believe in them when they are not true and in some cases transparently false?
    Why do people believe in other things that are not true and unrelated to ideas of Gods, such as fairies and ghosts?
    Why do people believe that 9/11 was the result of a global conspiracy of lizardmen?

    Surely you understand that there are reasons for all of these that aren't supernatural?


  • #2565
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zombrex wrote: »
    One point I will quickly make about evidence, since the topic seems to be moving towards the evidence for God (which tends to be things like lovely sunsets).

    I've never once used that argument. By evidence, I mean indicatory evidence that would suggest God's existence in the absence of absolute proof. Evidence similar to finding an item of clothing beside a murdered body. It's reasonable to suggest that the item of clothing may belong to the murderer if it wasn't owned by the person who was killed. Indeed, we might look and see that there are fingerprints on the knife that was left in their body. Again, more indicatory evidence.

    The more and more of this indicatory evidence we have, the more and more we can be sure that it was true. There is no reason to have a separate standard in respect to God and Christianity. There are a lot of reasons that one can have for believing in Jesus in the 21st century. I've skimmed over a few of them briefly in this post on this thread. I'll expand on them if there is interest and as I get time.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    By definition a all powerful supernatural being can explain anything. That doesn't mean the existence of anything is evidence for that all powerful supernatural being.

    Nonsense. If we find that what we've received about God, correlates with reality, then that is a valid piece of indicatory evidence. If the world operates in a certain way that the Bible addresses. That gives me confidence in it as a reliable document. The world operates in many ways that the Bible addresses, and the world contains evidence that demonstrates that many Biblical events are true, and that what the Bible says about historical figures is true. There's archaeology to demonstrate that the Bible is true.

    Being unwilling to actually give that the consideration it deserves, is just fobbing it off. It doesn't mean that God isn't evidenced.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    This is a point that is often spectacularly missed by some theists who think they merely have to point to the existence of the universe to demonstrate that their god exists because they only consider their god as capable of producing something. Something exists, must have been our god sure what else could it have been. Well anything really, what evidence is it that it was your god specifically and not something else.

    So to any theists brave enough to put forward evidence for their god can you try, to save time, to think a bit over whether it is actually evidence for your god or is it simply evidence for something, anything, that produced the universe.

    That's the reason why people post more than this.

    However, that's irrelevant entirely to your position. Even if it is another God, then atheism is still wrong. This is why I ask for positive arguments for atheism rather than simply lobbing pot-shots at Christianity or whining that there is no evidence. Even if there were no evidence (which isn't true), we're still a long way of demonstrating that any God does not exist.


  • #2566
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    That reason just sounds like you believe because you feel like it - which is your choice - but a pretty lazy and lousy reason to me.

    I believe in things when there is a good rational reason and I'd prefer the truth warts or all rather than some delusional fantasy just to make me feel better.

    If there's a God - grand, but show me the evidence - any of you (thor, zeus, Christian God, whoever...) show me a good reason you exist outside people's imagination.

    Respect.

    What is the source of your respect?
    How do you scientifically measure it?
    How can you prove love, respect, right and wrong, etc. ?


  • #2567
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    Ok.

    There is no evidence for God.

    what constitutes "evidence"?

    Is there evidence for parallel universes?


  • #2568
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,226 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Could I get a response to this?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77350370&postcount=2534

    I don't mean to badger you or anything, and if you don't wish to respond, that's fine. I'm just genuinely curious to know how Christianity has the same Greek roots as mathematics and science, and how they're connected in that way. Considering of course, that the Greeks worshipped many gods which in no way fit in with christian theology.


  • #2569
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    La Petite Fleur wrote: »
    I'm a lover of the sciences, and I don't look to religion to explain the fine details of the physical, thats where science comes in, and true religion does not clash with science.

    That has nothing to do with the explanation I just presented to you?
    La Petite Fleur wrote: »
    Pop up another one there.

    Yeah maybe not, I suspect that would be a waste of time ...


  • #2570
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    I think I earlier stated "a little learning is a dangerous thing" :)


    Good for you ISAW

    ''And still they gaz'd and and still the wonder grew
    that one small head could carry all he knew''


  • #2571
    Northclare
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Northclare


    Maybe science is far too primitive at the moment to prove the existence of God.


  • Advertisement
  • #2572
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    himnextdoor ;
    'What kind of Universe would we live in if it was governed by a benevolent God?'.
    I never said it was a benevolent or interventionist God. Anyway define benevolent, caring for the whole universe or just individuals. A god for humans?
    I'm more of a co relationalist. God and the world rather than God or the world.


  • #2573
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Penn wrote: »
    Could I get a response to this?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77350370&postcount=2534

    I don't mean to badger you or anything, and if you don't wish to respond, that's fine. I'm just genuinely curious to know how Christianity has the same Greek roots as mathematics and science, and how they're connected in that way. Considering of course, that the Greeks worshipped many gods which in no way fit in with christian theology.

    It would take a book to fully explore the relationship between Jewish and Greek thinking that goes into the theology of Christianity.
    Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, came to Rome and picked up Greek ideas along the way. Dualism from Plato is one example. The ideas of logos and theos. Science as we know it came out of this way of thinking not in opposition to it. The Galileo thing and all the rest are politics not science or religion. Remember that the church used Copernicus calculations to set the date for easter, not the act of an institute that rejected his theories.


  • #2574
    Northclare
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Northclare


    Muslims also had mathematical geniuses as well as Christianity.

    Some musicians meditate or pray before they write music and they believe without their beliefs they wouldn't have the ability to come up with their compositions.


  • #2575
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    Good for you ISAW

    ''And still they gaz'd and and still the wonder grew
    that one small head could carry all he knew''

    Touche -goldsmith?
    Penn wrote: »
    How so?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_philosophy_and_Christianity

    , Stoicism and particularly Platonism were readily incorporated into Christian ethics and theology.

    Philo's blend of Judaism, Platonism, and Stoicism strongly influenced Christian Alexandrian writers like Origen and Clement of Alexandria, as well as, in the Latin world, Ambrose of Milan.

    One early Christian writer of the 2nd and early 3rd century, Clement of Alexandria, demonstrated Greek thought in writing: "Philosophy has been given to the Greeks as their own kind of Covenant, their foundation for the philosophy of Christ ... the philosophy of the Greeks ... contains the basic elements of that genuine and perfect knowledge which is higher than human ... even upon those spiritual objects." (Miscellanies 6. 8)

    The Church historian Eusebius suggested, essentially, that Greek philosophy had been supplied providentially as a preparation for the Gospel.

    Augustine of Hippo, who ultimately systematized Christian philosophy, wrote in the 4th and early 5th century: "But when I read those books of the Platonists I was taught by them to seek incorporeal truth, so I saw your 'invisible things, understood by the things that are made' (Confessions 7. 20).

    ...
    Hellenic Christians and their medieval successors then applied this Form-based philosophy to the Christian God.

    since God was perfect, any change would make him less than perfect, so they asserted that God was unchanging, or immutable.
    As you are probably aware this is the established view of science coming up to Galileo and Newton i.e. that a different set of rules operated in the heavens compared to the earth.

    the Geocentric cosmology was also Greek in origin -Ptolemy.
    ********************

    http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/cp.htm

    list of Christian philosophers, theologians, and writers with Platonist/Neoplatonist interests or influences. Their main works, and especially those relevant to the topic of Christian Platonism, are also shown.

    http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/cp.gif

    http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/renaissance_platonism.gif

    http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/renaissance_esotericists.gif

    Copyright © 2008-2009 -John Uebersax PhD


  • #2576
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Northclare wrote: »
    Muslims also had mathematical geniuses as well as Christianity.

    and as others have stated people who were not atheists and not Christians also killed people.
    But it has nothing to do witht he point that all atheistic countries did and almost no christian
    countriees did.

    Science is Greek in Origin. Whether Indians Arabs or others later developed it.
    Some musicians meditate or pray before they write music and they believe without their beliefs they wouldn't have the ability to come up with their compositions.

    Easily tested. get them to compose without prayer first :)

    the broader issue of art is different; science isnt art although it can be creative and artistic.

    Mathematics itself is an extension of logic. What people mean by "mathematical beauty" is another thing usually to do with simplicity.

    but i go along with chalmers view in
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_This_Thing_Called_Science

    Where he views it as esentially greek in origin.


  • #2577
    Northclare
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Northclare


    Another good book to read is " Night Journey to Buddh Gaia" by John Moriarty.

    I read it once and its very interesting but ill start reading it again soon.

    I'm sure if you Google it, you will read reviews on the book.


  • #2578
    Northclare
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Northclare


    Thanks ISAW doesn't the word economy have Greek origins too,but if you like reading check out that book I mentioned Night Journey to Buddh Gaia its very interesting written by a Kerry man but its all about his beliefs that culture can be genetic....


  • #2579
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,226 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    ISAW wrote: »
    As you are probably aware this is the established view of science coming up to Galileo and Newton i.e. that a different set of rules operated in the heavens compared to the earth.

    the Geocentric cosmology was also Greek in origin -Ptolemy.
    ********************

    http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/cp.htm

    list of Christian philosophers, theologians, and writers with Platonist/Neoplatonist interests or influences. Their main works, and especially those relevant to the topic of Christian Platonism, are also shown.

    http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/cp.gif

    http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/renaissance_platonism.gif

    http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/renaissance_esotericists.gif

    Copyright © 2008-2009 -John Uebersax PhD

    But, how can Christianity have Greek roots? I mean, I can clearly see from your links that several ideas may have come from ideas which were Greek in origin, but surely Christianity shouldn't have any roots from anywhere else other than the Bible?

    I mean, did the people writing the Bible and the people who spread Christianity throughout the world take their ideas and inspiration from the Bible, or did they use the ideas of others and modify them to fit with their own ideas.

    How can a religion have roots in a different culture? Surely the ideas and concepts were there before the Greeks? After all, if the religion is the absolute truth, it cannot be changed if ideas from another country are introduced


  • #2580
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,253 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Penn wrote: »
    But, how can Christianity have Greek roots? I mean, I can clearly see from your links that several ideas may have come from ideas which were Greek in origin, but surely Christianity shouldn't have any roots from anywhere else other than the Bible?

    I mean, did the people writing the Bible and the people who spread Christianity throughout the world take their ideas and inspiration from the Bible, or did they use the ideas of others and modify them to fit with their own ideas.

    How can a religion have roots in a different culture? Surely the ideas and concepts were there before the Greeks? After all, if the religion is the absolute truth, it cannot be changed if ideas from another country are introduced

    It's pretty much a historical fact that Christianity adapted and changed hugely over the centuries to adapt to it's expanding regions.

    Why, even the idea of the Christmas Tree is forbidden in the bible as they were part of a Pagan ceremony.


  • Advertisement
  • #2581
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Penn wrote: »
    I mean, did the people writing the Bible and the people who spread Christianity throughout the world take their ideas and inspiration from the Bible, or did they use the ideas of others and modify them to fit with their own ideas.

    How could those writing the Bible take ideas and inspiration from it when the Bible hadn't yet been complied?
    Penn wrote: »
    How can a religion have roots in a different culture? Surely the ideas and concepts were there before the Greeks? After all, if the religion is the absolute truth, it cannot be changed if ideas from another country are introduced

    Religions don't live in isolation from culture. This is why the practices of one Christian denomination in Ireland might look very different to the same denomination in South Africa.

    Christians generally believe in the gradual revelation of God's nature and purpose. We don't think that Jews living 2,500 years ago had any concept of the Trinity, Penal Substitution or a whole host of Christian doctrines that you care to mention.

    Finally, who said that "religion" is the absolute truth? What is religion exactly?


  • #2582
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Originally Posted by Penn;

    How can a religion have roots in a different culture? Surely the ideas and concepts were there before the Greeks? After all, if the religion is the absolute truth, it cannot be changed if ideas from another country are introduced

    But it can be revealed and revelation can be an ongoing process. No truths have been changed. Laws and practices have changed but not truth. Understanding grows but the truth remains.


  • #2583
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Why, even the idea of the Christmas Tree is forbidden in the bible as they were part of a Pagan ceremony.

    The idea of the Christmas Tree is hardly a Christian doctrine, nor is it forbidden in the Bible. The idea of the Christmas Tree didn't exist when any of the biblical books were being written.


  • #2584
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    what constitutes "evidence"?

    That is what the debate revolves around: Christians argue that God's existence is implied by some tendered fact or premise, and atheists critique the inference.
    Is there evidence for parallel universes?

    No, which is why they are speculative. There is, however, overwhelming evidence for superposition of states on the quantum level.


  • #2585
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,226 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    How could those writing the Bible take ideas and inspiration from it when the Bible hadn't yet been complied?

    Religions don't live in isolation from culture. This is why the practices of one Christian denomination in Ireland might look very different to the same denomination in South Africa.

    Apologies, I said Bible where I should have said Old Testament. As for how the same religion can be different in different cultures, I fail to see how that can be (I understand it happens, but fail to see why it happens). Wouldn't that mean that Christians in one of those areas are wrong?
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Christians generally believe in the gradual revelation of God's nature and purpose. We don't think that Jews living 2,500 years ago had any concept of the Trinity, Penal Substitution or a whole host of Christian doctrines that you care to mention.

    Finally, who said that "religion" is the absolute truth? What is religion exactly?

    Well, why are we waiting? Why do we not have this information yet? Wouldn't the full and complete revelation finally prove that God exists and outline everything? There are currently 7bn people in the world, only about 2.1bn or so (from a quick Google check) are Christians. Wouldn't that mean that 4.9bn people are going to Hell? I mean, if they don't believe in God or commit acts which to their religion is okay, but not okay by the Christian religion, wouldn't they go to Hell? Wouldn't a full revelation by God help to save all these people? And what revelations have there been in the last 500 years?

    As for my comment about 'religion' being the absolute truth: Why would anyone commit themselves to a religion which they felt wasn't the absolute truth?
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    But it can be revealed and revelation can be an ongoing process. No truths have been changed. Laws and practices have changed but not truth. Understanding grows but the truth remains.

    But who decides what is truth and what is law/practices? Is the fact that the Bible deems homosexual acts to be a sin the truth, or a law/practice which can be changed? How is this determined?


  • #2586
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Penn;
    Is the fact that the Bible deems homosexual acts to be a sin the truth, or a law/practice which can be changed?
    Thats a whole other thread (Touched on in the speaking the truth in love thread) Cant seem to get an answer, some say it writ in stone, some say open to interpretation.
    What is certain is that one or other option is true so truth remains.

    Yeah I see what you mean about God not doing a good job of laying down the rules but it only applies if you assume a God who has a predetermined purpose for creation. Maybe it isn't like that. I see God as an enabler not a disabler. Read the bible and see how God works through time and then come back, this time read it from the point of view of it not being a God who lays down laws but helps people achieve their best.


  • Advertisement
  • #2587
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,226 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Thats a whole other thread (Touched on in the speaking the truth in love thread) Cant seem to get an answer, some say it writ in stone, some say open to interpretation.
    What is certain is that one or other option is true so truth remains.

    But surely that means the answer to my question is *shrug shoulders*. And what about things in the Bible which are deemed to be no longer relevant in today's modern society, like not wearing something which mixes linen and wool? Who decided that was now acceptable?

    I know God himself didn't write the Bible, and I know it most likely wasn't transcribed by God or a messenger in a lot of cases (if any). So what I'm asking is, there's a good chance that the majority of people in the world are sinning, but don't realise it. Wouldn't it be better if God just gave us the answer and saved us all? Just some proper proof that he exists so everyone is at least following the one religion.
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Yeah I see what you mean about God not doing a good job of laying down the rules but it only applies if you assume a God who has a predetermined purpose for creation. Maybe it isn't like that. I see God as an enabler not a disabler. Read the bible and see how God works through time and then come back, this time read it from the point of view of it not being a God who lays down laws but helps people achieve their best.

    In the last 1,000 years, how can we decide what advances society has made were a result of God, or a result of society itself. The Civil Rights movement which changed the world. Sure, probably the majority of people fighting for the Civil Rights Movement believed in God, but how can we know if God helped their cause in any way. Improved human rights which many religious organisation were involved in. How can we know if that was God?

    How can we know that God is actually helping us at all? This is the crux of the issue for me. If God showed himself to people, if he just gave a proper, irrefutable sign of his existence, wouldn't the world be a much better place? It wouldn't even have to be a continuous thing. Appear once or give one undisputable sign of his existence and then see how the world improves.

    Maybe he will do it in the future. Who knows. Question I'm asking is, why hasn't he done it yet?


  • #2588
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    It wouldn't even have to be a continuous thing. Appear once
    Right into their trap with that one :D
    "He did, Jesus was that instance" See it gets circular after a while which is why debating the existence is pointless. You either believe or you don't. I don't care either way, I'm not trying to convert anyone.
    However Dawkins religion is evil argument is nonsense, parts are and getting rid of them is necessary but baby and bathwater wont achieve what he wants either.


  • #2589
    Andrewf20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,194 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    ISAW wrote: »
    what constitutes "evidence"?

    Is there evidence for parallel universes?

    But parallel universes dont claim to dictate how to best live our lives.

    I like this quote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."


  • #2590
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,226 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Right into their trap with that one :D
    "He did, Jesus was that instance" See it gets circular after a while which is why debating the existence is pointless. You either believe or you don't. I don't care either way, I'm not trying to convert anyone.

    I did say irrefutable evidence. Jesus is not that. If he was, there wouldn't still be different religions throughout the world.

    Here's a hypothetical example: God appears in front of every person in the world at the same time and tells them that he's real. God is everywhere, so we know this is possible. God created the entire universe (even leaving the Creationist theory aside, just that God created the universe, the earth and us), so we know that his power is near infinite. God has appeared to others in the past, whether it be burning bush or booming voice from the sky.

    If everyone had the same experience at the same time, everyone would believe it. It's not outside the realms of possibility if you consider the examples I mentioned above to be possible. So it could be done. Sending his son to speak to a very small percentage of the world's population and asking them to spread the message and get others to spread the message... just seems pointless and flawed. We're expected to believe this was his great plan? This is the best he could do?
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    However Dawkins religion is evil argument is nonsense, parts are and getting rid of them is necessary but baby and bathwater wont achieve what he wants either.

    I'd rather live in a secular world than an atheist world, because an atheist world sounds f*cking boring. People should be entitled to follow whatever religion they choose, but society shouldn't be influenced by it or promote one religion over another, because that's unfair to people outside that religion who still belong to that society.


    On a different note: philologos pointed out before that nobody had outlined any advantages to being an atheist over being religious, which I don't think anybody has answered. I'm on a few painkillers at the moment and not able to talk verbally too well at the minute (y'know, I tried praying for the pain to go away, but Nurofen seemed to work so much better :p), so I'm feeling kinda centred and relaxed, so I might give it a try later. Hopefully start to steer this thread in a different direction than "ATHEISTS KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN CHRISTIANS DO!"


  • #2591
    muppeteer
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭muppeteer


    philologos wrote: »
    I've never once used that argument. By evidence, I mean indicatory evidence that would suggest God's existence in the absence of absolute proof. Evidence similar to finding an item of clothing beside a murdered body. It's reasonable to suggest that the item of clothing may belong to the murderer if it wasn't owned by the person who was killed. Indeed, we might look and see that there are fingerprints on the knife that was left in their body. Again, more indicatory evidence.

    Indicatory evidence is useless unless it can be used to distinguish between competing theories. Your indicatory evidence, to continue your analogy, is only circumstantial evidence. Your theory may fit certain evidence but any other theory can be created as to fit the evidence after the fact. What you need is a unique identifier to suggest your god and not some other cause.
    This would be akin to matching a fingerprint to your God. But what you are doing is observing a fingerprint and suggesting that your God is the only thing that has fingers. This is just untrue.
    There are a lot of reasons that one can have for believing in Jesus in the 21st century. I've skimmed over a few of them briefly in this post on this thread. I'll expand on them if there is interest and as I get time.
    The reasons you put forward in this post are weak to say the least.

    The "evidence" based on observing ethics behaving as the bible describes is no evidence at all. Any author that lives in a human society could observe how people view ethics and morals. There is nothing to stop a perfectly non divine person from writing down a set of moral guidelines and principles, plenty of Greeks did so that still have relevance today.

    The fact that most people view being wronged in everyday life as absolute is: (1)not universal. (2)mostly an emotional response, and once people analyse a situation further, the subjective morality becomes more apparent. and (3) no evidence at all of a common divine given conscience, as there is nothing to suggest that a common morality can only come from a god. There is in fact buckets of counter evidence that our common morality comes from our evolved social ape past.


    The archaeological "evidence" is again a non starter as all it suggests is that the biblical authors mixed truth with myth and fable. The mention of Paris in a Dan Brown novel does not give credence to his fiction just because Paris exists.
    Even if the exodus from the dessert were backed up(which it isn't in the slightest) it still does not suggest anything divine. Prophecy has been shown to be unreliable when events are interpreted to fit an existing narrative. For example nostradamus and his "hister" prophecy are examples you'll surely agree are no evidence of supernatural powers.


    As for the resurrection being supported by the early church members risking death to say it was true? Again this does not support a divine creator.
    The fact that people can be led astray and believe in ridiculous things has been observed countless times. We have seen it in more recent history even with the benefit of newspapers reporting on the creation of wacky beliefs (Mormons) and even more recently Scientology.
    The fact that society has moved on from more superstitious times has done nothing to dull our credulity of charismatic figures.
    These cult figures can even lead there followers to certain death (Jim Jones) let alone possible persecution and death at the hands of Romans.


    The rest of your "evidence" is appeals to the content of the Bible itself. Which is akin to asking a Scientologist why Scientology is true and having them rely only on the works of L Ron Hubbard. I'm sure that they would also say that they are consistent with the world around them and provide a framework with which to view the world and the truth.
    If you can see why you reject Scientology and other religions and apply the same to Christianity you will see an undeniable pattern. That an internally consistent narrative (the Bible, the Koran, whatever Jim Jones and Hubbard espoused) is not difficult to invent.

    This is one of what you might call one of the positive indicators of atheism. The fact that humans can invent and follow until death a supernatural belief system. Each supernatural system is unique in its detail but the overarching supernatural elements have consistently been debunked over history. What makes your supernatural system any different?

    Also what makes you and the early Jews and Christians immune to things like hyperactive agency detection such that you can discern reality from imagined gods? (Another positive indicator of atheism, although a lack of evidence is justification enough, but since you asked:))
    Do you have some new science to help you avoid this pitfall that the rest of us are unaware of? You keep using the term evidence but as far as I can see you have presented none.


  • Advertisement
  • #2592
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    PDN wrote: »
    The idea of the Christmas Tree is hardly a Christian doctrine, nor is it forbidden in the Bible. The idea of the Christmas Tree didn't exist when any of the biblical books were being written.

    "Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen....For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and hammers, that it move not."


  • #2593
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    RichieC wrote: »
    "Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen....: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and hammers, that it move not."

    1 Hear what the LORD says to you, people of Israel. This is what the LORD says:

    “Do not learn the ways of the nations
    or be terrified by signs in the heavens,
    though the nations are terrified by them.
    For the practices of the peoples are worthless;
    they cut a tree out of the forest,
    and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.
    They adorn it with silver and gold;
    they fasten it with hammer and nails
    so it will not totter. (Jeremiah 10:1-4)

    Anyone can see that this is talking about people who make and adorn idols that they install in their homes to worship.

    So how many Christians do you know who get a craftsman to carve a Christmas tree with a chisel, put silver and gold on it, and then fasten it as a permanent fixture with hammer and nails in their homes? :rolleyes:

    This thead gets stupider by the day.


  • #2594
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    It is an interesting quote though considering the symbolism involved.
    Condemned by Jeremiah but yet strangely echoing the crucification.
    Reminds me of C.S. Lewis's thing about 'prefiguring' the incarnation.
    (I think it was Lewis, I could be wrong and have mixed him up with someone else)


  • #2595
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    ISAW wrote: »
    what constitutes "evidence"?

    Is there evidence for parallel universes?

    No. It's a theory and belief is suspended until PROVEN.

    The idea of the 'Multiverse' is a theory which satisfies the question of dark energy. That which is causing the universe to expand. The expansion is accelerating. There are galaxies which are moving faster than the speed of light, away from us.

    If this continues, our future looks like this: (Theoretically)
    The Andromeda Galaxy will collide with our own to form a larger Galaxy.
    This Galaxy will fly through empty space alone.
    There will be no Galaxies or anything outside of our own Galaxy visible to us.
    But that's billions of years away. No need to worry.


    Point is, it's called scientific 'theory' until proven. Then, it becomes 'fact'. Simple.


  • #2596
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    joseph brand;
    There are galaxies which are moving faster than the speed of light
    Fail;
    Google is your friend, http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575


  • #2597
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Northclare wrote: »
    Muslims also had mathematical geniuses as well as Christianity.

    Some musicians meditate or pray before they write music and they believe without their beliefs they wouldn't have the ability to come up with their compositions.

    A mathematical genius is born into a muslim family. It wasn't their parents faith that caused their genius. There are geniuses in every part of the globe. religion means nothing.

    What if a genius loves rock music? Rock music causes geniuses?


    There's plenty of musicians who smoked weed or took acid and composed music off their face. (Brian Wilson, Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix etc) It opens the mind. That's why governments and the church hate street drugs. They're fine with Pharma Corp drugs which are claiming thousands of lives across the US.


  • #2598
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Penn: By irrefutable what do you mean? - Christianity has never been systematically refuted, not once. I believe more of the time people merely fob off God's existence. There are a few arguments which are wholly inadequate. But there are many which are simply ignored.

    By the by, thanks for considering my previous post. My point wasn't that I wanted to see what advantages atheism had. Rather what I want to know is why atheism is any more true than anything else out there as a positive argument not a negative.

    muppeteer: To cut my response short. Christianity has a number of arguments for its unique handling of the truth around us which other religions as far as I can tell don't have. However, when I'm dealing with atheists, there's only one thing for consideration. How Christianity stands in terms of atheism. When I discuss with Muslims as I do occasionally here, I discuss Christianity in the light of Islam for example. Also, I can present Christianity as being unique without having to systematically go through each and every alternative, because Christianity addresses questions which are not found anywhere else.

    joseph brand: I actually agree with you on the start of your last point. Say the first paragraph :eek:


  • #2599
    muppeteer
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭muppeteer


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Fail;
    Google is your friend, http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575
    Did you actually read that article? Because I suspect you didn't.


  • #2600
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Fail;
    Google is your friend, http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575
    There are galaxies which are moving faster than the speed of light, away from us.

    You left out the bit in bold when you quoted me. For shame. Tut tut tut!

    Relative to our Galaxy, which is moving in a different direction.

    Just a quick Google and I found this nugget:
    . . nothing physical, such as the stars in a Galaxy or Galaxy can travel faster than light, ever. Two separate objects in the Universe can move at 'relative' speeds away from each other at the speed of light or greater. That means that these objects speeds are neither one greater than the speed of light, but by combining their speeds 'relative to each other in the Universe,' their speeds equal or exceed the speed of light at moving away from each other..


  • #2601
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Penn wrote: »
    But, how can Christianity have Greek roots?

    As father Jack put it "that would be an ecumenical matter" :)

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

    emphasis added
    The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6]
    And he goes on about deHellinisation and logos
    "I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God."

    and that is from the current Pope!

    I mean, I can clearly see from your links that several ideas may have come from ideas which were Greek in origin, but surely Christianity shouldn't have any roots from anywhere else other than the Bible?

    You would not be entirely correct.
    what for example did Christians go by when they didnt have the Bible all together in a single book?
    They relied on earlier Jewish traditions and on their own philosophy and knowledge. Indeed the New Testament mentions it. their retention of circumcision etc. and how that became an issue.
    Christians also have the Magesterium.

    It is a bit of a mistake to think of christianity as being only about the bible. In a way it is but it is only because the Bible records about Christ so it is more about being all about Christ. the Bible is one of the central ways to this but not exclusive. Even the Bible says that there are other writings. but it is sufficient to know about Christ.

    these are questions of ecclesiology not necessarily faith or reason but are related
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiology
    I mean, did the people writing the Bible and the people who spread Christianity throughout the world take their ideas and inspiration from the Bible, or did they use the ideas of others and modify them to fit with their own ideas.

    Bit of both really. christianity was perhaps revolutionary but elements of differing traditions today are cultural. Even the roman church does things slightly differently in celtic or american or other cultures. the central faith however is the same.
    How can a religion have roots in a different culture? Surely the ideas and concepts were there before the Greeks? After all, if the religion is the absolute truth, it cannot be changed if ideas from another country are introduced

    This is ironic considering atheists constantly argue that christianity is really just an amalgam of earlier philosophies from egypt babylonia etc. :)

    It cant be unique have no precedent and be and unchangable and also be based on other past religions.

    Please remember we are talking about the structure and practices of church not about the central dogma of the church.

    The ideas and concepts of a single God would have existed but probably been the exception. the essential truth of the Trinity the Eucharist the word the spirit etc. can be preserved but presented in different Rites Languages in music etc.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement