Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

lazygal · 11-12-2014 11:40pm

Festus wrote: »

Each Gospel has a different author so some differences are to be expected however the gospel records of the birth of Christ contain more similarities that differences.

Can you be more specific

Why would revelation from God result in difference? Did God tell different people different things? What's the point of having different accounts of the birth of the son of God?

Stealthfins · 11-12-2014 11:46pm

I seen an interview a while back, where a Muslim cleric is open to the possibility that God may come to people in different ways.
There's endless amount of different forms of religion and spirituality. ....
Who has the answer, there's definitely a lot of brain washing going on.
Didn't Jesus say that God has many rooms in his house.
That can be interpreted from all different directions, depends on your world view really.

Festus · 12-12-2014 12:14am

lazygal wrote: »

Why would revelation from God result in difference? Did God tell different people different things? What's the point of having different accounts of the birth of the son of God?

I take it you cannot be more specific then, or can find only differences and no contradictions.

Why is there more than one history book for any given historical event? Surely one would suffice?
When more than one record exists for a historical even how do we discern which records aretrue and which are false?

marienbad · 12-12-2014 12:21am

ABC101 wrote: »

Your hatred of anything religious is your undoing.

From Wikipedia...

Types of school[edit]
Primary education is generally completed at a national school, a multidenominational school, a gaelscoil or a preparatory school.

National schools date back to the introduction of state primary education in 1831. They are usually controlled by a board of management under diocesan patronage and often include a local clergyman.[11][12] The term "national school" has of late become partly synonymous with primary school in some parts. Recently, there have been calls from many sides for fresh thinking in the areas of funding and governance for such schools, with some wanting them to be fully secularised.[13]

As of 2010 mainstream primary schools numbered as follows:[14]

Type of school Number (total: 3165) Percentage of total (to 1d.p.)(citation needed)

Roman Catholic 2,884 91.1%
Church of Ireland (Anglican) 180 5.7%
Multi-denominational 73 2.3%
Presbyterian 14 0.4%
Inter-Denominational 8 0.3%
Muslim 2 0.1%
Methodist 1 <0.1%
Jewish 1 <0.1%
Quaker 4 <0.1%
Other/Unknown 1 <0.1%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

As over 91% of PRIMARY schools are R.C.

YOU DENY the positive role they have played in the development of Ireland as it is today.

Your hatred of Religious orders makes you blind to the facts.

Give one example where I have shown this hatred you speak of ???

Your reading of history is just incorrect . It is the same type of reasoning that the defenders of Empire use when they point out all the railways and viaducts etc they built in India etc as if they would never have been built without them . Its a wonder Japan managed so well without them.

Yours is just a variation on 'the white man's burden' theme with Empire swapped out and Religion swapped in.

As an aside,I notice you descend to ad hominem and invective very quickly with anyone not on the same hymn sheet as you.

12-12-2014 11:28am

Festus wrote: »

depends on what you mean by "evidence" and "a god"

I do have to ask because I was under the impression that an atheist was someone who believed in the doctrine that there is no god - understandable given the etymology of the term atheist - from the Greek atheos - no god.

Now I'm given to understand that an atheist is a person who simply lacks of belief in the existence of God.

As there is no longer a cohort making the claim that God does not exist the implication is that the existence of God accepted and the issue for atheists is one of personal faith, or the lack thereof. This also allows for the probably that all atheists are actually agnostic with the implication that true atheists do not exist as the term atheist is now nothing more than a label that ultimately means nothing.

That being the case why would anyone want evidence?

I am, as you say agnostic - yet to be convinced of the existence of any god.

I'm interested because from within this minority position I can see that a lot of the rest of the world seems to be convinced by it, and I'm trying to find what I'm "missing".

So am looking for evidence. Is that not okay? I thought this thread (see title) might be a good place for it?

nozzferrahhtoo · 12-12-2014 12:03pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

The element of choice! I can not choose my race.

And I can not "choose" to believe in god. It is not a choice I can make. I can not "choose" to believe anything. I can only believe what is substantiated. You can not give me a box which is empty and expect me to "choose" to believe it full of money. I simply could not do it.

Perhaps your own credulity is particularly labile and you can choose belief. But it is not an option afforded to me.

nozzferrahhtoo · 12-12-2014 12:04pm

Festus wrote: »

If you use Google you can even find atheist scientists, many working in the field of evolutionary biology, who are coming to the conclusion that the theory of evolution may not be the answer to the origin of life

Then they are entirely correct and they are only catching up with the reality now. Because no one has ever claimed the Theory Of Evolution says anything about the origin of life in the first place. That is an entirely different subject. IF they ever actually thought it had something to do with the origin of life, they were wrong from the outset.

Festus wrote: »

Some gave up being atheists because of this, skipped agnosticism and went straight to Christianity.

Which would appear to be little more than a non-sequitur error. Just because X is not true, that does not magically make Y true.

Festus wrote: »

I have also said, and reiterated, that the best way to learn is to do your own research. It would seem that for some atheists Google is their enemy as there is a risk you may discover something that might actually get you thinking.

Which, alas, is just your cop out mantra for substantiating anything you say. You therefore get to claim whatever you like, and never have to back it up, because you just have to tell people to do their own research indefinitely, even if they HAVE done so and have not found anything that supports your claims in even the smallest ways.

Festus wrote: »

That's some claim. Can you back it up with evidence?

Oh so other people have to do their own research if you make a claim, but if THEY make a claim to YOU... they have to back it up?`

I am unclear as to why it is one rule for you, and one for everyone else.

The idea there is a god is some claim, and is the topic of this thread. Can you back it up with evidence? Bring on the evidence!

Festus wrote: »

understandable given the etymology of the term atheist - from the Greek atheos - no god.

Your etymology is willfully incomplete. The A- part does indeed mean without. The theos part is where we get "god". The ISM part however refers to belief, which you are simply leaving out of your etymology in a contrived fashion. A-theos-ism: Without a belief in god.

Festus · 12-12-2014 12:13pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The idea there is a god is some claim, and is the topic of this thread. Can you back it up with evidence? Bring on the evidence!

You want me to produce evidence for an idea. Is that even possible?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Your etymology is willfully incomplete. The A- part does indeed mean without. The theos part is where we get "god". The ISM part however refers to belief, which you are simply leaving out of your etymology in a contrived fashion. A-theos-ism: Without a belief in god.

in Greek a- also means "no" hence the original definition of it being a belief there is no god.

However if one stays with the meaning "without" the meaning becomes one who rejects god. There are those who follow God and hence are with God, and those who reject God and hence are without God.

nozzferrahhtoo · 12-12-2014 12:32pm

Festus wrote: »

You want me to produce evidence for an idea. Is that even possible?

I want you to offer argument, evidence, data or reasoning that supports the contention that a god actually exists.

If you think "god" does not exist but is nothing more than an "idea" then we are likely very much on the same page and this conversation is essentially over.

Festus wrote: »

in Greek a- also means "no" hence the original definition of it being a belief there is no god.

Not a usage that is mentioned in any of the etymologies on the word atheist though, so not really relevant.

Actually even the usage most people, yourself included, use for "agnostic" does not match the definition of Huxley, the person who actually coined the term.

I myself do not use atheist OR agnostic to describe myself or my position. I simply do not identify with either term, or find utility in either term.

Festus wrote: »

However if one stays with the meaning "without" the meaning becomes one who rejects god.

Rejection implies existence. Which no atheist does. So your meaning would be wrong. One can not reject what is not there any more than I can refuse a dinner you have not offered me.

My world view is simple. I subscribe to substantiated claims. I do not subscribe to unsubstantiated claims. The idea there is a god lacks all substantiation. Much less so from you. Therefore I do not subscribe to the idea there is a god.

If someone wants to label that, they are welcome to, but I do not personally.

Festus · 12-12-2014 1:40pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I want you to offer argument, evidence, data or reasoning that supports the contention that a god actually exists.

I know that's what you want but why should I? I believe that God exists am more than happy with that belief. The claim that God exists is not a claim that I make, it is the claim that God makes. I think you are directing your requests for evidence at the wrong person.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you think "god" does not exist but is nothing more than an "idea" then we are likely very much on the same page and this conversation is essentially over.

For me it is more than an idea but it was you who said an idea is a claim and you wanted evidence for an idea. I am suggesting that producing evidence for a thought is tricky.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not a usage that is mentioned in any of the etymologies on the word atheist though, so not really relevant.

your options are then to either read wider or to learn ancient Greek to get a broader understanding.

for example if you take the word typical and put a- in front of it does the word atypical now not mean not typical.

or anhydrous. does this mean no water or without water, or both depending on the context?

Or is your argument moot given that your definition includes "belief" as in "the lack of" but the greek word for "belief" is not part of the word "atheist"?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually even the usage most people, yourself included, use for "agnostic" does not match the definition of Huxley, the person who actually coined the term.

I myself do not use atheist OR agnostic to describe myself or my position. I simply do not identify with either term, or find utility in either term.

Perhaps you are an apisteist

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Rejection implies existence. Which no atheist does. So your meaning would be wrong.

Equally my meaning could be right. My knowledge and understanding of Greek suggests to me that my meaning is more correct than yours.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

One can not reject what is not there any more than I can refuse a dinner you have not offered me.

stating something "is not there" is a positively explicit positive claim. Can you prove that what you are rejecting is not there to be rejected?

Festus · 12-12-2014 1:43pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If someone wants to label that, they are welcome to, but I do not personally.

Apisteuism. pronounced a-pisst-yoo-ism

From the Greek a- : no, not , without, un; and pisteuo: to believe

Apisteuist pronounced a-pisst-yoo-ist

Safehands · 12-12-2014 1:52pm

Festus wrote: »

Can you prove that?

It really amuses me Festus, the way you keep asking for proof or evidence when it suits you, yet you refuse to offer any proof for your pronouncements of illogical reality.

nozzferrahhtoo · 12-12-2014 2:00pm

Festus wrote: »

I know that's what you want but why should I?

I do not remember implying any "should" on this. The thread is a debate thread on the existence of god and I am asking you if you are capable of presenting any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiation the idea there is a god.

Evidently you can not. Which is answer enough for me. Conversation over.

Festus wrote: »

your options are then to either read wider or to learn ancient Greek to get a broader understanding.

My understanding is fine. Yours is the one failing in that you are willfully ignoring the "ISM" part when evaluating the etymology of a-theos-ism.

a- => Without
-theos- => God
-ism => Belief.

Without god belief. No god belief. Case closed. QED.

Festus wrote: »

stating something "is not there" is a positively explicit positive claim.

And I am claiming that argument, evidence, data and reasoning to support the claim there is a god is not here. Not available to me. And is certainly not coming from you. More than that I have not said. If anyone else is making other claims, take it up with them, not me.

Festus · 12-12-2014 3:24pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My understanding is fine. Yours is the one failing in that you are willfully ignoring the "ISM" part when evaluating the etymology of a-theos-ism.

a- => Without
-theos- => God
-ism => Belief.

Without god belief. No god belief. Case closed. QED.

Case not closed unless you want me to do this

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No god belief

no god belief - the belief there is no god.

is that your claim - you believe in no god?

Lets do the etymology properly because when it comes to -ism you made that up. -ism does not mean belief. As already stated the verb "to believe" is pisteuo

ism in and of itself means not a lot and certainly has no firm grounding in latin or greek and it certainly does not explicitly mean belief. I accept that it can in some usages but there are many other usages where it has no such meaning.

for example does orchidism mean you believe in testicles? or does it mean you have a testicular condition?

Here's something for you to practice on your own: What does onanism say you believe in?

Festus · 12-12-2014 3:30pm

Safehands wrote: »

It really amuses me Festus, the way you keep asking for proof or evidence when it suits you, yet you refuse to offer any proof for your pronouncements of illogical reality.

Where is my reality illogical? Are you claiming that my reality is illogical?

If the burden of proof lies with whoever is making the claim can you prove your claim that my reality is illogical?

nozzferrahhtoo · 12-12-2014 3:36pm

Festus wrote: »

Case not closed unless you want me to do this

So you have simply changed the sentence I did say, into a sentence I did not say, and want me to reply to that?

Keep your words out of my mouth, I have more than enough of my own.

Festus wrote: »

there are many other usages where it has no such meaning.

And this is not one of them.

12-12-2014 3:36pm

Festus. Can you explain how your framing of nozzferrahhtoo's position on belief in a god is different from your own position on belief in a tooth fairy please?

Without special pleading if you could.

Festus · 12-12-2014 3:57pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Festus. Can you explain how your framing of nozzferrahhtoo's position on belief in a god is different from your own position on belief in a tooth fairy please?

Without special pleading if you could.

not without knowing which god nozz has no or a lack of belief in or what evidence you have for knowing what my position is on a tooth fairy.

nozzferrahhtoo · 12-12-2014 4:00pm

Festus wrote: »

not without knowing which god nozz has no or a lack of belief in

Odd thing to say given I gave a very clear, concise and specific definition more than once in this thread, one of which you replied to.

Delirium · 12-12-2014 4:04pm

Festus wrote: »

not without knowing which god nozz has no or a lack of belief in or what evidence you have for knowing what my position is on a tooth fairy.

because nozz might believe in some and not others?

12-12-2014 4:05pm

Festus wrote: »

not without knowing which god nozz has no or a lack of belief in or what evidence you have for knowing what my position is on a tooth fairy.

I asked you to use your framing of nozzferrahhtoo's position. I assume you know your own position on a tooth fairy.

Festus · 12-12-2014 4:06pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Odd thing to say given I gave a very clear, concise and specific definition more than once in this thread, one of which you replied to.

given your capacity for definition and recent display of etymologism I have no longer have any faith that that your current definition bears any relation to your previous definition

Festus · 12-12-2014 4:12pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I asked you to use your framing of nozzferrahhtoo's position. I assume you know your own position on a tooth fairy.

so you are assuming I have a framing of nozz's position and you assume that I have a position on a tooth fairy.

I think you are being somewhat presumptuous or are making a claim to being omniscient

12-12-2014 4:19pm

Festus wrote: »

so you are assuming I have a framing of nozz's position and you assume that I have a position on a tooth fairy.

I think you are being somewhat presumptuous or are making a claim to being omniscient

This is a bit strange no? I don't deny that I'm presuming you've heard of the tooth fairy, but is the above not a little overly defensive?

In any case, how about if I re-write it as

Could I ask you to detail the difference between your understanding of / thoughts on

nozzferrahhtoo's position on a god (as you've outlined in this thread)
your own position on a tooth fairy

?

Are these different? If so, how?
Thanks

Festus · 12-12-2014 4:30pm

Deleted User wrote: »

This is a bit strange no? I don't deny that I'm presuming you've heard of the tooth fairy, but is the above not a little overly defensive?

No, it is not overly defensive. It is highly defensive. I don't trust your motives.

12-12-2014 4:35pm

So you'll be refusing to answer the question? I can't see how my motives have anything to do with your answer to it to be honest

Festus · 12-12-2014 4:43pm

Deleted User wrote: »

So you'll be refusing to answer the question? I can't see how my motives have anything to do with your answer to it to be honest

Another poster likened this to a game of chess. Lets just say I've looked a number of moves ahead and have decided that I see no merit in following this particular question.

12-12-2014 4:46pm

Okay, thank you for your time I guess.

Another wasted discourse after the last attempt to have some clarity cast on the differences in belief.

Festus · 12-12-2014 5:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Okay, thank you for your time I guess.

Another wasted discourse after the last attempt to have some clarity cast on the differences in belief.

My apologies but I don't see how any answer to your question can assist in providing the clarity you seek.

Besides, I'm currently dealing with toothache so my issue is less with a tooth fairy and more with a tooth goblin so I would have some difficulty in providing you with the answer you want.

nozzferrahhtoo · 12-12-2014 5:22pm

Festus wrote: »

given your capacity for definition and recent display of etymologism I have no longer have any faith that that your current definition bears any relation to your previous definition

More of your ad hominem I guess, especially given the failures in definition were yours not mine. However the reality is that my definition of what I mean by god has been very clear and you have simply ignored it.

I am happy to repeat it. When I am talking about god I am talking about the monotheistic one as "A non-human intentional and intelligent agent, responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe".

That is MY definition. If however YOU have substantiation for the existence of a god, then I am all ears to hear your definition of what you mean by god.... as that is the one that is relevant, not mine.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments