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
1…5051535556…327

Comments

  • Options
    #1562
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Zombrex wrote: »
    It demonstrates that the subjective is ultimately what decides what is or isn't the absolute.

    Then truth is also what you decide it to be. Therefore, the moon is made of cheese. Brie to be exact.


  • Options
    #1563
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Then truth is also what you decide it to be. Therefore, the moon is made of cheese. Brie to be exact.

    And God exists and Jesus came back from the dead after turning water into wine ;)

    Appealing to the nonsense of accepting fantastical things is probably not the best idea on the Christianity forum.


  • Options
    #1564
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Zombrex wrote: »
    And God exists and Jesus came back from the dead after turning water into wine ;)

    Appealing to the nonsense of accepting fantastical things is probably not the best idea on the Christianity forum.

    Your hilarious joke actually supports my point. You don't believe that Jesus was resurrected because you think there are such things as objective truths. It happened or it didn't. Just like the moon is made of Brie or it isn't.

    Either engage with my point or don't. If all you have to offer is a conversational side-step delivered in the form of a snide remark about Christianity then I'm not interested in talking.


  • Options
    #1565
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »
    It depends on the reason, hence the term "rational"
    I gave the reason "in spite of others believing something different". Is it reasonable to believe in something even though others think differently?
    Now your example was it is not reasonable to believe just because others do. But Christians don't believe just because others do.
    What I was asking however was different.
    Is it more reasonable to believe something different to others ( or j simply not to believe what they do) even though those others all have the same belief?


  • Options
    #1566
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    You don't believe that Jesus was resurrected because you think there are such things as objective truths. It happened or it didn't.
    Sorry?
    I'm a bit thick here but isn't that what were talking about, 'is or is not' Are you suggesting that truth is an interpretation of things or something else?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1567
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    PDN wrote: »
    No, we aren't. I don't think the scenario I described is rape by any normal use of language.

    use of language is the problem, normal for who?
    What if I manoeuvres someone into a position that gives them no option but consenting to sex, have I raped or seduced them? Or just struck a deal.
    I'm not a monster, I'll always leave them the option of death as an alternative, wouldn't want to go too far.....


  • Options
    #1568
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    use of language is the problem, normal for who?
    What if I manoeuvres someone into a position that gives them no option but consenting to sex, have I raped or seduced them? Or just struck a deal.
    I'm not a monster, I'll always leave them the option of death as an alternative, wouldn't want to go too far.....

    This is exactly the issue with the passage under question. And anyone (including God) setting out those conditions was giving license to rape.


  • Options
    #1569
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    This is exactly the issue with the passage under question. And anyone (including God) setting out those conditions was giving license to rape.

    If that were exactly the issue, then the choice in the passage would be between consenting to sex or death. Please point us to anywhere in the passage where that is indicated.


  • Options
    #1570
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    use of language is the problem, normal for who?
    What if I manoeuvres someone into a position that gives them no option but consenting to sex, have I raped or seduced them? Or just struck a deal.
    I'm not a monster, I'll always leave them the option of death as an alternative, wouldn't want to go too far.....

    Don't you think we would be better off discussing what the Bible says, rather than a scenario that you've imagined?


  • Options
    #1571
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    Don't you think we would be better off discussing what the Bible says, rather than a scenario that you've imagined?

    Come on PDN , if the passage was in any other book you would accept that it at least included the possibility of rape. It is not those of us that can see that that are being unreasonable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1572
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    PDN wrote: »
    Don't you think we would be better off discussing what the Bible says, rather than a scenario that you've imagined?

    LOL I've forgotten which passage we were discussing it was so far back.
    Zechariah 14:2 or Isaiah 13:16 or was ir some other one?


  • Options
    #1573
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    Come on PDN , if the passage was in any other book you would accept that it at least included the possibility of rape. It is not those of us that can see that that are being unreasonable.

    I'm prepared to accept that it includes the possibility of rape, or the possibility that the women were carried away by UFOs, or indeed the possibility of just about anything else. That's what an argument from silence gives you.

    Now, will you please answer my question? Where in the passage is there any indication, no matter how slight, that women were given the choice between death or consenting to sex?


  • Options
    #1574
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    LOL I've forgotten which passage we were discussing it was so far back.
    Zechariah 14:2 or Isaiah 13:16 or was ir some other one?

    Deuteronomy 21:10-14.


  • Options
    #1575
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zombrex: Simply put my conscience would say no. In the Christian conception the conscience was create by God to act as a moral compass to lead us in terms of what is good and what is evil. See Romans 2:
    For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is ywritten on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

    As has been mentioned to you on this thread. Hypotheticals concerning God are irrelevant when the subject of our discussion is the Christian concept of God. The final revelation of which came through Jesus.

    If you want to discuss something other than Christianity, the Spirituality forum will do. Otherwise the discussion will need to keep within the boundaries of who Christians say that God is. I have no interest in defending a whatever-yer-havin'-yerself type of deity.


  • Options
    #1576
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    Zombrex: Simply put my conscience would say no. In the Christian conception the conscience was create by God to act as a moral compass to lead us in terms of what is good and what is evil. See Romans 2:


    As has been mentioned to you on this thread. Hypotheticals concerning God are irrelevant when the subject of our discussion is the Christian concept of God. The final revelation of which came through Jesus.

    If you want to discuss something other than Christianity, the Spirituality forum will do. Otherwise the discussion will need to keep within the boundaries of who Christians say that God is. I have no interest in defending a whatever-yer-havin'-yerself type of deity.

    That is missing the point. The question is a matter of why people accept Christianity in the first place, given that this is the atheist debate thread.


  • Options
    #1577
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Either engage with my point or don't. If all you have to offer is a conversational side-step delivered in the form of a snide remark about Christianity then I'm not interested in talking.

    Er, Fanny I presented my point and you made a some what silly comment about the Moon being made of cheese. You can't really blame me for being equally flippant.

    While theists, particularly Christians, like to appeal to notions of objective morality when this is examined it turns out that the objective morality in the vast majority of cases matches their own subjective beliefs (I say theists but I mean all humans, it is just some humans don't realize this the case, theism is almost universally defined by notions of objective morality handed down by supernatural authority)

    Or to put it another way they are drawn to religions that match up with what they already hold to be true, rather than the other way around.


  • Options
    #1578
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Or to put it another way they are drawn to religions that match up with what they already hold to be true, rather than the other way around.

    Admittedly I'm a poor example of a Christian but this is so far from the mark in my case.
    What I perceive to be true of the world is the opposite of what I believe to be true in Christianity.
    Maybe it hope for something better that keeps me coming back, Pandora's box again.


  • Options
    #1579
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zombrex wrote: »
    That is missing the point. The question is a matter of why people accept Christianity in the first place, given that this is the atheist debate thread.

    I accept Christianity because I find it to be consistent with reality, both on an experiential level, and on how realistic it's claims are.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Or to put it another way they are drawn to religions that match up with what they already hold to be true, rather than the other way around.

    How could that be true in cases where people knew very little about Christianity? Or cases where people rejected the existence of God, or indeed cared little about the existence of God.

    There's only so far that that case can go, particularly in the case of converts.


  • Options
    #1580
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    I'm prepared to accept that it includes the possibility of rape, or the possibility that the women were carried away by UFOs, or indeed the possibility of just about anything else. That's what an argument from silence gives you.

    Now, will you please answer my question? Where in the passage is there any indication, no matter how slight, that women were given the choice between death or consenting to sex?

    In the passage we are discussing ( or any other passage as far as I know) the choice of sex or death is not given, OK ? Again you are taking something said in a semi-humerous mode as gospel ( at least that was my reading of it).

    Now to get back to the disputed issues.

    women were given the choice of marriage or servitude - are we agreed on that ?


  • Options
    #1581
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    How could that be true in cases where people knew very little about Christianity? Or cases where people rejected the existence of God, or indeed cared little about the existence of God.

    It is even more true in such cases, since most people's first interactions with Christianity are through the nice stories of Jesus, rather than say Moses ordering his soldiers to genocide.

    What would be the first things you would teach someone about Christianity?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1582
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »
    That is missing the point. The question is a matter of why people accept Christianity in the first place, given that this is the atheist debate thread.

    Atheism as opposed to believing in God It is assumed the Christian God and not some makey uppey as we go along one.


  • Options
    #1583
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zombrex: It seems the more you post, the less it makes sense.

    How could that be possibly true? How could one have Christian beliefs before they have Christian beliefs?


  • Options
    #1584
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »
    It is even more true in such cases, since most people's first interactions with Christianity are through the nice stories of Jesus, rather than say Moses ordering his soldiers to genocide.

    I note you dropped the "God ordered rape" claim and now it has become "Moses ordered genocide" Niceswitch. You are good at the shell game.
    What would be the first things you would teach someone about Christianity?

    Dunno.
    That they don't make claim and then switch to other ones later if they can't support them?
    Nah maybe not. That Christians believe in a golden rule . Following that rule means following something outside of yourself. Unlike laws of the universe you have a free choice to follow the rules or not.


  • Options
    #1585
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    In the passage we are discussing ( or any other passage as far as I know) the choice of sex or death is not given, OK ? Again you are taking something said in a semi-humerous mode as gospel ( at least that was my reading of it).

    Now to get back to the disputed issues.

    women were given the choice of marriage or servitude - are we agreed on that ?

    I wouldn't agree on that. The women were taken as servants without being married or raped would be my interpretation. The order was an order not to kill them and not an order to rape them.


  • Options
    #1586
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    I wouldn't agree on that. The women were taken as servants without being married or raped would be my interpretation. The order was an order not to kill them and not an order to rape them.

    How is that different than what I asked ?


  • Options
    #1587
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    In the passage we are discussing ( or any other passage as far as I know) the choice of sex or death is not given, OK ? Again you are taking something said in a semi-humerous mode as gospel ( at least that was my reading of it).

    Now to get back to the disputed issues.

    This is exactly the issue with the passage under question. And anyone (including God) setting out those conditions was giving license to rape.

    Sorry for not realising that was semi-humorous.
    women were given the choice of marriage or servitude - are we agreed on that ?
    Yes, I would agree. Or, to be more precise, they were offered marriage as a way out of servitude.


  • Options
    #1588
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    This is exactly the issue with the passage under question. And anyone (including God) setting out those conditions was giving license to rape.

    Sorry for not realising that was semi-humorous.


    Yes, I would agree. Or, to be more precise, they were offered marriage as a way out of servitude.

    Ok then, the marriage would have included sex would it not, just as the servitude would have included work etc ?

    Are we agreed on that ?


  • Options
    #1589
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    Ok then, the marriage would have included sex would it not, just as the servitude would have included work etc ?

    Are we agreed on that ?

    Yes, marriage normally includes sex, at least as far as my experience of it goes.


  • Options
    #1590
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that truth is an interpretation of things or something else?

    I acknowledge that people can make up their own truths. But this is not the same type of truth as something being independently true. For example, Stalin initially refused to believe report sent from his front-line commanders when they reported back that the Germans had broken the non-aggression pact and were rolling over the borders into the Soviet Union.

    What we have is truth on two levels.

    1) Subjective truth - an incredulous Stalin is initially convinced that the reports sent from his front-line commanders are fabrications. The truth in this case is whatever we believe it to be.

    2) Objective truth - Operation Barbarossa happening whether everyone in Soviet Union believes it or not. The truth in this case is independent of us. It remains true whether we believe it or not.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1591
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    Yes, marriage normally includes sex, at least as far as my experience of it goes.


    Ok, and it is true to say that God sanctioned this , is that not also correct ?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement