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…5455575960…196

Comments

  • #2802
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW Whatever about being majority atheist ,would you agree that in actuality Norway is no longer majority christian ?


  • #2803
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ISAW wrote: »
    it is. If you do not agree with any of the options then you are covered in dont know/not sure; Even assuming ALL these people we another category not covered by the existing answers even they only amount to 7%
    But my stance isn't that there is "no such thing as God", nor is it "I don't know or am not sure."
    They are not accurate representations of what I believe.
    ISAW wrote: »
    You may claim to represent all atheists or all agnoiostice but when pressed we have objective research and the objective research on a broad basis in various parts of the world is in agreement. Atheism is a small percentage in modern democracies.
    Still not sure how any of that actually relates to what I wrote. You seem to just want to have a rant rather than a discussion.

    And I'm not particularly arsed to dig up surveys and such to prove you wrong cause 1) I still don't understand what point you are arguing and 2) you clearly aren't interested in definitions that you don't like.


  • #2804
    Andrewf20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,194 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Whats the process at work? Thats one of the big questions. Some go for atonement, http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/substitutionary-atonement-jesus-christ
    Others go with Christus Victor http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/essays-jesus/the-christus-victor-view-of-the-atonement/
    Some claim its universal, some particular. Some use legalism and others sacramental ism.

    Ive read thru both links but I still cant make sense of it. Here is a powerful counter-argument (see the 1st 3 minutes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo82sgrSAYg

    ".. it abolishes the concept of personal responsibility on which all ethics and morality must depend."


  • #2805
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol. Not only do you have no idea what I believe, you don't even seem to know what this survey you are so attached to actually says.

    I have produced several surveys not one. they fairly much form a consensus. Atheism is a tiny single digit percentage in modern democracies. Agnosticism is about one to two times the size of atheism. It isnt any particular survey to which i am attached. The NONES survey refers to the US. the Eurobarometer to europe . The Mori polls to UK and Scotland. I have even referred to Zuukerman who is the usual atheist quoted source and I believe was the influence for Morberts original 70% claim since in atheist discussions i have quoted scandanavian countries are referred to as atheist. I didnt intend to lmet this go unchallenged. i believe Fasgnadh has a similar exchange with respect toi denmark in alt.atheism
    i pointed this out when all this began
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76852661&postcount=2146
    Atheism = There is no god or gods
    Pagans, agnostics, pantheists, spiritualists, anamists, shamanists, voodoo spiritualists etc. are NOT atheist.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
    32 % - Belief in God =NOT atheist
    47% belief in a spirit opr life force - NOT atheist
    17% there is no god/spirits - atheist!

    Thats 17% NOT 77 NOT 87!
    Certainly not 70
    got it?

    Here is an agnostic -one of your lot is he?:

    https://groups.google.com/group/talk.atheism/browse_thread/thread/0aa3cc54f6284005/59b2a1558c5e5ee7?show_docid=59b2a1558c5e5ee7&hl=en


    i have not ignored any of you points and i find it personamlly offensive that you suggest i have.

    Ill add to the sources
    In 2009 anther report came out

    In it ARIS add to the original options and ask about a personal god.
    A new belief question was introduced into ARIS in 2008. Table 4 shows that when asked about the existence of God less than 70 percent of Americans now believe in the traditional theological concept of a personal God. This question was not asked in 1990 and 2001.
    http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/
    Latest report listed in publications above quote from page 8
    they continue
    10 percent hold agnostic beliefs (5.7% a “softer” form and 4.3% a “harder form” of agnosticism).
    Just before that they State
    The rise of the Nones has been one of the most important trends on the American religious scene since 1990. The overall rate of growth of those expressing no religious preference slowed after 2001 but the numbers offering a specific self-identification as Agnostic or Atheist rose markedly from over a million in 1990 to about 2 million in 2001 to about 3.6 million today

    I,m not denying th rise in atheism. but they are tiny in comparison to others!

    The NONES survey points this out!
    The 1990s was the decade when the
    "secular boom" occurred - each year 1.3
    million more adult Americans joined the
    ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual
    increase has halved to 660,000 a year.
    (Fig.3.1)

    compared to the 57 million Catholics and 117 million pother Christians which grew by 22 million since 1990 when NONES grew by about 20 million ( and dont forget of that 20atheist are about 1.5 million and agnostics 2 million)

    Yes they are in millions like the numbers killed in Christian crusades but ther percentage compared to the rest is lower single digits!

    And the research just keeps adding to this picture.


  • #2806
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    Ive read thru both links but I still cant make sense of it. Here is a powerful counter-argument (see the 1st 3 minutes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo82sgrSAYg

    ".. it abolishes the concept of personal responsibility on which all ethics and morality must depend."

    Good piece from Hitchens but what hes objecting is a misrepresentation of atonement, possibly Plenary substitutionary atonement and I and most Christians agree with him. PSA makes a monster of God.


  • #2807
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    As I said, you're not interested in discussion, just random ranting at I point I did not make.

    And you still haven't been able to tackle the fact that you can't accurately define what I believe, the specifics of which form the basis of my arguments I posted.


  • #2808
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    ISAW Whatever about being majority atheist ,would you agree that in actuality Norway is no longer majority christian ?

    I believe i already answered that Marien.

    Norway has the church linked constitutionally to the state.

    We can ask adults whether or not thy are still in the Lutheran church.
    Many have left but that dos not mean they have become atheist.
    Fringe and very different beliefs such as Islam fundamentalist christian or New Age groups (which i would not define as christian myself on dogma grounds but the stats define them as such) Buddhists etc. are growing at a greater amount than atheists.

    But the main change is probably Lutherans becoming lapsed or becoming Catholics or anglicans.

    The Eurobarometer poll suggests Norwegians are maybe becoming animist but certainly not atheist!

    One has to ask what other research there is which contradicts my view?


  • #2809
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    King Mob wrote: »
    As I said, you're not interested in discussion, just random ranting at I point I did not make.

    And you still haven't been able to tackle the fact that you can't accurately define what I believe, the specifics of which form the basis of my arguments I posted.

    you have lost the point entirely.

    what you believe or what i believe is not at issue!

    what proportion of population are atheists is what is at issue.
    The literature offers "there is no god/there is no way to know/im not sure/there is a personal god/there is higher power but no personal god/none of the above

    You try to use a different definition of atheist. Even if you include everything else the people who believe in god or spirits are over 80%!

    It does not matter what you or i believe. A properly conducted poll found over 80% believe in spirits gods or a God.

    http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/files/2011/08/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf
    see page 8 table 4

    Please stop suggesting i am ranting or trying to suggest i am avoiding the issue.

    Including all the agnostic PLUS atheists PLUS dont know PLUS not sure PLUS whatever you are having yourself fringe beliefs the percentage of believers in God(s) are over 80%

    Got it?

    and that is being as generous as i can. Remember nones are not atheist!

    http://blogs.thearda.com/trend/featured/dynamic-%E2%80%98nones%E2%80%99-hold-key-to-future-of-american-religion/
    A growing body of evidence reveals a complex portrait of Americans who do not identify with a particular religious group. What research is increasingly showing is that “nones” are a dynamic group whose members cannot be simply characterized as either atheists or in other popular categories such as “unchurched believers” or “spiritual but not religious.”

    There are people who appear to be consistently secular in their beliefs. However, the nones also include a large group of people who switch their preferences over time, and continue to attend a particular congregation and express belief in God.


    So is atheism growing into a majority?

    http://blogs.thearda.com/trend/religion/secular-dreams-confront-religious-realities/
    In projecting demographic trends to 2050, Eric Kaufmann, who directs the Masters Programme in Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict at Birkbeck, University of London, says the present rate of 14 percent to 16 percent of the population who are unaffiliated should flatten out at about 17 percent from 2030 to 2040.


  • #2810
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ISAW wrote: »
    you have lost the point entirely.

    what you believe or what i believe is not at issue!
    Well you see I posted about how the subtle difference between and lack of a belief in something and a belief that something doesn't exist is quite important.
    You now are posting a rant about populations.

    You are ranting about a point I never made, and given your posting style and lack of ability to address what I actually type, a point I don't wish to discuss with you.
    The literature offers "there is no god/there is no way to know/im not sure/there is a personal god/there is higher power but no personal god/none of the above
    And what I believe, the position I made my point from, is not covered in those options as they are narrow and ultimately stupid.


  • #2811
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    I believe i already answered that Marien.

    Norway has the church linked constitutionally to the state.

    We can ask adults whether or not thy are still in the Lutheran church.
    Many have left but that dos not mean they have become atheist.
    Fringe and very different beliefs such as Islam fundamentalist christian or New Age groups (which i would not define as christian myself on dogma grounds but the stats define them as such) Buddhists etc. are growing at a greater amount than atheists.

    But the main change is probably Lutherans becoming lapsed or becoming Catholics or anglicans.

    The Eurobarometer poll suggests Norwegians are maybe becoming animist but certainly not atheist!

    One has to ask what other research there is which contradicts my view?

    You are not really answering though ISAW, this whole Lutheran Constitutional issue is a red herring- we are asking what are peoples beliefs not the position of the state.

    For example In our own history during those dark days when the Church of Ireland was the official religion recognised by the state did that make the population any less catholic ?


  • Advertisement
  • #2812
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »
    And? You claimed "Christian societies rarely killed people"

    Correct
    Your claim wasn't "Christian societies rarely killed people under order of the Church"

    What is a christian society?

    Is it a society with majority christians?
    No it isnt in my definition since clearly such a thing could be secular.
    By christian i mean run by them or the church having influence on the state.

    in fact Norway is christian under this definition. :)

    why did I come up with such a definition?

    Because atheists kept discussing a "secular" society.

    a secular society could in theory be a majority christian or even a majority atheist society.

    I am not aware of majrioy atheist modern democracies.
    i would be suspicious of any but i dont thin atheism will grow into a majority anyway.
    A minority can however take over a country.
    In the UK for example 30% of the vote can get a parliamentary majority. Hitler did it in Germany when the roman catholics didnt vote for him.

    Christianity has no rule saying "you must politically rule society" no more than atheism has

    So we are comparing atheism as a belief/lack of belief used in running society compared to Christianity used in society.

    the Byzantine Society for example was inextricably linked to the church.
    the Papal states were and any European king claiming to be christian was.

    Now if there was a majority atheist country with an atheist leader who went to war i would not consider that leader acting based on his atheism unless the State or ruler had "there is no god" as a central political belief.

    Guess what -ALL atheistic regimes are just that - ones that have atheism as a central tenet of their political philosophy.
    Atheist societies have never killed people under order of the Church, so I guess we are still the best society. :rolleyes:

    ALL "there is no god" societies were murder regimes! Stalin Pol Pot Mao etc. killed in the hundreds of millions. in the nineteenth century and Middle Ages and Ancient times atheist regimes existed as did christian o,nes. The deaths caused by christian regimes (of which there many ) are tiny compared to the atheistic deaths.
    They were Christians. They killed people.

    Don,t you love the shell games the atheists play :)

    If atheists kill people it isnt because of atheism- they just happen to be atheist.
    It isnt because of atheism.
    But if so called Christians do it Christianity is to blame.
    You are ignoring examples of Christian killing people. You are saying they are not relevant because they weren't killing people in the name of the Church or the name of Christianity or some other nonsense addition you add after your nonsense has been exposed and you are trying to save face.

    Not at all

    Crusades -about a million dead with the specific purpose of spreading Christianity
    Spanish Inquisition -about 15 thousand dead over 450 years
    Afro/American slavery - In the short church approved time (30 years) millions of dead. church/ several pôpes later opposed it.

    thirty years War - does Christians against Christians count?
    Witchhunts _ five thousand? Not usually in roman catholic countries.

    It runs into millions over 2000 years

    Here are estimate of christian atheist and non christian regimes.

    17th to 19 century

    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB2.1A.GIF

    1820 back to 1200

    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB2.2.GIF
    30BC to 20AD

    somewhere between 300 million and 1.3 billion!

    you can hardly blame the Pope for those?

    How could non christian deaths be so high whrn the world population was about 200 million
    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP2.HTM
    If from the rule of the first of the Roman Emperors (Augustus Octavian) in 27 B.C to the last (Romulus Augustulus) who ruled until 476 A.D., only 100 galley slaves died annually from overwork and mistreatment, then this alone would add up to a democide of 50,300 people. Now say that on the average for the whole empire the Romans killed a not unreasonable annual total of 10,000 infants, slaves, prisoners, Christians, inhabitants of defeated tribes and nations, and dissidents and opponents. Then for the reign of Roman emperors this would add up to a democide of over 5,000,000 people--just for this one empire. Therefore, the 89,158,000 to 260,424,000 range of total people killed I get in table 2.1B (line 747) for all pre-20th Century democide of all civilizations, empires, nations, and tribes, should be viewed as but a small part of the real total.

    But how small? To get some sense for this, see table 2.2. Based on the range of 20th century democide determined in table 16A.1 and the estimated world population for each century since the 30th century B.C. (near in time to the development of Egyptian hieroglyphics and the unification of Egypt under Menes), I calculated the hypothetical democide for each century. Alternatively, I started the democide calculations for the century having the earliest estimates of mass murder in Tables 2.1A and 2.1B, which is the 5th century B.C. (the time of Socrates, Pericles, and the Peloponnesian Wars).

    The results of adding up these century-by-century calculations are shown in table 2.2 (lines 50 and 51). For both alternative calculations the high is over a billion people killed; the lows are near a third of a billion people; and the mid-values near two-thirds or a half of a billion.

    you got any figures for numbers killed by The Church to spread Christianity comparable to the spread atheism regimes of Mao or Stalin?

    Japan -hardly christian?
    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM
    From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000

    Cambodias atheistic Kyher rouge:
    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP4.HTM

    In proportion to its population, Cambodia underwent a human catastrophe unparalleled in this century. Out of a 1970 population of probably near 7,100,0001 Cambodia probably lost slightly less than 4,000,000 people to war, rebellion, man-made famine, genocide, politicide, and mass murder. The vast majority, almost 3,300,000 men, women, and children (including 35,000 foreigners), were murdered within the years 1970 to 1980 by successive governments and guerrilla groups.

    his estimate on atheist North Korea from 1948-1987
    Perhaps from 710,000 to slightly over 3,500,000 people have been murdered, with a mid-estimate of almost 1,600,000

    i have already mentioned Stalin and Mao who rate in the tens of millions each as well as atheistic Mexico and France during its atheistic terror where they murdered about a half million catholics and starved the population ot the Vendee to death.

    Here is an interesting list of your "secular " 20 century non christian non church caused deaths
    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIF
    How many atheist societies have killed people in the name of the Church? I bet none. So clearly atheists are better than Christians, right?

    Atheist societies and even secular ones have killed people by the newtime. when you claim the church is responsible for so much death you have to put it in perspective. It is similar to the point about the less than one percent of abusers who are priests.


  • #2813
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    You are not really answering though ISAW, this whole Lutheran Constitutional issue is a red herring- we are asking what are peoples beliefs not the position of the state.
    in Norway officially about 95% are Lutherans. If you are asking bout the other five percent i would think most of them are not atheist.

    Maybe as much as 17% of adults are atheist i.e ther is no god but i do not think so. i think maybe 17% are atheist or agnostic or humanist.

    As regards whether in reality most are believers in a personal or not i think about 32% say they are in the 2005 eurobaroimeter poll another 47% believe in some supernatural force. whether that mans they are christian or not Im not sure -but they are NOt atheist!

    the claim was 70ù are atheist. that is what i was addressing.
    It was wrong! Morbert cant admit that!
    Just like your claim about god in the the Bible telling people to rape women and children.
    It is in error and you havent admitted that!
    Making up new claims i have not made and am not sure about isnt addressing the errors of your own claims.

    i have been honest and forthright. i resent people suggesting i am dishonest or avoiding or ignoring anything.
    For example In our own history during those dark days when the Church of Ireland was the official religion recognised by the state did that make the population any less catholic ?

    Matter of fact it did.
    At one time they were 100% pagan
    then Christianity made it maybe over 99% Catholic
    Then Protestant rule made it less Roman catholic (i use the term as Cof I people may also claim to be Catholic.


  • #2814
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well you see I posted about how the subtle difference between and lack of a belief in something and a belief that something doesn't exist is quite important.
    You now are posting a rant about populations.

    You are ranting about a point I never made, and given your posting style and lack of ability to address what I actually type, a point I don't wish to discuss with you.

    run away if you wish. Morberts claim about Norway being 70% atheist is wrong and atheism isnt a large figure in any modern democracy secular r otherwise being usually in the log single digit percentages. if you add in agnoistics humanists the "no religion" e as well it still barely gets into double digits. but the "there is no god" people remin at low single digit percentages.
    And what I believe, the position I made my point from, is not covered in those options as they are narrow and ultimately stupid.

    What you believe ort what i believe is not at issue; Atheism is a tiny number . agnoistics are about twice ther percentage. together they are still single digit percentages. and that is multiplmying atheists by three.


  • #2815
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ISAW wrote: »
    run away if you wish. Morberts claim about Norway being 70% atheist is wrong and atheism isnt a large figure in any modern democracy secular r otherwise being usually in the log single digit percentages. if you add in agnoistics humanists the "no religion" e as well it still barely gets into double digits. but the "there is no god" people remin at low single digit percentages.
    Yes... I'm running away from a point I never made or has anything to do with any of the points I did make :rolleyes:
    ISAW wrote: »
    What you believe ort what i believe is not at issue;
    Unless of course I was making a point out the difference between a lack of a belief and a belief in non-existence or something....


  • #2816
    Plowman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Plowman


    This post has been deleted.


  • #2817
    muppeteer
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭muppeteer


    ISAW wrote: »
    I disagree. i believe it is you intention not to appear so and you believe you are not so but perhaps you are so and are not aware of your own mindset.
    coming from someone who stated "I have to say I don't think of all Christians as lacking ability. I wouldn't even bother talking to you if I believed that." You come across as having an elitist mindset. you may believe you dont have such a mindset but Ill hold my judgment on that until you admit you are no better than anyone else and have much to learn or are ignorant of much. when you are humbled then you might become exalted but when you exalt yourself you had better prepare to be humbled.
    You hold judgment over somebody on the internet and seek to tell them they do not know their own mindset. Charming.

    I prostrate myself to your judgment and offer a quote that I find helps guide my most humble assessments on the rational ability of myself and the kindly Christians who offer me debate as equals.
    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
    Bertrand Russell"



    Loftyness added for effect:p


  • #2818
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Plowman wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    But the atheist position is surely part of that debate?

    How can the debate be balanced if the atheist position is 'confused'?

    The words 'belief' and 'disbelief' are not interchangable otherwise it would logically follow that someone who is not guilty of committing murder is guilty of not committing murder: Can a man who is not guilty of a crime be considered guilty at all?

    Atheists 'disbelieve'; they are 'not guilty'.


  • #2819
    Plowman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Plowman


    This post has been deleted.


  • #2820
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Now that the atheist position has been clarified it will be obvious that someone who believes in say a Christian God implicity dis-believes any belief system that contradicts that position. It should be noted though, that even of those who express a particular belief in that particular God, many may ultimately be panentheists.

    So, someone who says 'I believe there is but one God' is equally saying 'I do not believe (disbelief) in the Norse Gods', etc.

    The same cannot be said of the atheist; if an athiest does not believe in the Norse Gods (which he wouldn't) then that does not mean that he believes in some alternative God.

    The reason is 'rationality'; combining experience and knowledge with the senses allows one to create a reasonably accurate picture of reality in our mind - ones views in almost all areas of ones life are based on affirmative evidence of some kind.

    It may even be that the term 'atheist' is synonymous with 'rationalist'.

    In order for an atheist to support a hypothesis, he needs evidence to support it. And there are two types of evidence, broadly speaking; positive and negative. Evidence that supports a hypothesis is positive evidence while evidence that contradicts the hypothesis is negative evidence.

    A problem with this discussion arises from the fact that faith removes the requirement for evidence and so believers start from a position where they have faith and evidence at their disposal while an atheist doesn't possess the faculty of faith and therefore has only the evidence from which to form a view.

    Faith has the consequence of allowing believers to 'cherry-pick' evidence and apply a logic, that makes a huge number of assumptions, that 'converts' negative evidence into positive evidence while still relying on what might possibly be considered positive evidence.

    For example, a believer might say that an antelope escaping from a lion and getting safely back to its mother is positive evidence of God while an atheist might argue that the lion's family starving is negative evidence of God; or a believer might say that someone survived an 'incurable' disease because there were prayers sent to God whereas an atheist would say that all religions can make the same claim - sometimes a Hindu will survive an 'incurable' disease. In my view, it is not sensible to consider these things as positive evidence at all but if both sides can say that the jury is somewhat still out on those things, they can be set aside.

    And an atheist might say that evil and murder and the state of the modern world constitute negative evidence regarding the existence of God but a believer might say that free-will was given to mankind by God and since men commit evil and not God, the existence of free-will is positive evidence of God; evil could not flourish without free-will but God didn't design us to be evil, we somehow re-designed ourselves by being born. Therefore, to a believer, the existence of evil is evidence that God exists and they rejoice. (Which suggests that a world without evil would be nothing to rejoice about.

    Or an atheist might say, 'How come the only instrument in the Universe that can detect God is the human imagination?'

    A believer would counter with, 'God wants us to believe in Him without evidence, that is why we have faith and therefore it would disallow the opportunity for people to have faith if there was irrefutable proof of the existence of God if God allowed Himself to be detected by any instrument other than the imagination, wouldn't He? And of course, free-will would be undermined too, further proof of God.'

    And as if by the will of God, negative evidence becomes positive.

    However, a good atheist would not be arrogant enough to state that there is no God. One might say that God is not an old man sitting on the clouds and claim to be an atheist; he might say that Norse, Greek, Roman, Egyptian Gods are simply fairytales but to claim there is no God one must have a definition for God. To say that God is 'x..y..z' requires a belief that God is 'x..y..z' regardless of whether one denies the existence of 'x..y..z' or not. You can't believe that God is 'x''y''z' and still be an atheist.

    According to Christians, Revelations is as far as God got with His message and it doesn't seem to me to be a happy ending at any level for anyone. But God loves His creation, no? He is merciful and kind; He sacrificed His only begotten son to cleanse mankind; He created all of existence in six days. God can do as He pleases and have done what He pleases.

    So, question: Does Revelations constitute positive evidence or negative evidence that the God of the Christians is an evil and cruel God who takes delight in the suffering of mankind whether they be Palestinian, African, Chinese, European, etc.?


  • Advertisement
  • #2821
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Plowman wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Well I'm not and nor am I crediting you in particular with being confused; I was challenging a weak position that is strongly held by ISAW. He's the one always harping on about the importance of definitions. I was merely trying to get ISAW to practice what he/she preaches.


  • #2822
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Well I'm not and nor am I crediting you in particular with being confused; I was challenging a weak position that is strongly held by ISAW. He's the one always harping on about the importance of definitions. I was merely trying to get ISAW to practice what he/she preaches.

    Good luck with that.!


  • #2823
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    <percentages stuff removed>
    muppeteer wrote: »
    You hold judgment over somebody on the internet and seek to tell them they do not know their own mindset. Charming.

    I would think even though your words say charming you in fact dont find me charming at all.
    You stated did you not "I don't think of all Christians as lacking ability. I wouldn't even bother talking to you if I believed that."

    You would not bother talking to people who lack ability -an elitist point of view.
    and if you dont think about all you do apply this to some Christians do you not?
    I prostrate myself to your judgment and offer a quote that I find helps guide my most humble assessments on the rational ability of myself and the kindly Christians who offer me debate as equals.

    False humility comes from the same elitist mindset of superiority.
    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
    Bertrand Russell"

    so do you think I am either a fool or a fanatic or do you deny calling me that?
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Now that the atheist position has been clarified it will be obvious that someone who believes in say a Christian God implicity dis-believes any belief system that contradicts that position. It should be noted though, that even of those who express a particular belief in that particular God, many may ultimately be panentheists.

    So, someone who says 'I believe there is but one God' is equally saying 'I do not believe (disbelief) in the Norse Gods', etc.

    what you are saying here is if you Believer in Christ ist therefore you do not believe in Norse gods.

    That is logically valid
    The same cannot be said of the atheist; if an athiest does not believe in the Norse Gods (which he wouldn't) then that does not mean that he believes in some alternative God.

    You have the logic backwards!
    With "i do not believe in Norse gods" it does not logically follow that "I believe in christ" nor "I am atheist" either could be true but both cant!

    Your problem here is -"which you wouldnt" Because atheism is "i dont believe in God"

    so what you are really saying is "i dont believe in a chriatian god or any other gods or supernatural forces" (which he wouldnt) and that DOES MEAN he does not believe in Norse gods.
    The reason is 'rationality'; combining experience and knowledge with the senses allows one to create a reasonably accurate picture of reality in our mind - ones views in almost all areas of ones life are based on affirmative evidence of some kind.

    Well science tries to set up a proposition one can falsify and not one to verify. the verification principle can lead into contradiction or infinite regression.

    But you can believe in the flying spaghetti Monster or astrology or aliens or unicorns if you wish. when you make claims you assrt are grounded in rationality the onus is on you to produce evidence.

    I produced peer reviewed publications citing empirical research. what have you produced?
    It may even be that the term 'atheist' is synonymous with 'rationalist'.

    In other words it may NOT even be as well?
    In order for an atheist to support a hypothesis, he needs evidence to support it.
    So does a non atheist! so what?
    And there are two types of evidence, broadly speaking; positive and negative. Evidence that supports a hypothesis is positive evidence while evidence that contradicts the hypothesis is negative evidence.

    could you not except ther is one thpe of evidence and a hypothesis and one can ether verify i.e. prove true or falsify i.e. prove false ?

    THe "infinite regression" problem above lies in the fact that only ONE tst might falsify but verification can go on and on.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism#Falsificationism
    It is commonly believed that Karl Popper rejected the requirement that meaningful sentences be verifiable, demanding instead that they be falsifiable. However, Popper later claimed that his demand for falsifiability was not meant as a theory of meaning, but rather as a methodological norm for the sciences
    A problem with this discussion arises from the fact that faith removes the requirement for evidence and so believers start from a position where they have faith and evidence at their disposal while an atheist doesn't possess the faculty of faith and therefore has only the evidence from which to form a view.

    which is why I referred to faith AND reason and argued on reason and not on faith.
    It is why I use standard scientific methods, peer review research etc.
    It is also why I pointed out science for example does rely in varying degrees on the faith of practitioners. they believe in something but they eventually use objective evidence to prove it. Although terms like "objective evidence" itself are frequently dismissed by philosophical relativists - sometimes on moral relativist grounds sometimes empirically relativist sometimes sociologically. Some atheists posting here hold conflicting relativism and claim science (incliding sociology and social science and Medicine) isnt relative but morals are relative.
    Faith has the consequence of allowing believers to 'cherry-pick' evidence and apply a logic, that makes a huge number of assumptions, that 'converts' negative evidence into positive evidence while still relying on what might possibly be considered positive evidence.

    For example, a believer might say that an antelope escaping from a lion and getting safely back to its mother is positive evidence of God while an atheist might argue that the lion's family starving is negative evidence of God; or a believer might say that someone survived an 'incurable' disease because there were prayers sent to God whereas an atheist would say that all religions can make the same claim - sometimes a Hindu will survive an 'incurable' disease. In my view, it is not sensible to consider these things as positive evidence at all but if both sides can say that the jury is somewhat still out on those things, they can be set aside.

    I think the above is weak and vague. the notion that "only good things happen" and "but they can really be seen as bad things" isnt about the proving thing but about judging whether the thing is good or bad. The THING is the evidence event etc. that is objectively measurable and falsifable or verifiable. the antelope escapes or not. the man survives the disease or not.
    The personal significance of the event is related to judgement yes but that has nothing to do with measuring whether or nt it happened.
    We have moved on from "earthquakes happen therefore A god exists" and B"god is punishing us" and right through the problem of evil[:i] debate C "God is allowing free will"
    you are regressing to

    Earthquakes happen/ animals escape/ people are cured as if the events are to be questioned. We did that at the "people were cured in Lourds" stage.

    Accept the events happened. i do applaud your trying to focus on the significance of events and what can be said of them. Assume it happened - What is significant for you for example in the passion of the Christ story?
    And an atheist might say that evil and murder and the state of the modern world constitute negative evidence regarding the existence of God but a believer might say that free-will was given to mankind by God and since men commit evil and not God, the existence of free-will is positive evidence of God; evil could not flourish without free-will but God didn't design us to be evil, we somehow re-designed ourselves by being born. Therefore, to a believer, the existence of evil is evidence that God exists and they rejoice. (Which suggests that a world without evil would be nothing to rejoice about.

    We have done that argument to death. do a search including Leibniz and problem of evil in this forum.
    Or an atheist might say, 'How come the only instrument in the Universe that can detect God is the human imagination?'

    You accept supernatural things can be measured then? with what?
    And as if by the will of God, negative evidence becomes positive.

    If it is "no evidence of God proves god" is what you are saying we got past "only the true Messiah denies he is the Messiah " bit back at the Life of Brian stage.
    However, a good atheist would not be arrogant enough to state that there is no God.

    what is a "good" or a "bad" atheist for that matter?
    Who is deciding what s a "good" atheist?
    You?
    and you do not view that as arrogant?
    One might say that God is not an old man sitting on the clouds and claim to be an atheist; he might say that Norse, Greek, Roman, Egyptian Gods are simply fairytales but to claim there is no God one must have a definition for God. To say that God is 'x..y..z' requires a belief that God is 'x..y..z' regardless of whether one denies the existence of 'x..y..z' or not. You can't believe that God is 'x''y''z' and still be an atheist.

    So you cant believe that mythical unicorns have horns and also not believe unicorns exist in reality is that what you mean? But one can believe that?
    According to Christians, Revelations is as far as God got with His message and it doesn't seem to me to be a happy ending at any level for anyone.

    which demonstrates you ignorance of Christianity. As far as one can go and as far as necessary. One doesnt need to go further is the Christians view.
    But God loves His creation, no? He is merciful and kind; He sacrificed His only begotten son to cleanse mankind; He created all of existence in six days. God can do as He pleases and have done what He pleases.

    already dealt with
    Please read my reference to faith and reason and Regensberg on this.
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

    [/quote]
    So, question: Does Revelations constitute positive evidence or negative evidence that the God of the Christians is an evil and cruel God who takes delight in the suffering of mankind whether they be Palestinian, African, Chinese, European, etc.?[/QUOTE]

    Answer :NO
    Again dealt with back when Marianbad suggested -in error- that the Biblical God told people to rape women and children.

    <Norway stuff removed>


  • #2824
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW just in the interests of accuracy ''in error'' I did'nt suggest ''the Bibical God told people to rape women and children''

    I did'nt suggest it someone else did, I happened to agree with them, and secondly I never said anything about children. As a matter of fact the whole focus of the discussion was on just women.

    The Bible to you and others may be a sacred book,but to me it is just a book like any other book. I can interpret it any way I wish - after all that was one of the things the Reformation was all about .I can weigh the evidence , examine the sources and consult the experts and then decide for myself the interpretation. Is'nt that what every religion, cult,sect and individual or preacher has been doing for 2000 years ?

    My reading of it leads me to believe the God indeed condoned rape and it was an inevitable consequence on that particular passage in the text.

    There is no proving it to you or anyone else and no need to- you believe what you want and so do I and others.


  • #2825
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,210 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    I asked before, but I'll ask again because I think it's an interesting question:

    If there was no reward to being a Christian and no punishment for not being a Christian (ie. no Heaven, no Hell, no God answering your prayers, no bad things happening if you didn't pray), if all there was to religion was worshipping God for creating us and following all his rules/guidelines on how to live your life; Do you think religion would have survived to this day?

    If people were told they had to worship God their whole life for no reason other than people saying they should, and at the end of their life, there's no Heaven or Hell, they just die and there is no afterlife; would there be Christianity now in the modern day. I'm not asking if you yourself would still follow Christianity if those things were removed, rather do you think that over the past few thousand years would enough people have passed on the faith to later generations.


  • #2826
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Penn wrote: »
    I asked before, but I'll ask again because I think it's an interesting question:

    If there was no reward to being a Christian and no punishment for not being a Christian (ie. no Heaven, no Hell, no God answering your prayers, no bad things happening if you didn't pray), if all there was to religion was worshipping God for creating us and following all his rules/guidelines on how to live your life; Do you think religion would have survived to this day?
    Judaism has survived for rather longer than Christianity, and doesn't promise an afterlife, etc. From the Jewish perspective, Jews should observe the Law simply because doing so is inherently good. So, yes, religion can indeed survive without a punishment/reward mechanism.

    It's an article of faith on the A&A board that atheists can be moral without the promise of reward. It would seem a bit arrogant to assume that religious people can't be.


  • Advertisement
  • #2827
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Well I'm not and nor am I crediting you in particular with being confused; I was challenging a weak position that is strongly held by ISAW.

    How can one strongly hold a weak position?


  • #2828
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,210 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Judaism has survived for rather longer than Christianity, and doesn't promise an afterlife, etc. From the Jewish perspective, Jews should observe the Law simply because doing so is inherently good. So, yes, religion can indeed survive without a punishment/reward mechanism.

    It's an article of faith on the A&A board that atheists can be moral without the promise of reward. It would seem a bit arrogant to assume that religious people can't be.

    Nothing to do with morality, moreso the act of worshipping a deity with no rewards or punishments. If there was no reward whatsoever, would religion have survived. Would people, having learnt about God and his teachings, have accepted the faith if there was no rewards for doing so, and no punishments for not doing so?

    As for Judaism, there is an afterlife. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Eschatology)


  • #2829
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Penn wrote: »
    I asked before, but I'll ask again because I think it's an interesting question:
    {sniped}
    If people were told they had to worship God their whole life for no reason other than people saying they should, and at the end of their life, there's no Heaven or Hell, they just die and there is no afterlife; would there be Christianity now in the modern day. I'm not asking if you yourself would still follow Christianity if those things were removed, rather do you think that over the past few thousand years would enough people have passed on the faith to later generations.

    Buddhism, Judaism, Shinto, I think. All offer no heaven hell system. but it's a moot point, the desire to live a good life is common to all cultures even atheist ones so I suppose the answer is yes. How that would work out in the aftermath of an existing culture of eternal punishment reward is another thing. I imagine if theism was proved false then theists would react differently from atheists. Possibly a reaction of embracing options that were forbidden but as a reaction to the previous restriction rather than an abandonment of morality.


  • #2830
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Nothing to do with morality? Judaism is a highly moral religion, in that its focus is largely on how adherents live, as opposed to what they believe. A good Jew is noe who observes the Law; it’s as simple as that. Morality consists of asking and answering questions on how it is right to live, and Judaism is largely concerned with morality.

    Judaism does have a concept of an afterlife today, but it’s a relatively late arrival to the religion, it doesn’t have anything like the central place in Judaism that it has in Christianity, and it’s entirely optional; you can be a perfectly good and faithful Jew without believing in an afterlife of any kind. Ask any rabbi if you doubt me.

    So, can religion survive without a belief in an afterlife? If you’re going to allow your beliefs to be formed by the evidence, yes. Even if we concede that Judaism has the concept of an afterlife, it survived for at least a thousand years without it.


  • #2831
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Penn ;
    If there was no reward whatsoever, would religion have survived. Would people, having learnt about God and his teachings, have accepted the faith if there was no rewards for doing so, and no punishments for not doing so?
    I think I see what your getting at and no, it wouldn't survive but the reward mightn't be in the next life. Their are substantial rewards in this life that balance the need for a next life reward. Without them I think it wouldn't even be a religion, it would be sport or being a goth or emo or Fianna Fail supporter.


  • Advertisement
  • #2832
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,210 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    I think I see what your getting at and no, it wouldn't survive but the reward mightn't be in the next life. Their are substantial rewards in this life that balance the need for a next life reward. Without them I think it wouldn't even be a religion, it would be sport or being a goth or emo or Fianna Fail supporter.

    Of course. As an atheist I know all too well the rewards that can be had in this life with and without religion, and that morality isn't tied to religion. What I'm getting at is the whole processes of going to mass, praying to God (not for anything in particular as that would be a reward or benefit, but merely because God is deserving of your praise) and worshipping him would have been rejected by so many people if there were no benefits to doing so.

    But the benefits (Afterlife, praying to God to help whatever cause or person etc) are something which from my viewpoint, can neither be proven nor disproven. (When I say 'you' in the following bit, I mean other people who aren't me) I can't prove there is no Heaven, but you can't prove there is. You can't prove God helps us if we pray to him, but I can't prove he doesn't. The greatest benefits to following a religion like Christianity cannot be proven, and pretty much can't be disproven either.

    That's why I think religion is made up. It offers the perfect rewards, things which the vast majority of people would want, but doesn't have to offer any proof of it. If thousands of years ago, the religion had said that it's not only your soul which goes to Heaven but your whole body does, that could be disproven because obviously the body doesn't go anywhere. Nobody would have believed it. Things like your soul going to Heaven (both things which cannot be seen, measured etc) sounds absolutely great, but it is something which has to be taken on whether you believe that can happen or not, not something which you can prove.

    Today, if I wanted to start a religion, you can be damn skippy I'd say there's a Heaven (probably call it something else though :D). I'd definitely say that if you pray for something hard enough, the deity I make up for us to worship might grant your wishes. Definitely. These are fundamental ideals and concepts to get people to accept your religion. Offer them loads of things they want but that you don't have to provide.


  • #2833
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    ISAW just in the interests of accuracy ''in error'' I did'nt suggest ''the Bibical God told people to rape women and children''

    Really To PDN:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76171582&postcount=1460
    if you want to rehash the rape issue- no probs, though again you will be bested except or course to your own chorus

    you claimed the bible ordered rape or you backed up anothers claim. No matter. i is still making the cvlaim. yu never admitted the error. Similarly others make claims about the growth of atheism ot the majority of it in countries or that christianity is a huge killer of people in history or "no historical jesus" or "bible was made up several centuries after Jesus" and so on But when the ctuyal stats or history are looked into their position is exposed and they dont admit they are wrong.
    I did'nt suggest it someone else did, I happened to agree with them, and secondly I never said anything about children. As a matter of fact the whole focus of the discussion was on just women.

    I thought the abuse f children wa also dragged into it and i still believe it was but maybe i am in error on that. No matter. You still claimed rape and you claimed it in error and you didnt admit you were wrong.
    The Bible to you and others may be a sacred book,but to me it is just a book like any other book. I can interpret it any way I wish - after all that was one of the things the Reformation was all about .I can weigh the evidence , examine the sources and consult the experts and then decide for myself the interpretation. Is'nt that what every religion, cult,sect and individual or preacher has been doing for 2000 years ?

    so what? straw men have nothing to do with claiming it orders rape! You were wrong about that claim and you failed to admit you were wrong.
    My reading of it leads me to believe the God indeed condoned rape and it was an inevitable consequence on that particular passage in the text.

    There is no proving it to you or anyone else and no need to- you believe what you want and so do I and others.

    i knew it! the argument about rape having being utterly destroyed you return later with the same argument! as I predicted. And no doubt others will return with Norway is atheist and Jesus never existed and was made up. It is akin to returning with astrology predicts the future

    "It is just my opinion " isnt good enough to make a claim like that! Is it alos your opinion that unicorns exist? If it is others opinion that God exists and it is nt necessary to prove anything rationally then why are you in this debate?


  • #2834
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Penn wrote: »
    Of course. As an atheist I know all too well the rewards that can be had in this life with and without religion, and that morality isn't tied to religion. What I'm getting at is the whole processes of going to mass, praying to God (not for anything in particular as that would be a reward or benefit, but merely because God is deserving of your praise) and worshipping him would have been rejected by so many people if there were no benefits to doing so.

    ...

    That's why I think religion is made up. It offers the perfect rewards, things which the vast majority of people would want, but doesn't have to offer any proof of it.

    i think you have missed the point. Christians do things not because of future reward in the future but because they are the morally right thing to do today. It isnt about doing it so you get future payback. thats more a jewish or Islamic notion.


  • #2835
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,210 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    ISAW wrote: »
    i think you have missed the point. Christians do things not because of future reward in the future but because they are the morally right thing to do today. It isnt about doing it so you get future payback. thats more a jewish or Islamic notion.

    What I'm saying is, would people have become Christians (ie. not Christians yet) in the early days of the religion, were it not for future reward?

    I'm thinking back to two thousand years ago, when people preached the Gospels and people who had never heard of Christianity were listening. Would they have become Christians if there were no rewards to doing so whatsoever, and no punishments for not doing so? They are still free to live a moral life and to do things not for reward, but because it's the morally right thing to do. But would they also have accepted that they have to live their lives according to the Bible and gospels etc and worship and praise God and Jesus, and do things they may not have agreed with or may not be morally wrong in their eyes, if there was no benefit?


  • #2836
    marty1985
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭marty1985


    Penn wrote: »
    What I'm saying is, would people have become Christians in the early days of the religion, were it not for future reward?

    I'm thinking back to two thousand years ago, when people preached the Gospels and people who had never heard of Christianity were listening. Would they have become Christians if there were no rewards to doing so whatsoever, and no punishments for not doing so? They are still free to live a moral life and to do things not for reward, but because it's the morally right thing to do. But would they also have accepted that they have to live their lives according to the Bible and gospels etc and worship and praise God and Jesus, and do things they may not have agreed with or may not be morally wrong in their eyes, if there was no benefit?

    I think there was more to it than that. Perhaps you should consider that Christianity brought a new culture that made life more tolerable in Greco-Roman cities, brought charity to the homeless and impoverished, offered an immediate basis for attachments in urban areas (where Christianity spread more rapidly) and so on. Christianity also provided effective nursing services in the face of epidemics, fires and earthquakes. I'd imagine these things had as much to do with it than someone promising rewards in an afterlife.

    Added to that, Christian subcultures produced a surplus of females as a result of prohibitions against infanticide (which was usually directed against baby girls) and abortion (which often resulted in the death of the mother). It seems women converted to Christianity at a higher rate than men. This would result in a lot of secondary conversions to Christianity by pagan men. So, perhaps women became Christians for promise of rewards in an afterlife. OR, perhaps it was because they enjoyed a substantially higher status within Christian subcultures than women did in the world at large.

    Looking at the history of Christianity, the rewards, it seems to me, were experienced there and then. As were the punishments. So, I don't think it has that much to do with promises of an afterlife, although I'm sure it was a factor, but only one among many.


  • #2837
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Penn;
    Offer them loads of things they want but that you don't have to provide.
    I mention FF and then you post this,:p


  • #2838
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Nothing to do with morality? Judaism is a highly moral religion, in that its focus is largely on how adherents live, as opposed to what they believe. A good Jew is noe who observes the Law; it’s as simple as that. Morality consists of asking and answering questions on how it is right to live, and Judaism is largely concerned with morality.


    What about these Jews?

    http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/19/world/meast/israel-rosa-parks/index.html
    "I heard him call me 'Shikse,'" Rosenblit wrote on her Facebook page, referencing a Yiddish term for a non-Jewish woman. "He demanded I sit in the back of the bus, because Jewish men couldn't sit behind women (!!!).

    Nice guys. Lovely hats. Their women enjoy similar rights to Islamic women. They're living in the 'Dark Ages'.

    Larry David is a good Jew. :D


  • #2839
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Penn wrote: »
    What I'm saying is, would people have become Christians (ie. not Christians yet) in the early days of the religion, were it not for future reward?

    I'm thinking back to two thousand years ago, when people preached the Gospels and people who had never heard of Christianity were listening. Would they have become Christians if there were no rewards to doing so whatsoever, and no punishments for not doing so?

    and im saying it has not changed. A minority of people today go on about hellfire or heavenly reward ; christianity to them is about doing the right thing today because it is good today not because they will get a kickback tomorrow.
    They are still free to live a moral life and to do things not for reward, but because it's the morally right thing to do. But would they also have accepted that they have to live their lives according to the Bible and gospels etc and worship and praise God and Jesus, and do things they may not have agreed with or may not be morally wrong in their eyes, if there was no benefit?

    and Im saying yes they would because doing it because of a kickback or because you get personal gain is more along the selfish or pride lines than altruism.


  • #2840
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    ISAW wrote: »
    what you are saying here is if you Believer in Christ ist therefore you do not believe in Norse gods.

    That is logically valid

    Okay.
    ISAW wrote: »
    You have the logic backwards!
    With "i do not believe in Norse gods" it does not logically follow that "I believe in christ" nor "I am atheist" either could be true but both cant!

    Your problem here is -"which you wouldnt" Because atheism is "i dont believe in God"

    so what you are really saying is "i dont believe in a chriatian god or any other gods or supernatural forces" (which he wouldnt) and that DOES MEAN he does not believe in Norse gods.

    No, you miss the point again; "I don't believe in God" is a reaction to a claim that a particular God exists.

    Atheists do not start with a list of Gods to reject, they deal with each God on an evidential basis. So far, they are unpersuaded by religious arguments. This does not amount to a claim that no God exists, just the ones that have been claimed to exist so far.

    The point is that an atheist may well become a non-atheist provided the evidence was compelling enough.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Well science tries to set up a proposition one can falsify and not one to verify. the verification principle can lead into contradiction or infinite regression.

    No, they try to falsify claim which have been validated by, for example, observational data.
    ISAW wrote: »
    But you can believe in the flying spaghetti Monster or astrology or aliens or unicorns if you wish. when you make claims you assrt are grounded in rationality the onus is on you to produce evidence.

    No, an atheist cannot believe these things as there is as much data against them as there is against the existence of a Christian God or indeed the Norse Gods.

    We lack faith remember.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I produced peer reviewed publications citing empirical research. what have you produced?

    You produced peer reviewed scientific evidence in support of the existence of a Christian God? Where?
    ISAW wrote: »
    In other words it may NOT even be as well?

    I wouldn't get bogged down in that.
    ISAW wrote: »
    So does a non atheist! so what?

    Wrong, a crazy man banging on about the bible is ample evidence for most people.
    ISAW wrote: »
    could you not except ther is one thpe of evidence and a hypothesis and one can ether verify i.e. prove true or falsify i.e. prove false ?

    Yes, in the context of this argument but I don't see how this is so different from the position I outlined.
    ISAW wrote: »
    THe "infinite regression" problem above lies in the fact that only ONE tst might falsify but verification can go on and on.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism#Falsificationism
    It is commonly believed that Karl Popper rejected the requirement that meaningful sentences be verifiable, demanding instead that they be falsifiable. However, Popper later claimed that his demand for falsifiability was not meant as a theory of meaning, but rather as a methodological norm for the sciences

    Then you must believe that spiritualists can commune with the dead and that astrology is an exact science. These claims are falsifiable.

    Or do you take the view that all supernatural events outside the bible are the result of some kind of con-trick?
    ISAW wrote: »
    which is why I referred to faith AND reason and argued on reason and not on faith.
    It is why I use standard scientific methods, peer review research etc.
    It is also why I pointed out science for example does rely in varying degrees on the faith of practitioners. they believe in something but they eventually use objective evidence to prove it. Although terms like "objective evidence" itself are frequently dismissed by philosophical relativists - sometimes on moral relativist grounds sometimes empirically relativist sometimes sociologically. Some atheists posting here hold conflicting relativism and claim science (incliding sociology and social science and Medicine) isnt relative but morals are relative.

    You forgot to mention that all these things are sufficiently explained by evolution.

    Indeed, man is not the only animal to develop such skills.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I think the above is weak and vague. the notion that "only good things happen" and "but they can really be seen as bad things" isnt about the proving thing but about judging whether the thing is good or bad. The THING is the evidence event etc. that is objectively measurable and falsifable or verifiable. the antelope escapes or not. the man survives the disease or not.
    The personal significance of the event is related to judgement yes but that has nothing to do with measuring whether or nt it happened.
    We have moved on from "earthquakes happen therefore A god exists" and B"god is punishing us" and right through the problem of evil[:i] debate C "God is allowing free will"
    you are regressing to

    Earthquakes happen/ animals escape/ people are cured as if the events are to be questioned. We did that at the "people were cured in Lourds" stage.

    Accept the events happened. i do applaud your trying to focus on the significance of events and what can be said of them. Assume it happened - What is significant for you for example in the passion of the Christ story?


    My view of the story of Christ? Theatre - a way for the Jews to convince non-Jews that they have access to an afterlife which the Jews had never claimed for themselves. It gave the Romans a diversion away from the Jews.

    If you take away the supernatural elements of the story of Christ, then you are left with a story of political subterfuge which has greater plausibility than the Biblical version.

    This would mean of course that the 'Virgin Birth' was actually the result of adultery; thta the rising of Lazarus was nothing more than a Derren Brown trick, etc.
    ISAW wrote: »
    We have done that argument to death. do a search including Leibniz and problem of evil in this forum.


    I was simply pointing out how those with faith can justify absolutely anything.
    ISAW wrote: »
    You accept supernatural things can be measured then? with what?


    With the human imagination! These things are always only seen by imagination.
    ISAW wrote: »
    If it is "no evidence of God proves god" is what you are saying we got past "only the true Messiah denies he is the Messiah " bit back at the Life of Brian stage.


    No, a true Messiah would have to be in communion with God. This is something that the Messiah would know. He might choose to lie about it though in which case: How many other lies were told?
    ISAW wrote: »
    what is a "good" or a "bad" atheist for that matter?
    Who is deciding what s a "good" atheist?
    You?
    and you do not view that as arrogant?


    I make no claims as to my arrogance. I was pointing out that to believe there are no Gods at all would not be agnostic and would require some degree of faith rendering one with that view a non-atheist.

    Or a 'bad atheist'.
    ISAW wrote: »
    So you cant believe that mythical unicorns have horns and also not believe unicorns exist in reality is that what you mean? But one can believe that?


    That's my point; people with faith can believe anything without knowing anything.
    ISAW wrote: »
    which demonstrates you ignorance of Christianity. As far as one can go and as far as necessary. One doesnt need to go further is the Christians view.


    An evolutionary dead-end?
    ISAW wrote: »
    So, question: Does Revelations constitute positive evidence or negative evidence that the God of the Christians is an evil and cruel God who takes delight in the suffering of mankind whether they be Palestinian, African, Chinese, European, etc.?

    Answer :NO


    Such is the power of faith.


  • #2841
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW , you really are a strange one, if you don't mind me saying so. I don't have to admit any mistake as I did'nt make one,I and others were not proved wrong. This may come as news to you but you don't get to decide.

    It is a book that is open to myriad interpretations, people have been burned at the stake for it.

    You believe your version is correct, I believe mine is. Why is that so difficult for you to understand ?


  • Advertisement
  • #2842
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    ISAW wrote: »
    How can one strongly hold a weak position?

    By vigorously defending a weak point.

    You strive to be correct and lose sight of what is right.

    Or are you of the opinion that Jesus would approve of the 'Christianised' nations?


  • #2843
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Penn wrote: »
    What I'm saying is, would people have become Christians (ie. not Christians yet) in the early days of the religion, were it not for future reward?
    　
    I'm thinking back to two thousand years ago, when people preached the Gospels and people who had never heard of Christianity were listening. Would they have become Christians if there were no rewards to doing so whatsoever, and no punishments for not doing so? They are still free to live a moral life and to do things not for reward, but because it's the morally right thing to do. But would they also have accepted that they have to live their lives according to the Bible and gospels etc and worship and praise God and Jesus, and do things they may not have agreed with or may not be morally wrong in their eyes, if there was no benefit?

    No offence, but is there a certain circularity in the reasoning here?

    If people believe that, e.g., when they die they will go to heaven where there will be unlimited vanilla icecream with the topping of your choice, it is because they belong to a religion which teaches that. They don’t typically come to believe this, and then seek out a religion which teaches it in order to join that religion. Nor, if they aren’t raised believing this, do they come to believe it because they hear a street preacher say it, and it never occurs to them to doubt him. Belief comes from religion, not the other way around.

    In other words, the notion that people become Christians because they find the idea of Christian heaven both convincing and appealing strikes me as not very realistic. I’ve known quite a number of adult converts to Christianity, and I can honestly say that I’ve never met anyone for whom this was a factor in their conversion. (To be quite frank, excessively simplistic notions of heaven and hell are more often something of a barrier; people find them either incredible or childish.)　 And I’ve no reason to think that things were very different in the past.

    I think if you want to understand religious conversion - particularly "waves" of religious conversion, such as Christianity undoubtedly enjoyed in the early centuries after the death of Christ - you have to look at the social function of religion, and the place it has in people’s lives. The expectation of heavenly reward is a very striking idea, but it actually comes pretty low down on the list of things that motivates people, and gives meaning and significance to their lives, compared to having a secure place in society, enjoying good relationships with family and community, and finding a framework within which to address questions about how to live. It’s the effectiveness of Christianity - or any other religion - on those levels that we need to look at to explain its success (or lack of it).

    There are some distinctly secular explanations for the early growth of Christianity, one of them being the distinct social disadvantage of being identified as Jewish in the Roman Empire after the First Jewish War, and even more so after the Second Jewish War. The rise of Christianity is paralleled by a collapse in the number of Jews in the empire at this time, and a likely explanation is that an awful lot of Jews saw identifying as Christians as a way of retaining much that was familiar and comforting and important to them, without suffering the social and political disadvantages of being seen as Jewish.


  • #2844
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    marty1985 wrote: »
    Added to that, Christian subcultures produced a surplus of females as a result of prohibitions against infanticide (which was usually directed against baby girls) and abortion (which often resulted in the death of the mother). It seems women converted to Christianity at a higher rate than men. This would result in a lot of secondary conversions to Christianity by pagan men. So, perhaps women became Christians for promise of rewards in an afterlife. OR, perhaps it was because they enjoyed a substantially higher status within Christian subcultures than women did in the world at large..

    I'm sorry, where did you get this?

    I was under the impression that the human tendency was to over-produce boys; boys that could go to war.

    Besides, since the dawn of time, everything that man does is to please women; women are the most valued and important to men.

    This is where Christianity falls down; it attempts to subvert human nature.


  • #2845
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Peregrinus wrote: »

    No offence, but is there a certain circularity in the reasoning here?

    If people believe that, e.g., when they die they will go to heaven where there will be unlimited vanilla icecream with the topping of your choice, it is because they belong to a religion which teaches that. They don’t typically come to believe this, and then seek out a religion which teaches it in order to join that religion. Nor, if they aren’t raised believing this, do they come to believe it because they hear a street preacher say it, and it never occurs to them to doubt him. Belief comes from religion, not the other way around.

    In other words, the notion that people become Christians because they find the idea of Christian heaven both convincing and appealing strikes me as not very realistic. I’ve known quite a number of adult converts to Christianity, and I can honestly say that I’ve never met anyone for whom this was a factor in their conversion. (To be quite frank, excessively simplistic notions of heaven and hell are more often something of a barrier; people find them either incredible or childish.)　 And I’ve no reason to think that things were very different in the past.

    I think if you want to understand religious conversion - particularly "waves" of religious conversion, such as Christianity undoubtedly enjoyed in the early centuries after the death of Christ - you have to look at the social function of religion, and the place it has in people’s lives. The expectation of heavenly reward is a very striking idea, but it actually comes pretty low down on the list of things that motivates people, and gives meaning and significance to their lives, compared to having a secure place in society, enjoying good relationships with family and community, and finding a framework within which to address questions about how to live. It’s the effectiveness of Christianity - or any other religion - on those levels that we need to look at to explain its success (or lack of it).

    There are some distinctly secular explanations for the early growth of Christianity, one of them being the distinct social disadvantage of being identified as Jewish in the Roman Empire after the First Jewish War, and even more so after the Second Jewish War. The rise of Christianity is paralleled by a collapse in the number of Jews in the empire at this time, and a likely explanation is that an awful lot of Jews saw identifying as Christians as a way of retaining much that was familiar and comforting and important to them, without suffering the social and political disadvantages of being seen as Jewish.


    I don't see why you should make a claim of circular reasoning and follow with what you did. It seem reasonable to say that people will do things now for a reward that will come later. Have you never worked for a week in hand?

    Desperate times call for desperate measures; simple and desperate people can be convinced to do anything and if they can be convinced that there is a world beyond this one then they can be persuaded to die for a cause.

    If you are the product of a society that was persecuted for a cause then that cause would be the antithesis of your cause.

    And we all all products of a society that was at some time persecuted for a cause.


  • #2846
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    I don't see why you should make a claim of circular reasoning and follow with what you did. It seem reasonable to say that people will do things now for a reward that will come later. Have you never worked for a week in hand?
    I’m sorry, I didn’t explain myself clearly enough. The suggestion is that people become Christian because they believe that there is an afterlife in which they will be rewarded for doing so.

    But there is no reason to suppose that they believe such a thing unless they are already Christian.

    A variation on this argument might fly to explain why people who have been raised Christian remain so, but as an explanation for why they would convert to Christianity it does look circular to me; they converted to Christianity because they held beliefs which, on examination, only Christians would hold.


  • #2847
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Okay.



    No, you miss the point again; "I don't believe in God" is a reaction to a claim that a particular God exists.

    Atheists do not start with a list of Gods to reject, they deal with each God on an evidential basis. So far, they are unpersuaded by religious arguments. This does not amount to a claim that no God exists, just the ones that have been claimed to exist so far.

    which is only saying that atheists rely on the falsification principle or Popper rather than the verification principle of the Logical positivists and the associated problems of relying on, the verification Principle.

    Also you loaded the example with "which he wouldnt"

    The point is that an atheist may well become a non-atheist provided the evidence was compelling enough.

    Which is shifting the burden to theists to supply verification of "there is a god" rather than
    appealing to positive evidence that there is not a god!
    No, they try to falsify claim which have been validated by, for example, observational data.

    I have no idea how you observe "no god"
    No, an atheist cannot believe these things as there is as much data against them as there is against the existence of a Christian God or indeed the Norse Gods.

    so if you are not claiming a lack evidence for them and are instead claiming there much evidence against them
    -Care to produce this evidence you claim against the existance of god?
    You are aware "Evidence against" is not "lack of evidence for"as yu just made that point above with respect to falsification.
    You produced peer reviewed scientific evidence in support of the existence of a Christian God? Where?

    produced peer review research showing the claim that Norway was 70% atheist or the claim that the US is atheist and it is growing there is wrong.
    Yes, in the context of this argument but I don't see how this is so different from the position I outlined.

    Because you are saying there are two types of evidence. There may be different hypotheses but evidence is evidence proving or disproving the hypothesis. Evidence does not change into non evidence or another type of evidence because it proves or disproves something. You are adding unnecessary complications and that fudges what evidence actually is and encourages people to discount some evidence which is just as valid.
    Then you must believe that spiritualists can commune with the dead and that astrology is an exact science. These claims are falsifiable.

    Or do you take the view that all supernatural events outside the bible are the result of some kind of con-trick?

    Mostly yes to the first and no to the second question.
    You forgot to mention that all these things are sufficiently explained by evolution.

    Indeed, man is not the only animal to develop such skills.

    You are making the standard memetics error of confusing biological evolution of a species and sociological evolution of a society.

    how does biological evolution explain values, morality, judgement?
    how can you scientifically determine when an atomic weapon must be used?
    My view of the story of Christ? Theatre - a way for the Jews to convince non-Jews that they have access to an afterlife which the Jews had never claimed for themselves. It gave the Romans a diversion away from the Jews.

    If you take away the supernatural elements of the story of Christ, then you are left with a story of political subterfuge which has greater plausibility than the Biblical version.

    This would mean of course that the 'Virgin Birth' was actually the result of adultery; thta the rising of Lazarus was nothing more than a Derren Brown trick, etc.

    And you evidence the Bible and christianity was a made up trick is?
    And why is it still around and if atheism is a "better way" why are people not all atheist?
    And how come atheistic societies were all failures?
    With the human imagination! These things are always only seen by imagination.

    No! Things like miracles have been observed. Your answer may be it happened by chance but it was not imagined!

    Your lack of faith meands you cant accept what can not be explained by known laws like science. But in the past people didnt know as they do today and might well regard modren science as witchcraft. You however can not rely on that argument as believing in advancements which are indistinguishable from witchcraft are themselves by definition beliefs which indistinguishable from aliens or witchcraft.
    No, a true Messiah would have to be in communion with God. This is something that the Messiah would know. He might choose to lie about it though in which case: How many other lies were told?

    It is a Monty python joke based not on logic being disregarded by those who want to believe!
    Just like you want to believe science is sufficient for explaining everything.


  • #2848
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ISAW wrote: »
    Which is shifting the burden to theists to supply verification of "there is a god" rather than appealing to positive evidence that there is not a god!
    It's not shifting the burden of proof. Positive claims require positive evidence.
    We cannot provide positive evidence that there is not a god because it is a negative position (one that none of us are actually arguing for.)
    If you are claiming that there is a God, then you have to provide the evidence, otherwise, we're going to stick to the null hypothesis.
    ISAW wrote: »
    No! Things like miracles have been observed. Your answer may be it happened by chance but it was not imagined!
    No, miracles and other such supernatural events have never once been verified to have been observed in circumstances that exclude the possibility of delusion, misidentification, exaggeration or just plain out and out lying.
    If you think otherwise, you need to present them for us to be convinced.


  • #2849
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    King Mob wrote: »
    It's not shifting the burden of proof. Positive claims require positive evidence.
    We cannot provide positive evidence that there is not a god because it is a negative position (one that none of us are actually arguing for.)
    If you are claiming that there is a God, then you have to provide the evidence, otherwise, we're going to stick to the null hypothesis.

    This contradicts what you were saying!

    Earlier you proposed falsification. i.e that one can provide a test to say something like "there is a God" is shown to be false.
    now you are suggesting verification which is what you earlier stated is pointless!
    No, miracles and other such supernatural events have never once been verified to have been observed in circumstances that exclude the possibility of delusion, misidentification, exaggeration or just plain out and out lying.

    That is an "only true scotsman" fallacy. If you were given an example of a miracle that satisified all these conditions you would add another.

    and again you are relying on verification not falsification.

    How about the long list of cures at Lourdes? They are VERIFIED by independant medics. they were observed, were not fakes, not misidentified or exaggerated and dont contain lies.

    Are you going to add another "true Scotsman " criterion?
    If you think otherwise, you need to present them for us to be convinced.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau#Notable_cases

    Pieter De Rudder

    Visited Lourdes: After his healing, from 9 to 15 May 1878

    Pieter De Rudder was a farm labourer, born Jabbeke July 2, 1822, died March 22, 1898[6]. His recovery from a broken leg (1875) is one of the most famous recognized Lourdes miracles (a bronze cast of his bones is exhibited in the Lourdes Medical Bureau[7]), although it is not supposed to have occurred in Lourdes itself, but in a sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes at Oostakker near Ghent (Belgium, East Flanders).
    [8].
    Jeanne Fretel

    Visited Lourdes: 10 May 1948.

    Age 31, a student nurse from Rennes, France. Tubercular peritonitis with complications for seven years, extreme emaciation and oscillating fever. Comatose when brought to Lourdes, was given a tiny fragment of the Eucharist and awoke. Reported being "instantly and permanently cured" later that night while lying in her wheelchair beside the spring. She had not yet bathed in or drunk the water. Her cure was recognised officially on 11 November 1950.
    Brother Léo Schwager

    Visited Lourdes: 30 April 1952.

    Age 28, from Fribourg, Switzerland. Multiple sclerosis for five years. His cure was recognised on 18 December 1960.
    Alice Couteault, born Alice Gourdon

    Visited Lourdes: 15 May 1952.

    Age 34, from Bouille-Loretz, France. Multiple sclerosis for three years. Her cure was recognised on 16 July 1956.
    Marie Bigot

    Visited Lourdes: 8 October 1953 and 10 October 1954.

    Age 32, from La Richardais, France. Arachnoiditis of posterior cranial fossa (blindness, deafness, hemiplegia). Her cure was recognised on 15 August 1956.
    Ginette Nouvel, born Ginette Fabre

    Visited Lourdes: 21 September 1954.

    Age 26, from Carmaux, France. Budd-Chiari syndrome (supra-hepatic venous thrombosis). Her cure was recognised on 31 May 1963.
    Elisa Aloi, later Elisa Varcalli

    Visited Lourdes: 5 June 1958.

    Age 27, from Patti, Sicily. Tuberculous osteoarthritis with fistulae at multiple sites in the right leg. Her cure was recognised on 26 May 1965.
    Juliette Tamburini

    Visited Lourdes: 17 July 1959.

    Age 22, from Marseilles, France. Femoral osteoperiostitis with fistulae, epistaxis, for ten years. Her cure was recognised on 11 May 1965.
    Vittorio Micheli

    Visited Lourdes: 1 June 1963.

    Age 23, from Scurelle, Italy. Sarcoma (cancer) of pelvis; tumour so large that his left thigh became loose from the socket, leaving his left leg limp and paralysed. After taking the waters, he was free of pain and could walk. By February 1964 the tumour was gone, the hip joint had recalcified, and he returned to a normal life. His cure was recognized on 26 May 1976.
    Serge Perrin

    Visited Lourdes: 1 May 1970.

    Age 41, from Le Lion-d'Angers, France. Recurrent right hemiplegia, with ocular lesions, due to bilateral carotid artery disorders. Symptoms, which included headache, impaired speech and vision, and partial right-side paralysis began without warning in February 1964. During the next six years he became a wheelchair user, and nearly blind. While on pilgrimage to Lourdes in April 1970, he felt a sudden warmth from head to toe, his vision returned, and he was able to walk unaided. His cure was recognised on 17 June 1978.
    Delizia Cirolli, later Delizia Costa

    Visited Lourdes: 24 December 1976.

    Age 12, from Paterno, Sicily. Ewing's sarcoma of right knee. Offered amputation by her doctors, her mother refused and took her to Lourdes instead. On returning to Italy, her tumour rapidly regressed until no remaining evidence existed, although it left her tibia angulated, which required an operation (osteotomy) to correct. Her cure was recognised on 28 June 1989. She went on to become a nurse.
    Jean-Pierre Bély

    Visited Lourdes: 9 October 1987.

    Age 51, French. Multiple sclerosis. His cure was recognised on 9 February 1999.


  • #2850
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad



    From Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World;
    "The spontaneous remission rates of all cancers... is estimated to be something between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 100,000. If no more than 5% of those who come to Lourdes were there to treat their cancers, there should have been something between 50 and 500 'miraculous' cures of cancer alone. Since only 3 of the attested [by the Roman Catholic Church] 65 cures are of cancer, the rate of spontaneous remission at Lourdes seems to be lower than if the victims had just stayed at home."
    Just sayin ?


  • Advertisement
  • #2851
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ISAW wrote: »
    This contradicts what you were saying!

    Earlier you proposed falsification. i.e that one can provide a test to say something like "there is a God" is shown to be false.
    now you are suggesting verification which is what you earlier stated is pointless!
    I don't think you either understand my argument or what those words mean.
    Falsifying claims about a god is not positive evidence that there is no god, it is negative evidence against a God.
    We can provide plenty of these, but they are not positive arguments for atheism.
    ISAW wrote: »
    That is an "only true scotsman" fallacy. If you were given an example of a miracle that satisified all these conditions you would add another.
    First, it's called the "no true scotsman" fallacy. Second that's not how it's used, you're most likely thinking of "special pleading" which is again, not what I'm doing.
    And I'd love to see some examples of these.
    ISAW wrote: »
    and again you are relying on verification not falsification.

    How about the long list of cures at Lourdes? They are VERIFIED by independant medics. they were observed, were not fakes, not misidentified or exaggerated and dont contain lies.
    So leaving aside that the organisation is not independent, nor do they explain how they exclude the above possibilities, we are still left with quite a big problem.
    We have 12 cases from the last 150 years. And how many people visit Lourdes every year? According to wikipedia it's over 200 million visitors since it's opened.

    So that's 12 in 200 million.
    That's not really a miracle...


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement