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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

1…8485878990…327

Comments

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


    Originally Posted by Penn;

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

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


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


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

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


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


    ISAW wrote: »
    what constitutes "evidence"?

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

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


  • #2585
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,197 ✭✭✭✭Penn


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


  • Advertisement
  • #2587
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,197 ✭✭✭✭Penn


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


  • #2589
    Andrewf20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,187 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    ISAW wrote: »
    what constitutes "evidence"?

    Is there evidence for parallel universes?

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

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


  • #2590
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,197 ✭✭✭✭Penn


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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


  • Advertisement
  • #2592
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

    This thead gets stupider by the day.


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


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


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


    ISAW wrote: »
    what constitutes "evidence"?

    Is there evidence for parallel universes?

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

    and that is from the current Pope!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  • Advertisement
  • #2602
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    But parallel universes dont claim to dictate how to best live our lives.

    If you create a parallel universe in every action you make and you can actually travel to all of them - a bit like the TV show sliders- could you not argue that morality is meaningless because in another universe you became a despot or criminal? What is the "best" if there are infinite ways and even if you pick a "good" way there will exist a myriad "bad " ways?

    Another example- If Marty Mc fly changed the past and emerged in a different parallel future in Back to the Future II then dint the parallel universe dictate his subsequent actions?


  • #2603
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ISAW: I don't believe the Hellenistic period of Christianity was positive. Mixing pagan philosophy with Christian belief never works. Indeed, it often fails. As much as I find some of Plato and Aristotle's work interesting. Their ideas are in many ways contradictory to Christianity. For example, Plato condones collective wives in his Plato's Republic. Essentially that any woman in society should be free for any man to use them as they please. Aristotle believed that the world would never end. These are just isolated examples. There are plenty more. This may have brought some advantages, but ultimately it was corrupting. Galileo was condemned by the RCC largely on the basis of Aristotle rather than Christianity.


  • #2604
    muppeteer
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭muppeteer


    philologos wrote: »

    muppeteer: To cut my response short. Christianity has a number of arguments for its unique handling of the truth around us which other religions as far as I can tell don't have. However, when I'm dealing with atheists, there's only one thing for consideration. How Christianity stands in terms of atheism. When I discuss with Muslims as I do occasionally here, I discuss Christianity in the light of Islam for example. Also, I can present Christianity as being unique without having to systematically go through each and every alternative, because Christianity addresses questions which are not found anywhere else.
    That is fine that you consider parts of Christianity's "evidence" unique and are therefore immune to criticism from arguments used against general theism. I will try to address them if you would like to present this unique evidence.

    As for Christianity addressing questions not found anywhere else, it should be enough to note that anything can be presented as a cure/answer to an invented ailment/question.

    I will however use general arguments on the parts of Christianity's evidence which are non unique, which are numerous.
    Any type of cosmological type argument would be non unique for example.
    Any type of revelation type argument would be non unique.
    Any type of prophecy based argument or salvation.....well you get the idea.


  • #2605
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    joseph brand wrote: »
    You left out the bit in bold when you quoted me. For shame. Tut tut tut!

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

    Just a quick Google and I found this nugget:

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

    That nugget would violate one of the central principles of cosmology - homogenity - and a create a contradiction with the two postulates of relativity equivalance and c in a vacuum being constant.

    Two trains both moving away from you in opposite directions at the speed of light do not see each other as moving away from each other at twice the speed of light.

    If you travel in a train at half light spped and you turn on a light it does not go back to where you came from at half the spped of light or go forward ahead of you ar one and a half times light speed.

    The apparent paradox is what relativity explains.


  • #2606
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Not at all. It's not when I consider parts of Christianity to be evident. Simply put, it's when one sees that the Biblical text is evidenced in the world around us through history, through archaeology, through the way human nature operates, through the nature of morality, through common sense, through looking at the raw nature of what is around us we can see that Christianity is backed up. I gave a few more reasons for why I believe here a whack about 3 years ago. A few weren't the best, but a number of them haven't been addressed properly since.

    The whole Gospel, is unique. There is nothing like it. I can argue this very clearly, and in terms of what I've already posted I've already shown that there are a number of unique arguments for Christianity over other religions.

    The thing is. For atheism, even if they did claim that Christianity is wrong. There is no positive reason as to why one would be an atheist rather than anything else.

    I've since realised, faith comes by hearing in the word of God. If you don't want to listen to it, you won't believe. It's really as simple as that. I can present lofty arguments, but ultimately they will fall flat if you refuse to acknowledge anything to do with Him.


  • #2607
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    philologos wrote: »
    Not at all. It's not when I consider parts of Christianity to be evident. Simply put, it's when one sees that the Biblical text is evidenced in the world around us through history, through archaeology, through the way human nature operates, through the nature of morality, through common sense, through looking at the raw nature of what is around us we can see that Christianity is backed up.

    The whole Gospel, is unique. There is nothing like it. I can argue this very clearly, and in terms of what I've already posted I've already shown that there are a number of unique arguments for Christianity over other religions.

    The thing is. For atheism, even if they did claim that Christianity is wrong. There is no positive reason as to why one would be an atheist rather than anything else.
    So even if Christianity was proven a lie and you had to abandon it, you would search for another faith rather than assume an atheistic position?
    We might be closer to each other that I care to admit.


  • #2608
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    So even if Christianity was proven a lie and you had to abandon it, you would search for another faith rather than assume an atheistic position?
    We might be closer to each other that I care to admit.

    I wouldn't necessarily say this, but it what I am saying is that even if one did it, it doesn't make atheism a scrap more convincing than anything else.


  • #2609
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Penn wrote: »
    Apologies, I said Bible where I should have said Old Testament.

    The same objection applies as before. The Hebrew Bible didn't pop into existence. It was formed over time by human hands, influenced by experience (which happens to include culture) and, if you are of a mind, subject to Divine inspiration. How do you propose that the Israelites could have taken ideas and inspiration form a series of texts that had not yet been written? Never mind collated into what we now call the Old Testament.
    Penn wrote: »
    As for how the same religion can be different in different cultures, I fail to see how that can be (I understand it happens, but fail to see why it happens).

    I would have thought it obvious. We all interpret information. That goes for referring decisions (“He dived!” “He was tripped”), scientific research, your decision to look at the traffic and to cross the road or not road, your personal interactions with friends and family, understanding the content of Holy Books and so on. Language requires interpretation, as do concepts and symbols. None of them are full containers. They all allow, to one extent or another, us to pour our own understanding into them. This, of course, isn't to suggest that there is no meaning apart from the meaning we make.
    Penn wrote: »
    Wouldn't that mean that Christians in one of those areas are wrong?

    If we assume for a moment that Christianity is correct, then given that mutually exclusive theologies exist between Christian denominations, I think that we can state with confidence that at lest some Christians are at least partially wrong at lest part of the time. If Christian hubris gave you the impression that we are think that we are correct all the time then I'm sorry for that.

    Penn wrote: »
    Well, why are we waiting? Why do we not have this information yet? Wouldn't the full and complete revelation finally prove that God exists and outline everything?

    The short answer is “I don't know”. God could have many reasons for waiting or doing things different to how you would like them done, none of which I am privy to. In fact, I would expect not to know - what with God being God and me being a finite being who at times doesn't know his metaphorical arse from his literal elbow. But a lack of information about Gods plan – the “why doesn't God... ” type question - is different to providing proof of God's existence.
    Penn wrote: »
    There are currently 7bn people in the world, only about 2.1bn or so (from a quick Google check) are Christians. Wouldn't that mean that 4.9bn people are going to Hell? I mean, if they don't believe in God or commit acts which to their religion is okay, but not okay by the Christian religion, wouldn't they go to Hell?

    Again, I don't know. But you seem to be labouring under the impression that we are condemned to damnation for the though crime of not believing. Evidentially Satan believes in God. For that matter, what does damnation mean, I wonder? Does it mean eternal punishment, annihilationism or something else?One other thing is evident – not all people in the Bible who knew God could be described as Christian. This was for the simple reason that Christianity didn't exist up until Christ.

    The Bible is also full of righteous people who committed acts "which is not OK by the Christian religions" or Jewish one for that matter. These people are called humans.
    Penn wrote: »
    As for my comment about 'religion' being the absolute truth: Why would anyone commit themselves to a religion which they felt wasn't the absolute truth?

    I can't answer for everyone, but I think there is a distinct difference between adherence to a set of beliefs and tenets that you believe leads to absolute truth and stating that every dogma of X is the absolute truth.

    Do you mind answering my question and telling me what you think religion is?
    Penn wrote: »
    But who decides what is truth and what is law/practices? Is the fact that the Bible deems homosexual acts to be a sin the truth, or a law/practice which can be changed? How is this determined?

    That's the point we all sit down and try to use our intellects to come up with answers to the big questions.


  • #2610
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    So even if Christianity was proven a lie and you had to abandon it, you would search for another faith rather than assume an atheistic position?
    We might be closer to each other that I care to admit.

    Your 'need for a god' overrides the importance of having 'proof of a god'?

    Debating with you is about as useful as putting on a great movie for my shoes to watch, while I go out.

    Assuming you are a male, Islam might be a decent alternative. You can treat women however you please. Potentially you could have a couple of wives. Happy days.


  • Advertisement
  • #2611
    muppeteer
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭muppeteer


    philologos wrote: »
    Not at all. It's not when I consider parts of Christianity to be evident. Simply put, it's when one sees that the Biblical text is evidenced in the world around us through history, through archaeology, through the way human nature operates, through the nature of morality, through common sense, through looking at the raw nature of what is around us we can see that Christianity is backed up.

    The whole Gospel, is unique. There is nothing like it. I can argue this very clearly, and in terms of what I've already posted I've already shown that there are a number of unique arguments for Christianity over other religions.

    The thing is. For atheism, even if they did claim that Christianity is wrong. There is no positive reason as to why one would be an atheist rather than anything else.

    Would you like to rebut any of my previous points which dealt with some of your assertions? Such as evidence quote:
    through history, through archaeology, through the way human nature operates, through the nature of morality, through common sense through looking at the raw nature of what is around us we can see that Christianity is backed up.

    I would claim Christianity is wrong in many interpretations but lets stick to the ones you presented as evidence in support of Christianity above.


    Some positive reasons for atheism have been presented which you haven't addressed yet. As convincing as they are they are still unnecessary to rejecting the concept of gods due to lack of evidence of the theist position. And a lack of evidence should result in the default position of lack of belief surely?

    Just spotted your edit.
    I've seen that post before and you are right those arguments are not the best. Most of them are duplicated in your previous post to which I responded so you may counter that one if you wish and address my attention to anything which I've missed in the older one.

    You say the word of God tells us about the world we all live in is better than any other explanation. Yet when we find the world does not correspond as your God says it should, it is because we don't want to listen, not because we find gaping holes in your Gods explanation? Sounds like you think atheists are being willfully ignorant of what should be obviously a better explanation. I can assure you, in my humble self at least, that that assumption would be very mistaken.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement