Woman knocks down pope

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

If my elderly relatives were responsible for the same crimes as Herr Ratzinger I'd be just as happy to see them get their comeuppance. When someone like Herr Ratzinger can protect himself in his little kingdom and put himself above the law, unlike the average 82 year old, then it's no wonder people applaud when he gets knocked over.

A broken hip for his fellow sexually repressed male virgin is nothing compared to the harm these people visit on humanity. They are so cosseted and protected by power money and influence, a broken hip and the odd protest are mild compared to what they should be charged with were they equal in the law to any other 82 year old so making them out to be just like ordinary pensioners is ridiculous.

What crimes is he guilty of?

Sexually repressed male virgin? WTF has that to do with anything? He was an eighty seven year old Cardinal who has AFAIK neveer been accused of abusing anyone.

What harm has the church wrought on humanity?

And they are not ordinary pensioners, they are men in a position of power in the worlds largest religion. Not only that, they are seen as being close to God, and so should be afforded some respect.

Heh,my traditional god-fearing granny was over at our house for christmas and this came on the news. I laughed so hard I spewed milk from my mouth and she gave me the biggest filthy ever.

The_Minister wrote: »

??
What racism?

Jesus be a white man?

dan719 wrote: »

And they are not ordinary pensioners, they are men in a position of power in the worlds largest religion. Not only that, they are seen as being close to God, and so should be afforded some respect.

You see, the last line puzzles me. Why should i respect someone because they are close to "God"?

I am genuinely confused. I'll respect someone based off their actions, their words and their associations, not because of a position in an organisation, or their seemingly close placement to an apparent deity.

Glad to see that he pulled through it alright. It seems that people have had their chance to vent at the Pope and Roman Catholicism and I don't consider that all that bad a thing, better out than in. I'd have my own criticisms of how he would deal with things, but I don't think this justifies someone leaping out at him in the middle of a service.

Roman Catholicism is one option amongst many for people looking for Christianity, and certainly I don't think that anyone should be bound to the words of one man, but that people should think for themselves. The most important thing for me seems to be peoples relationship to God above and beyond affiliation to any particular church.

I don't see any major major reason to be furious at the Pope though.

MaybeLogic: That isn't what I was saying. I'm personally a Christian, and one who would think a lot about my faith and I think I'm fairly intelligent too :pac:, and about the world. I am saying that one doesn't have to be stuck strictly to what the Pope says, there are other options and what really matters is ones direct relationship to God.

There's no need to tar all believers as lacking intelligence.

I.E Don't rule out all of Christianity if you have a problem with Roman Catholicism.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Nothing that depends on the coercion of children from 5 years of age up can be described as an "option".

Children should be taught HOW to think not WHAT to think.

Teaching children about religious belief, and raising them to employ such in a moral code isn't wrong in the slightest. Parents raise their children in their own language, and they influence their children in numerous ways. This will happen irrespective of whether this parent is a Jew or an atheist, or both!

Are you suggesting that it should be illegal for parents to teach their own children about their own moral and religious outlook? This includes atheism.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Apart from the pope colluding with nazis, helping child rapists escape punishment and condoning the false imprisonment of women and children.....

The Pope doesn't represent me, and never has religiously. There are of course good things about him, and bad things like all of us.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

I'll clarify: no school should teach children that they are Catholic/Protestant/Jewish/Taliban/Republican/Hindu/Accountant/ or Fianna Fail children. It is an abuse of humanity and it's potential to inculcate division between members of the human race from childhood. It's also a betrayal of every new born baby not to make available to that baby all the advantages and benefits of human knowledge amassed up to that point along with all the doubts and to waste their potential by not arming to discover what has not yet been discovered.

I'm not sure about this either. Although I didn't accept belief in Christianity for myself until the end of my school career, in retrospect I appreciated it's CofI ethos. It benefited me greatly, and I don't think I'd like to deny others this opportunity.

What I will say is that atheists and agnostics should be able to bring their children to secular schools. However, denying people of faith the right to raise their children in a religious and moral ethos is wrong.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

In other words they should be taught science not Iron Age superstitions like Catholicism and it's attendant baggage train, Christianity.

Many Christians I know have a brilliant knowledge of science, and a good knowledge of Christian belief. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Parents influencing their children are not the same as an institution like organised religionism indoctrinating children with what has been shown over and over again to be a cobbled together collection of groundless bunkum.

You're not as extreme as I thought.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

What parent would claim to have discovered a perfect code for anything? The only one’s I know are religious and their code shatters into pieces as soon as it’s tested.

How has my moral code shattered into pieces, please explain?

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Atheism is not a moral code though granted when it's organised it can be just as religious as any religion. No one even needs a moral code. A moralist is a rigorist with a talent for justifying anything. According to religion so far just in the last few centuries it has been moral to burn, rape, torture and kill on an industrial scale. God told George and his gang to destroy Iraq. Apparently depending on which way a human has sex or whether or not they have a piece of paper they can be guilty of a moral "evil". Nature has no morals.

It's a viewpoint on religion.

As for according to religion, according to whose religion? Don't lump them all together. The Biblical standard encourages me to live a fulfilling life while recognising my responsibilities towards God, and towards my neighbour. I have yet to see how that is wrong.

People can choose this standard or they cannot. That is their choice, and it's not my position to judge their character.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

There is nothing even remotely "good" about Herr Ratzinger or the organisation he leads. The Roman Catholic Church is and always has been anti-human as is Christianity, the religion founded by a pagan Roman warlord. The Quakers might be an exception but as for Catholicism and its splinter groups all of them would improve the human race by disappearing tomorrow along with Islam and Judaism.

Even I as a non-Catholic think you're being incredibly unfair. The huge deal of work the Roman Catholic Church do overseas in less developed countries is phenomenal, and the world would be a worse place over all without it.

I think it has made leaps and bounds since the Reformation, something which I regard as a hugely positive step for Christianity. There are still problems, but there are problems in every organisation.

As I've been studying at university, I've noticed the huge role that Roman Catholicism has played in philosophy. It puts all other religious traditions really to shame. I'm glad that I've been able to see it from this perspective, particularly from the point of view of Aquinas, and Augustine.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

I'm not sure what the Church of Ireland "ethos" is exactly. I'm not even sure what an ethos is in general. In Catholic schools we know it means the right to discriminate, divide, label, indoctrinate, recruit (for a foreign State in Italy), display violent images and distort history in order to perpetuate that foreign state.[/font]

For us it was chapel 20 minutes in the morning, and religion classes, but most of the religion classes were done using the Junior Cert and Leaving Cert curriculum. There was a lot of discussion about common Christian views about how God created the world, as well as views about Judaism and Islam mainly. We touched on a few others such as Sikhism and Hinduism too.

Although, at school I was in classes with Catholics, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and probably others of other denominations, those who didn't believe, a Sikh and a Jew the school had an Anglican ethos.

The religion classes I took facilitated me in my own independent search into Christianity.

Ethos - Motivation of the school. It's possible to have a secular ethos too.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Having said that if any country must have a religion it is far better that that religion is a product of that country. Religion only serves the latent feelings of insecurity in the human mind.

Your views about religion are you own. Asking the State to impose this viewpoint on people who do not share your views isn't acceptable however. It's right to ask for the State to allow families of an atheist or an agnostic persuasion to be educated without religious ethos, but if families genuinely want their children to learn about Christianity in school that's fine by me.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

That they can be said to have such needs can't be divorced from the fact that organised religionism spends its time inculcating into them from childhood that very insecurity under the guises of "ethos" or "moral code". If an "ethos" teaches children that ultimately their responsibility is to an invisible cosmic deity that can and is constantly hijacked by human spokesmen for their own ends then that "ethos" is corrupting. A human’s responsibility should be to be pro-human. No child should be taught they can get away with murder or anything else by "repenting" to other world unknowns. [/font]

Actually, it doesn't. Christianity teaches that we are all moral actors in this world, and we will be accountable to God. We can make an earnest desire to repent and change our ways, or we can be punished as we deserve for them. Christianity doesn't teach that people shouldn't be responsible to the State, rather it does the opposite numerous times in the Scriptures.

Can I ask, what level of Biblical knowledge would you say that you have?

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

People who label themselves atheists/agnostics and their children likewise are contributing to the same problem. Schools should be for small new human beings. Schools especially should unify children and allow them to get to know each other as human beings. The fact that organisations like the Catholic Church fight tooth and nail to prevent them doing so say all we need to know about how much they fear children thinking for themselves.

I think there is a certain value in unifying children, and having secular schools. I just do not feel that all of them should be secular. There is a value in giving some people a religious education.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

The human mind is not so simple as to be either an A or B type mind. Different minds specialise in different disciplines and some spend a lifetime studying a particular subject. They can do this at the exact same them they hold other beliefs without ever questioning them. In many cases where those childhood beliefs are part and parcel of an organisational network, such as the Catholic Church operates, professing the second can and does often facilitate the advance of the first in terms of an individual career.

It's not A or B, precisely because A and B are different questions. A asks about how the world is, and B asks about why the world is. This is why one can be a Christian and interested in science. Personally, I think being a Christian in the modern world demands an interest in science due to it's role in the modern world. Christians are called to be aware of the world, while being distinct from it. Distinct so that we can live according to the Gospel. This is a struggle, but one that is worthy of going through.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Staring down a microscope and relentlessly questioning up to 5 PM on Friday and then on Sunday joining the community for Church on Sunday where the goings on are accepted without question are not as you put it mutually exclusive.

Again, stereotypes here. None of this is true for myself, most of the Christians on boards.ie if you go to that section, or the Christians I know in real life. In any Biblical discussion I have had with other people, it involves rigorous questioning as to establish what God is trying to communicate to us through the Bible.

I am a Christian precisely because I questioned. I haven't always been a Christian, rather I became one nearly 3 years ago.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Generally speaking no one can be said to be either intelligent or stupid. In fact for a human to be variously knowledgeable, expert, clumsy, inept, brilliant, well meaning to the point of doing damage, accidently getting some things superbly right depending on which area of human activity you measure them on typical of any human. A person could make a breakthrough in micro biology while being a complete amateur behind the wheel of a car and a devout Muslim/New Age Shaman/Scientoligist.

I unlike you don't see belief in something higher than ourselves to be a derogatory aspect. Open your mind and you might find out that I and others are a lot like you are. We're all trying to get through this world and understand it as best as we can.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

I bet I am…:D

You're a little, but then again people have referred to my beliefs as extreme too.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

I don’t know what it is.

I am a Christian, I believe God leads me to what is right and wrong, good and evil. Go figure.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

I’m not quite sure how anyone can recognise what responsibility they have towards an alleged being for which no one has any proof. Why should your first responsibly not be towards humanity and by extension all its relatives and it’s only know home: planet Earth?

Of course nobody can know anything of God until they try to have a relationship with Him. The biggest evidence for my belief is my experience with God, and the change I have seen in who I am since I have become a Christian, and the changes I have seen in other peoples lives.

Apart from this, there are of course other philosophical, historical, and other arguments that can provide us evidence for our beliefs. One will never become a Christian without a personal encounter with God however. You can show people all the evidence they want, but belief in God depends on a willingness to explore and to understand.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

What does the Biblical standard for the ownership of slaves or the mutilation of a child’s penis encourage you to do in your daily life? Keeping in mind such acts are supposed to be on the order of the same cosmic being to which you feel you have responsibilities. What is right about the Biblical standard for ethnic cleansing and the rape and enslavement of the defeated?

Circumcision isn't required in Christianity. It is a rite for those who are descended directly from Abraham. God considers people for their faith, their lives and their actions are more important than what mark they have on their flesh. This is the Christian view, Jews and Muslims will argue otherwise.

The Bible is opposed to rape, and as for the conquest of Israel, divine punishment comes into another category. I personally think that if God gives us the gift of life that He has the right to take it away. This world is His, and by living in this world, we are under His authority.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Every day in court the standards of the accused are being judged. That you choose not to is only possible by being part of a system which does it on your behalf.

You're right, but it isn't because of the courts. It's because of God. God judges man, I don't because I have no right to. I am a sinner like everyone else. I'm no better than anyone else, and I make this clear most of the times I have discussed this.

It's when you realise that you are not deserving of salvation, but that it has been freely given by God that one starts to realise what a big deal it is. Until one can get to this point of realisation, it's hard to think that anyone can become a Christian.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

The primary concern of the Roman Catholic Church is the Roman Catholic Church.

You're just ignoring the point now. Do the the Roman Catholic Church do good works over sea?

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

The first leap it made after the Reformation was the Counter Reformation. An awful lot of people died in agony as a result. No organisation which claims its head is the Vicar of what they claim is the one true cosmic deity can be excused as having organisational just like Intel or Smurfit packaging. This is especially true since that organisation claims to have some insight into a mysterious Truth that none other is party to. The leaps and bounds it’s made seem to have been made in a circle. They are covering up for their sexually deviant clerics now just as they were when Martin Luther stood up in Wittenberg. As they conned people with Indulgences in the Middle Ages they still do now. Herr Ratzinger promised young people a special “indulgence” for attending world youth day in Australia. Just as they lied about the child terrifying “fires of hell” then, the same Herr Ratzinger (infamous skittle imitator) has reiterated that such fires were real. He’s as mad as any of his predecessors.

I consider myself to be Reformed, that's why I consider the Reformation to be such a good thing. I don't consider it good because of the loss of life, I consider it good because it allowed people to investigate Christianity for themselves. It also allowed questioning of the Scriptures for the first time as the Bible was freely available in the common tongue of the people.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

I’d prefer to see things from the perspective of people who know far more than the pair of them could ever have imagined.

Aquinas and Augustine are two of the most enlightened philosophers Europe has ever seen. René Descartes a Jesuit thinker brought doubt to the scene of philosophy. In more modern philosophy you have people like Herbert McCabe, and Alastair McIntyre who have brought new perspectives to both the Philosophy of Religion and Moral Philosophy respectively. If you ever look into philosophical discourse, you'll find that Roman Catholicism is still very prevalent even in our age.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

I think it’s a great mark of the merry go round the Catholic Church drives human intellect onto that students should be studying a pair of religious anti female paranoiacs who knew far less about the world than any well educated 14 year old in the 21st century. I know 10 year olds who are learned professors relative to someone who only possessed the knowledge of Au and Ag. Philosophy is more or less the practices of “ifs” “ands” “buts” and “maybes”. It’s just the act of wondering about stuff.

It's clear that you aren't looking at this rationally. I'm dealing with this from a non-Catholic point of view, and it's stunningly clear how much Roman Catholic thinkers have brought to European philosophy.

As for what students study, we study it objectively. In a lot of cases at my university some of my lecturers are ordained priests in the Roman Catholic Church, some aren't. We go through philosophy in general irrespective of what people think about it, so that we get a full view of it.

I disagree with Nietzsche profoundly, yet I regard him as interesting. Some could argue his views are dangerous, but they remain because we must think critically about them. If the atheist is really intellectually honest, he'll say the same about Christian philosophers, and the Biblical canon.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

There was discussion about how a god created the world? Was there any discussion about if there was a god and for the those 3000 or so claimed to exist at one time or another why could none of them write their own name don’t mind put in a personal appearance on Prime Time?

We learned about secular humanism, existentialism, atheism, agnosticism and reductionism. All ideas which I currently oppose.

Your thinking is based on two assumptions:
1) Everything is material.
2) There is no objective meaning to existence.

Well if I held your assumptions, I'd agree with you, there wouldn't be a hope of God existing. The reality is that these assumptions result in a closing of mind rather than anything else.

If we deny the possibility of anything beyond this universe, then we have to deny God.

However, if you are to deny the possibility that anything exists beyond the universe, I think that is requiring of a very good reason as to why.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

So all in all children labelled like products in a supermarket, each one from a different religious corporation and the few odd independents. Even that scene is a disgraceful way to box children into divisions to serve the interests of the adults born before them and who should be responsible to them first and foremost.

Wanting the best moral education, and the best opportunity for spiritual development for your child is something done out of compassion and love. It doesn't mean that children are labelled, although in a few cases it does, rather it means that people get the opportunity to develop faith. People can reject this possibility.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Did you do any searching outside Christianity as in over, above and around it?

I was an agnostic up until the point when I investigated Christianity. I also looked at the Qur'an and by extension Islam.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

None of that tells me what the actual ethos consists of. I find Roman Catholics to be even worse in this respect. I’ve yet to meet one who could explain what the ethos was and especially how having this ethos meant practicing discrimination.

I've explained what it consisted of quite extensively. Just because a school has a Christian ethos doesn't mean that it is discriminatory. It merely means that it represents certain beliefs.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

What is supposed to be an education should not contain superstition.

That's your view, there is absolutely no reason why it should be imposed on any other parents. I regard atheism to be nonsense, but do I want to enforce this view? No.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

As for lumping all religions together I think you’re doing the same thing. There is no one religion which exists as a single organisation called Christianity.

How? We read from a single text, we hold to about 90% of the same beliefs. I don't see how it is unreasonable for me as a Protestant, and someone else as a Catholic to be both regarded as Christians.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Far more than the vast majority of those who are claimed to be members of the organised religions. Organisations claim their authority from the collections of the various disparate pamphlets, books, letters and scraps cobbled together in the various versions of a “book” which was never a book in the first place. I also know none of the characters could possibly have spoken English in the Iron Age.

That doesn't give me much of an answer. How acquainted are you with the Bible? Have you read it entirely for example?

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

What value would it be to those children who would be separated out for religious indoctrination? What gain is it to the children themselves? Whose purpose does it serve to label children into different lots?

I don't consider telling your child about your religious beliefs to be indoctrination in any shape or form. Parents influence their children constantly. Indoctrination would be drilling it in. Rather what happens for most of us is that our parents teach us a little about their faith, we learn some more at school, and we think for ourselves as to whether or not it is reasonable.

With some difficulty at the time, I found Christianity to be reasonable. That's why I am a Christian today.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Since you keep referring to your self as a Christian does that mean you are not attached to any organised branch of religionism? I thought you were Church of Ireland or do I have that wrong?

Yes, I'm CofI, but I can't say that I am influenced by what people say over what God has revealed in Scripture. I consider myself a Christian first and foremost, because I regard God's authority as coming first over man. I can think independently on the subject for myself, and I can reason with my believing friends about it. Many of these friends come from differing denominations (Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Catholic etc.), so I'm influenced in different ways too no doubt.

You seem to have the incorrect assumption that because I am currently a member of the CofI means that I am tied to the thought of ministers, and bishops in the CofI, this isn't the case at all. It's a church which has problems but which does seek out the Christian vision to life, and what is most comfortable for me. There is very little difference between my theological thought, and that of a lot of other Christians.

What really matters to me is the teachings Christianity brings to the world, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

The role of science in the modern world has shown that the claims that promoted, sustained and brought Christianity to prominence were all lies by a series of Popes. Being a Christian does not demand anything save what an individual mind chooses to believe it demands. Another person could just as validly claim, and just as sincerely believe, that following the teachings of Walt Disney through his cartoons was a worthy struggle. It’s all in the head.

You're not very good at citation are you. You're making unsubstantiated claims about Christianity being refuted. If Christianity were refuted, it wouldn't be as influential as it is in the world.

It appears that your desire to refute Christian faith is running away with you. If Christianity has been shown to be a lie, present your argument. I'd be amazed as you'd be the first individual ever to do this on boards.ie.

Most atheists wouldn't go as far as to claim what you just have.

The difference between Walt Disney and the Bible is that there is more evidence to substantiate it than there is for Walt Disney's work which is verifiably fiction. The Bible is not verifiably fiction.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

What you are referring to as a stereotype is not a stereotype. It’s a description of the condition of millions of minds around the planet. Lots of people can spend their time questioning and reasoning within the occupation they are employed in without ever questioning their religion. That you or a few others don’t does nothing to change that fact.

It's a stereotype to accuse all or even most Christians of not thinking about their beliefs. It's clear that you haven't noticed the huge amount of thought that is involved in both theology and in the Philosophy of Religion.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Christian is just a generic term like claiming you’re a hoover without saying which brand of hoover exactly. What do you mean by saying you’re a “Christian”?

It isn't really though. As I said already, there are core teachings that over 90% of Christians will be in agreement on including the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the authority of Scripture, the Virgin Birth, the atonement for sins on the cross, the moral authority of God, God as Creator. The list goes on and on of what we have in common.

What do I mean when I am a Christian, I mean that I regard Jesus Christ as Lord, and that I hold to orthodox Biblical based Christian doctrine along the lines of what is found in the Nicene Creed.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

So you don’t have to think for yourself. The god being just leads you along as if on a dig leash? How can an invisible entity which, if it’s responsible for what it’s followers claim it can do has to be an incredibly complicated entity, spend it’s time leading you and billions of other individuals to concepts that don’t exist in reality. How many of you is it supposed to be coaching at the same time? There is no such thing as right or wrong and certainly no such thing as evil.

To genuinely believe in something one has to think about it and find it reasonable. It's because I think about God, the creation and His authority that I can come to this conclusion. I follow God, because I have thought about how likely God is to exist, and the value of the salvation that He has offered.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

None of which is proof of anything.

If I may quote from Richard Dawkin's latest book which I am getting through at the minute:

As for the claim that evolution has never been 'proved', proof is a notion that scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting. Influential philosophers tell us we can't prove anything in science. Mathematicians can prove things - according to one strict view, they are the only people who can - but the best that scientists can do is fail to disprove things while pointing to how hard they tried. Even the undisputed theory that the moon is smaller than the sun cannot to the satisfaction of a certain kind of philosopher be proved the same way that, for example the Pythagorean Theorem can be proved.

Your standards are unreasonable even by scientific standards! What Dawkins and I if I were ever to have an audience with the man would disagree on would be how strong the evidence is for Christianity.

And it isn't that just mathematics is the only way to proof. It's doomed to be incomplete. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem shows that there is no way that all mathematical problems can even be brought to a reasonable solution.


The starting point is not "God doesn't exist". It's "God may exist, or God may not exist". The starting point isn't rejection.

The best we can do is explain why with reason why we hold the position I do:
"God exists"
or the position you do:
"God does not exist".

Both of these need to be argued for. This means that not only must I provide reasons for why I believe, but also that you must provide reasons for why you do not. Both of our positions go beyond "God may exist, or God may not exist" therefore both positions require justification.

This video explains why:


N.B - I realise the burden of proof is still on the theist, but this does not mean that the atheist does not have to provide reasoning for their position at all. It's what is lacking about modern athiest arguments (this problem didn't exist in the 20th century or before) in general. I guess I mean, just because you can criticise my position doesn't mean that you necessarily bring us closer to showing that there is no God.

Not only is mathematics the only thing where we can find coherent proof

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

In 1700 years of Roman Christianity there has not been one single piece of evidence for this god thing. More importantly it has never chosen to show up and speak for itself.

Really? I could cite many reasons why belief in God is reasonable. What I'd be interested in is what evidence do you have for dismissing God's existence?

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

If you don’t follow the god thing in the bibles which one do you follow? I had that the one in the second half was the one in the first half come on a visit because of the two nudist apple thieves or have I got that wrong?

What do you mean which one do I follow? There is only one Bible with numerous English translations.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

There is no such thing as right or wrong and certainly no such thing as evil.

This view is dangerous. So nothing is evil, or wrong? Then why do you have the right to give out to people. The rational reason is this. You hold another person to account because you expect better of them according to a certain standard of ethical behaviour. I.E There is a moral standard that you both share. If there wasn't most reasonable people would have the right to ask you the following:
Who are you to tell me what to do?
Why do you have authority over me?

If however, God is the standard of ethical behaviour. It seems obvious why one person can say that they should have known better, and it's clear why God would have authority over people and it's also clear as to why it is universal between two people. The reason is simply that we are living in God's world, and as such we should conform to His standard.

This is also a piece of evidence for God's existence. Evidence being something which points to God's existence over non-existence.

If you say that there is no standard of good or evil, you are enabling the worst kinds of atrocities against humanity. We need to be able to tell people that they are wrong particularly when they are a danger to others.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

The Bible can’t be for or against anything. It’s not even a proper book in the normal sense. Thinking the god thing did this or that or wants A, B, or C is just personally speculation. How do you know he gave you people a world and is that a separate one to the one the rest of humanity lives in?

It's a collection of books, concerning God's revelation and relationship with mankind. I think that this world is God's world, because I find it far more reasonable that there is a source for all that exists rather than nothing. It's because I actually seek for an answer to "Why is there something rather than nothing?" that I come to the conclusion that it is reasonable that there is a Creator.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Well I’m not a sinner whatever that’s supposed to mean. I’m way better than millions of other people and I’d hate to be so unappreciative of those humans who have strived for all the standards I enjoy that I’d denigrate their efforts by going through life with a “poor lowly” me attitude. I don’t find any attraction either in imagining there is a cosmic entity out there who would appreciate such servile self effacing grovelling. He sounds like a right bollocks all together if you don’t mind me saying so.

Considering that you don't believe that there is a standard for good or evil, of course you're not going to accept that you have ever done wrong. This is exactly like the two reasons why you don't believe in God, everything is material, there is no meaning, and there is no right and wrong.

If I believed in all of these three things, I would reject God too.

The question is is it really reasonable to make these assumptions:
1) Everything is material.
2) There is no objective meaning to life.
3) There is no standard of right and wrong.

No it isn't reasonable, and I think that you have to justify why you hold to these three points if you want me to come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

No they don’t. The Catholic Church Limited is a vast system. Within that system it recycles the money of the indoctrinated and rebrands it Vatican money so it can proselytize among the poor, the uneducated and the starving. Medicines Sans Frontiers helps people freely without selling an ideology unlike the Catholic Church which doles out company branded charity for it’s own perpetuation.

As I say, it appears that the doors are shut. The evidence of the charitable works of the Roman Catholic Church are obvious. In fact in comparison to secular humanitarian effort the Roman Catholic Church make a huge contribution.

This seems to be just denial out of convenience.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

You see you can wave away the oceans of blood this religious split caused and dismiss all the human suffering that resulted for your own selfish reasons. Why not, you’re only a human being after all. The problem is the same god thing who is supposedly leading you through life had to be the cause of all this religious strife and bloodletting caused by its own failure to communicate clearly with it’s followers. That describes a very clumsy and inept master of the world.

The blood caused by enforcing state atheism in Communist countries in the 20th century came to 100 million lives. Do you think this is any better?

People become corrupt, that happens whether or not you believe in God.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

[What has any philosopher ever proven beyond doubt?

Read the quote I gave you from Richard Dawkins. Are you really discrediting the work of all philosophers. I mean you are influenced by philosophy yourself.

The view that there is no right and wrong, good or evil comes from Friedrich Nietzsche.

Philosophy is about opinion. Everyone has opinions, philosophy provides a means for arguing for which opinion is more reasonable than the other. Nobody is based purely on facts we all have opinions. That's why it's important.

Atheism isn't a science, therefore I criticise it using philosophical means.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

[Which inventions of benefit to the human race have been directly invented by philosophers? Other than “if” “maybe” “possibly” or “in my opinion” what use is philosophy? That something is useful at one time does not make it useful forever. Philosophy is as bogus as theology. Philosophy is over: this is the age of science. People who need philosophers are people who can’t think for themselves.[/font]

Philosophy isn't "over" by any means, and neither is theology. It's motivating your very thought processes. You'd be surprised at how much certain philosophy affects what people think without knowing it. Particularly ideas of the 20th century such as postmodernism.

People have been saying such nonsense for hundreds of years now. Religion hasn't died and it's not on the way out, that's what the last decade alone has shown people. Neither is philosophy.

By the way science started in philosophy and then broke off separately. Likewise psychology was influenced by philosophy particularly Descartes philosophy on the mind.

People have been saying that their age has been a scientific age since the 18th century. It's a fallacy of the highest order to say that just because science is important, nothing else is important. It's ferociously anti-intellectual for a start.

I have seen a better take down at a morrissey concert .... Better security too.

Why into the Atheist section over the Christianity section? I hope you've had a good read of my last post though, it took quite a while.

As for the blasphemy law though, all the main churches in Ireland opposed it. So I don't see how it could be perceived as "progress for religion".