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…187188190192193…196

Comments

  • #9452
    Harika
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,491 ✭✭✭Harika


    J C wrote: »
    Ah ... I see your error ... you are confusing omniscience with changing ones mind ... You are correct that God is capable of changing His mind (in response to fervent prayer or repentance, for example) ... but He already knows that He will do so ... so this doesn't affect either His omnipotence i.e. ...

    That is like the solution to the old magic question: "Can god make a burrito so hot he cannot eat it himself?" Where Ray Comfort answered "Yes he can" What is a little ridiculous but does not solve the question of omniscience/omnipotence imo as it is purely logical contradiction but even for god there might be exceptions, also like people are not burned anymore when there is a good football match on Sunday and church is skipped.
    For Mengele it can be doubted that he acted on reason, as his selection process was not based on facts but on his decision on a split second observation, this cannot be based on facts.
    For his tests, he was catholic, so even with knowing the gospels he was able to do these crimes on humanity, but again here, I could not find proof that he used religion as justification for this. He was crazy or obsessed that the German race is better than everyone else what made it easy to justify those crimes for him.
    For the french revolution, the feudalism, that crashed the country, was supported by the catholic church, and instead of speaking for the people with the help of the gospel, supported the reigning class. This is one of the reasons why France adopted secularism very early. It even wanted to completely get rid of religion but failed, instead religion was stripped of its influence.
    Both crime and uprising were not motivated by logic or religion, religion just stood on the side and let it come to this.
    Anyway this puzzles me, even when this was done by humans, and even more crimes were justified by religion, I understand that this was done against the will of god. Fair enough, but when those people harm your reputation, quite possible even more than before the flood or Sodom and Gomorrah, wouldn't it make sense to come in here and stop it, cause overall this harms the brand?
    Anyway, we can agree to disagree about the existence of god in the epic battle of feeling against logic that ends in a draw. How do we handle living together in one state with on one side religion that wants to influence in the name of god and secular people that might have a problem with that, and the other way around?


  • #9453
    ABC101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    marienbad wrote: »
    I don't follow you vis-à-vis my point ?

    The example you gave in your post. Ie God being outside space time as a believer might say / could say.

    You refer to this as a position from a believer, yet I am saying that this is not just a position from a believer, but from a position of logic.


  • #9454
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    ABC101 wrote: »
    The example you gave in your post. Ie God being outside space time as a believer might say / could say.

    You refer to this as a position from a believer, yet I am saying that this is not just a position from a believer, but from a position of logic.

    How is it logical that a thing can be in a realm with no defined dimensions, or none at all...and also somehow interact with our realm?


  • #9455
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Then show me someone with a lost limb who prayed to your god specifically and had it re-grow. This is an extraordinary claim to make and thus it requires extraordinary evidence. How about something like the person praying while surrounded by a team of doctors, who then sign a document promising to resign if ever it's shown that this regrowing limb was faked?
    God generally doesn't suspend the normal workings of the Laws of Nature, as established by Him ... and when He does, it's a miracle.
    ... we have no right therefore to expect God to do this and it very rarely happens.


  • #9456
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ABC101 wrote: »
    The example you gave in your post. Ie God being outside space time as a believer might say / could say.

    You refer to this as a position from a believer, yet I am saying that this is not just a position from a believer, but from a position of logic.

    You are missing my point - I just used those as examples , my issue is that you can say anything you like and not offer anything to substantiate it other than this is what I believe .


  • Advertisement
  • #9457
    ABC101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    J C wrote: »
    God generally doesn't suspend the normal workings of the Laws of Nature, as established by Him ... and when He does, it's a miracle.
    ... we have no right therefore to expect God to do this and it very rarely happens.

    That's correct, God is under no commitment to perform miracles.


  • #9458
    ABC101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    marienbad wrote: »
    You are missing my point - I just used those as examples , my issue is that you can say anything you like and not offer anything to substantiate it other than this is what I believe .

    The point I am making is that one does not have to be a believer to say certain things.

    In the example you used.... This viewpoint can be held by a believer AND any other person (whether they be a believer or an atheist) if they are willing to hold a logical viewpoint.


  • #9459
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    J C wrote: »
    God generally doesn't suspend the normal workings of the Laws of Nature, as established by Him ... and when He does, it's a miracle.
    ... we have no right therefore to expect God to do this and it very rarely happens.

    1) You're contradicting yourself (before, you said "sometimes happens", now it's rarely)
    2) This strikes me as mighty convenient - you say this magical deity does things that violate the laws of physics, and when I press you to substantiate this claim, you don't. You move the goalposts such that your claim cannot be substantiated.

    Why should I believe your claim that God answers prayers, but only does it rarely? Especially when you don't provide evidence?


  • #9460
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ABC101 wrote: »
    The point I am making is that one does not have to be a believer to say certain things.

    In the example you used.... This viewpoint can be held by a believer AND any other person (whether they be a believer or an atheist) if they are willing to hold a logical viewpoint.

    You are still missing my point- forget the examples I used - the point I am making is that in order to rebut any and all arguments all a Believer has to say is 'this is what I believe 'and offer no supporting arguments

    So in fact the thread title is misleading - it is not a debate- it is just a talking shop where one side has to use reason logic science to advance their arguments , the other side does also but when such reason fails then the guillotine of 'I believe' or 'You can't question my beliefs' is applied to stop that particular discussion.


  • #9461
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Harika wrote: »
    That is like the solution to the old magic question: "Can god make a burrito so hot he cannot eat it himself?" Where Ray Comfort answered "Yes he can" What is a little ridiculous but does not solve the question of omniscience/omnipotence imo as it is purely logical contradiction but even for god there might be exceptions, also like people are not burned anymore when there is a good football match on Sunday and church is skipped.
    My answer is that God wouldn't bother (making a burrito so hot that He cannot eat it Himself) ... as this is pure tautology.

    Harika wrote: »
    For Mengele it can be doubted that he acted on reason, as his selection process was not based on facts but on his decision on a split second observation, this cannot be based on facts.
    Mengele acted on pure reason ... scientifically identifying people that He regarded as 'unfit' ... and let's face it, all of us are 'unfit' at some time in our lives.
    What he didn't do was to morally assess what he was doing ... which was treating people like animals to be experimented on to produce some supposedly 'Rational' medical results.

    Harika wrote: »
    For his tests, he was catholic, so even with knowing the gospels he was able to do these crimes on humanity, but again here, I could not find proof that he used religion as justification for this. He was crazy or obsessed that the German race is better than everyone else what made it easy to justify those crimes for him.
    For the french revolution, the feudalism, that crashed the country, was supported by the catholic church, and instead of speaking for the people with the help of the gospel, supported the reigning class. This is one of the reasons why France adopted secularism very early. It even wanted to completely get rid of religion but failed, instead religion was stripped of its influence.
    Both crime and uprising were not motivated by logic or religion, religion just stood on the side and let it come to this.
    Anyway this puzzles me, even when this was done by humans, and even more crimes were justified by religion, I understand that this was done against the will of god. Fair enough, but when those people harm your reputation, quite possible even more than before the flood or Sodom and Gomorrah, wouldn't it make sense to come in here and stop it, cause overall this harms the brand?
    God has granted us free-will ... and of necessity, this means that we can choose to do good or evil.
    ... and if every time somebody chooses to do evil, God steps in and stops them ... we wouldn't have free-will at all ... we'd be just glorified robots pre-programmed to do as God commanded
    Harika wrote: »
    Anyway, we can agree to disagree about the existence of god in the epic battle of feeling against logic that ends in a draw. How do we handle living together in one state with on one side religion that wants to influence in the name of god and secular people that might have a problem with that, and the other way around?
    Genuine liberalism and respectful tolerance of diversity of opinion is the solution IMO.


  • Advertisement
  • #9462
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    1) You're contradicting yourself (before, you said "sometimes happens", now it's rarely)
    God seems to be more inclined to answer prayer when He doesn't have to suspend the Laws of Nature ... that is why I used 'sometimes' to describe the general propensity of God to answer prayer ... and 'very rarely' to describe answers to prayer involving the local suspension of Natural Law.

    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    2) This strikes me as mighty convenient - you say this magical deity does things that violate the laws of physics, and when I press you to substantiate this claim, you don't. You move the goalposts such that your claim cannot be substantiated.
    Convenient or otherwise, that's just the way it is.
    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Why should I believe your claim that God answers prayers, but only does it rarely? Especially when you don't provide evidence?
    You don't have to believe anything, if you don't want to.


  • #9463
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    God seems to be more inclined to answer prayer when He doesn't have to suspend the Laws of Nature

    So how then do you tell the difference between an event that just happens naturally without violating the laws of physics and something that happens without violating the laws of physics as a result of prayer?
    Methinks there is nothing to distinguish them, therefore there is no rational reason to believe one event is due to a prayer and the other is not.
    This violates Occam's Razor, in that you are introducing an extra agent to an explanation that is not needed.


  • #9464
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Here's the question - how do you differentiate between a faith that Person A has, that happens to be built on true/moral premises, and faith that Person B has, that happens to be built on false/immoral premises? The only thing that A and B have is faith that this thing is true - they're not applying reason or logic to it.
    By their fruits shall you know them.


  • #9465
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    J C wrote: »
    By their fruits shall you know them.

    This is a fancy way of saying "Examine them, see what they do". Thing is, this can't be done if all you're doing is applying faith.


  • #9466
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    So how then do you tell the difference between an event that just happens naturally without violating the laws of physics and something that happens without violating the laws of physics as a result of prayer?
    Methinks there is nothing to distinguish them, therefore there is no rational reason to believe one event is due to a prayer and the other is not.
    This violates Occam's Razor, in that you are introducing an extra agent to an explanation that is not needed.
    You can never be certain ... but when numerous prayers are answered, then you can either put it down to very very good luck ... or God.


  • #9467
    Roquentin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Roquentin


    J C wrote: »
    You can never be certain ... but when numerous prayers are answered, then you can either put it down to very very good luck ... or God.

    everything is probability in life


  • #9468
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    This is a fancy way of saying "Examine them, see what they do". Thing is, this can't be done if all you're doing is applying faith.
    Who says that People of Faith apply only faith?
    We apply logic, observation and reason as well.


  • #9469
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Roquentin wrote: »
    everything is probability in life
    Probability can indeed be applied to answered prayer ... and to living processes and the latter application of probability, proves that God exists.
    ... and if you want to take this forward, please adjourn to the other mega-thread.


  • #9470
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    Who says that People of Faith apply only faith?
    We apply logic, observation and reason as well.

    except when you don't - that is my whole point


  • #9471
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    except when you don't - that is my whole point
    ... that exception applies everyone ... in different ways and at different times.


  • Advertisement
  • #9472
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    ABC101 wrote: »
    The example you gave in your post. Ie God being outside space time as a believer might say / could say.

    You refer to this as a position from a believer, yet I am saying that this is not just a position from a believer, but from a position of logic.

    Yes it is logical to say that in the sum total of reality god has no existence, that he only exists outside everything that is real.

    Thankyou for finally admitting that basic fact. And from there we can see the whole god position fall away into the nothing that it is.


  • #9473
    ABC101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Yes it is logical to say that in the sum total of reality god has no existence, that he only exists outside everything that is real.

    Thankyou for finally admitting that basic fact. And from there we can see the whole god position fall away into the nothing that it is.

    Premature to blow you trumpet.

    Brian, by attempting to put words in my mouth, you are distorting the truth for your own agenda. I was referring to the view point of logic, and that logical conclusions can be arrived at by a person who believes and also by a person who does not believe.

    The example which marianbad gave, is just one of many which could be used.


  • #9474
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    ... that exception applies everyone ... in different ways and at different times.

    Yes but they can be pulled up on it , in this thread 'believers' can't


  • #9475
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    Yes but they can be puled up on it , in this thread 'believers' can't
    It is just as illogical to not believe in God as it is to believe in Him, without evidence.
    Non-believers have little more evidence for their belief that He doesn't exist, than something like 'we can't see Him, so therefore He doesn't exist'!!!

    I have studied the physical and logical evidence for the existence of God (or a being of God-like capacity) and I have found it to be so persuasive as
    make it a practical certainty they He exists.


  • #9476
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    It is just as illogical to not believe in God as it is to believe in Him, without evidence.
    Non-believers have little more evidence for their belief that He doesn't exist, than something like 'we can't see Him, so therefore He doesn't exist'!!!

    I have studied the physical and logical evidence for the existence of God (or a being of God-like capacity) and I have found it to be so persuasive as
    make it a practical certainty they He exists.

    Which God ?


  • #9477
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    Which God ?
    There is One God ... and many wannabes.:)


  • #9478
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    There is One God ... and many wannabes.:)

    Is that the God of the Bible ?


  • #9479
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    Is that the God of the Bible ?
    Yes, He seems to 'fit the bill' allright.:)


  • #9480
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    Yes, He seems to 'fit the bill' allright.:)

    Amazing all those believers in the Koran think just like you !


  • Advertisement
  • #9481
    lufties
    Registered Users Posts: 3,507 ✭✭✭lufties


    J C wrote: »
    Yes, He seems to 'fit the bill' allright.:)

    the invisible bearded man who lives in the sky, who wears the white tunic?


  • #9482
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    Amazing all those believers in the Koran think just like you !
    Amazing allright!!!

    ... until you think about it ... and realise that Islam is a break-away religion from Christianity ... with the schism occurring about 620 AD.:)


  • #9483
    kingchess
    Registered Users Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    So he is predestined to behave in such and such a way all the time??He can not change what he will have for dinner next week/a thousand years in the future??


  • #9484
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    lufties wrote: »
    the invisible bearded man who lives in the sky, who wears the white tunic?
    ... that's just artistic licence.:)


  • #9485
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    kingchess wrote: »
    So he is predestined to behave in such and such a way all the time??He can not change what he will have for dinner next week/a thousand years in the future??
    He behaves in accordance with His omnipotent and omniscient magnificent majesty.
    ... and He can have everything (or nothing) for dinner next week or a thousand years from now, if He so chooses.


  • #9486
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    Amazing allright!!!

    ... until you think about it ... and realise that Islam is a break-away religion from Christianity ... with the schism occurring about 620 AD.:)

    That is your version of history Islam might disagree with you , And then we have Catholics and Jews, Mormons ,Baha'i's and right on down to the tiny Rastafarians , are they all wrong too ?


  • Advertisement
  • #9487
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    That is your version of history Islam might disagree with you , And then we have Catholics and Jews, Mormons ,Baha'i's and right on down to the tiny Rastafarians , are they all wrong too ?
    ... and the One God looks down on them all, God bless them.:)


  • #9488
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    ... and the One God looks down on them all, God bless them.:)

    they are still wrong though according to you ?


  • #9489
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    they are still wrong though according to you ?
    I prefer to term it various degrees of right.:)


  • #9490
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    I prefer to term it various degrees of right.:)


    But not as right as you though


  • #9491
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    ABC101 wrote: »
    Premature to blow you trumpet.

    You said god exists outside of spacetime. That is the exact same statement as saying that god exists outside of reality. Therefore I am right in stating that you admitted that god doesn't exist in reality.

    Just because you don't understand the implications of the words you say and write doesn't make their meaning any different than what they are.


  • Advertisement
  • #9492
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    ... and He can have everything (or nothing) for dinner next week or a thousand years from now, if He so chooses.

    I'm having Turkey, Happy Christmas JC and all our friends who spar with us throughout the year, hopefully the great debate will continue in a friendly and interesting manner, post Christmas and into 2015.


  • #9493
    ABC101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    You said god exists outside of spacetime. That is the exact same statement as saying that god exists outside of reality. Therefore I am right in stating that you admitted that god doesn't exist in reality.

    Just because you don't understand the implications of the words you say and write doesn't make their meaning any different than what they are.

    God is very real, do you seriously think that I do not believe that?

    No thanks to you for the condescending comment about what you percieve to be a lack of understanding on my part.


  • #9494
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    But not as right as you though
    You are indeed correct ... but it goes without saying ... that nobody is as right as me ... :D:):eek:

    Happy Christmas!!!


  • #9495
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    ABC101 wrote: »
    God is very real, do you seriously think that I do not believe that?

    And that is all you have is belief. There is no evidence for god in the whole of the known universe, and while there is no evidence to preclude his existence, it is becoming increasingly obvious that there is no need for any sort of god and in that situation William of Ockham demands that we refuse to accept the god hypothesis (it doesn't satisfy the rule of least parts, of course we are ignoring the fact that a god centric explanation does not as satisfactorily explain reality as the naturalistic evidence based one, but as it is Saturnalia I'm in a generous mood) until we actually have evidence (and the bible is not evidence, in any unbiased version of what evidence means) that indicates he she or it actually exists (and I will guarantee you that if god exists it will have no relation to the spoilt five year old as depicted in the bible).

    Oh and I wasn't condescending in my last few points to you, I was simply pointing out that through your scientific illiteracy (because in scientific terms space and time are the sum total of reality) you have inadvertently conceded the point to your opposition.


  • #9496
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    ABC101 wrote: »
    God is very real, do you seriously think that I do not believe that?

    Of course you do. I don't think anyone would doubt it. If you were born in Japan it is most likely that you would belong to the Shinto religion, because that is what you would have been taught as a child. You would probably speak just as trenchantly about the Shinto beliefs as you now do about the Christian beliefs.
    If you were born in Saudi Arabia you would believe in Islam and assure us all that Muhammad was real and that his teachings were the way forward.
    Religions indoctrinate young minds. The effects of that indoctrination usually lasts for life and forms the basis for the particular religious beliefs held as fact by religious people.


  • #9497
    ABC101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    Safehands wrote: »
    Of course you do. I don't think anyone would doubt it. If you were born in Japan it is most likely that you would belong to the Shinto religion, because that is what you would have been taught as a child. You would probably speak just as trenchantly about the Shinto beliefs as you now do about the Christian beliefs.
    If you were born in Saudi Arabia you would believe in Islam and assure us all that Muhammad was real and that his teachings were the way forward.
    Religions indoctrinate young minds. The effects of that indoctrination usually lasts for life and forms the basis for the particular religious beliefs held as fact by religious people.

    But if only it were that simple.

    If faith in a higher being.... was just about believing. Nothing more. Then it is entirely probable.... that the number of believers would diminish, and eventually reduce to a minor number (perhaps insignificant number) of the planets population.

    But faith... is not just about believing, as a person carries out / performs their faith in their lives... confirmations are given to the believer by God. Not only is there a inner peace, a inner certainity, a inner confirmation, a core confirmation, but a relationship develops between the believer and God. Problems get mysteriously solved, a great Joy can be obtained in trust in God.

    Why else would there be so many believers?

    I am aware of the Theory Argumentum ad populum... which I would assume all atheists to be familiar with.

    But as I mentioned before.... the relationship between a believer and God is NOT a one way relationship. It is a two way street, a two way communication, not a one way communication.

    When a believer desires to get closer to God, the distance between the two can narrow, so that the believer actually sees / experiences / witnesses God working in their life.

    I think this could be one of the reasons why believers become missionaries, and debate with other people ( including atheists), because of the great joy they know exists... and rather than being selfish (keeping it to themselves), they share it among others.

    You mention that Religion indoctrinates minds. No... I disagree... .Religion if thought in the correct manner (primarily by parents) actually opens the persons mind to spirtuality.

    Your comment The effects of that indoctrination usually lasts for life and forms the basis for the particular religious beliefs held as fact by religious people is not true in all cases. For example I know lapsed Catholics (as I am sure you do too).

    But for religious beliefs to be held as fact...... again... you are failing to understand the great joy which befalls the believer, the great Joy which occurs when the believer invites God into their life, when the believer attempts to understand God, when the believer tries.


  • #9498
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ABC101 wrote: »
    But if only it were that simple.

    If faith in a higher being.... was just about believing. Nothing more. Then it is entirely probable.... that the number of believers would diminish, and eventually reduce to a minor number (perhaps insignificant number) of the planets population.

    But faith... is not just about believing, as a person carries out / performs their faith in their lives... confirmations are given to the believer by God. Not only is there a inner peace, a inner certainity, a inner confirmation, a core confirmation, but a relationship develops between the believer and God. Problems get mysteriously solved, a great Joy can be obtained in trust in God.

    Why else would there be so many believers?



    I am aware of the Theory Argumentum ad populum... which I would assume all atheists to be familiar with.

    But as I mentioned before.... the relationship between a believer and God is NOT a one way relationship. It is a two way street, a two way communication, not a one way communication.

    When a believer desires to get closer to God, the distance between the two can narrow, so that the believer actually sees / experiences / witnesses God working in their life.

    I think this could be one of the reasons why believers become missionaries, and debate with other people ( including atheists), because of the great joy they know exists... and rather than being selfish (keeping it to themselves), they share it among others.

    You mention that Religion indoctrinates minds. No... I disagree... .Religion if thought in the correct manner (primarily by parents) actually opens the persons mind to spirtuality.

    Your comment The effects of that indoctrination usually lasts for life and forms the basis for the particular religious beliefs held as fact by religious people is not true in all cases. For example I know lapsed Catholics (as I am sure you do too).

    But for religious beliefs to be held as fact...... again... you are failing to understand the great joy which befalls the believer, the great Joy which occurs when the believer invites God into their life, when the believer attempts to understand God, when the believer tries.

    What relevance has this to the point it is supposed to be answering ?


  • #9499
    ABC101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    marienbad wrote: »
    What relevance has this to the point it is supposed to be answering ?

    Well if you look at the post of Safehands... it was an attempt to answer his / her comment


  • #9500
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ABC101 wrote: »
    Well if you look at the post of Safehands... it was an attempt to answer his / her comment

    It just ignores completely that post ! Safehand is making the point that what you believe is directly related to where you were born ,and you just ignore it completely and set out what belief means to you. Something totally irrelevant to the post .


  • #9501
    ABC101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    marienbad wrote: »
    It just ignores completely that post ! Safehand is making the point that what you believe is directly related to where you were born ,and you just ignore it completely and set out what belief means to you. Something totally irrelevant to the post .

    Let Safehands speak / write for himself / herself, unless you are both the same person / blogger.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement