Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

1…134135137139140…327

Comments

  • #4082
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Alexander may have been treated as a 'God' by his subject, but that was not uncommon, and his following stopped quite quickly after his death.

    http://www.coinsoftime.com/Articles/Coins_of_Alexander_the_Great.html

    Alexander died at the age of 33 in 323 BC.

    Alexander "lifetime issue" coins minted when he was alive are exceedingly rare.

    After his death, Greek rulers and cities throughout the former Alexandrian Empire produced Alexander coinage at 52 mints at its peak. In all about 91 different mints produced Alexander coinage over the 250 years. The last Alexanders were minted at Mesembria around 65 B.C.

    So your definition of "quite quickly" is 250 years later?


  • #4083
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    Not so, this a simplistic version of what I am saying.

    Ironically i am being criticises for being brief :)

    Please feel free to clarify what you are saying about historicity of Jesus not being valid compared to other history.


  • #4084
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,237 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    ISAW wrote: »
    your point that alexander the Great was " not portrayed a god or , or the way to enlightenment or any of that stuff."


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    These two men are not portrayed as God or the Son of God, or the way to enlightenment or any of that stuff.
    They existed, this is fact. The odds are quite good that the man Jesus also existed, but there is no direct evidence of his miracles outside of the Bible.


    Underlined it in the hopes you'll at least attempt to read it again.
    Again, I'm talking about the PRESENT tense. Stop ignoring this obvious fact in order to attempt to distort what I've been saying.


  • #4085
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Underlined it in the hopes you'll at least attempt to read it again.

    LOL. So because both Socrates AND Alexander (who I picked as a sample of two people for which we have little or no existing written historical evidence) are not BOTH worshipped as gods you think that disproves the claim (the one YOU made _ that there is noone else in history like Jesus based on him being worshipped as a god)
    you reitterated this by saying "my point still stands, there is not a religion based around these men. " i;e; as compared to Jesus who does have a religion based around him.

    But you are clearly wrong! People worshiped Alexander as a god and people depicted himl as one.

    Trying to sideslip out of you r slaim by the "but i leand didnt worship both alexander and Socrates both as a gods at the same time" is just being silly and fooling only yourself.

    Are you seriously trying to say that you didnt mean that either Alexander or socrates or anyone else was not worshiped as a god and that is what made them historically different to jesus?
    Again, I'm talking about the PRESENT tense. Stop ignoring this obvious fact in order to attempt to distort what I've been saying.

    Oh so now it is "nobody else in history is TODAY being worshiped as a God except Jesus Christ"?

    first of all that isnt necessarily true. raelians etc even cults about the Queen of englands husband exist.

    But it doies point to one observation i make. How is it the "valisd history" argument is only made about Jesus Christ and not about socrates Alexander etc. clearly the people making it in many instances are anti christian or anti religion. they arent interested in discussing history so much as attacking religion. If they were interested in the historicity argument they would argue about it for other people in history. But no only Jesus. and when pressed n it this poster specifically makes the point that his interest in opposing Jesus historically is that Christians claim he is God and not a historicity point at all!

    thanks for revealing you true anti christian motivation and agenda.


  • #4086
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    marienbad wrote: »
    Confirmation bias ! You must be joking .

    Cana, the loaves and fishes, the virgin birth, Lazarus , walking on water, curing the blind curing lepers , the resurrection and on and on , and all this over a period of years and there is not one independant item of corroboration, not one and you accuse me of bias.

    Yes I do, because you're more interested in looking for reasons to justify your unbelief rather than seeking out Jesus Christ for yourself.

    By the by, miracles are not ridiculous if one believes that there is a Creator God. If the world was created by God, and that seems a lot more likely than other alternatives, then it is entirely possible that God can work and operate in it as He deems fit.

    If God doesn't exist, sure, it's silly. However, I think it's silly to make that assumption from the get go.
    marienbad wrote: »
    Are you seriously suggesting that a man that feeds 4000 people with a few loaves and fishes would not have been high profile ? Such an event was bound to be recorded and discussed , by those believing in Jesus and opposed to Jesus , never mind the Romans .

    Well, how high profile do you want? So high profile that we have more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other ancient text in the world? I think the very fact that we have far far far more manuscripts than any other is a sign that Jesus was high profile.

    Why is it that you refuse to consider the New Testament on its own terms even?
    marienbad wrote: »
    As for the evidence for the Crucifixion outside the New Testament- what is that then ? The Josephus passages ? I have no issue at all with accepting that a man called Jesus existed and he was probably a good and a wise man and was crucified . I just have trouble accepting he was God.

    That's why one needs to look at what the Bible actually says and determine if is logical. If you are really interested in finding out about Jesus you will seek after Him.
    marienbad wrote: »
    Can I ask you Philologos why don't you believe the Koran ?

    I find Christianity much more compelling over it. I've had a look at the Qur'an and I've talked with Muslims about the Qur'an. However, I find that it is difficult to believe that the Qur'an is correct concerning Jesus. You can pop over to the Islam forum if you want to see more of what I think.


  • Advertisement
  • #4087
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    philologos wrote: »
    Yes I do, because you're more interested in looking for reasons to justify your unbelief rather than seeking out Jesus Christ for yourself.

    By the by, miracles are not ridiculous if one believes that there is a Creator God. If the world was created by God, and that seems a lot more likely than other alternatives, then it is entirely possible that God can work and operate in it as He deems fit.

    If God doesn't exist, sure, it's silly. However, I think it's silly to make that assumption from the get go.



    Well, how high profile do you want? So high profile that we have more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other ancient text in the world? I think the very fact that we have far far far more manuscripts than any other is a sign that Jesus was high profile.

    Why is it that you refuse to consider the New Testament on its own terms even?



    That's why one needs to look at what the Bible actually says and determine if is logical. If you are really interested in finding out about Jesus you will seek after Him.



    I find Christianity much more compelling over it. I've had a look at the Qur'an and I've talked with Muslims about the Qur'an. However, I find that it is difficult to believe that the Qur'an is correct concerning Jesus. You can pop over to the Islam forum if you want to see more of what I think.


    Whatever my motivation is. or people think it is. is quite irrelevant to the historicity of the bible, or it should be. And the fact that it is continuously remarked on shows a weakness in your own argument. Waterloo happened and my saying it did'nt and why I say it should not matter in the slightest. So less on my motives, if you would, and more on the arguments.

    It was you brought up the high profile aspect philologus re the crucifixion and now I am asking you why not the same non biblical sources for what was surely another high profile event, The loaves and fishes and the 4000 witnesses . A much higher profile event ,as a crucifixion could be seen every week.

    I do consider the bible on its own terms, and then like any other book that makes claims to be historically true I look for sources,. references, corroboration. There is none - citing itself is not corroboration.

    So then you don't believe the Koran then ? Why do you find it difficult to believe , That too is full of facts and if you would only look correctly maybe you would believe. Is it because you already have your mind made up and are only looking to find reasons for it not to be true.? And then bear in mind it has also a hell of a lot of manuscripts too , probably second only to the Bible .


  • #4088
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Who made the rule that for a book (and why stop with books?) to be history it must be corroborated? Do you apply this to all areas of history and witness accounts?

    As I've said already, the NT contains 4 accounts and another 2 for the feeding of the masses. This is multiple attestation. The reason you don't accept what is written as truth is because you think miracles impossible. And you know, that is just fine. What gets my goat is

    a) You asking for document x, y and z because you have assumed that such documents must have been written (and continue to exist!) if the story is true.

    b) We both know that if further accounts were produced tomorrow then it would not make a jot of difference to you argument. You would dismiss them just like you dismiss each and every supernatural account ever written.



    I've no idea what this has to do with this thread. I'm not one the Islam forum demanding evidence that I have already determined wont make any difference to my position.


    Fanny - just on the Koran issue - you were the one that dismissed the Iliad and The Odyssey when I raised them , why would the Koran be any different ?

    As for demanding evidence - is that not what the thread is all about- where atheists debate the existance of God ?

    So then Fanny - why do you not accept the Koran as fact ?


  • #4089
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    Whatever my motivation is. or people think it is. is quite irrelevant to the historicity of the bible, or it should be. And the fact that it is continuously remarked on shows a weakness in your own argument. Waterloo happened and my saying it did'nt and why I say it should not matter in the slightest. So less on my motives, if you would, and more on the arguments.

    It was you brought up the high profile aspect philologus re the crucifixion and now I am asking you why not the same non biblical sources for what was surely another high profile event, The loaves and fishes and the 4000 witnesses . A much higher profile event ,as a crucifixion could be seen every week.

    If that is the case wher are the weekly historical sou_rces of weddings in minor villages and crusifictions from that period.

    As for feeding 5000. I hav epointed out here before that maybe some peoplke brought lots of food and others had none and Jesus encouraged people to share which was a "miracle" but not a supernatural one counter to the laws of physics.
    I do consider the bible on its own terms, and then like any other book that makes claims to be historically true I look for sources,. references, corroboration. There is none - citing itself is not corroboration.

    Not for every event in the bible no; But no have other non Biblical histories such corroboration.


  • #4090
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    ISAW wrote: »
    LOL. So because both Socrates AND Alexander (who I picked as a sample of two people for which we have little or no existing written historical evidence) are not BOTH worshipped as gods you think that disproves the claim (the one YOU made _ that there is noone else in history like Jesus based on him being worshipped as a god)
    you reitterated this by saying "my point still stands, there is not a religion based around these men. " i;e; as compared to Jesus who does have a religion based around him.

    But you are clearly wrong! People worshiped Alexander as a god and people depicted himl as one.

    Trying to sideslip out of you r slaim by the "but i leand didnt worship both alexander and Socrates both as a gods at the same time" is just being silly and fooling only yourself.

    Are you seriously trying to say that you didnt mean that either Alexander or socrates or anyone else was not worshiped as a god and that is what made them historically different to jesus?



    Oh so now it is "nobody else in history is TODAY being worshiped as a God except Jesus Christ"?

    first of all that isnt necessarily true. raelians etc even cults about the Queen of englands husband exist.

    But it doies point to one observation i make. How is it the "valisd history" argument is only made about Jesus Christ and not about socrates Alexander etc. clearly the people making it in many instances are anti christian or anti religion. they arent interested in discussing history so much as attacking religion. If they were interested in the historicity argument they would argue about it for other people in history. But no only Jesus. and when pressed n it this poster specifically makes the point that his interest in opposing Jesus historically is that Christians claim he is God and not a historicity point at all!

    thanks for revealing you true anti christian motivation and agenda.
    I don't think you've realised that Soniks2k stepped in at some stage over the last page or so, and you're not arguing with Marienbad here. I've compiled the former poster's contributions:
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Ugh, before this crap kicks off again.
    These two men are not portrayed as God or the Son of God, or the way to enlightenment or any of that stuff.
    They existed, this is fact. The odds are quite good that the man Jesus also existed, but there is no direct evidence of his miracles outside of the Bible.

    Marianbad has stated numerous times he accepts the likely existence of the man.
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    What part of "believed in his own divinity" makes you think I was wrong, or are there maybe some underlying reading problems here?

    Thousands of people (especially Kings and Emperors) have believed they are. But my point still stands, there is not a religion based around these men.
    Alexander may have been treated as a 'God' by his subject, but that was not uncommon, and his following stopped quite quickly after his death.

    You're comparing Apples and Oranges.
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Underlined it in the hopes you'll at least attempt to read it again.
    Again, I'm talking about the PRESENT tense. Stop ignoring this obvious fact in order to attempt to distort what I've been saying.

    So what the poster has clearly stated is that they believe Jesus, Alexander and Socrates all existed, but Jesus differs in that people in the present day believe he was a deity who performed supernatural feats.

    As you can hopefully see, nothing you're saying here relates to the posts quoted. "Anti-Christian agenda" in particular is a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly.


  • #4091
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    I don't think you've realised that Soniks2k stepped in at some stage over the last page or so, and you're not arguing with Marienbad here. I've compiled the former poster's contributions:

    i realise it quite well since he followed me from the A&A forum.
    So what the poster has clearly stated is that they believe Jesus, Alexander and Socrates all existed, but Jesus differs in that people in the present day believe he was a deity who performed supernatural feats.

    no he didnt clearly state that since he clarified it later. In any case i dont think he needs you to tell him what he is saying.

    But as i have already stated, there ARE people today who claim to be god and that people believe are at least godlike e.g. Rael, David Koresh, Jim Jones. There are also neo pagans.
    As you can hopefully see, nothing you're saying here relates to the posts quoted. "Anti-Christian agenda" in particular is a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly.

    It related quite clearly "this crap" which was referred to relates to an earlier discussion about comparing the historicity of Jesus with other historical figures. In fact the nail is quite clearly hit on the head when the MAIN REASON for a posters interest only in Jesus if the fact that people believe he was Christ. so they are only opposing his historicity based on the ACTUAL FACT as yo pointed out and the poster also stated of people believing he is Christ.

    How can one get any more anti Christian than actually admitting the central reason for opposing someones existence in history as distinct from someone else s is because people believe they are Christ and the others they don't oppose are NOT believed to be Christ?


  • Advertisement
  • #4092
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    ISAW wrote: »
    i realise it quite well since he followed me from the A&A forum.
    I had a cursory glance over their past month's history of posting in the A&A forum and there doesn't seem to be much to back up what you're saying. If they "followed" you here they must have a fairly gimpy leg.

    Maybe there's something there from earlier posts but if we all started cross-referening months-old threads we'd end up with a wreck.
    no he didnt clearly state that since he clarified it later. In any case i dont think he needs you to tell him what he is saying.
    The use of "are," as in the present tense should have been clarification enough. People should not have to "clarify" positions that have been fabricated for them by someone else.

    I'm not acting as ambassador to Sonkc2k, I'm highlighting the fact that your attempts to misrepresent other people's sentiments or fabricate them entirely are not escaping without notice.
    But as i have already stated, there ARE people today who claim to be god and that people believe are at least godlike e.g. Rael, David Koresh, Jim Jones. There are also neo pagans.
    Yes, and everyone but their tiny set of followers denies their godlike status. Nobody but pagans take pagans seriously. How does this relate to anything the poster you quoted said? Where did they claim that Jesus is unique in that he is regarded by some as a deity incarnated on earth?
    It related quite clearly "this crap" which was referred to relates to an earlier discussion about comparing the historicity of Jesus with other historical figures. In fact the nail is quite clearly hit on the head when the MAIN REASON for a posters interest only in Jesus if the fact that people believe he was Christ. so they are only opposing his historicity based on the ACTUAL FACT as yo pointed out and the poster also stated of people believing he is Christ.

    How can one get any more anti Christian than actually admitting the central reason for opposing someones existence in history as distinct from someone else s is because people believe they are Christ and the others they don't oppose are NOT believed to be Christ?
    Start rounding up believers in Christ and nailing them to crosses, I suppose.

    Seriously, please point out where you're getting this from based on the 3 posts I've quoted above. I'm at a loss here.


  • #4093
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    I had a cursory glance over their past month's history of posting in the A&A forum and there doesn't seem to be much to back up what you're saying. If they "followed" you here they must have a fairly gimpy leg.
    Let me be quite clear and correct me if wrong.

    I believe they posted in threads in a&A that I was postinbg.
    I believe after that I then posted this thread and that AFTER that they posted on what I was posting.
    That is what I mean by "followed" their post followed my post.
    Maybe there's something there from earlier posts but if we all started cross-referening months-old threads we'd end up with a wreck.

    I dont think i would. It is how I operates.
    As i said maybe Im wrong but I dont think so.
    Not alone that but there is a broad swathe of what i believe are anti christian posters. But that is a broader issue best left to others.
    The use of "are," as in the present tense should have been clarification enough. People should not have to "clarify" positions that have been fabricated for them by someone else.

    that seems a bit rich considering it is coming from the person who posted "what the poster has clearly stated is that they believe..."

    Are you telling sonik what he clearly stated or is it your own fabrication?
    You speak for him do you?
    I'm not acting as ambassador to Sonkc2k, I'm highlighting the fact that your attempts to misrepresent other people's sentiments or fabricate them entirely are not escaping without notice.

    If you actually agree that what he meant was -YOUR words no fabrication
    Jesus differs in that people in the present day believe he was a deity who performed supernatural feats.


    then they are illustrating a difference solely based on the idea of Jesus being christ. ie their argument of opposing historicity of Jesus is admittedly anti christian by its very definition. -that the difference between Jesus and others was people claim Jesus was Christ and the other people are not Christ!
    Yes, and everyone but their tiny set of followers denies their godlike status.

    But you were not claiming about the NUMBER of followers other than the fact that you claimed it to be zero.

    Christianity also started out with a tiny number by the way. what is the relevance of that other than to again draw attention to the fact that objections are based on the fact that people believe in christ? i;e; again by definition opposing it because oif this belief is anti Christian
    Nobody but pagans take pagans seriously. How does this relate to anything the poster you quoted said?

    Nobody but atheists might take anything atheists say or do based on atheism seriously
    either. Again all you are saying here is "they dont need to be attacked because they are few" and by assertion "christians need to be attacked because so many of them believe"
    which only supports the point that such a position is anti christian.
    Where did they claim that Jesus is unique in that he is regarded by some as a deity incarnated on earth?

    YOU claimed it! that is the immediate issue!
    If you believe they didnt then say so and retract your original claim.
    Seriously, please point out where you're getting this from based on the 3 posts I've quoted above. I'm at a loss here.


    Your words
    the poster has clearly stated is that they believe Jesus, Alexander and Socrates all existed, but Jesus differs in that people in the present day believe he was a deity who performed supernatural feats.

    Jesus differs because people believe he was Christ -God i.e. because they are Christians

    the opposition to them is therefore based on opposing this belief -anti christian


  • #4094
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,194 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    ISAW wrote: »
    Jesus differs because people believe he was Christ -God i.e. because they are Christians

    the opposition to them is therefore based on opposing this belief -anti christian

    There's a difference between anti-christian and non-christian.

    I don't believe Jesus was God, or was the son of God. But I am not anti-christian. I am a non-christian. Same way that overall, I am an atheist (or non-theist), not an anti-theist.


  • #4095
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Penn wrote: »
    There's a difference between anti-christian and non-christian.

    I don't believe Jesus was God, or was the son of God. But I am not anti-christian. I am a non-christian. Same way that overall, I am an atheist (or non-theist), not an anti-theist.

    I m pointing out what people say an do.

    If someone opposes something based on the fact that this concerns Christ and not for anyone else in history; even though it could be applied to others ;and their interest in opposing it and not opposing the same argument as applied to others is because it is made about Christ; then they are anti Christ.

    If you argue against Christ because people believe in Christ then you are anti christian.

    Even if Christ never existed! the belief or even the existence of Christ is not necessary for anti Christians to be anti christian.

    Just as race might not exist but people believe race does exist
    they can be racist people even if race does not exist.


  • #4096
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,194 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    ISAW wrote: »
    I m pointing out what people say an do.

    If someone opposes something based on the fact that this concerns Christ and not for anyone else in history; even though it could be applied to others ;and their interest in opposing it and not opposing the same argument as applied to others is because it is made about Christ; then they are anti Christ.

    If you argue against Christ because people believe in Christ then you are anti christian.

    Even if Christ never existed! the belief or even the existence of Christ is not necessary for anti Christians to be anti christian.

    Firstly, 'anti-christ' and anti-christian' are two different things. 'Anti-christ' would be an opposition to Jesus Christ. 'Anti-christian' would be an opposition to the christian religion or its followers.

    Secondly, for someone to be anti-whatever, they have to believe that the 'whatever' exists, and oppose it. I do not believe that Jesus Christ (as depicted in the Bible) existed, so I cannot oppose something I do not believe in. Same way I don't oppose God, I do not think there is a God for me to oppose. Now, I could be anti-religion, as in, I oppose religion regardless of whether or not I think those religions are true or not, as the religion themselves exist.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Just as race might not exist but people believe race does exist
    they can be racist people even if race does not exist.

    Well, race does exist. That is undisputed. So I don't know what you're getting at with this point.


  • #4097
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Penn wrote: »
    Firstly, 'anti-christ' and anti-christian' are two different things. 'Anti-christ' would be an opposition to Jesus Christ. 'Anti-christian' would be an opposition to the christian religion or its followers.

    dont need to be told that and wont argue about it.
    Secondly, for someone to be anti-whatever, they have to believe that the 'whatever' exists, and oppose it. I do not believe that Jesus Christ (as depicted in the Bible) existed, so I cannot oppose something I do not believe in.

    that is a fallacy! I pointed you can be a racist and in opposition a "race" even if such a race does not exist!

    You could be anti christian even if Christ does not exist.
    Well, race does exist. That is undisputed. So I don't know what you're getting at with this point.


    Sorry but this is NOT undisputed! Likewise you CAN be anti christian and yet not believe in Christ!
    I have outlined how that has happened here. Belief in Christ isn't necessary.


    Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all living humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens
    http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html

    http://www.virginia.edu/woodson/courses/aas102%20%28spring%2001%29/articles/AAPA_race.pdf

    In this sense, races are said to be social constructs
    Blank, Rebecca M.; Dabady, Marilyn; Citro, Constance Forbes (2004). "Chapter 2". Measuring racial discrimination. National Research Council (U.S.). Panel on Methods for Assessing Discrimination. National Adademies Press. pp. 317.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28classification_of_humans%29#CITEREFBlankDabadyCitro2004


  • #4098
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,194 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Race: 3.
    Anthropology .
    a.
    any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
    b.
    an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
    c.
    a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.

    I think this race thing is another large rabbit hole, so I won't be pursing it further.
    ISAW wrote: »
    You could be anti christian even if Christ does not exist.

    Okay then. Are you anti-Muslim?


  • #4099
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    ISAW wrote: »
    Not alone that but there is a broad swathe of what i believe are anti christian posters.
    And I might have issues with the sentiments of some of the Christian posters here, but that does not give me the right to start tarring them all with the same brush and make accusations against them bsed on what others have said.

    that seems a bit rich considering it is coming from the person who posted "what the poster has clearly stated is that they believe..."

    Are you telling sonik what he clearly stated or is it your own fabrication?
    You speak for him do you?
    I made a reasonable inference based on the few words they posted. I would be willing to bet internet gold that I'm on the mark and you've missed the target completely.
    then they are illustrating a difference solely based on the idea of Jesus being christ. ie their argument of opposing historicity of Jesus is admittedly anti christian by its very definition. -that the difference between Jesus and others was people claim Jesus was Christ and the other people are not Christ!
    That seems reasonable. What is so unreasonable about cliaming that you believe Jesus existed, but reject the notion that he was God incarnate and perfrormed miracles considered completely impossible by our current knowledge of how the universe works?
    But you were not claiming about the NUMBER of followers other than the fact that you claimed it to be zero.
    Where did I say anything of the sort? My reason for highlighting their small number was to show that nobody accepts their claims of divinity. If 99.99% of the world rejects their divinity then you can hardly claim that Jesus is being singled out for scrutiny.

    If you're wondering why Jesus is coming under the spotlight on this particular thread then maybe consider the fact that we live in a Christian majority country and we're posting on the Christianity forum.
    Christianity also started out with a tiny number by the way. what is the relevance of that other than to again draw attention to the fact that objections are based on the fact that people believe in christ? i;e; again by definition opposing it because oif this belief is anti Christian
    This seems to be a case of equivocation here. Opposing Christianity, a la anti-theist totalitarian regimes, and opposing the notion of Christ's divinity are not the same thing. If rejecting Jesus's status as a deity makes me an anti-Christian then you are anti-muslim, anti-Buddhist, anti-Shinto, and-Hindu...you get the idea.

    The scenario you've set up here is a false dichotomy. You're disregaring the fact that between Christian and anti-Chritian lies another position, one that is held by the majority of humans - non-Christian.

    Nobody but atheists might take anything atheists say or do based on atheism seriously
    either. Again all you are saying here is "they dont need to be attacked because they are few" and by assertion "christians need to be attacked because so many of them believe"
    which only supports the point that such a position is anti christian.
    See above. I never said anything of the sort. Please point out where I stated or suggested anything like it.

    FWIW I think fringe cults need to be closely watched, and opposed if the need arises.

    YOU claimed it! that is the immediate issue!
    If you believe they didnt then say so and retract your original claim.
    I have no idea how I'd go about retracting something I never even claimed. You are arguing with phantoms. Of the three exmples given - Socrates, Alexander and Jesus - I said that Jesus differs in that he is worshiped as a deity in the present day. Look, I think I made myself pretty clear :
    So what the poster has clearly stated is that they believe Jesus, Alexander and Socrates all existed, but Jesus differs in that people in the present day believe he was a deity who performed supernatural feats.
    Jesus differs because people believe he was Christ -God i.e. because they are Christians

    the opposition to them is therefore based on opposing this belief -anti christian
    Or maybe their opposition is based on the fact that they do not believe in deities and do not find claims of the supernatural feats performed by Jesus to be believable. Could you point out to me what is specifically anti-Christian about that?


  • #4100
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Penn wrote: »
    I think this race thing is another large rabbit hole, so I won't be pursing it further.

    suit yourself. It wont change the fact that you were wrong when you said the existence of race is undisputed.
    The existence of race is not something which is certain and is something which is scientifically doubted though as a social construct it survives.

    My point still stands it is not necessary for race to exist for racism to exist.
    Similarly iot is not necessary for you to believe tin Christ to be anti christian.
    Indeed more to the point, while you do not believe Christ ever existed you do believe the Pope and Catholic Church exist. You are also quite capable of being anti Catholic and at the same time believing Catholicism exists and Catholics exist whether or not you believe in Christ.

    and that is the issue I am persung; Posters who attack the historicity f Jesus and not attack other people from history wholly on the basis of Jesus being the founder of Christianity.


  • #4101
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    And I might have issues with the sentiments of some of the Christian posters here, but that does not give me the right to start tarring them all with the same brush and make accusations against them bsed on what others have said.

    I dont make accusations based on what others have said. Edit elsewhere
    I make them based on what posters have said. Edit here
    Just toddle over to the clerical abuse thread to view some of their posts. edit i.e others
    I dont intend to rehearse their vitriol here.
    Save the obvious one about denying historicity of Jesus and doing so on the basis that Christians believe in him as Christ.
    I made a reasonable inference based on the few words they posted. I would be willing to bet internet gold that I'm on the mark and you've missed the target completely.

    What "reasonable inference" did you make ?
    did you not denying historicity of Jesus on the basis that Christians believe in him as Christ?
    That seems reasonable. What is so unreasonable about cliaming that you believe Jesus existed, but reject the notion that he was God incarnate and perfrormed miracles considered completely impossible by our current knowledge of how the universe works?

    where did you say that?
    What you basically stated was essentially the same as sonic. that your interest in the issue was because people believe in Jesus as christ. Otherwise you would not be interested in denying him. so your moitivation is based on other pêoples believ in him being christ. You are against them. You are against tham and believe they oppose the truth of how the universe is. Youare against them on the basis that they believe in christ and you believe that the christian view is noit the true view of how the universe works. That is quite clear.
    Where did I say anything of the sort? My reason for highlighting their small number was to show that nobody accepts their claims of divinity. If 99.99% of the world rejects their divinity then you can hardly claim that Jesus is being singled out for scrutiny.

    Which is only restating and strengthening the point of you being anti christian based on the fact that people believe in Christ and you not sharing in that but instead opposing their belief. Particularly that you consider a tiny minority believing something as relatively harmless (something I totally disagree with for example a tiny minority of atheists might set up an atheistic tyrrany) but your ire is sirred because so many people are Christian.
    If you're wondering why Jesus is coming under the spotlight on this particular thread then maybe consider the fact that we live in a Christian majority country and we're posting on the Christianity forum.

    that is also nonsense! anti christian posts are just as easily postred in the After hours or A&A forums so the forum doesnt matter. Also i would think in atheistic countries you would not find such fora anyway. Anti posters would have been sent to the gulags already.
    This seems to be a case of equivocation here. Opposing Christianity, a la anti-theist totalitarian regimes, and opposing the notion of Christ's divinity are not the same thing. If rejecting Jesus's status as a deity makes me an anti-Christian then you are anti-muslim, anti-Buddhist, anti-Shinto, and-Hindu...you get the idea.

    I dont claim to be anything. dont bring my personal beliefs into this!
    And the point was not about rejecting a deity.

    The point was rejecting the historicity of Jesus as opposed to anyoine else in hiostory on the basis that people believe he was Christ i.e if there were no christians around the detractors would not care because their motivation is anti christian. I do however accept that in a majority Catholic country this may manifest as anti Catholic but that isnt necessarily true.
    The scenario you've set up here is a false dichotomy. You're disregaring the fact that between Christian and anti-Chritian lies another position, one that is held by the majority of humans - non-Christian.

    Here is a fallacy argument from the particular being applied to the general
    You cant argue about "massive majority christian " country and then fall back on "most of the world not christian"
    so i take it you therefore abandon the relevance of Ireland being mostly Catholic as a basis for anti catholic posters?
    See above. I never said anything of the sort. Please point out where I stated or suggested anything like it.

    You stated
    "Yes, and everyone but their tiny set of followers denies their godlike status."
    They in this bcase being fringe cults
    they have tiny sets of followers and htis wasz significant because it was being presented as different to the Roman Catholic Church for example. different not because they believed in christ/God but because the RCC had a large number of followers.
    FWIW I think fringe cults need to be closely watched, and opposed if the need arises.

    Including militant anti Catholic atheists?
    I have no idea how I'd go about retracting something I never even claimed. You are arguing with phantoms. Of the three exmples given - Socrates, Alexander and Jesus - I said that Jesus differs in that he is worshiped as a deity in the present day.

    Which is an admission that you are focusing on the fact that people today believe Jesus is christ. i.e. because they are Christians! You have a problem with them but not the others in history.


  • Advertisement
  • #4102
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,194 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    ISAW wrote: »
    suit yourself. It wont change the fact that you were wrong when you said the existence of race is undisputed.
    The existence of race is not something which is certain and is something which is scientifically doubted though as a social construct it survives.

    My point still stands it is not necessary for race to exist for racism to exist.
    Similarly iot is not necessary for you to believe tin Christ to be anti christian.
    Indeed more to the point, while you do not believe Christ ever existed you do believe the Pope and Catholic Church exist. You are also quite capable of being anti Catholic and at the same time believing Catholicism exists and Catholics exist whether or not you believe in Christ.

    and that is the issue I am persung; Posters who attack the historicity f Jesus and not attack other people from history wholly on the basis of Jesus being the founder of Christianity.

    I agree, being anti-Christian would be to oppose the Christian religion. It doesn't require a belief in Christ. Being anti-Christ however, does. I cannot oppose something that I do not believe exists. However, there is a difference between opposing the Christian religion (anti-catholic) and simply not following it (non-Christian)

    Are you an anti-Muslim?


  • #4103
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Penn wrote: »
    I agree, being anti-Christian would be to oppose the Christian religion.

    Including those who believe in it on that basis. i.e. the basis for opposing them is because they believe in Christ. As mentioned by posters in this thread.
    QED
    It doesn't require a belief in Christ. Being anti-Christ however, does. I cannot oppose something that I do not believe exists. However, there is a difference between opposing the Christian religion (anti-catholic) and simply not following it (non-Christian)
    You can be anti Christian and not believe in Christ just as Nazis could be anti Jew and not believe in God or in Judaism.
    Are you an anti-Muslim?

    Unlike atheists i dont define my beliefs by what i dont believe.
    Ironically using logic you might be able to extract a definitive statement from that.


  • #4104
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,194 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    ISAW wrote: »
    Including those who believe in it on that basis. i.e. the basis for opposing them is because they believe in Christ. As mentioned by posters in this thread.
    QED

    Again, people can believe the religion exists without actually believing anything in the religion. I don't believe Christ existed (as depicted in the Bible), but I believe there is a religion based on him.

    ISAW wrote: »
    You can be anti Christian and not believe in Christ just as Nazis could be anti Jew and not believe in God or in Judaism.

    Agreed.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Unlike atheists i dont define my beliefs by what i dont believe.
    Ironically using logic you might be able to extract a definitive statement from that.

    And again, all I was trying to point out was that just because someone is a non-christian, doesn't mean they are anti-christian. Wouldn't you agree?


  • #4105
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Penn wrote: »
    Again, people can believe the religion exists without actually believing anything in the religion. I don't believe Christ existed (as depicted in the Bible), but I believe there is a religion based on him.

    Yes and you can therefore oppose those people and be anti christian even if you don't believe in Christ.
    You can be anti Catholic and non Christian.

    the Bible depiction also contains historical references.
    so do you just disbelieve the "Jesus was God" bits and accept all the rest or what other bits do you not believe?
    And again, all I was trying to point out was that just because someone is a non-christian, doesn't mean they are anti-christian. Wouldn't you agree?

    Indeed. I never claimed all non Christians are anti christian. But i did claim that if someone is opposing a particular argument because the argument is made by people who are Christian and he also believes the numbers percentages and influence of Christians or say Catholics make them worth attacking as opposed to non Catholics then that person is anti Catholic.


  • #4106
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,194 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    ISAW wrote: »
    the Bible depiction also contains historical references.
    so do you just disbelieve the "Jesus was God" bits and accept all the rest or what other bits do you not believe?

    I believe there was probably a man named Jesus who was probably a preacher who travelled with some followers and may have made some claims about being the Son of God, but I don't believe that he performed any act which would be considered to be a 'miracle'. I don't believe he healed the sick, I believe he may have helped some sick people. I believe he was charitable, but I don't believe he 'miracled' loaves and fish out of thin air. I believe he died, but I don't believe he came back from the dead.

    Basically, I believe he did everything that you yourself would be capable of. If it seems impossible for a human to do, then I don't believe he could do it.


  • #4107
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    ISAW wrote: »
    I dont make accusations based on what others have said.
    I make them based on what posters have said.
    Just toddle over to the clerical abuse thread to view some of their posts. i.e others
    I dont intend to rehearse their vitriol here.
    What are you even trying to say here? You don't make accusations based on what others have said, but you can make accusations against me and the poster originally quoted based on comments in the Clerical Abuse thread, a thread in which neither of us have ever even posted?

    Seriously, what?
    Save the obvious one about denying historicity of Jesus and doing so on the basis that Christians believe in him as Christ.
    I certainly believe that Jesus existed. I believe he existed while rejecting the notion that he was the son of God or turned water into wine and walked on water. I believe Alexander existed, but I do not believe he was a deity. I believe Muhammed existed but I do not believe he was a divinely inspired prophet. I do not reject these claims because [I am anti-Christian or anti-Islam or anti-whatever-the-hell they called followers of Alexander, I reject them because I do not believe in any deities

    So how exactly do you figure that I'm singling out Christianity in this instance? What is so anti-Christian about someone who doesn't believe in any Gods rejecting the notion that a historical figure was the son of God.
    What "reasonable inference" did you make ?
    did you not denying historicity of Jesus on the basis that Christians believe in him as Christ?
    Well I don't deny the historicity of Jesus so it seems you're begging the question here. I reject claims of Jesus's divine nature because I'm not a believer in divinity.
    where did you say that?
    What you basically stated was essentially the same as sonic.
    Possibly. You misrepresented what they were saying to begin with so I'm giving you zero
    marks     for this.
    that your interest in the issue was because people believe in Jesus as christ.
    Zero marks
    Otherwise you would not be interested in denying him. so your moitivation is based on other pêoples believ in him being christ.
    Zero marks
    You are against them.
    Zero marks
    You are against tham and believe they oppose the truth of how the universe is.
    Zero marks. Christians who oppose the truth of how the universe is are in the minority and tend to live in America these days, fortunately.
    Youare against them on the basis that they believe in christ
    Zero marks
    and you believe that the christian view is noit the true view of how the universe works. That is quite clear.
    1 mark! (Although people are entitled to have their own view on how the universe works provided it doesn't negatively impact on everyone else).

    1/7; very poor. Must try to respond to posters quoted rather than what someone else from 20 pages ago or the Clerical Abuse thread were saying.
    Which is only restating and strengthening the point of you being anti christian based on the fact that people believe in Christ and you not sharing in that but instead opposing their belief. Particularly that you consider a tiny minority believing something as relatively harmless (something I totally disagree with for example a tiny minority of atheists might set up an atheistic tyrrany) but your ire is sirred because so many people are Christian.
    I really threw a dog a bone by mentioning totalitarian anti-theist states, if only very briefly. Here come the gulags...3...2...
    that is also nonsense! anti christian posts are just as easily postred in the After hours or A&A forums so the forum doesnt matter. Also i would think in atheistic countries you would not find such fora anyway. Anti posters would have been sent to the gulags already.
    ...1 BOOM!
    I dont claim to be anything. dont bring my personal beliefs into this!
    Wait, so you can brand me as an anti-Christian for rejecting the notion of Jesus's divine status, but if I operate within your logical framework and label you as anti-Islam for rejecting claims that Muhammed was God's prophet, I'm overstepping the line?

    That's not very consistent, is it?
    And the point was not about rejecting a deity.
    That is exactly what my point was. I don't reject the existence of Jesus, I reject his status as a deity, as did the poster you originally quoted. If you actually read what other people were saying you may have realised this, but instead you've just barreled ahead and started arguing with what you expect someone who doesn't believe in God would say.
    The point was rejecting the historicity of Jesus as opposed to anyoine else in hiostory on the basis that people believe he was Christ i.e if there were no christians around the detractors would not care because their motivation is anti christian.
    That's all fantastic, really it is, except I do believe that Jesus existed. This discussion started because I called you up for
    Here is a fallacy argument from the particular being applied to the general
    You cant argue about "massive majority christian " country and then fall back on "most of the world not christian"
    so i take it you therefore abandon the relevance of Ireland being mostly Catholic as a basis for anti catholic posters?
    No, because you're talking about two completely different things here.

    My point re. Ireland's Catholic majority was simply that the bulk of religious discourse on an Irish forum, including criticism, would inevitably be about the country's largest religion.

    My point about the majority of the world's populace not being Christian was that by your unique definition of anti-Christianity (which seems to be interchangeable with non-Christian), the majority of the world is anti-Christian.

    The two points are not related.
    You stated
    "Yes, and everyone but their tiny set of followers denies their godlike status."
    They in this bcase being fringe cults
    they have tiny sets of followers and htis wasz significant because it was being presented as different to the Roman Catholic Church for example. different not because they believed in christ/God but because the RCC had a large number of followers.
    No, it was significant because it showed that everyone rejected the claims of these self-professed prophets/Gods/whatever. Christ is not being singled out for unfair treatment here. I explained this already but you already seem to have made up you mind about what I believe, based on what I didn't say in a handful of posts.
    Including militant anti Catholic atheists?
    If they were a secretive, organised group behaving in a suspicious way, sure. In reality, this militant anti-Catholic atheistic menace consists of a few mildly anti-theistic Labour members (who are certainly no worse than some of their conservative Christian counterparts in FG), a handful of journalists, and some guys on the internet mouthing off about religion.

    Though if you view me as a rabid anti-Christian for refusing to accept the notion that Jesus was the son of God, I can certainly see how you'd perceive this as a serious, pressing threat.

    Which is an admission that you are focusing on the fact that people today believe Jesus is christ. i.e. because they are Christians! You have a problem with them but not the others in history.
    I have no idea what you even think I'm admitting. I called you up for fabricating and attacking a position a poster had never professed, and in response you have completely fabricated a position for me, based on something some poster was saying in the Clerical Abuse thread or something, and proceeded to attack it with vim and vigour.

    Just to reiterate, because I have a strong suspicion you're primed to make another Rorschach blot of my post:

    I believe Jesus existed. I believe he existed while rejecting the idea that he was the son of God or that he performed feats that I consider impossible. I believe Alexander the Great existed but he is not and never was a deity, despite what his followers may have thought. I believe Muhammed existed but I do not think he was a mouthpiece for Allah. This is because I don't believe in any God nor people imbued with God-like abilities, not because I have any beef with the followers of any particular religion.

    Now you just made me waste more minutes than I should have when I'm supposed to be studying calculus and organic chemistry. You are anti Carbon-based structures and you are totally against the study of rates of change.


  • #4108
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    What are you even trying to say here? You don't make accusations based on what others have said, but you can make accusations against me and the poster originally quoted based on comments in the Clerical Abuse thread, a thread in which neither of us have ever even posted?

    Seriously, what?

    I suggest you go and read the edits to the message you are quoting.
    I referred to people posting in this thread.
    I referred to a mindset of anti Catholics eleswhere and you can go elsewhere to look at their comments.
    i have made my case that posters here have stated things which show they subscribe to anti catholic beliefs.
    I certainly believe that Jesus existed. I believe he existed while rejecting the notion that he was the son of God or turned water into wine and walked on water. I believe Alexander existed, but I do not believe he was a deity. I believe Muhammed existed but I do not believe he was a divinely inspired prophet. I do not reject these claims because [I am anti-Christian or anti-Islam or anti-whatever-the-hell they called followers of Alexander, I reject them because I do not believe in any deities

    so your opposition is based on your atheism! it isnt based on any historical thing just on your personal belief that god does not exist. Or to put it in the chistianity forum on the belieef that Christ was not Christ and you oppose people who believe he was because those people believe he was God. You oppose their Catholic church and their belief based on your belief that it isnt true. You are anti Catholic.
    So how exactly do you figure that I'm singling out Christianity in this instance? What is so anti-Christian about someone who doesn't believe in any Gods rejecting the notion that a historical figure was the son of God.

    You have the free will to reject whatever you wish. but you are clearly stated that you oppose the arguments of Christianity and their church because you dont believe in God. If you oppose catholicism you are anti Catholic. You may be anti Jew and anti Muslim as well Im not arguing about that here where you oppose Christians.
    Well I don't deny the historicity of Jesus so it seems you're begging the question here. I reject claims of Jesus's divine nature because I'm not a believer in divinity.

    so you accept jesus existed as a historic figure?
    then why did you call the reference to it "this crap".
    Also you dont argue about others in history nd you have admitted yo dont based on the idea that they dont claim to be gods.
    Bt they did claim to be gods.
    You admit theat and you say "but if they did they dont have any followers today"
    You were shown sme do have followers.
    but then you say "but they dont have loads of followers"
    all these scotsmen!
    Let me guess are you arguing against Islam on the Islam forum and claiming Mohammad was not a prophet?
    Are you arguing against Jews?
    Are you arguing against anyone else who believes in god because they believe in god?

    No! you are arguing against Christianity. so let us deal with that alone.
    You already admitted you personally reject Christ. But let us see if it goes further.
    Do you or do you not oppose the catholic Church for example.
    Do you oppose their teachings or their actions?
    If you do you are anti catholic. Simple.
    Possibly. You misrepresented what they were saying to begin with so I'm giving you
    .

    what did i misrepresent?
    show me what you claim i misrepresented.
    Christians who oppose the truth of how the universe is are in the minority and tend to live in America these days, fortunately.

    Im sorry but who or what comprises "the truth of how the universe is"?

    Although people are entitled to have their own view on how the universe works provided it doesn't negatively impact on everyone else

    Until such a time as they attack other peoples beliefs.
    very poor. Must try to respond to posters quoted rather than what someone else from 20 pages ago or the Clerical Abuse thread were saying.

    where did i misquote anyone in this thread? hats twice now yo have accused me of doing this.
    where did i quote someone from a clerical abuse thread. All i did was say you can see ample examples of the anti catholic mindset there.
    I really threw a dog a bone by mentioning totalitarian anti-theist states, if only very briefly.

    Who is the "dog" you refer to here?
    Wait, so you can brand me as an anti-Christian for rejecting the notion of Jesus's divine status, but if I operate within your logical framework and label you as anti-Islam for rejecting claims that Muhammed was God's prophet, I'm overstepping the line?

    If and when i go to the Islamic forum and post that there yes you can. Personally i have some problems with Islamic philosophy and history which i have posted here and there. i have never had a clear response to some of it. For example if it is accepted that
    1. Mohammed led a perfect life
    2. Opposing Mohammad is anti Islam
    If it then turns out that Mohammad had sexual relations with children and I oppose that behavior I suppose you can call me anti Islam.
    this would be based on 1&2 and not on your personal views of Islam.
    But we are diuscussing your views not mine.
    That's not very consistent, is it?

    Asked and answered.
    That is exactly what my point was. I don't reject the existence of Jesus, I reject his status as a deity, as did the poster you originally quoted. If you actually read what other people were saying you may have realised this, but instead you've just barreled ahead and started arguing with what you expect someone who doesn't believe in God would say.

    Nope.

    In 4076 sonic2k clearly states that his problem with Jesus compared to others is that people believe Jesus is God.

    He was shown that people also believed others were god in history.

    His problem was expounded upon by "there is not a religion based around these men. "

    He was shown there was.
    His problem became 4084 that such like were not around TODAY.

    He was shown such type non christian religions exist today.

    Pace2008 took this up in 4090
    they believe Jesus, Alexander and Socrates all existed, but Jesus differs in that people in the present day believe he was a deity who performed supernatural feats.

    And it progressed to the point about the problems with opposing claims about people jike Jesus in history for such people is manifest in
    opposing LARGE religions who believe in God today e.g. the Catholic Church

    Ironically i don't witness them attacking Islam so much at all.
    My point re. Ireland's Catholic majority was simply that the bulk of religious discourse on an Irish forum, including criticism, would inevitably be about the country's largest religion.

    so the point about "large religions should be criticised becomes "the catholic church should be opposed" . How convenient.
    your unique definition of anti-Christianity (which seems to be interchangeable with non-Christian),

    anti Catholic = opposing the Catholic church and Catholic teachings in Ireland or anywhere else.
    Do you oppose them? QED
    No, it was significant because it showed that everyone rejected the claims of these self-professed prophets/Gods/whatever.

    No it was significant because the large numbers of followers.
    Penn in 4092
    Yes, and everyone but their tiny set of followers denies their godlike status. Nobody but pagans take pagans seriously.
    Christ is not being singled out for unfair treatment here. I explained this already but you already seem to have made up you mind about what I believe, based on what I didn't say in a handful of posts.

    Christians and Catholics are by some because they have large numbers of followers and not a tiny set. that is what was stated.
    If they were a secretive, organised group behaving in a suspicious way, sure. In reality, this militant anti-Catholic atheistic menace consists of a few mildly anti-theistic Labour members (who are certainly no worse than some of their conservative Christian counterparts in FG), a handful of journalists, and some guys on the internet mouthing off about religion.
    Eventually we agree on something! :)

    But groups of militants can get into power and whenever atheistic militants did in the past their heinous brume cast a terrible pall on others.

    At the very least the mindset mitigates against free speech by attacking and or censoring those who oppose them.
    Though if you view me as a rabid anti-Christian for refusing to accept the notion that Jesus was the son of God, I can certainly see how you'd perceive this as a serious, pressing threat.


    I dont but you may well but into their mindset and begin to believe some anti catholic notions propmted by the very "atheistic menace " to which you referred
    Might you believe such things as
    1. at their worst level anything more than 1% of pedophiles being priests and at present levels more than 0.01%
    2. the vatican or popes being involved historically in and or their continued existing a church wide cover up of abusers.
    3. the Vatican or popes supporting WWII Naziism or the Catholic Church in Germany or Poland and future popes from those countries supporting them

    Maybe you dont believe in the above i offer them only as examples of the type of misinformation peddled. they are a wider agenda but "there is no such thing as christ and anyone following such an orginasation is being misled" is a basic start although any attack on clergy church beliefs organisations will do. The basic idea it to attack belief and corrupt faith into despite. Im not saying you personbally orchestrate this . just that y may unwittingly subscribe to it.
    I have no idea what you even think I'm admitting. I called you up for fabricating and attacking a position a poster had never professed, and in response you have completely fabricated a position for me, based on something some poster was saying in the Clerical Abuse thread or something, and proceeded to attack it with vim and vigour.
    I believe Jesus existed. I believe he existed while rejecting the idea that he was the son of God or that he performed feats that I consider impossible. I believe Alexander the Great existed but he is not and never was a deity, despite what his followers may have thought. I believe Muhammed existed but I do not think he was a mouthpiece for Allah. This is because I don't believe in any God nor people imbued with God-like abilities, not because I have any beef with the followers of any particular religion.

    Fair enough; and based on that you don't oppose the Catholic church or the believers in Christ and what they do? you keep to yourself and don't preach anything against them?
    If so you are not anti catholic or anti christian.
    If you single out Catholics or Christians you are.


  • #4109
    Really??
    Registered Users Posts: 21 ✭Really??


    Perhaps I posted in the wrong place, perhaps it should have been here. I direct your attention to this post.
    I call on you to defend his action/inaction against a reasonable charge.


  • #4110
    Really??
    Registered Users Posts: 21 ✭Really??


    ISAW wrote: »
    Fair enough; and based on that you don't oppose the Catholic church or the believers in Christ and what they do? you keep to yourself and don't preach anything against them?
    If so you are not anti catholic or anti christian.
    If you single out Catholics or Christians you are.

    So what? You're anti-athiest, I don't see you apologise for it. I'm anti catholic, muslim, protestant.....any other religion you might care to mention. I don't see why anyone should apologise for being anti-religion. I don't discriminate, I think they're all equally idiotic.
    Why should I not preach against them? I think I owe it to humanity to preach as loudly as I can against them and hopefully convert as many as I can, just like the religious do. They are not ashamed of what I regard as the nonsense they peddle, why should I be ashamed of what they regard as the nonsense I peddle? I have as much right to preach as anyone! Do I not?


  • Advertisement
  • #4111
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Really?? wrote: »
    Perhaps I posted in the wrong place, perhaps it should have been here. I direct your attention to this post.
    I call on you to defend his action/inaction against a reasonable charge.

    I suggest you search the forum on "problem of evil" "Leibniz"
    for some insight into "why doesnt God stop people falling over "?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement