Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Pace2008 wrote: »

Great, now stop taking what they've said or what you think they've said and making out as if I was the one who said it.

So what the poster has clearly stated is that...

Great, now stop assuming that this anti-Catholic mindset extends to every single atheist who so much as disagrees with any aspect of Church teaching..

First off, I see you're making repeated attempts to make this look like a personal attack on Christians by saying I "oppose" the people themselves who believe Jesus was God.

This is not true, disagreeing with Christians about Jesus's divinity is not opposing them, as I think they should be free to believe whatever they want provided it doesn't harm anyone else (and simply believing in Jesus does not harm anyone else). If i were actively trying to suppress them for believing in Jesus then you would have reasonable grounds to claim I was opposing them.

Secondly. I will readily admit I am no history buff and my knowledge of it is patchy at best. From the debates I have read on the subject I have been unconvinced by attempts to portray Jesus's miracles as matters of historical accuracy.

On the basis of the evidence I've encountered, I'm fairly convinced that there is no creator deity and I'm pretty damn cocksure that there is no personal God in the vein of the Judeo-Christian God of the bible.

As I do not accept the evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible it follows that I do not believe that Jesus was his incarnation on earth.

As I keep pointing out, I am not singling out Jesus here. There are hundreds, probably thousands and historical figures who were or are considered to be Gods. I do not have the time nor the wherewithal to investigate the veracity of the individual claims of their divinity, so I've adopted this heuristic: until I'm provided with sufficient evidence that there exists a supernatural creator entity, I'm going to assume that they were nothing more than historical figures of note.

And the vast majority of Christians follow a similar approach. They reject every other purported god-like figure bar Jesus without ever examining the merits of the the evidence for their existence.

if the Church say that you should treat others with respect or be charitable, I'd say "Yeah, that's a pretty good idea." But if the Church says that masturbation is a gravely disordered act then I'd say "Well that's a bit silly."

...I didn't, that was Sonic2k. Who also claimed that they believe it likely that Jesus existed. They weren't referring to the notion of the historical figure of Jesus as "crap." But of course if you actually read what people were saying (try it, you might even like it) rather than what you assumed they were saying based on this anti-theistic stereotype you have in your head, you'd already know this.

Again, you are taking what someone else said and quoting me on it. Of course there hundreds if not thousands of other people throughout history who claimed to be or were believed to be Gods. How thick do you actually think I am not to have realised that?

My point in highlighting their small numbers was this: there is no need to call into question their claims because it is implicitly assumed by, in effect, everyone in the world that their claims are bogus. It goes without saying. When I go to a restaurant and ask for a glass of water I don't need to qualify that I don't want it brought to me boiling at 100 degrees. When people talk about David Koresh they don't need to say "I have serious doubts that that man was truly God's final prophet " because it is implicitly assumed by 99.99999999% of the world that the man was a ****ing wingnut. This goes for any modern-day self-professed prophet or cult leaders with Messianic delusions. We do not need lengthy discourse on the evidence for their Godliness because it is known, without needed to be said, that everyone you will ever encounter believes that these people are complete basket cases.

There are areas of Catholic doctrine with which I disagree, their views views on sexuality being the obvious example. It is not because they are Catholic teachings that I disagree with them. I just happens that I see nothing inherently wrong with homosexual relations or sex outside of wedlock*

Nor can you claim that I am singling out Catholicism (I notice we've advanced from anti-Christianity to anti-Catholicism in this post. And you accuse others of having an agenda!), as Islam, many sects of Protestantism, and many organisations in largely atheistic countries like China and Russia also oppose homosexuality.

Seriously, do you believe that disagreeing with, and perhaps even being so bold as to discuss, some of the Church's teachings renders you an anti-Catholic?

In that case every Protestant who has posted on the Catholic/Protestant megathread is anti-Catholic,

and you and all Catholics who have done likewise yourself are an anti-Protestant.

You're free to self-identify as you will, but I'm not so sure some of your Christian brethren will be happy to be described in such derogatory terms.

The poster very clearly stated that of the three men listed, Jesus differs in that he is worshiped in the present as a deity (I have pointed this out already but this time I'm using the three-pronged attack of bold, underline and italics so you can't possibly claim to have missed it). That was crystal clear but of course you are not arguing with actual people here, you are arguing with what you imagine a stereotypical anti-theist would say.

A Christian view of the universe would feature God as the creator of space and time. As I do not believe in any gods then it follows that I think their view of the universe is flawed in that respect. That should go without saying.

I didn't say you did. Your experiences with anti-Catholics on the thread in question - who are, let's be honest, few in number - seem to have coloured you view of atheists to the extent that I am an anti-Christian in your eyes for daring to believe Jesus was just a normal man and failing to agree with all aspects of Catholic teaching.

So you agree that you are anti-Islam, under a specific definition outlined above. Your claims of anti-Catholicism against me go beyond that, to the point where where I am allegedly attacking the Catholic people themselves. Would this apply to you as well? That by opposing the tenets of Islam you are, by extension, attacking its followers as well?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no modern religion based on Socrates or Alexander the Great.

I don't see why we would ever need to enter into discussion about Alexander's status as a God. As the number of people who believe he is a God totals zero, it would be something of a one-sided debate.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78303937&postcount=4090

and i n my immediazte reply in 4091 i pointed out
"no he didnt clearly state that since he clarified it later"

where AFTER that post did i argue against what you claim he meant and claim he didnt mean that at all?

You genuinely do not seem to understand this, ISAW: people other than yourself can also read the posts on this thread. As a result, they can see you haven't a leg to stand on in this instance,

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78304216&postcount=4091

Pace2008 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.

He didn't say this at all
His problem became 4084 that such like were not around TODAY.

4076
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.

then in 4084
Underlined it in the hopes you'll at least attempt to read it again.
Again, I'm talking about the PRESENT tense.


He underlined "two men are" in an attempt to emphasise the "are" but he emphasised the "two men" as well which is what i took him up on.

As regards "are" i have replied above ther are such people.
Are regards "are" in terms of something still around which was around in ancient times i suggested egyptian religions and neopaganism.Judiasm and zoroastriansm would also be examples.

But if of course you are claiming Christianity is different because it is the only one still around that existed in ancient times then you are singling out Christianity are you not?

Islam is not going to be discussed to the same extent as Catholicism in Ireland because it is not really a visible force in Ireland.

Now you are in circles. Tweedledum you think foicusing on catholicism is changing the issue and christianity is referred to a a minority on world terms. Tweedledee you are back on Irish Catholics.

1. People will naturally talk more about something the larger and more prominent it is in the society that they live in.

So your motivation IS the Numbers of Catholics?

2. Nobody needs to state that the leader of a cult with 200 members is making bogus claims about his messianic nature because it is implicitly assumed by everyone in the world bar those 200 people that he is a fruitcake.

And Christianity began with how many followers?

I'm not giving you a platform to get up on your hobby horse. Everyone bar you thinks the notion of Ireland turning into Soviet Russia is absurd.

I didnt claim it was. Your continually attempt to compare me to "wingnuts" and pass me off as absurd. i propose a rational argument.

I'm somewhere in the middle.

So what do you think the church has or is doing wrong?

I think have made it very clear in previous posts as well as this one that I am not singling out Catholicism or Christianity.

And i have offered counter argument.

philologos wrote: »

ISAW: Christianity was not based on Aristotle or Plato. Certain church traditions were. The reality was that a pagan ideology being added into a distinctly Judaic belief system was mistaken. The New Testament wasn't based on Aristotle or Plato, Jesus' teaching was not based on Aristotle or Plato.

As much as I admire Augustine and Aquinas, I think they compromised Christianity by adding Platonism and Aristotelianism in to the mix.

Pace2008 wrote: »

I

A year-old post from another thread, nice.

PDN wrote: »

The English language uses Greek words to form compound words. For example, 'telephone'. This does not mean that the telephone is based on the Greek understandings of noise or voices.

logos means word

Therefore 'theology' literally means "words about God".

Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and simply asserts being, "I am", already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates' attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy.[8] Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: "I am". This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature. Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity.[9] A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God's nature.
In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God's voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God's freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazm and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God's transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which - as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated - unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul - "λογικη λατρεία", worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1)

The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity - a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age

faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system. The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself.

It took as its point of departure Pascal's distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
...This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology.

...the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was an initial inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not simply false, but it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed.

Wh1stler wrote: »

Manuel II might as well have said,

Even actions that are evil have their roots in 'logos' so therefore evil is not contrary to the nature of God according to Manuel II's criterion.

It seems reasonable to say then that as the nature of God is reflected in all aspects of existence then the nature of God is 'chaotic', 'random', 'purposeless';

that God is simply the fundamental force that gives rise to gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces and it is from these forces that reality derives its ability to exist.

The power of God may be the driving force of the Universe but that force takes no more account of creation than gravity does.

But Christianity takes a different view concerning God; the existence of evil is not a reflection on God who can only do good. But He doesn't does He? He doesn't actually do anything.

No-ones prayers are answered; sick children aren't saved; missionary nuns in Africa are not protected; He does nothing to stop babies being bombed in Baghdad and paedophile priests do not have anything to fear from Him. In fact, God is quite powerless, or apathetic, in the physical realm and only has actual power over us when we die.

Or perhaps He gets some kind of kick out of the spectacle of evil. It does appear from reading the Bible that God had a fetish for mass slaughter of humans.

There is no, zero, evidence that the God of the Hebrews is in opposition to evil; no evidence that God operates by any moral code. God is not an advocate for peace; He is a 'God of war', as God Himself is alleged to have described Himself.

Even if God does exist, now that the Universe exists, God is completely redundant to its evolution. Man will continue to make war and whether God is pleased or displeased, there will be no consequences for the mass-murderers.