Being an Atheist in Ireland is a Cnut

Sam Vimes

musicmonky wrote: »

and God thought, "what shall these people do with their lives?"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

I wouldn't give much credence to that study tbh, at least until I investigated it more. From the article it looks to me like he started with the conclusion and worked on proving it, rather than finding out if it was true

He says religion declined as intelligence increased in the last hundred years but there are lots of other factors. And he says that when people hit adolescence their intelligence increases which isn't really true. Their awareness of the world increases, not their intelligence but that's not what he was trying to prove....

Personally I do think that more intelligent people are less likely to believe but his study doesn't appear to show that

philologos

Nehashak: No we wouldn't be gods, because we still have to account for our own existence, and to account for the universe. We would be mere intermediaries, giving ourselves stewardship over a new group of people and a human made creation, but not making us gods in any sense.

Nehaxak

Jakkass wrote: »

Nehashak: No we wouldn't be gods, because we still have to account for our own existence, and to account for the universe. We would be mere intermediaries, giving ourselves stewardship over a new group of people and a human made creation, but not making us gods in any sense.

So then, whoever created us might not be our "God/Gods" as they themselves were created in a similar manner at some stage, so where does it end (or begin?) and who or what created the universe and who or what in turn created them ?

mardybumbum

Next time your auld wan tries to drag your non believing ass into the big house pull one of those tantrums similar to Damian in The Omen.
Sure, all my neighbours think Im possesed but my mother hasnt bothered me since.

musicmonky

well the uni of ulster also has something to throw into the ring.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4SD1KNR-1&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F29%2F2008&_alid=759868596&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=6546&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=1&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=bdb3ca48b21fdb2959f6f8ce4b6001de

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

However a more obvious point, and one that is somewhat easier, is how can the creator be the creation itself?

You tell me. You say there must be a creator of the universe, but also that you can't keep regressing infinitely, so somewhere along the line there has to be something that just always was. So what makes it logical to regress one step and not to regress zero steps and say the universe always existed?

Jakkass wrote: »

Fair enough, however, under what basis do you rule that the existence of a God is zero.

The lack of a meaningful definition.

Gummy Panda

Am I the only one who cares about OP's chocolate Kimberley been eaten on him?

JC 2K3

I think someone mentioned it a few pages back.

Shocking business tbh.

Nehaxak

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Am I the only one who cares about OP's chocolate Kimberley been eaten on him?

Well, if you extend your imagination a little and think of a girl called Kimberley, covered head to toe in lovely milk chocolate and all those women drinking tea and licking the chocolate off of dear Kimberley - you forget all about religion and start wondering why he just stood there and watched his Ma and her friends licking chocolate off some girl in the kitchen.

Grievous

When asked about atheists? I usually say the same thing, I don't believe in them.:cool:

Okay, Indulge me that one bad joke!

This country is much too religious for me,You only have to walk around dublin city center and for every few pubs, you come across a church.

I'll admit,they look pretty from the outside, and they are peaceful in the inside, I find them great places for a bit of peace and quiet.

I guess, If you are a decent person and treat people good and give back to the community and do your bit, You don't have to be religious to do all things things.

I love science myself,I like facts and empirical evidence, faith can be good too, when you are in trouble.

Side note: I always thought if they made the jedi order a real religion people would flock to the order, meditation, lightsaber training and jedi mind tricks.

live2thewire

Grievous wrote: »

When asked about atheists? I usually say the same thing, I don't believe in them.:cool:

Okay, Indulge me that one bad joke!

This country is much too religious for me,You only have to walk around dublin city center and for every few pubs, you come across a church.

I'll admit,they look pretty from the outside, and they are peaceful in the inside, I find them great places for a bit of peace and quiet.

I guess, If you are a decent person and treat people good and give back to the community and do your bit, You don't have to be religious to do all things things.

I love science myself,I like facts and empirical evidence, faith can be good too, when you are in trouble.

Side note: I always thought if they made the jedi order a real religion people would flock to the order, meditation, lightsaber training and jedi mind tricks.

Cities in Sweden have many churches but i wouldn't call sweden 'religous'

Gummy Panda

Nehaxak wrote: »

Well, if you extend your imagination a little and think of a girl called Kimberley, covered head to toe in lovely milk chocolate and all those women drinking tea and licking the chocolate off of dear Kimberley - you forget all about religion and start wondering why he just stood there and watched his Ma and her friends licking chocolate off some girl in the kitchen.

OMG HAWT!!

*pitches trouser tent*

Grievous

live2thewire wrote: »

Cities in Sweden have many churches but i wouldn't call sweden 'religous'

Maybe not now, but they were once. I never said I knew the statistics on who goes to church in ireland these days, I just meant,historically we are a very religious people and the church in ireland is still quite rich last I heard.

I always found the hardwood seats to be a pain the backside in the church, I had to constantly keep shifting from one buttock to the other.

Soby

Gummy Panda wrote: »

*pitches trouser tent*

:pac::pac::pac: genius

Bottle_of_Smoke

You should have started beating your chest and devoured several bananas in front of them, then run into the back garden and climb up the tree.

They'd act shocked but your Darwin message would have filtered in so much better

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Well, considering that the Messiah was a Jewish figure that was prophesied to come in the Jewish Tanakh, and was defined by 300 checks and balances. It's very very unlikely that Jesus could have actually fulfilled these, yet He did. It's still a very pertinent question if we are to assess who Jesus was according to the New Testament writers.

OK. Let's start from the beginning.

If I dispute the validity of 2 events you cannot use those events to prove their validity.

The writings of the Tanakh are not wholly separate to the life of Christ. Since I assert that the Gospels in their attempt to tell the story of Christ's life were hand-picked to help with doctrinal cohesiveness within the early church it follows that, by my argument, those Gospels would be those most likely to say Jesus delivered on the "checks and balances" of the Tanekh. The choice of the specific texts and the agreement (forced upon the early Church in no small part by Constantine's desire to have harmony within his empire) upon the content of dogma is not in dispute by any credible historian. (RHC Davis has done good work in this area among others) Theologists may have come up with theological justifications but the over-riding nature of christian faith was dictated by a partially converted pagan emperor of the Roman Empire.

If you can show me, conclusively, that the selection of the texts upon which Christian faith is based was wholly divorced from politics and was the sole remit of spiritual enlightenment then I'll be delighted. However, as I am extremely well read in this area I find that wholly unlikely.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is the problem though, this is a question of authenticity, and given the dating and the frankness of the New Testament writers concerning the women at the tomb amongst other incidents that could have been considered shameful before the Jewish authorities being present in the text. There is quite a strong reason to consider that the New Testament itself is valid. I think the issue with your assessment of my argument is rather that you are taking one point if and of itself when in reality they are all dependant on eachother.

I am sorry but that is ridiculous. The writers of the New Testament wrote that something considered a social taboo occured and that proves the New Testament is factually accurate?

Jakkass wrote: »

However given this though. Why do we accept Plato, Socrates and Aristotles work as truth when there is actually far less manuscripts and historical reason to accept them as such? Yet they are in philosophy.

This is probably one of the most bizarre things I've ever read. No philosopher ever accepts anything as "truth". In fact Socrates himself said that true wisdom can come only from knowing what you do not know. Beyond that, their works are about science (mainly Aristotle) and politics and the nature of man. None of them claims to turn water into wine or walk on water.

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't good enough though. You have lengthened the timespan of consideration to include 300 more years of assessment, when infact I was discussing the first century of it's own merit. If you are going to argue that Christianity is a myth you will need to explain how the disciples could have done what they have done. There are two options.

1) They were lying, which is grossly improbable due to the amount of people, and the amount of consciences to be assessed, and to have the drive to go as far as they did in the light of persecution.

or 2) The disciples genuinely believed that they had seen Jesus rise from the dead after knowing him for 3 years but were sorely mistaken. Given how much the disciples actually knew this man this is also grossly improbable.

You are in a dilemma now, you can't explain this using either 1 or 2.

I am in no such dilemma. I believe the disciples genuinely thought that Jesus was the son of God. That they believed this does not mean it is true. That they wrote of that belief and told others of it does not mean it is true. That they were committed wholly to doing so does not mean it is true.

Simply saying that people were very determined and accomplished amazing things does not mean they are true. The pyramids are a feat of almost unrivaled engineering prowess, built upon the belief that the Pharoah's were gods and built to honour them. Does their existence prove that? Of course not.

Jakkass wrote: »

BTW, Allah is the Arabic word for God. I don't consider it to be a separate God. Just that Islamic understanding of it has deviated from that of Christianity.

I am very aware of this, I simply used the correct term in context.

Jakkass wrote: »

If this doesn't give credence to the Resurrection or at least an extraordinary event, you will have to make an attempt to explain this, otherwise the Christianity as a myth option has completely failed.

I am sorry but this, once again, makes no sense. People can and do go to extraordinary lengths for all sorts of reasons. Making a martyr of oneself does not prove the existence of God. It simply believes that the martyr believed in God.

Jakkass wrote: »

There is nothing opposed to the existence of God and creation, and God and miracles in modern day science. If people claim that there is they are obviously trying to deceive for their own benefit.

Science works like this: If there is a theory, and it can be proven through empirical evidence then it can be considered true unless otherwise disproven. The person asserting the theory must put forth their proof.

The Christian theory for creation has no proof whatsoever. I am not saying that God does not exist for sure. I am saying that in absence of proof of his existence I am forced to conclude that there was another cause for creation (if such a thing even occured)

Jakkass wrote: »

My word, you've just defined the creation!

By jove you know I haven't!!!!

Jakkass wrote: »

10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123 is considered a statistical improbability. Yet it happened.

Again refer to the fact that my definition requires no God to make it plausible. Given the sheer vastness of the universe and other universes I would imagine a single planet containing life is less of a statistical miracle than you make out. The odds of winning the lottery are over 3,000,000 to 1 and the EuroMillions is closer to 72,000,000 to one. However, when we compare that to the number of entrants we get a much greater possibility of someone winning it. Just as we get a much greater possibility of life existing somewhere given the vastness of space.

Jakkass wrote: »

Natural = frequently observable.

Therefore, since God is not frequently observable, God is unnatural?

Jakkass wrote: »

If this isn't frequently observable it can be described as supernatural. The same is the case for miracles.

Define frequently? Supervolcanoes explode roughly every 40,000 years or so. No human has ever observed one. Are supervolcanoes supernatural? Or just non-frequent natural events? Also, a freak single occurence is not, by definition, supernatural.

Jakkass wrote: »

BTW, you go on to quote what headings I quoted from William Lane Craig in The Case for Faith. That isn't a syllogism, they are just different points of argument he uses.

The specific point I referred to was a syllogism in disguise. "God is the Resurrection. The Resurrection is made sense of by God, therefore God is real" That is a false conclusion since both statements make a presupposition which is the basis of the conclusion, that God is real. The conclusion cannot prove the statements upon which it based.

Jakkass wrote: »

Proof and evidence are different things. Evidence indicates that something is the case. Proof shows without a doubt that it is the case. I don't say that anyt of this is without a doubt, rather that it is extremely likely that there is a God.

So you accept that God might not exist and that this may all be totally incorrect?

Jakkass wrote: »

Ultimately God can be found by those who are actually open to finding Him and for those who look to find answers in the Bible. That's why Jesus said "Knock and the door shall be opened unto you, seek and ye shall find". Or why the author of Proverbs writes:

You have to actively seek to find. Once one recognises that God is very much a likely option, that is the starting point for faith in my opinion. If you are just going to pull over the shutters you won't find anything because you've closed yourself in. Also, you will never understand how spirituality works for Christians.

Unfortunately I am shuttered off to science. I require evidence of God's existence. Because I cannot believe that God could will all of creation into existence and yet not be able to adequately communicate with a people whose adoration he demands.

Jakkass wrote: »

And that there are sites to prove that Biblical events actually happened?

I am sorry but this makes no sense. I am saying that just because a location exists that is mentioned in the Bible does not mean that the events described there occured. I do not believe Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks had a romantic tryst just because I know the Empire State Building exists.

Sam Vimes

Deleted User wrote: »

I am in no such dilemma. I believe the disciples genuinely thought that Jesus was the son of God. That they believed this does not mean it is true. That they wrote of that belief and told others of it does not mean it is true. That they were committed wholly to doing so does not mean it is true.

This is true. As with a lot of his points, it only works if you look at christianity in isolation. When you look at the fact that followers of other religions that he believes to be false have shown themselves to be just as zealous and just as willing to die for their cause the point falls down

And the existence of jews goes against his idea that Jesus met all the 300 checks and balances. If it was that conclusive jews would no longer exist because they would have all converted. The fact that they didn't means that even in Jesus own lifetime there was dispute as to whether he met the criteria or not and they'd know better than us since we only have a dusty old book and they were around when it happened

Deleted User wrote: »

Again refer to the fact that my definition requires no God to make it plausible. Given the sheer vastness of the universe and other universes I would imagine a single planet containing life is less of a statistical miracle than you make out. The odds of winning the lottery are over 3,000,000 to 1 and the EuroMillions is closer to 72,000,000 to one. However, when we compare that to the number of entrants we get a much greater possibility of someone winning it. Just as we get a much greater possibility of life existing somewhere given the vastness of space.

I am sorry but this makes no sense. I am saying that just because a location exists that is mentioned in the Bible does not mean that the events described there occured. I do not believe Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks had a romantic tryst just because I know the Empire State Building exists.

I think you're fighting a losing battle there. I've been making the exact same points to him for about a month now and he doesn't get it, except I used the example of The Da Vinci Code and Paris instead of Meg Ryan and the Empire State building. (Both tom Hanks films, oooo spooky :P. I wonder is that evidence of the supernatural since it was unlikely....)

m@cc@

musicmonky wrote: »

well the uni of ulster also has something to throw into the ring.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4SD1KNR-1&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F29%2F2008&_alid=759868596&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=6546&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=1&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=bdb3ca48b21fdb2959f6f8ce4b6001de

It's quite amusing for UUJ Coleraine to be commenting on intelligence.

destroyer

MagicMarker wrote: »

Don't mind them, they're retards.

Anyone else think its a sad day for a discussion forum when this is judged to be post of the day?

Sam Vimes

destroyer wrote: »

Anyone else think its a sad day for a discussion forum when this is judged to be post of the day?

I think post of the day is random, or maybe the number of thanks?

philologos

Grievous wrote: »

This country is much too religious for me,You only have to walk around dublin city center and for every few pubs, you come across a church.

So you're advocating the State to go around pillaging churches? Theres' just too many of them! So what? How does this effect your own personal atheism to have to bear the sight of a church.

Deleted User wrote: »

If I dispute the validity of 2 events you cannot use those events to prove their validity.

Prophesies aren't considered events at all, rather foretellings.

Deleted User wrote: »

The writings of the Tanakh are not wholly separate to the life of Christ. Since I assert that the Gospels in their attempt to tell the story of Christ's life were hand-picked to help with doctrinal cohesiveness within the early church it follows that, by my argument, those Gospels would be those most likely to say Jesus delivered on the "checks and balances" of the Tanekh. The choice of the specific texts and the agreement (forced upon the early Church in no small part by Constantine's desire to have harmony within his empire) upon the content of dogma is not in dispute by any credible historian. (RHC Davis has done good work in this area among others) Theologists may have come up with theological justifications but the over-riding nature of christian faith was dictated by a partially converted pagan emperor of the Roman Empire.

Yes, but having said this. The Tanakh is a text of a previous time (800 - 450BC) to the Gospels (1st century). As such how could such intricate details have been known about Christ's life?

Mind you I think there is some merit in your next point when you say that the Gospels and the New Testament have been constructed to fit these things. However given the immediate time period between the evangelism and the speeches of the Apostles recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the Pauline letters it seems highly unlikely to me that there was enough time to fabricate such a sophisticated account, all of which coherent with eachother. These are both facts which have to be taken into account if and of themselves. Many things noted in Christ's Gospels were being circulated around by Paul prior to when the Gospels themselves were being written. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians was written circa 55AD, this would have meant that this knowledge would have had to have been circulating around in Jerusalem and in Israel where the Gospel was first received years before Paul had even started to go out on his missions. Corinth is one of the last places that Paul would have gone on his first missionary journey.

The amount of time by which people had to conjure up a fake Jesus is rather questionable indeed. The fact that you can say that the Apostles believed that Jesus was Lord, and had rose from the dead. Then, you accuse the writers of the texts most likely Matthew (Levi), Mark (commonly believed to be one of the 70 see Luke chapter 10), Luke another commonly believed to be one of the 70 and contemporary of Paul, John so called the "beloved disciple") of having corrupted Jesus' life when they themselves apparently believed what they wrote was true. Do you not see a problem with this yet?

The case for corruption of the texts is very unlikely given the hundreds of manuscripts that exist that match with eachother. It's actually easier to show that there isn't a case for corruption in these texts if you look for theological know how to back up your point of view than to outright refute them off the cuff.

I happen to think that your objections aren't intellectual ones, but rather that you do not wish for a God to exist due to the misconceptions that many have thinking:
1) The Bible is merely a book of laws
2) God is only an angry judge.

Neither of these are true, God is more to me than laws and regulations.

Deleted User wrote: »

If you can show me, conclusively, that the selection of the texts upon which Christian faith is based was wholly divorced from politics and was the sole remit of spiritual enlightenment then I'll be delighted. However, as I am extremely well read in this area I find that wholly unlikely.

In the first century by and large it wasn't. Theres even textual evidence in 1 Corinthians chapter 6 to suggest that the church dealt with their own affairs by some Christian form of law. If you want to skip 300 years ahead of what I'm actually talking about, then sure there was Christian and State involvement together. You have to admit though, it is quite a leap from the time I am discussing however.

Deleted User wrote: »

I am sorry but that is ridiculous. The writers of the New Testament wrote that something considered a social taboo occured and that proves the New Testament is factually accurate?

One example. Take it together with the archeological evidence and the hundreds of fragments of texts, and the dating of the Gospels. It's a fairly solid case.

Deleted User wrote: »

This is probably one of the most bizarre things I've ever read. No philosopher ever accepts anything as "truth". In fact Socrates himself said that true wisdom can come only from knowing what you do not know. Beyond that, their works are about science (mainly Aristotle) and politics and the nature of man. None of them claims to turn water into wine or walk on water.

I mean that people accept the debates that Socrates had with other Greeks to be actually true, and people accept the existence of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle to be true even though there is a much greater case for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, and a greater volume of work to suggest that He was the Messiah and a worker of miracles than anything that came out of Greek philosophy.

Aristotle believed in one God, and did make many claims about the divine. Yet people generally hold his work to be of somewhat good material. People on the other hand diss the New Testament entirely due to the fact they do not want there to be a God as described above mainly. That's the only somewhat rational reason I can find for arguing that the Bible isn't authentic.

Deleted User wrote: »

I am in no such dilemma. I believe the disciples genuinely thought that Jesus was the son of God. That they believed this does not mean it is true. That they wrote of that belief and told others of it does not mean it is true. That they were committed wholly to doing so does not mean it is true.

You're dodging the point now. There are only two possibilities for what the disciples could have done. They either genuinely believed what they believed concerning the Resurrection. They knew Jesus for 3 years of their lives. How could they have mistaken someone else for Him? It's either that, or they are lying. It is certainly a dilemma that you would have to reconcile if you wanted to provide a full and somewhat decent refutation of it. There is no reason about dismissing something as nonsense unless you have a refutation to give light on what actually happened, because if you do not do that there will be a means of doubt in there somewhere. Why don't you put the belief of the Resurrection in the grave now?

It's highly improbable that the Resurrection didn't happen for the following reasons:

1) 11 disciples with differing consciences, if the Resurrection was a lie there would have been clear division in their ranks. If we were discussing one person, it would be rather easy to say that the Resurrection was a lie, however when you are factoring in 10 more concerning the truth of the Gospels, it becomes a lot more improbable.

2) They were sure to have faced death. If they didn't consider the Gospel worth spreading, they would have returned back to fishing in Galilee.

3) If 2 wasn't true, they certainly wouldn't have gone as far as they did in the Mediterranean world all for a lie.

4) Jesus' brother James did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah prior to His crucifixion and Resurrection, something rather convincing would have had to have happened for him to come to faith in Christ.

5) Time period between Jesus' crucifixion and the evangelistic effort was too short. The Council of Jerusalem was in 50AD (Acts 15), Paul had been ministering in Asia Minor for years before that, and prior to his conversion, Peter and the Apostles had been ministering in Israel. This seems to indicate to me that basically from the get go they started spreading the Gospel of Christ.

6) If the Gospel was so contentious to them, why didn't any Apostolic leader turn back and reject their faith, if it was all a lie?

You would have to make sense of all of these things to adequately refute the Resurrection.

Deleted User wrote: »

Simply saying that people were very determined and accomplished amazing things does not mean they are true. The pyramids are a feat of almost unrivaled engineering prowess, built upon the belief that the Pharoah's were gods and built to honour them. Does their existence prove that? Of course not.

Threat of coercion != determination to spread Gospel

There is no such threat of coercion in the case of Peter and the Apostles. They could have stopped and turned back. So this is a fallacious example. They are not like with like, and it's an incorrect analogy.

Deleted User wrote: »

I am sorry but this, once again, makes no sense. People can and do go to extraordinary lengths for all sorts of reasons. Making a martyr of oneself does not prove the existence of God. It simply believes that the martyr believed in God.

Not for as long, not having gathered up as many people in the Mediterranean world as they did, and not having gone to the point of death in most cases. It would have had to be pretty good evidence that they saw post-Ressurrection to motivate all of them to do as they did for the love of Christ.

BTW, these aren't "proofs". They are merely indications to me about the likelihood of the Ressurection.

Atheists don't have proof of God not existing.
Christians don't have absolute proof of God existing.
Christians do have evidence by indication however.

Deleted User wrote: »

Science works like this: If there is a theory, and it can be proven through empirical evidence then it can be considered true unless otherwise disproven. The person asserting the theory must put forth their proof.

Right, but atheists assert that the world was an entirely naturalistic process, surely they too should put forward their proof. I don't buy the burden of proof it's an get out clause for atheists. I will hold you equally accountable in your views to me if we are getting into a debate

Deleted User wrote: »

The Christian theory for creation has no proof whatsoever. I am not saying that God does not exist for sure. I am saying that in absence of proof of his existence I am forced to conclude that there was another cause for creation (if such a thing even occured)

There are indications which suggest that a God exists through what we can tell about the Creation.

However, you're so insistent about proof. Provide proof to me that this world was formed through entirely natural processes. You can't either!

The only objective stance is: "There may well be a God, there may well not be a God". Theists and atheists have to appeal to indication to get to the positions where they are. This is why I actually expect atheists to have some form of decent reason as to why they can indicate that God most likely doesn't exist, to the same effect as the reasons I give as to why God most probably does exist.

Deleted User wrote: »

By jove you know I haven't!!!!

Yes you have. The odds of the creation are grossly improbable, yet it happened.

Deleted User wrote: »

Again refer to the fact that my definition requires no God to make it plausible. Given the sheer vastness of the universe and other universes I would imagine a single planet containing life is less of a statistical miracle than you make out. The odds of winning the lottery are over 3,000,000 to 1 and the EuroMillions is closer to 72,000,000 to one. However, when we compare that to the number of entrants we get a much greater possibility of someone winning it. Just as we get a much greater possibility of life existing somewhere given the vastness of space.

Your theory isn't plausible. It's ridiculous. There is no reason to suggest that the universe came into existence of it's own accord. Absolutely none. Not even science is putting this forward. Science remains agnostic on the issue of whether or not there is a God. That's fair enough, however it certainly does not say that this could have happened of it's own accord, it merely says "We don't know". To pass this off as science is quite absurd.

Winning the Euromillions compared to creating the universe, is a dead certainty by the odds of the latter. They aren't comparable. One of the odds is miniscule compared to the other. Atheists should really realise, we're extremely lucky to be alive

Deleted User wrote: »

Therefore, since God is not frequently observable, God is unnatural?

Depends. God can be immediately experienced in both my views, and in the views of William Lane Craig. So I'd argue He's frequently observable through the Holy Spirit. However, because you're not actually willing to give Christianity a shot, you'll never be able to understand what influence the Holy Spirit has in the lives of believers.

As for God being unnatural. Well if a supernatural act is carried out by a supernatural creator. Then yes, God is supernatural rather than natural. The creation based on the odds that I have provided, and your definition of miracle actually fits in rather nicely. You manage to explain away the Creation as a miracle, yet hold to your view that everything else that is improbable having come into fruition is just plain ridiculous? Do you not think that things which are extremely extremely improbable occasionally do happen on earth?

Deleted User wrote: »

The specific point I referred to was a syllogism in disguise. "God is the Resurrection. The Resurrection is made sense of by God, therefore God is real" That is a false conclusion since both statements make a presupposition which is the basis of the conclusion, that God is real. The conclusion cannot prove the statements upon which it based.

Right, but that's only the title of a section of his interview with Lee Strobel for the Case for Faith book. There is an explanation in the actual book of it.

Deleted User wrote: »

So you accept that God might not exist and that this may all be totally incorrect?

We can only base our views of God on probabilities. I believe it to be extremely unlikely that I am wrong, but given the objective stance it's only reasonable to assume that I may be wrong to be somewhat reasonable.

Deleted User wrote: »

Unfortunately I am shuttered off to science. I require evidence of God's existence. Because I cannot believe that God could will all of creation into existence and yet not be able to adequately communicate with a people whose adoration he demands.

Science does not make claims concerning God's existence. As such, it's nonsense to suggest that it does. Besides, if God exists outside of the universe, He cannot be assessed by natural laws, because He indeed is their author. As such God is beyond the reach of science in my opinion anyway.

You say that God cannot communicate with a people whose adoration he demands, although I've given you a means by which you can accept Jesus Christ as Lord and develop a spiritual relationship with God. You have rejected it. As such you have stubbornly rejected any means that anyone can give you to have this communication. It's clear that you don't want God to exist, rather than the fact that He does. If you seek, you will find.

Deleted User wrote: »

I am sorry but this makes no sense. I am saying that just because a location exists that is mentioned in the Bible does not mean that the events described there occured. I do not believe Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks had a romantic tryst just because I know the Empire State Building exists.

Let me get this straight, you believe no Biblical event happened at all?

The Temple has been shown to exist, the Bible depicts it's construction from wood from the cedar trees of Tyre, and Solomon having received these in good will as a gift from the King of Tyre (see the opening of 1 Kings), and had received gold to plate the walls of the Temple with.

It also depicts it's destruction, and the thieving of the Babylonians of the Temple artefacts. Ezekiel then gives measurements for the Second Temple which was to be constructed by Nehemiah later on in the Scriptures. There is historical reference for these events having taken place.

The Bible wrong on this? I really strain to see how.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Let me get this straight, you believe no Biblical event happened at all?

The Temple has been shown to exist, the Bible depicts it's construction from wood from the cedar trees of Tyre, and Solomon having received these in good will as a gift from the King of Tyre (see the opening of 1 Kings), and had received gold to plate the walls of the Temple with.

It also depicts it's destruction, and the thieving of the Babylonians of the Temple artefacts. Ezekiel then gives measurements for the Second Temple which was to be constructed by Nehemiah later on in the Scriptures. There is historical reference for these events having taken place.

The Bible wrong on this? I really strain to see how.

Jesus tap dancing Christ Jakkass I have explained this point to you at least 5 times and he has explained it a 6th time. Please try to understand it.

He did not say that no biblical event happened at all, in fact he said the exact opposite. What he's saying is that uncovering evidence that certain events took place or that certain places existed is not proof of the divine, at all, in any way whatsoever, by any form of logic. It's just not.

The bible was written when these places existed and when these events occured so it is extremely likely that they used actual places and actual events in their stories. If I was writing a bible today for use in 2000 years I'd be highly unlikely to make up a fictional city and a fictional person. Instead I would say that these events took place in, say, Dublin and involved a man who actually exists. The only thing that can't be proven about what I write down is my claim about what happened and my claim that something supernatural happened.

And unfortunately for yourself, the last part is the only part that matters. Proving that there was a man called Jesus and proving that there was a place called Sodom indicates fcuking nothing other than a man called Jesus existed and there was once a place called Sodom and that will not change no matter how many times you claim otherwise

Nodin

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

You should have started beating your chest and devoured several bananas in front of them, then run into the back garden and climb up the tree.

They'd act shocked but your Darwin message would have filtered in so much better

Good advice there. He should be advised to resist the temptation to try and take the kimberly choclate biccies up the tree with him though, as he'll need both hands free. Also, if hes been acting the chimp and throwing crap at them, it wouldn't be very hygenic....

Donny5

Jakkass wrote: »

Every man should read the Bible for himself. We shouldn't be left blind, but we should have full vision of God's will for us through reading and studying.

I feel that every man should read The Lincoln Lawyer for himself. You shouldn't be left blind to Michael Connolly's will for us through reading and studying.

Att-tichoo

could never understand why these kindof discussions get so heated.

im a catholic, i belive in god and heaven and all that jazz, it comforts me, its what iv decided to belive in

My best friend is an atheist, she belives in living life as she feels she should without worry or repercussions

I do not care what she decides to believe and vice versa,if she wants to tell me about her beliefs im interested, i like hearing about it..just because she's talking about it doent mean its going to change my opinions...
same way i can tell her about my religion and she listens and respects my decisions..

The people who shout down the other side of the arguement, are dismissive and mocking of other peoples choices are sad and to be pity'ed imo..i think it just shows your inability to be content in your own choices and are nearly afraid that you might be swayed by what other people are saying..plus i think the fact that if you need to ram your opinions(regardless of what it is) down peoples throats, then you need to look at the motivation behind why you think a certain way..is it what you really believe in or is it beacuse your trying to be contraversial/cool/obnoxious

btw, my friend loves abba, i really think this is more of a reflection on her character than being an aethist but live and let live i say...

MagicMarker

destroyer wrote: »

Anyone else think its a sad day for a discussion forum when this is judged to be post of the day?

Should be post of the year tbh.

me-skywalker

Upward Spiral wrote: »

My mam is up in my house for the weekend and it being Sunday morning, she tried to make me go to mass with her. I refused, using the old "but I'm an Atheist" reasoning to broach the subject. So off she went, noticeably indifferent to my proclamation of faithlessness.

She returned an hour later with some of her friends for tea and a Chocolate Kimberley in my kitchen. I went in to feed the dog and mam said to her friends "he says he's an Atheist, so he wouldn't go to mass with me". The other women laughed, and basically dismissed that such a thing existed.

I tried my best to explain my position on the whole religion thing, and even quoted Darwin. It had little effect on them.

One of the women is a real Jesus freak, and part of the parish brigade. She looked visibly shocked at what I was saying and didn't even crack a smile.

Do any of you experience such rejection of your views by family or friends?

Rejection is over-rated! so what!

Timmaay

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

You should have started beating your chest and devoured several bananas in front of them, then run into the back garden and climb up the tree.

They'd act shocked but your Darwin message would have filtered in so much better

Reminds me of one time back in 2ndry school in religon class, someone got a debate going about darwin and all that, our teacher dismissed it all as rubbish, and said how could humans have evolved from apes. We spend the next few weeks of religon class making nothing but monkey noises. Immature i know, but very funny!

OK Jakkass, I am not going to quote and analyse your post again. I do however have a few observations.

1. I would rather when you make a point that you did not use the rhetorical device of saying "There are only 2 possibilities" (mainly about the disciples lying section) as there are, in fact, a whole range of possibilities for how and why they did what they did.

2. You seem to have a complete deficit of logic. Your points are rambling and quite often misrepresent my position - as in the Biblical locations section.

3. The expression is IN and of itself, not IF and of itself. The latter makes zero sense, much like your argument.


I enjoy a good debate on issues like this but I have been forced to conclude, mostly due to your points about Aristotle and Socrates. I cannot believe you fail to see the difference between their works and the Bible. They are simply discussing philosophical issues. Whether the conversations actually happened doesn't matter as the points remain valid. However when one claims to be the son of God and to have walked on water then there is a need to examine the legitimacy of the events themselves. I am not saying that the principles from the Lord's Sermon on the Mount are wrong or should be ignored, as regardless of whether Jesus was God or not they have logical merit IN and of themselves, but that does not mean I have to accept everything in that book as true where they describe supernatural events.

Fanny Cradock

Jackass, I admire your posting fortitude.