Being an Atheist in Ireland is a Cnut

Acacia

womoma wrote: »

....and safer bottoms for the kids.

Yes, because religion becoming less popular will magically make pedophilia disappear...it's not like anyone besides priests ever molested kids anyway.

pablomakaveli

bravestarr082 wrote: »

JESUS NEVER EXISTED

That's ok. Jesus does'nt believe that you're real either.;)

Galvasean

pablomakaveli wrote: »

That's ok. Jesus does'nt believe that you're real either.;)

Of course he doesn't. How could he when he never existed? :pac:

pablomakaveli

Galvasean wrote: »

Of course he doesn't. How could he when he never existed? :pac:

Ya he does. He sat next to me on the bus once. Nice guy. Likes to play the banjo.

philologos

bravestarr082 wrote: »

JESUS NEVER EXISTED

How about you do some research on it and note that there are external historical sources which refer to Jesus of Nazareth (Y'shua ben Nazerat). All easy to say, but when it comes down to it Jesus of Nazareth is a much more cited figure than Aristotle or Plato. Are we to doubt their existence also?

BTW, it's not just Catholicism you are attacking, but rather Christianity in general.

wowoma wrote:

Nobody said that suddenly Christianity is going to disappear from Ireland.

However if someone stated that as an opinion, I believe it would be optimistic, though hardly "delusional" by anyones definition.

It's certainly delusional to expect Christianity to no longer exist in Ireland in the near future, or actually in the continued scale of history. It's merely fanciful.

Glad we have that cleared up.

You haven't in the slightest. You'd also need to show that belief in God is irrational to back that up. I'd personally contend it is far more reasonable than atheism actually. You'd also have to show that Christianity is based from ignorance rather than divine revelation.

I'll ignore that and resist the temptation to call the grammar police. I genuinely don't know what the question is.

It was rather clear I thought. Just because something is deemed fashionable, does this make it true? It's surely irrelevant.

If your question is why should they need their heads examined for thinking such a thing, my answer is, because it would be an utterly absurd, closed-minded opinion to hold.

Even though most of the studies that have been done on it suggest that Christianity will make a resurgence in Europe? Just take a look at PDN's post there.

Healthy growth in many congregations? Are you having a laugh? Heres one for you, - Fruit sales are down but in one shop in Leitrum today they sold twice as many bananas as usual.

No I'm not. I've seen growth in my congregation, and I still see growth. PDN and others have also accounted for growth in their church communities. Christianity is healthy right now. I've seen churches full of people from all different age groups. Am I meant to just dismiss this all?

Of course not. The problem is more that the Church needs to change how they do church, rather than people having an inherent problem with Christian belief I find.

Gimme a break man. You're not putting valid points forward to the discussion, rather just picking on me because I'm an atheist who you're inclined to disagree with and dislike.

I don't dislike you. I think you're talking tripe however, and I think it's reasonable to discuss it. There is no evidence that Christianity won't survive in modern Ireland, and theres no evidence that Christianity won't survive in modern Europe either.

Why not have some balls and admit the reality of religions drastic decline in modern Ireland.

I admit that in churches there has been a fall in interest recently, but this isn't across the board, it's more indicatory of how churches do church, rather than anything else. Pentecostal / charismatic churches are the fastest growing in Ireland because they appeal to a contemporary style, and they deal with issues in a relevant manner. As such they are growing by roughly 160%. Catholicism and COI experienced a 7% growth rate in comparison between the same period.

PS - I notice you didn't pick up on my point about less children being molested. I presume you agree that this is a potentially beneficial consequence of the RCC losing its filthy grubby grip on Irish society.

I don't defend Catholicism, as I am not a Catholic. I will let others do that for themselves. I can't see it as being anything but trolling though. Most Catholic priests aren't child molesters, and I think it's unreasonable to suggest that they are.

Sam Vimes

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Ya he does. He sat next to me on the bus once. Nice guy. Likes to play the banjo.

You saw God as a stranger on a bus?

Was he trying to make his way home?

condra

Acacia wrote: »

Yes, because religion becoming less popular will magically make pedophilia disappear...it's not like anyone besides priests ever molested kids anyway.

Wow, what is it with all the misrepresentation these days? It gets really tiresome having to keep saying "I never said..."
It also makes the person doing the misrepresentation you look like an idiot.

--I never said "religion becoming less popular will magically make pedophilia disappear".

However, I do imagine that a lower proportion of kids are being abused/molested now that the RCC doesn't have so much educational influence, as well as a rise in awareness, and vigilance.

I suspect if you were to survey my parents generation and my generation, you would find a correlation between religions decline, and incidents of abuse.

Or to be more frank, the systematic abuse of children by priests and nuns is over. That is a good thing.

I noticed that Jakkass put his thanks under your post there. This is the kind of pathetic croniism I was referring to earlier. I'm not here to represent atheists and pick on theists, I'm here making my own points, and I'll gladly put my thanks under a theists point if I consider it thought provoking, objective and reasonable.

pablomakaveli

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You saw God as a stranger on a bus?

Was he trying to make his way home?

No it was Jesus. Everyone knows God has a car.:pac:

Sam Vimes

pablomakaveli wrote: »

No it was Jesus. Everyone knows God has a car.:pac:

I wonder can God use the car pool lane since he's three people.....

Denerick

I just can't believe how all those simple minded drones don't listen to the wisdom of Darwin and Dawkins and renounce their faith? Surely only in the act of purging oneself from the evils of theism shallst one find thine rational perdition.

SoupyNorman

Jakkass wrote: »

How about you do some research on it and note that there are external historical sources which refer to Jesus of Nazareth (Y'shua ben Nazerat). All easy to say, but when it comes down to it Jesus of Nazareth is a much more cited figure than Aristotle or Plato. Are we to doubt their existence also?

BTW, it's not just Catholicism you are attacking, but rather Christianity in general.

OK, when I say that Jesus never existed I refer to the fictional character who cheated science and was born of a virgin, got terribly crucified and then cheated science AGAIN and rose from the dead. Very well there was a documented person called 'Jesus' who lived in Nazareth, so what. There will be a person called 'Timmy Mallet' of Torquay documented in history in future and in all honesty, Timmy Mallet is a more credible messiah then the son of 'God'.

Jakkass wrote: »

BTW, it's not just Catholicism you are attacking, but rather Christianity in general.

How exactly does that add to your argument?

condra

Jakkass,

You'd also need to show that belief in God is irrational to back that up. I'd personally contend it is far more reasonable than atheism actually. You'd also have to show that Christianity is based from ignorance rather than divine revelation.

That's another argument for another day, but amounting religion to superstition is perfectly acceptable to me, and many others.
Let's not get bogged down in semantics. Admittadly, it was a bit of a cheap shot on my behalf, but it was meant with some tongue in cheek.

Just because something is deemed fashionable, does this make it true?

I never said it did. Your ability to misinterpret, and misrepresent is astonishing. But nobody is falling for it, you'll just get a name for yourself if you aren't able to contribute to a discussion in a fair and objective manner.

Even though most of the studies that have been done on it suggest that Christianity will make a resurgence in Europe? Just take a look at PDN's post there.

So you admit there has been a decline in Christianity?
Either way, I'm not interested in arguing over some dodgy biased prediction that PDN whipped out of his latest copy of priests monthly.
As I've alredy alluded to, I am of the opinion that religion will continue to decline, save for some sort of disasterous fascist regime taking hold. < That there, is my opinion.

There is no evidence that Christianity won't survive in modern Ireland, and theres no evidence that Christianity won't survive in modern Europe either.

There you go with the misrepresentation again. You are suggesting that I claimed that Christianity won't survive in modern Ireland, and I never made such a claim.

Still I think its kind of ironic to see a theist inciting "evidence" to back up a point.;)

I admit that in churches there has been a fall in interest recently, but this isn't across the board, it's more indicatory of how churches do church, rather than anything else. Pentecostal / charismatic churches are the fastest growing in Ireland because they appeal to a contemporary style, and they deal with issues in a relevant manner. As such they are growing by roughly 160%. Catholicism and COI experienced a 7% growth rate in comparison between the same period.

Did you not get my point about the bananas? If the numbers of Pastafarians increased from 200 to 400, that would be a huge growth for them, but insignificant to the bigger picture. Most sane people would agree that there has been a substantial decline in religion in Ireland on the overall scheme of things.

Either way, I'd rather discuss concepts and opinions than to play some sort of "Who Shot John" game with "statistics".

Most Catholic priests aren't child molesters, and I think it's unreasonable to suggest that they are.

I didn't suggest that most Catholic priests are child molesters and I think it's utterly insulting to suggest that I did.
STOP MISREPRESENTING ME.
You are really making a fool out of yourself by doing so.

If you are looking for a mind-numbing, childish, tit for tat, ad hominem argument, where misrepresenting your opponent and getting the last word are the most important factors, count me out. Try Sam Vimes there, he's good for that sort of thing. (been there, bought the t-shirt)

On the other hand, if you want to make some points of your own, rather than continually try to dismantle mine, I'm more than willing to read your points objectively.

javaboy

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I wonder can God use the car pool lane since he's three people.....

At least something good came out of this thread.

philologos

womoma wrote: »

I noticed that Jakkass put his thanks under your post there. This is the kind of pathetic croniism I was referring to earlier. I'm not here to represent atheists and pick on theists, I'm here making my own points, and I'll gladly put my thanks under a theists point if I consider it thought provoking, objective and reasonable.

Actually, I thanked the post because I agreed with it and found it to be a necessary response, I don't agree with your equation of certain distortionist individuals to the entire Catholic Church. It's not a reasonable argument against Christianity as a whole either, as Jesus never advocated child abuse. I think it's great that someone called you out on it.

bravestarr082 wrote: »

OK, when I say that Jesus never existed I refer to the fictional character who cheated science and was born of a virgin, got terribly crucified and then cheated science AGAIN and rose from the dead. Very well there was a documented person called 'Jesus' who lived in Nazareth, so what. There will be a person called 'Timmy Mallet' of Torquay documented in history in future and in all honesty, Timmy Mallet is a more credible messiah then the son of 'God'.

Nonsense. Science only observes what is natural, and frequently observable. Nobody claims that Jesus' birth was a natural event, nobody claims that His miracles were natural, but rather supernatural. Science doesn't deal with what is supernatural.

You saying that Jesus Christ as the New Testament depicts never exists, is nothing more than a belief statement of yours, just as much as Jesus Christ is Lord is a belief of mine. At least I have indications to back my beliefs up.

bravestarr082 wrote: »

How exactly does that add to your argument?

It doesn't. I'm merely saying, your post seems to be directed at Catholicism, but you are actually attempting to attack world Christianity in general.


I never said it did. Your ability to misinterpret, and misrepresent is astonishing. But nobody is falling for it, you'll just get a name for yourself if you aren't able to contribute to a discussion in a fair and objective manner.

womoma wrote: »

So you admit there has been a decline in Christianity?
Either way, I'm not interested in arguing over some dodgy biased prediction that PDN whipped out of his latest copy of priests monthly.
As I've alredy alluded to, I am of the opinion that religion will continue to decline, save for some sort of disasterous fascist regime taking hold. < That there, is my opinion.

In Europe yes, in the world no far from it. Christianity has been growing rapidly for the last few centuries in a global context. Christianity will still be the largest religion in 2050, and it will have grown considerably also. Myself and PDN both have cited material that you can read that suggest this. You however are going on merely a whim.

womoma wrote: »

There you go with the misrepresentation again. You are suggesting that I claimed that Christianity won't survive in modern Ireland, and I never made such a claim.

You claimed "the cult of Jesus has lost", which kind of implies that it is on the road to death.

womoma wrote: »

Still I think its kind of ironic to see a theist inciting "evidence" to back up a point.;)

Theres plenty of evidence to back up the legitimacy of the Christian faith in the world based on what indicates God's existence. God's existence is as real to me as the existence of any other being I see on a daily basis. There however is no evidence to suggest that God doesn't exist.

womoma wrote: »

Did you not get my point about the bananas? If the numbers of Pastafarians increased from 200 to 400, that would be a huge growth for them, but insignificant to the bigger picture. Most sane people would agree that there has been a substantial decline in religion in Ireland on the overall scheme of things.

You are ignoring the point however, certain ways of doing church seem to be getting a better response than others. This means more that people aren't opposed to the message of the Gospel, but the means by which it is executed in Irish life.

womoma wrote: »

Either way, I'd rather discuss concepts and opinions than to play some sort of "Who Shot John" game with "statistics".

I would too, but things need to be cleared up too.

womoma wrote: »

I didn't suggest that most Catholic priests are child molesters and I think it's utterly insulting to suggest that I did.
STOP MISREPRESENTING ME.
You are really making a fool out of yourself by doing so.

You're making a fool of yourself by using distortionists as a means to argue against Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ. It's wholly irrelevant.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Nonsense. Science only observes what is natural, and frequently observable. Nobody claims that Jesus' birth was a natural event, nobody claims that His miracles were natural, but rather supernatural. Science doesn't deal with what is supernatural.

Science observes whatever is there to observe so I would venture that science has never observed the super natural because no supernatural events have ever occured

Remarkable claims such as claims of the supernatural require remarkable evidence to back them up and I'm afraid that 2000 year old eye witness accounts from people who were so dedicated to the man about whom the claims are being made that they were willing to die for him doesn't really cut it as evidence I'm afraid. Their claims are no more believeable than the equivalent claims that have been made by the followers of countless other religious and non religious cults, the non religious ones being those self help type things that claim they can make your life better if you give them a lot of money

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Science observes whatever is there to observe so I would venture that science has never observed the super natural because no supernatural events have ever occured

We can only observe what is within the universe, anything beyond that isn't observable by mankind in any shape or form.

Remarkable claims such as claims of the supernatural require remarkable evidence to back them up and I'm afraid that 2000 year old eye witness accounts from people who were so dedicated to the man about whom the claims are being made that they were willing to die for him doesn't really cut it as evidence I'm afraid. Their claims are no more believeable than the equivalent claims that have been made by the followers of countless other religious cults.

I've provided much more reason to believe what I do than just the Biblical text alone.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

We can only observe what is within the universe, anything beyond that isn't observable by mankind in any shape or form.

This is true but the supernatural things that are claimed about Jesus happened in our universe. In fact back in those days you could barely go out for a walk without seeing a supernatural event but since those days science has come about and the default position of science is not to believe until evidence has been presented. There have been millions of claims of supernatural events since those days but evidence has yet to be presented for any of them

Jakkass wrote: »

I've provided much more reason to believe what I do than just the Biblical text alone.

I'm afraid Jakkass that you only think you have. If you mean your 7 reasons in your sig, each one of them has it's own logical flaw and they have all been pointed out to you by several people. I've got a pretty airtight response ready for each of them if you're interested?

If you're talking about other evidence, what evidence?

Overblood

Jakkass wrote: »

We can only observe what is within the universe, anything beyond that isn't observable by mankind in any shape or form.

What makes you think there's anything "beyond"?

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Theres plenty of evidence to back up the legitimacy of the Christian faith in the world based on what indicates God's existence. God's existence is as real to me as the existence of any other being I see on a daily basis. There however is no evidence to suggest that God doesn't exist.

List these things please. I have seen you say this a number of times so I'd like to see your list of things that "indicates" God's existence.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is true but the supernatural things that are claimed about Jesus happened in our universe. In fact back in those days you could barely go out for a walk without seeing a supernatural event but since those days science has come about and the default position of science is not to believe until evidence has been presented. There have been millions of claims of supernatural events since those days but evidence has yet to be presented for any of them

Ah, careful though. Was the force that was said to have carried out these miracles external or within to the universe? Miracles in religious tradition is generally manipulations of the physical laws of the universe in a way that isn't naturally possible by an external being or higher power. We never claim that this happens of it's own accord, or indeed happened of it's own accord, but rather that something extraordinary happened. If miracles happened every day they would become normal, and they would occur frequently and they would be eventually regarded as natural. Miracles by their nature are extremely rare, that's why we call them miracles.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm afraid Jakkass that you only think you have. If you mean your 7 reasons in your sig, each one of them has it's own logical flaw and they have all been pointed out to you by several people. I've got a pretty airtight response ready for each of them if you're interested?

If you're talking about other evidence, what evidence?

Sorry I have done. External material from the Bible does indicate God's existence rather strongly. I think if the atheist has another case to bring to the table, they should explain how supernatural events cannot occur within the universe, or to give indication for the universe being purely naturalistic, and that supernatural events can or have not ever happened.

Sam Vimes

Deleted User wrote: »

List these things please. I have seen you say this a number of times so I'd like to see your list of things that "indicates" God's existence.

They're in his sig, you've already responded to them and gave exactly the same responses that I did because you saw the same flaws

I asked him why he thinks we both said they had the same flaws and he said we're both just looking for any excuse not to believe.

While that's not necessarily true, it's not a bad thing either since looking for excuses not to believe is what science does. We don't have to disprove something, the person making the claim has to prove it

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Ah, careful though. Was the force that was said to have carried out these miracles external or within to the universe? Miracles in religious tradition is generally manipulations of the physical laws of the universe in a way that isn't naturally possible by an external being or higher power. We never claim that this happens of it's own accord, or indeed happened of it's own accord, but rather that something extraordinary happened. If miracles happened every day they would become normal, and they would occur frequently and they would be eventually regarded as natural. Miracles by their nature are extremely rare, that's why we call them miracles.

Then you don't understand the word natural. Nature has laws that don't change and if random laws were temporarily broken at random intervals, that would not be seen as natural. The frequency of occurence is irrelevant

Jakkass wrote: »

Sorry I have done. External material from the Bible does indicate God's existence rather strongly. I think if the atheist has another case to bring to the table, they should explain how supernatural events cannot occur within the universe, or to give indication for the universe being purely naturalistic, and that supernatural events can or have not ever happened.

I don't have to disprove your claim, you have to prove it. Even if you prove that supernatural things can occasionally happen that doesn't prove that the Christian god did them

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

While that's not necessarily true, it's not a bad thing either since looking for excuses not to believe is what science does. We don't have to disprove something, the person making the claim has to prove it

Sam, what a load of tripe! Science takes no position on God, it doesn't promote atheism in the slightest and if it did theists would have absolutely no reason to trust it. Theres no room for bias in science.

The only objective stance:
"There may well be a God, or there may well not be".

You: "God doesn't exist".
Me: "God does exist"

Both of us should have indication if we are going to justify our beliefs.

Stop skirting around the issue, and either deal with my issue, or don't. You either want to justify your beliefs, or you don't. And that's what they are, beliefs.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, what a load of tripe! Science takes no position on God, it doesn't promote atheism in the slightest.

The only objective stance:
"There may well be a God, or there may well not be".

You: "God doesn't exist".
Me: "God does exist"

Both of us should have indication if we are going to justify our beliefs.

Stop skirting around the issue, and either deal with my issue, or don't. You either want to justify your beliefs, or you don't. And that's what they are, beliefs.

I don't have any beliefs Jakkass, all I have is disbelief the same way you have disbelief in unicorns.

Science considers all possibilites but does not accept one as true until it can be shown to be true. The christian God has yet to be shown to be true, simple as that

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Science considers all possibilites but does not accept one as true until it can be shown to be true. The christian God has yet to be shown to be true, simple as that

It certainly doesn't promote atheism however. This is one of the corruptions I find lately. Atheists claim that atheism is synonomous with scientific thought, what a joke.

Even if it were, science has it's place, it explains how we are the way we are. What's the difference with religion and other metaphysical claims, they explain why we are the way we are.

I don't use biology to explain history, likewise I don't use history to explain biology.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It certainly doesn't promote atheism however. This is one of the corruptions I find lately. Atheists claim that they are synonomous with scientific thought, what a joke.

Even if it were, science has it's place, it explains how we are the way we are. What's the difference with religion and other metaphysical claims, they explain why we are the way we are.

I don't use biology to explain history, likewise I don't use history to explain biology.

No you're using religion to answer a question that doesn't make any sense because there is no why.

I think you're misunderstanding my position here. I don't absolutely state that there is no supernatural being, I don't know enough about the universe to state that. In fact in order to make the claims you make, that it must have been a God, you would have to know everything about the universe to discount all other possibilities

So I don't absolutely reject the idea of a creator, I just don't accept it as the only possibility

And I lean towards rejecting established religions for a variety of reasons, including that they have been shown to be flawed and the idea that they are flawed is not compatible with them being true

So when I reject your reasons why you think there's a god, I am not rejecting god, just your flawed reasons. He might well exist despite your flawed justifications

Sam Vimes

There is not one type of atheist, there are agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists. Gnostic atheists are no better than theists because they claim to know there is no god and they can't know that any more than you can know there is a god

I'm an agnostic atheist because I don't know there is no god and am open to the possibility that there is one but I have yet to be shown supporting evidence

philologos

I find it a bit of a stretch to believe that things do not have a purpose given that it is clear that our legs have the purpose to enable us to walk and our eyes enable us to see. Just as much as this is the case, I would argue that humanity also has a purpose to the world, and it is up for us to discern what exactly our purpose in the world is, or what purpose has been put aside for us.

There is no why to why anything in the natural universe exists the way it does?

Christianity hasn't been shown to be flawed, if it was I wouldn't have adopted it as my faith. It's merely a claim to say that you think that something is flawed, it's rather different from it being flawed objectively.

javaboy

Jakkass wrote: »

I find it a bit of a stretch to believe that things do not have a purpose given that it is clear that our legs have the purpose to enable us to walk and our eyes enable us to see

I don't like where this is going.

coffee_cake

javaboy wrote: »

I don't like where this is going.

someone had to bring up the obviously designed banana eventually