Religion as a coincidence of where you are born

liamw

I actually started this thread in the Atheist forum, but now I'm geniunely curious as to what religious people have to say about it? (a picture says a thousand words, probably best to focus on the top image)

Turtwig

Ehh you've just shown there is no conflict between logic and religion.:P

I seriously doubt that second map, some people haven't even heard of some of those theories.

liamw

The point isn't to show conflict between logic and religion. That's why I suggested to ignore the second picture, it's kind of pointless here

chozometroid

This is easy.

Matthew 24:14 (King James Version)
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

The end hasn't come. You won't be here to post the updated map.

Stephentlig

chozometroid wrote: »

This is easy.

Matthew 24:14 (King James Version)
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

The end hasn't come. You won't be here to post the updated map.

If there was such thing as the comedy police, Liam would certainly be jailed for life.

Húrin

Why isn't there a "mostly non-religious" category on the graph? I think everyone knows that most people in Europe are not religious.

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

This is easy.

Matthew 24:14 (King James Version)
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

The end hasn't come. You won't be here to post the updated map.

You don't seriously belief the world will unite under Christianity do you???

Stephentlig

Stupid question to ask a Christian dont you think Malty T?

Turtwig

Stephentlig wrote: »

Stupid question to ask a Christian dont you think Malty T?

Apologies (can I play the Nooby card now?:o), does Christianity actually teach world unity through it in it's doctrine.

Seems like it's got a looooooooooongggggggggggggggggggggggggg way to go:P

Also, it seems so bloody unrealistic to say the least.

chozometroid

Malty_T wrote: »

Apologies (can I play the Nooby card now?:o), does Christianity actually teach world unity through it in it's doctrine.

Seems like it's got a looooooooooongggggggggggggggggggggggggg way to go:P

Also, it seems so bloody unrealistic to say the least.

No one is proposing that every person on Earth will be a Christian before Christ comes, but after He comes, the only ones left, will be.

I believe the message will be spread all over the world, and people will at least have the opportunity to accept it.

Essentially, the world will eventually be united, either under Jesus Christ the Son of God, or the false Christ (Satan, under whatever Christ-wannabe title he chooses).

KarlMarx

Do you think that the fact that not everybody believes in the same God may present an obstacle to that particular vision?

Fanny Cradock

I fail to see what the big mystery is. If I was born in Iran, for example, the chances are that I would be Muslim. This says nothing about the truth of Christianity.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I fail to see what the big mystery is. If I was born in Iran, for example, the chances are that I would be Muslim. This says nothing about the truth of Christianity.

But the point is that you claim Christianity is 'correct' whereas if you were born in Iran you would probably defend Islam with the same vigour, if you were born in India you would probably be Hindu and think it was 'correct'.

Basically some people are 'damned' because of geography. Hardly 'fair' is it ?

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

But the point is that you claim Christianity is 'correct' whereas if you were born in Iran you would probably defend Islam with the same vigour, if you were born in India you would probably be Hindu and think it was 'correct'.

Basically some people are 'damned' because of geography. Hardly 'fair' is it ?

Ah, but then we head into unknown waters. I don't know that I would not be exposed to Christianity, nor do I know the fate of people who have presumably never heard the Gospel. The latter is firmly in God territory. But if you requre a type of answer, I believe that people damn themselves by rejecting the gift of salvation. But, of course, you can't reject something that you where never presented with.

I'm not sure why you are wrapping certain 'words' with 's. I don't claim that Christianity is 'correct'. I calm that Jesus died for our sins, rose again and thus conquered death, lives on and will return one day to put the cosmos to rights. I unequivocally believe this, so there is no need for quotation marks.

liamw

Stephentlig wrote: »

If there was such thing as the comedy police, Liam would certainly be jailed for life.

Thanks for your valuable input :rolleyes:

Húrin wrote: »

Why isn't there a "mostly non-religious" category on the graph? I think everyone knows that most people in Europe are not religious.

Because this is a map of religions. It doesn't matter what percentage are non-religious, it just matters what religion the believers adhere to.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ah, but then we head into unknown waters. I don't know that I would not be exposed to Christianity, nor do I know the fate of people who have presumably never heard the Gospel.

Get out of jail free card. The statistics speak for themselves, and suggest to a high degree of probability that you would be a Hindu if you were born in India. I don't see why you think you would be the rare exception in this regard.

Even so, it's an indeniable fact that people tend to believe in the religion happened on where you are born and/or what your parents believed. You are absolutely correct in saying that this bears nothing on the truth, but the fact there is so many religions with people believing so fervently in their one ,coupled with the fact that their religion is typically geographically determined AND lack of evidence on any side to suggest that theirs is the correct one, would lead me to believe that none of them are probably true.

philologos

Problem:

If religion is based on geography, how did Christianity become the religion of a predominately pagan Europe?

If religion is based on geography, how did Protestantism become the religion of a predominately catholic Northern Europe?

If religion is based on geography, how did Sunni Islam become the primary religion of a predominately Christian Middle East, and Northern Africa?

For this geography hypothesis to be true, one has to believe that it is true for all time. It is true that Christianity is more available in Christian societies, but arguably it isn't down to geography moreso than anything else. If it were how could any of the above examples happen apart from convincing people of its truth.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

For this geography hypothesis to be true, one has to believe that it is true for all time. It is true that Christianity is more available in Christian societies, but arguably it isn't down to geography moreso than anything else. If it were how could any of the above examples happen apart from convincing people of its truth.

Used as a tool by the people in power.

Jakkass wrote: »

Problem:

If religion is based on geography, how did Christianity become the religion of a predominately pagan Europe?

The Romans.

Jakkass wrote: »

If religion is based on geography, how did Protestantism become the religion of a predominately catholic Northern Europe?

The Brits versus the Romans.

Jakkass wrote: »

If religion is based on geography, how did Sunni Islam become the primary religion of a predominately Christian Middle East, and Northern Africa?

Don't know that much about the middle east but may have been very helpfull in resisting foreign crusaders.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Used as a tool by the people in power.

Considering that Christianity has been a royal pain in the neck for many leaders from it's first arrival to the time of Hitler I don't think this is always the case. Hitler tried to use it as a tool but failed claiming:

“You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

CerebralCortex wrote: »

The Romans.

This is ignoring the fact that Christianity had made serious inroads into Europe prior to the Roman Empire accepting it as the official religion.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

The Brits versus the Romans.

Again, too simplistic. I would assume it was because the Reformers convinced people of their arguments for the most part. The English Reformation although King Henry VIII was a power figure was largely a grassroots movement. Of course you also realise there were German, Swiss and French Reformations, and Reformers also had a huge impact in the Netherlands.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Don't know that much about the middle east.

I would assume it was because people were convinced that Islam was true.

Edit: The OP fails to recognise that quite a lot of scientists also believe in a faith. Hence his second diagram is null and void, it isn't comparing like with like.

Euro_Kraut

No one is disputing that religion can spread and change overtime, Jackass. To be fair that is not the question that is being posed.

Rather the question is: Is religion a function of the circumstances into which you are born? I would have to say, yes. People born in Muslim countries tend to be Muslims, those in Catholic countries tend to be Catholic. There are always notable exceptions to this, but by enlarge it holds.

To take it further I would argue that certain people are predisposed to fundamentalism. Therefore if a fundamental Christian was born in Iran they would probably have been a fundamental Christian. Simulary I belive a priest would have became a Muslim cleric, as their were naturally spirtual person the motivations for entered the presithood are often simular across relgions.

Of course there is no way any of this can be proved, it just conjucture on my behalf.

philologos

To say, how it got there is important in answering this question though. The introduction of Christianity to Europe, meant that people had to stop listening to geography, and start being convinced by argument. This is entirely fair, and a valid point that needs to be dealt with by the OP if they are going to make a decent point.

What you are saying is, where one religion is predominant in an area, it is going to be more available than others. This is entirely true. This can also be a difficulty, people have more preconceptions surrounding faiths that are dominant in their societies than about other faiths. This could be the reason why Christianity is being accepted in societies which haven't had as big a Christian presence as elsewhere.

There are 2 sides to this argument.

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

Problem:

If religion is based on geography, how did Christianity become the religion of a predominately pagan Europe?

If religion is based on geography, how did Protestantism become the religion of a predominately catholic Northern Europe?

If religion is based on geography, how did Sunni Islam become the primary religion of a predominately Christian Middle East, and Northern Africa?

For this geography hypothesis to be true, one has to believe that it is true for all time. It is true that Christianity is more available in Christian societies, but arguably it isn't down to geography moreso than anything else. If it were how could any of the above examples happen apart from convincing people of its truth.

These aren't great examples because even these examples are based at their roots in geography. Once a major shift occured in the established religions of the hierarchy in these regions there occured a rapid conversion among the general population that fell under their geographical sphere of influence. The successes of these religions had very little to do with convincing people of their inherent truths, instead the influences of power and geography played a far greater role.

The people of the Roman Empire had access to the Christian message for 250-300 years yet it was still a tiny minority religion, growing no quicker than Mormonism is today. It failed to convince most people of its truth, yet once Constantine converted there was a massive conversion all across the geographical spread of his empire, was this just a coinicidence that the Christian explosion of the 4th Century in Europe occured just after Constantine converted and was limited in large part to the geographical extents of the Roman Empire, by this I am considering places like Lithuania which remained pagan for another 1000 years and just so happened to not lie within the geographical sphere of influence of the now Christian Empire.

Similarly for protestantism, the German people were happy enough to remain Catholic until it just so happened that the princes which ruled over the northern states became Lutheran. Did the people living in these states become convinced of the truth claims of Luther while it just so happened that those living in Bavaria under Prince Albert V just so happened to remain convinced of the truth claims of Catholicism. Of course not, the conversion were largely limited within the geographical boundaries of each particular state.

To deny that geography (and the politics connected to this geography) plays a far greater role in the distribution, spread and success of religion than how credible or truthful these religions claim to be is nieve and revisionary. Europe did not convert to Christianity because the religion is true and more credible than its rivals or because of its moral teachings, the people converted because there were significant advantages to converting to whatever religion the emperor chose to follow.

NothingMan

I think it's clear that religion is a coincidence of where you were born and I think most logical people (which according to the 2nd chart are everywhere) would agree with this.

I think the main question should be why someone born into a certain religion is able to systematically deny hard facts that are put to them.

I have no problem with the belief in God, but would it not be more logical and acceptable to all to say that all religions are infact worshipping the same "One True God" and that it is just sociological diferences in how they interpret their beliefs.

It still all doesn't make sense to me, but even when I was more agnostic than atheist, that was how I looked at it.

Stephentlig

842 :The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331

[URL="javascript:openWindow('cr/843.htm');"]843[/URL] The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

[URL="javascript:openWindow('cr/844.htm');"]844[/URL] In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

The OP fails to recognise that quite a lot of scientists also believe in a faith. Hence his second diagram is null and void, it isn't comparing like with like.

Religious beliefs are so widespread and somewhat different.

Imagine if this was the case for say, science.

America believes in the theory of Relativity and implores all its followers to do so,
Japan believes that there were no such thing as dinosaurs,
Africa believes that M Theory is the correct path,
After a schism, America is split between Relativity and Newtonian Physics - the former being deemed too counter intuitive for some.
China holds firm that dinosaurs existed, but were wiped out by humans.
India however believes that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor.
Osama Bin Laden issues a fatwa against all those who fail to believe that the black hole exists.
DPRK ,however, argues that they are dark energy stars.
Australia, uses a sexagesimal number system.

Europe on the other hand doesn't believe in any specific theory or system.

Húrin

liamw wrote: »

Because this is a map of religions. It doesn't matter what percentage are non-religious, it just matters what religion the believers adhere to.

In which case it is an imcomplete and misleading map. Atheism isn't a religion or faith but it is just as geographically determined as religion.

liamw wrote: »

Even so, it's an indeniable fact that people tend to believe in the religion happened on where you are born and/or what your parents believed. You are absolutely correct in saying that this bears nothing on the truth, but the fact there is so many religions with people believing so fervently in their one ,coupled with the fact that their religion is typically geographically determined AND lack of evidence on any side to suggest that theirs is the correct one, would lead me to believe that none of them are probably true.

So you're another evangelical atheist, come to present your evidence: "If that doesn't convince you that there is no God, how about THIS!"

I would expect that if you drew a map of the world based on populations who were educated in and believed in science, it would be concentrated in some places more than others. And those who believed in competing epistemologies would believe that the evidence was on their side just as fervently.

Malty_T wrote: »

You don't seriously belief the world will unite under Christianity do you???

Well Jesus said the world would be divided by Christianity. Brother against brother, the anti-christ, etc.

monosharp wrote: »

Basically some people are 'damned' because of geography. Hardly 'fair' is it ?

I doubt that any Christian would assert that the majority of the people living within the red, blue or yellow areas is saved.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

The Brits versus the Romans.

The English role in the Reformation was quite peripheral really.

Charco wrote: »

To deny that geography (and the politics connected to this geography) plays a far greater role in the distribution, spread and success of religion than how credible or truthful these religions claim to be is nieve and revisionary. Europe did not convert to Christianity because the religion is true and more credible than its rivals or because of its moral teachings, the people converted because there were significant advantages to converting to whatever religion the emperor chose to follow.

Stephentlig

atheism isnt a religion, because religion is somebodys way of how they veiw God, but atheists dont have a veiw of God.

on the other hand because it cannot prove that God does not exist, it is therefore a beleif that requires faith.

robindch

Charco wrote: »

Similarly for protestantism, the German people were happy enough to remain Catholic until it just so happened that the princes which ruled over the northern states became Lutheran.

At the time, when church and states were closely linked, it was normal for client populations to track the changes in religious affiliation of their leaders. The latter were directed by the passing political requirements of the moment (military subjugation, political alliances and so on), and ultimately the practice became codified a general principle known as Cuius regio, eius religio (approx. "As one's region, so his religion").

The inhuman savagery of the Thirty Years' War is as good a single example as any of how this principle played out in practice in its determination of the religious makeup of 17th century Europe, and what's now Germany in particular.

philologos

NothingMan wrote: »

I think it's clear that religion is a coincidence of where you were born and I think most logical people (which according to the 2nd chart are everywhere) would agree with this.

I think most logical people would recognise that conversion plays a huge role in bringing people to Christianity currently. In fact most people who are coming to the Gospel according to figures are those who have never heard the Gospel before, or those who live in predominately non-Christian societies.

Whereas in countries where Christianity has traditionally been held, there has been a falling off due to a lack of commitment to learning about God.

There is a net gain per day in Christianity of 23,000 outside of Europe and North America, there is a net loss per day in Christianity of nearly 7,600 in Europe and North America.

Total: 15,400 per day accept Christianity in the world.
Annually: 5,621,000

I'd reckon that a very high percent of this is attributed to missionary activity.

NothingMan wrote: »

I think the main question should be why someone born into a certain religion is able to systematically deny hard facts that are put to them.

What hard facts? This is what is lacking in atheist argumentation. Christianity isn't denying any facts whatsoever.

NothingMan wrote: »

I have no problem with the belief in God, but would it not be more logical and acceptable to all to say that all religions are infact worshipping the same "One True God" and that it is just sociological diferences in how they interpret their beliefs.

How is it logical?

If many religions say different things, there isn't a hope that they can all be true. That's logic.

As for acceptable - I'm sure it would be acceptable. However, we aren't here to serve men, we are here to serve God and defend the truth:

1 Thessalonians 2:3-4 wrote:

For our appeal does not spring from error or impurity or any attempt to deceive, but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the Gospel, so we speak not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts.

The Gospel isn't ours to change, but God's.

NothingMan wrote: »

It still all doesn't make sense to me, but even when I was more agnostic than atheist, that was how I looked at it.

It doesn't make sense to you that we don't become charlatans and compromise the truth we believe we have received from God?

What's logical about that? It doesn't make much sense to me either to be honest.

NothingMan

Jakkass wrote: »

It doesn't make sense to you that we don't become charlatans and compromise the truth we believe we have received from God?

What's logical about that? It doesn't make much sense to me either to be honest.

Of course it won't make sense to you, same as a belief in something like God can never make sense to me.
I think the main difference is that if God appeared in the sky tomorrow and said "Taddaa, here I am", I would be "well... That showed me." Where as if I can come up with absolute and irreputable proof that God does not exist christians would still insist he does, because religious people tend to have faith based on something outside tangable evidence. And that's fine. It is why we have these debates on here. and why we will never agree.

Húrin

NothingMan wrote: »

Of course it won't make sense to you, same as a belief in something like God can never make sense to me.
I think the main difference is that if God appeared in the sky tomorrow and said "Taddaa, here I am", I would be "well... That showed me." Where as if I can come up with absolute and irreputable proof that God does not exist christians would still insist he does, because religious people tend to have faith based on something outside tangable evidence. And that's fine. It is why we have these debates on here. and why we will never agree.

That's extremely arrogant and patronising. A pastor of a local church told me that if he saw "absolute and irreputable proof that God does not exist" then he would stop being a Christian.

Turtwig

Húrin wrote: »

That's extremely arrogant and patronising. A pastor of a local church told me that if he saw "absolute and irreputable proof that God does not exist" then he would stop being a Christian.

Do you actually think it's possible to prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't in fact exist? It's much easier to go the other way and prove it exists.

I'll agree, it is somewhat arrogant to presume that we will never agree, why are you [Nothing Man] here if you don't think we'll agree?

Stephentlig

NothingMan wrote: »

Of course it won't make sense to you, same as a belief in something like God can never make sense to me.
I think the main difference is that if God appeared in the sky tomorrow and said "Taddaa, here I am", I would be "well... That showed me." Where as if I can come up with absolute and irreputable proof that God does not exist christians would still insist he does, because religious people tend to have faith based on something outside tangable evidence. And that's fine. It is why we have these debates on here. and why we will never agree.

Over one million people of all different religions are an eyewitness to what happened in Zeitun Eygpt. all people of different classes.

you can veiw the photos of the people watching here also if you wish.
and the full account of what happened here on youtube.
scientists even gave their testimony and said ''you cannot deny what you see with your own eyes''. the photos were also examined by scientists and found to be genuine, they were taken in 1968.

what more proof do atheists need?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7wD20TeQFg&feature=fvw

philologos

NothingMan wrote: »

Of course it won't make sense to you, same as a belief in something like God can never make sense to me.

What is sensible about merging all religions together at will? If anything that would convince me that they are all fake if they are so willing to compromise what they regard to be holy so as to please mere men.

NothingMan wrote: »

I think the main difference is that if God appeared in the sky tomorrow and said "Taddaa, here I am", I would be "well... That showed me."

This is off topic. Although, I do believe that people can come into contact with God if they are willing to do so.

NothingMan wrote: »

Where as if I can come up with absolute and irreputable proof that God does not exist christians would still insist he does, because religious people tend to have faith based on something outside tangable evidence. And that's fine. It is why we have these debates on here. and why we will never agree.

There is a reason why God hasn't given us proof. This existence is largely a test of character to see how much you are willing to trust God, and be led by Him. God will become apparent to those who are really willing to seek Him. The Bible says this numerous times.

Jeremiah 29:11-14 wrote:

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon me, and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.

Matthew 7:7-8 wrote:

Ask, and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.

Revelation 3:20 wrote:

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. IF anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

Deuteronomy 30:1-2 wrote:

And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the LORD your God has driven you, and return to me the LORD your God, you and your children, and obey His voice in all that I command you today, with all your heart and with all your soul, then the LORD your God will restore you your fortunes and have compassion on you...

The question is, are you willing to trust God and see what He has in store for you, or will you turn away from it?

Pompey Magnus

Stephentlig wrote: »

Sorry but which scientists made this ridiculous statement? A few days ago I saw Derren Brown supposedly predict the lottery number, it was camera trickery but I did not see this, does this mean I can't deny it?

Stephentlig

Charco wrote: »

Sorry but which scientists made this ridiculous statement? A few days ago I saw Derren Brown supposedly predict the lottery number, it was camera trickery but I did not see this, does this mean I can't deny it?

it's not camera trickery, if you watch the youtube video you will know.

if you deny the testimony of scientists, and one million people of all different religions, classes, then it just shows that its got nothing to do with proof but everything to do with stubbordness, no amount of proof will ever move an atheist, because the grace to believe is a grace that comes from God and God only and only when they are honest with themselves and seek God with an open heart and mind will they find him.

Turtwig

Stephentlig wrote: »

Over one million people of all different religions are an eyewitness to what happened in Zeitun Eygpt. all people of different classes.

you can veiw the photos of the people watching here also if you wish.
and the full account of what happened here on youtube.
scientists even gave their testimony and said ''you cannot deny what you see with your own eyes''. the photos were also examined by scientists and found to be genuine, they were taken in 1968.

what more proof do atheists need?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7wD20TeQFg&feature=fvw

The human mind is susceptible to alot things and collective memory creation is one.
In a court case it is possible for a witness to tell a lie that s/he believes to be true based on a memory that falsified in their brain. The reason this memory falsified is because they heard/read something about the trial and then think they remembered that something, when in fact they're brain just brewed it up to make them sound more convincing.
This can be easily demonstrated by a 'take' on the gorilla during the match experiment :
People are asked to count how many times a certain the basketball is passed between a circle of players. During the course of the 'passing' a YELLOW gorilla intermingles between the players. Afterwards, the observers are asked how many passes were made. Then they are asked did they see the gorilla, not surprisingly a fair few* of them didn't. Even more so, those that vaguely remembered were asked to describe the gorilla : how many do you think thought the gorilla they saw was black? Quite a significant proportion.

Bottom Line : Personal Testimonies isn't going to cut it.
And those photos could probably have other explanations.

*Sorry I cannot remember the exact details, I'll see if I can find a reference or something on google for anyone interested.

Fanny Cradock

NothingMan wrote: »

Where as if I can come up with absolute and irreputable proof that God does not exist christians would still insist he does...

Ah, I see. Christians are intellectually dishonest.

Stephentlig

Malty_T wrote: »

The human mind is susceptible to alot things and collective memory creation is one.
In a court case it is possible for a witness to tell a lie that s/he believes to be true based on a memory that falsified in their brain. The reason this memory falsified is because they heard/read something about the trial and then think they remembered that something, when in fact they're brain just brewed it up to make them sound more convincing.
This can be easily demonstrated by a 'take' on the gorilla during the match experiment :
People are asked to count how many times a certain the basketball is passed between a circle of players. During the course of the 'passing' a YELLOW gorilla intermingles between the players. Afterwards, the observers are asked how many passes were made. Then they are asked did they see the gorilla, not surprisingly a fair few* of them didn't. Even more so, those that vaguely remembered were asked to describe the gorilla : how many do you think thought the gorilla they saw was black? Quite a significant proportion.

Bottom Line : Personal Testimonies isn't going to cut it.
And those photos could probably have other explanations.

*Sorry I cannot remember the exact details, I'll see if I can find a reference or something on google for anyone interested.

Malty T these apparitions of Our blessed Mother occured repeatedly over 4 years. Malty T's post is just evidence of how dumb atheists actually are.

I'm done with this thread.

Fanny Cradock

Back on topic, folks. I'm quite sure we have had a discussion on the same picture before. Once was enough, IMO.

Pompey Magnus

Stephentlig wrote: »

Malty T these apparitions of Our blessed Mother occured repeatedly over 4 years. Malty T's post is just evidence of how dumb atheists actually are.

I'm done with this thread.

How do you know it is Mary, you never saw this woman who died 2,000 years ago? How are you so sure it isn't a pagan goddess like Athena? After all in photograph her head is surrounded by a halo which is a pagan symbol, I doubt God would advocate pagan symbolism so perhaps it isn't her at all.

Turtwig

Stephentlig wrote: »

Malty T these apparitions of Our blessed Mother occured repeatedly over 4 years. Malty T's post is just evidence of how dumb atheists actually are.

I'm done with this thread.

Well, I knew I was dumb, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong please don't dismiss it,
I'm merely point out the doubt behind anecdotal and personal evidence.
It could be true, but I guess you'd be naturally skeptical if muslims saw apparitions of Mohammed.

*Edit : Apologies Fanny just saw you're post....wasn't around for that thread *

Stephentlig

Charco wrote: »

How do you know it is Mary, you never saw this woman who died 2,000 years ago? How are you so sure it isn't a pagan goddess like Athena? After all in photograph her head is surrounded by a halo which is a pagan symbol, I doubt God would advocate pagan symbolism so perhaps it isn't her at all.

This post is evidence that you havnt veiwed it on the youtube link provided.

The holy spirit is above her head in the form of a Dove, She has appeared above the church where she, Jesus, and Joseph stayed over 2000years ago. the halo is her crown, which burns very brightly.

that is why it is not some pagan goddess.

NothingMan

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ah, I see. Christians are intellectually dishonest.

That's not what i'm saying at all, I have absolutely nothing but respect for any true believer in their faith. It is just something I do not share. I have not had any direct sign or experience that to me says God exists, therefore I choose not to believe. I do not think less of you because you feel and have faith in the existence of a God. And i'm not gonna take a Youtube video as my proof either.
I'm not going to blanket most of the world as "intellectually dishonest". Obviously people on this forum are interested in seriously discussing what they believe and why(and these are the type who may change their religion based on what they belive and not what they are taught). But there are many who don't and just believe what they are taught in their communities.

Stephentlig

Malty_T wrote: »

Well, I knew I was dumb, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong please don't dismiss it,
I'm merely point out the doubt behind anecdotal and personal evidence.
It could be true, but I guess you'd be naturally skeptical if muslims saw apparitions of Mohammed.

*Edit : Apologies Fanny just saw you're post....wasn't around for that thread *

yeah the personal evidence of millions of people have it wrong.
you cant deny what you see with your own eyes over a period of 4 years.

its been examined by scientists as genuine.

NothingMan

Malty_T wrote: »

I'll agree, it is somewhat arrogant to presume that we will never agree, why are you [Nothing Man] here if you don't think we'll agree?

Do you really think that from this forum people are going to change their beliefs? I am here to put forward why I believe what I do, and discuss this with people who offer a different outlook.
We don't have to agree.

Fanny Cradock

Stephentlig wrote: »

yeah the personal evidence of millions of people have it wrong.
you cant deny what you see with your own eyes over a period of 4 years.

its been examined by scientists as genuine.

Like I said. This isn't the thread to be discussing such matters. Please stay on topic, folks.

philologos

NothingMan wrote: »

Obviously people on this forum are interested in seriously discussing what they believe and why(and these are the type who may change their religion based on what they belive and not what they are taught). But there are many who don't and just believe what they are taught in their communities.

What makes you think the Christians on this forum aren't typical of Christians in general?

You ask for the criteria that someone would have to go to to disprove Christianity. For me, it would be disproving the Resurrection of Jesus Christ:

1 Corinthians 15:14 wrote:

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain.

My main gripe with critics of Christianity is that people claim that Christianity is absurd, and give reasons, but on further inspection they have had very little contact with the Bible itself. If atheists want to get into the finer issues of Christianity, they will need to know Christianity well. Many posters here such as robindch, Wicknight and Charco do have good Biblical knowledge, but the vast majority of critics don't.

Infact it's very compatible with your example of people who think about their faith a lot, to people who believe without thought. There are atheists like this too. Those who criticise Christianity with knowledge, and those who criticise Christianity without knowledge.

Stephentlig

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Like I said. This isn't the thread to be discussing such matters. Please stay on topic, folks.

finally received and understood.

Thank you fanny.
God bless
Stephen.

NothingMan

Jakkass wrote: »

What makes you think the Christians on this forum aren't typical of Christians in general?

Personal experince from pretty much every Catholic I have ever met in real life.

Jakkass wrote: »

You ask for the criteria that someone would have to go to to disprove Christianity. For me, it would be disproving the Resurrection of Jesus Christ:

I did not ask for any criteria, I am not trying to change your mind, just stating how I feel

Jakkass wrote: »

My main gripe with critics of Christianity is that people claim that Christianity is absurd, and give reasons, but on further inspection they have had very little contact with the Bible itself. If atheists want to get into the finer issues of Christianity, they will need to know Christianity well. Many posters here such as robindch, Wicknight and Charco do have good Biblical knowledge, but the vast majority of critics don't.

Infact it's very compatible with your example of people who think about their faith a lot, to people who believe without thought. There are atheists like this too. Those who criticise Christianity with knowledge, and those who criticise Christianity without knowledge.

I do not study the bible, or the Kuaran or any other religious text, I am not interested in historical studies or religious studies. My non belief is down to the fact that I have never had any personal experience that would lead me to believe in a God. For me the bible is a book, same as many books. One that has many (I consider) Fictitious stories that may or may not instill a nice set of morals, and an extremely bias historical account of certain periods in time. I am not going to take it all as fact no matter what it says.

Stephentlig

I think nothing man falls into the category of ''niether seeks him, nor finds him.''

NothingMan

Stephentlig wrote: »

I think nothing man falls into the category of ''niether seeks him, nor finds him.''

That is a perfectly fair category to put me in. I see no reason to seek something I don't believe I will find.