Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Woman knocks down pope
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
Arcus Arrow wrote: »There was discussion about how a god created the world? Was there any discussion about if there was a god and for the those 3000 or so claimed to exist at one time or another why could none of them write their own name don’t mind put in a personal appearance on Prime Time?
We learned about secular humanism, existentialism, atheism, agnosticism and reductionism. All ideas which I currently oppose.
Your thinking is based on two assumptions:
1) Everything is material.
2) There is no objective meaning to existence.
Well if I held your assumptions, I'd agree with you, there wouldn't be a hope of God existing. The reality is that these assumptions result in a closing of mind rather than anything else.
If we deny the possibility of anything beyond this universe, then we have to deny God.
However, if you are to deny the possibility that anything exists beyond the universe, I think that is requiring of a very good reason as to why.Arcus Arrow wrote: »So all in all children labelled like products in a supermarket, each one from a different religious corporation and the few odd independents. Even that scene is a disgraceful way to box children into divisions to serve the interests of the adults born before them and who should be responsible to them first and foremost.
Wanting the best moral education, and the best opportunity for spiritual development for your child is something done out of compassion and love. It doesn't mean that children are labelled, although in a few cases it does, rather it means that people get the opportunity to develop faith. People can reject this possibility.Arcus Arrow wrote: »Did you do any searching outside Christianity as in over, above and around it?
I was an agnostic up until the point when I investigated Christianity. I also looked at the Qur'an and by extension Islam.Arcus Arrow wrote: »None of that tells me what the actual ethos consists of. I find Roman Catholics to be even worse in this respect. I’ve yet to meet one who could explain what the ethos was and especially how having this ethos meant practicing discrimination.
I've explained what it consisted of quite extensively. Just because a school has a Christian ethos doesn't mean that it is discriminatory. It merely means that it represents certain beliefs.Arcus Arrow wrote: »What is supposed to be an education should not contain superstition.
That's your view, there is absolutely no reason why it should be imposed on any other parents. I regard atheism to be nonsense, but do I want to enforce this view? No.Arcus Arrow wrote: »As for lumping all religions together I think you’re doing the same thing. There is no one religion which exists as a single organisation called Christianity.
How? We read from a single text, we hold to about 90% of the same beliefs. I don't see how it is unreasonable for me as a Protestant, and someone else as a Catholic to be both regarded as Christians.Arcus Arrow wrote: »Far more than the vast majority of those who are claimed to be members of the organised religions. Organisations claim their authority from the collections of the various disparate pamphlets, books, letters and scraps cobbled together in the various versions of a “book” which was never a book in the first place. I also know none of the characters could possibly have spoken English in the Iron Age.
That doesn't give me much of an answer. How acquainted are you with the Bible? Have you read it entirely for example?Arcus Arrow wrote: »What value would it be to those children who would be separated out for religious indoctrination? What gain is it to the children themselves? Whose purpose does it serve to label children into different lots?
I don't consider telling your child about your religious beliefs to be indoctrination in any shape or form. Parents influence their children constantly. Indoctrination would be drilling it in. Rather what happens for most of us is that our parents teach us a little about their faith, we learn some more at school, and we think for ourselves as to whether or not it is reasonable.
With some difficulty at the time, I found Christianity to be reasonable. That's why I am a Christian today.Arcus Arrow wrote: »Since you keep referring to your self as a Christian does that mean you are not attached to any organised branch of religionism? I thought you were Church of Ireland or do I have that wrong?
Yes, I'm CofI, but I can't say that I am influenced by what people say over what God has revealed in Scripture. I consider myself a Christian first and foremost, because I regard God's authority as coming first over man. I can think independently on the subject for myself, and I can reason with my believing friends about it. Many of these friends come from differing denominations (Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Catholic etc.), so I'm influenced in different ways too no doubt.
You seem to have the incorrect assumption that because I am currently a member of the CofI means that I am tied to the thought of ministers, and bishops in the CofI, this isn't the case at all. It's a church which has problems but which does seek out the Christian vision to life, and what is most comfortable for me. There is very little difference between my theological thought, and that of a lot of other Christians.
What really matters to me is the teachings Christianity brings to the world, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.Arcus Arrow wrote: »The role of science in the modern world has shown that the claims that promoted, sustained and brought Christianity to prominence were all lies by a series of Popes. Being a Christian does not demand anything save what an individual mind chooses to believe it demands. Another person could just as validly claim, and just as sincerely believe, that following the teachings of Walt Disney through his cartoons was a worthy struggle. It’s all in the head.
You're not very good at citation are you. You're making unsubstantiated claims about Christianity being refuted. If Christianity were refuted, it wouldn't be as influential as it is in the world.
It appears that your desire to refute Christian faith is running away with you. If Christianity has been shown to be a lie, present your argument. I'd be amazed as you'd be the first individual ever to do this on boards.ie.
Most atheists wouldn't go as far as to claim what you just have.
The difference between Walt Disney and the Bible is that there is more evidence to substantiate it than there is for Walt Disney's work which is verifiably fiction. The Bible is not verifiably fiction.Arcus Arrow wrote: »What you are referring to as a stereotype is not a stereotype. It’s a description of the condition of millions of minds around the planet. Lots of people can spend their time questioning and reasoning within the occupation they are employed in without ever questioning their religion. That you or a few others don’t does nothing to change that fact.
It's a stereotype to accuse all or even most Christians of not thinking about their beliefs. It's clear that you haven't noticed the huge amount of thought that is involved in both theology and in the Philosophy of Religion.Arcus Arrow wrote: »Christian is just a generic term like claiming you’re a hoover without saying which brand of hoover exactly. What do you mean by saying you’re a “Christian”?
It isn't really though. As I said already, there are core teachings that over 90% of Christians will be in agreement on including the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the authority of Scripture, the Virgin Birth, the atonement for sins on the cross, the moral authority of God, God as Creator. The list goes on and on of what we have in common.
What do I mean when I am a Christian, I mean that I regard Jesus Christ as Lord, and that I hold to orthodox Biblical based Christian doctrine along the lines of what is found in the Nicene Creed.Arcus Arrow wrote: »So you don’t have to think for yourself. The god being just leads you along as if on a dig leash? How can an invisible entity which, if it’s responsible for what it’s followers claim it can do has to be an incredibly complicated entity, spend it’s time leading you and billions of other individuals to concepts that don’t exist in reality. How many of you is it supposed to be coaching at the same time? There is no such thing as right or wrong and certainly no such thing as evil.
To genuinely believe in something one has to think about it and find it reasonable. It's because I think about God, the creation and His authority that I can come to this conclusion. I follow God, because I have thought about how likely God is to exist, and the value of the salvation that He has offered.Arcus Arrow wrote: »None of which is proof of anything.
If I may quote from Richard Dawkin's latest book which I am getting through at the minute:As for the claim that evolution has never been 'proved', proof is a notion that scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting. Influential philosophers tell us we can't prove anything in science. Mathematicians can prove things - according to one strict view, they are the only people who can - but the best that scientists can do is fail to disprove things while pointing to how hard they tried. Even the undisputed theory that the moon is smaller than the sun cannot to the satisfaction of a certain kind of philosopher be proved the same way that, for example the Pythagorean Theorem can be proved.
Your standards are unreasonable even by scientific standards! What Dawkins and I if I were ever to have an audience with the man would disagree on would be how strong the evidence is for Christianity.
And it isn't that just mathematics is the only way to proof. It's doomed to be incomplete. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem shows that there is no way that all mathematical problems can even be brought to a reasonable solution.
The starting point is not "God doesn't exist". It's "God may exist, or God may not exist". The starting point isn't rejection.
The best we can do is explain why with reason why we hold the position I do:
"God exists"
or the position you do:
"God does not exist".
Both of these need to be argued for. This means that not only must I provide reasons for why I believe, but also that you must provide reasons for why you do not. Both of our positions go beyond "God may exist, or God may not exist" therefore both positions require justification.
This video explains why:
N.B - I realise the burden of proof is still on the theist, but this does not mean that the atheist does not have to provide reasoning for their position at all. It's what is lacking about modern athiest arguments (this problem didn't exist in the 20th century or before) in general. I guess I mean, just because you can criticise my position doesn't mean that you necessarily bring us closer to showing that there is no God.
Not only is mathematics the only thing where we can find coherent proofArcus Arrow wrote: »In 1700 years of Roman Christianity there has not been one single piece of evidence for this god thing. More importantly it has never chosen to show up and speak for itself.
Really? I could cite many reasons why belief in God is reasonable. What I'd be interested in is what evidence do you have for dismissing God's existence?Arcus Arrow wrote: »If you don’t follow the god thing in the bibles which one do you follow? I had that the one in the second half was the one in the first half come on a visit because of the two nudist apple thieves or have I got that wrong?
What do you mean which one do I follow? There is only one Bible with numerous English translations.Arcus Arrow wrote: »There is no such thing as right or wrong and certainly no such thing as evil.
This view is dangerous. So nothing is evil, or wrong? Then why do you have the right to give out to people. The rational reason is this. You hold another person to account because you expect better of them according to a certain standard of ethical behaviour. I.E There is a moral standard that you both share. If there wasn't most reasonable people would have the right to ask you the following:
Who are you to tell me what to do?
Why do you have authority over me?
If however, God is the standard of ethical behaviour. It seems obvious why one person can say that they should have known better, and it's clear why God would have authority over people and it's also clear as to why it is universal between two people. The reason is simply that we are living in God's world, and as such we should conform to His standard.
This is also a piece of evidence for God's existence. Evidence being something which points to God's existence over non-existence.
If you say that there is no standard of good or evil, you are enabling the worst kinds of atrocities against humanity. We need to be able to tell people that they are wrong particularly when they are a danger to others.Arcus Arrow wrote: »The Bible can’t be for or against anything. It’s not even a proper book in the normal sense. Thinking the god thing did this or that or wants A, B, or C is just personally speculation. How do you know he gave you people a world and is that a separate one to the one the rest of humanity lives in?
It's a collection of books, concerning God's revelation and relationship with mankind. I think that this world is God's world, because I find it far more reasonable that there is a source for all that exists rather than nothing. It's because I actually seek for an answer to "Why is there something rather than nothing?" that I come to the conclusion that it is reasonable that there is a Creator.Arcus Arrow wrote: »Well I’m not a sinner whatever that’s supposed to mean. I’m way better than millions of other people and I’d hate to be so unappreciative of those humans who have strived for all the standards I enjoy that I’d denigrate their efforts by going through life with a “poor lowly” me attitude. I don’t find any attraction either in imagining there is a cosmic entity out there who would appreciate such servile self effacing grovelling. He sounds like a right bollocks all together if you don’t mind me saying so.
Considering that you don't believe that there is a standard for good or evil, of course you're not going to accept that you have ever done wrong. This is exactly like the two reasons why you don't believe in God, everything is material, there is no meaning, and there is no right and wrong.
If I believed in all of these three things, I would reject God too.
The question is is it really reasonable to make these assumptions:
1) Everything is material.
2) There is no objective meaning to life.
3) There is no standard of right and wrong.
No it isn't reasonable, and I think that you have to justify why you hold to these three points if you want me to come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist.Arcus Arrow wrote: »No they don’t. The Catholic Church Limited is a vast system. Within that system it recycles the money of the indoctrinated and rebrands it Vatican money so it can proselytize among the poor, the uneducated and the starving. Medicines Sans Frontiers helps people freely without selling an ideology unlike the Catholic Church which doles out company branded charity for it’s own perpetuation.
As I say, it appears that the doors are shut. The evidence of the charitable works of the Roman Catholic Church are obvious. In fact in comparison to secular humanitarian effort the Roman Catholic Church make a huge contribution.
This seems to be just denial out of convenience.Arcus Arrow wrote: »You see you can wave away the oceans of blood this religious split caused and dismiss all the human suffering that resulted for your own selfish reasons. Why not, you’re only a human being after all. The problem is the same god thing who is supposedly leading you through life had to be the cause of all this religious strife and bloodletting caused by its own failure to communicate clearly with it’s followers. That describes a very clumsy and inept master of the world.
The blood caused by enforcing state atheism in Communist countries in the 20th century came to 100 million lives. Do you think this is any better?
People become corrupt, that happens whether or not you believe in God.Arcus Arrow wrote: »[What has any philosopher ever proven beyond doubt?
Read the quote I gave you from Richard Dawkins. Are you really discrediting the work of all philosophers. I mean you are influenced by philosophy yourself.
The view that there is no right and wrong, good or evil comes from Friedrich Nietzsche.
Philosophy is about opinion. Everyone has opinions, philosophy provides a means for arguing for which opinion is more reasonable than the other. Nobody is based purely on facts we all have opinions. That's why it's important.
Atheism isn't a science, therefore I criticise it using philosophical means.Arcus Arrow wrote: »[Which inventions of benefit to the human race have been directly invented by philosophers? Other than “if” “maybe” “possibly” or “in my opinion” what use is philosophy? That something is useful at one time does not make it useful forever. Philosophy is as bogus as theology. Philosophy is over: this is the age of science. People who need philosophers are people who can’t think for themselves.[/font]
Philosophy isn't "over" by any means, and neither is theology. It's motivating your very thought processes. You'd be surprised at how much certain philosophy affects what people think without knowing it. Particularly ideas of the 20th century such as postmodernism.
People have been saying such nonsense for hundreds of years now. Religion hasn't died and it's not on the way out, that's what the last decade alone has shown people. Neither is philosophy.
By the way science started in philosophy and then broke off separately. Likewise psychology was influenced by philosophy particularly Descartes philosophy on the mind.
People have been saying that their age has been a scientific age since the 18th century. It's a fallacy of the highest order to say that just because science is important, nothing else is important. It's ferociously anti-intellectual for a start.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY1gEXYhfIM
Advertisement