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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

15354565859196

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zombrex: A positive argument (proposing atheism). Not a negative argument (disagreement with other positions).

    King Mob: You claim that making a positive argument for atheism isn't possible. I've shown you that it is. What's the issue with that?
    The problem of evil is a positive argument insofar as it is saying given the way the world is here, it doesn't seem likely that God exists. It doesn't bother itself with whether or not Chrisitanity is wrong, or whether or not Judaism is wrong or so on.

    Positive argument - demonstrates that a conclusion is true. (The world is the way it is, therefore there is no God). Positive arguments for atheism as far as I can tell, work on attempting to demonstrate that there is no God.
    Negative argument - undermines an opposing conclusion (Christianity claims X, it is wrong for Y, or Z reason). Negative arguments for atheism, essentially are about claiming that other faiths are wrong.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    You know it's possible, and I know it's possible too. This man gave it a good go, as did this guy. This is an example of a positive argument for atheism. The problem of evil isn't an a negative argument, because it says, given the way the world is, it's reasonable to think that God exists.

    The problem of evil is not an argument for atheism. It is an argument against a benevolent deity. Anyone who believes in an evil deity will have no issue with the problem of evil nor will they be an atheist.
    philologos wrote: »
    The "no evidence" / "no reason" argument is however, absurd from my POV.

    That is because you some how look at the world around and some how say it is evidence for the accuracy of the claims of your religion. Not unsurprisingly you get a bit fuzzy about the details of this.

    For example, do you believe that all human languages originated when God threw the men building the tower of Babel to the four corners of the Earth?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    Zombrex: A positive argument (proposing atheism). Not a negative argument (disagreement with other positions).

    Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims. A rejection is by definition a negative argument, it is a reason for not believing something.

    You know that perfectly well, you seem simply to want to frame the conversation in such a way that you can walk away from it without having to engage in any proper discussion.

    Are you seriously that threatened by atheism?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I'm not threatened by atheism. I just find negative arguments for atheism to be fundamentally less convincing than positive ones. As I've said before, even if for arguments sake Christianity is false, you've not shown atheism to be true.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm not threatened by atheism. I just find negative arguments for atheism to be fundamentally less convincing than positive ones. As I've said before, even if Christianity is false, you've not shown atheism to be true.

    Then I would suggest that you have no idea what atheism actually is, since there is no such thing as a positive argument for atheism. You are an atheist if you find convincing reasons not to be a theist. Again by definition those will be negative arguments (as you define that)

    Since we both know you know this I'm going to go back to the threatened by atheism theory. Your posts in recent months have got a lot more fire and brime stone in them, and a lot less openness to rational argument and discussion. I've lost track of the amount of times in the last few months you have gone off topic simply to tell me I need to accept Jesus.

    In my experience this is a process theists go through when they are attempting to batten down the hatches so to speak against external arguments and threats to their faith. You certainly seem to have zero interest here in having a proper discussion about reasons to think Christianity is not true.

    Cognitive dissonance ain't just a river in Egypt.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I have plenty an idea of what it is. It's the rejection of belief in God, but there is no reason why one can't have positive reasons for doing this and people do have positive reasons.

    The "no evidence" nonsense is fundamentally unconvincing to me as a Christian, and I don't see how any argument concerning the God question can progress unless atheists are willing to make positive arguments for their position - I.E as to why God's existence is improbable.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    I have plenty an idea of what it is. It's the rejection of belief in God, but there is no reason why one can't have positive reasons for doing this and people do have positive reasons.

    Not in the way you are defining positive arguments. All arguments for atheism will be arguments claiming that the claims of other faiths are wrong or unsupported by evidence. That is what atheism is, the rejection of the claims of theism.
    philologos wrote: »
    The "no evidence" nonsense is fundamentally unconvincing to me as a Christian, and I don't see how any argument concerning the God question can progress unless atheists are willing to make positive arguments for their position - I.E as to why God's existence is improbable.

    Why would you have to demonstrate God's existence is improbable to be an atheist?

    Again you are attempting to frame the discussion in a way that you know will be difficult to an atheist to support.

    Again I can only conclude you are doing this because you are threatened by the actual reasons most people are atheists, because you know it is much harder to justify your continued faith with these reasons.

    You want to limit the discussion to areas where you can say Oh well no one really knows so I'm going to continue to be a Christian and that is perfectly reasonable and no one can say it isn't.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    You don't have to, I just think it is a heck of a lot more convincing than simply trying to rubbish Christianity - which does nothing to advance your position ultimately on a logical level. As I've said multiple times, demonstrating that Christianity is false, doesn't demonstrate that atheism is true. It's largely for that reason that I think positive arguments for atheism are better than negative ones. Negative ones are largely dependant on a particular faith or a subset of them rather than faith as a whole. Many atheist arguments on boards.ie don't even cover Christianity.

    No threat, just honestly an attempt to bring this discussion to a better place for both parties. The new-atheist screaming of "no evidence" just comes across as denial as far as I'm concerned.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    philologos wrote: »
    King Mob: You claim that making a positive argument for atheism isn't possible. I've shown you that it is. What's the issue with that?
    Because you haven't shown it to be possible.
    You just said it has been then refuse to actually point to any.
    Then when I ask you to provide examples for things you lack a belief it, you ignore the question.

    So why haven't you been able to provide the positive arguments for afairyism or ateapotism?
    Please stop pretending this point does not exist.
    philologos wrote: »
    The problem of evil is a positive argument insofar as it is saying given the way the world is here, it doesn't seem likely that God exists. It doesn't bother itself with whether or not Chrisitanity is wrong, or whether or not Judaism is wrong or so on.

    Positive argument - demonstrates that a conclusion is true. (The world is the way it is, therefore there is no God). Positive arguments for atheism as far as I can tell, work on attempting to demonstrate that there is no God.
    Negative argument - undermines an opposing conclusion (Christianity claims X, it is wrong for Y, or Z reason). Negative arguments for atheism, essentially are about claiming that other faiths are wrong.
    By your own definition the problem of evil is a negative argument.
    It is pointing out a contradiction in being in a certain type of God.
    It is pointing out how certain faiths are wrong.
    The "no evidence" nonsense is fundamentally unconvincing to me as a Christian, and I don't see how any argument concerning the God question can progress unless atheists are willing to make positive arguments for their position - I.E as to why God's existence is improbable.
    You're kidding right?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    You don't have to, I just think it is a heck of a lot more convincing than simply trying to rubbish Christianity - which does nothing to advance your position ultimately on a logical level.

    My position is that Christianity is a made up religion. How does rubbishing the claims of Christianity not advance my position on a logical level?
    philologos wrote: »
    As I've said multiple times, demonstrating that Christianity is false, doesn't demonstrate that atheism is true.

    Atheism is not demonstrated true. Theism is demonstrated false, then you are an atheist. Atheism cannot exist without theistic claims to reject.

    Christianity is a theistic religion. You don't have to start there but since it is the most popular one in Ireland it seems logical.
    philologos wrote: »
    It's largely for that reason that I think positive arguments for atheism are better than negative ones.

    There is no such thing as a positive argument for atheism. There are arguments against theistic claims (the problem of evil is an argument against a benevolent deity, a common claim of a lot of religions, but not all), and if you have rejected all the theistic claims you have heard of you are atheist.

    I think I explained this to you like 10 minutes ago.
    philologos wrote: »
    Negative ones are largely dependant on a particular faith or a subset of them rather than faith as a whole.

    Yes. By definition they will be claims why religion X is wrong. Add them up, you are an atheist.

    You can't even argue for atheism without a theistic claim to reject.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Claims about why religion X are wrong are simply claims. I've not seen any convincing argument which has destroyed Christianity on boards.ie even if that is your aim.

    It doesn't advance your position to rubbish Christianity any more than it advances Islam, or other ideologies. That's my point. That's why I'm suggesting an alternative approach may be of use.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Yes, I know where it can be found. I linked to it first, remember?

    OK, so you checked the footnotes - all 64 of them, I gather. Fine. But I still don't understand what the history of education according to a wikipedia article has got to do with PDN's point? As afar as I can see he didn't claim that formal education began with Christianity. Rather, he talked about the development of institutions. But perhaps I am missing something?


    No. You may not ask :P



    To my mind he did play the ball and perhaps he played the man after that. But that is all part of the sport, no?

    In answer to your question above, I take my understanding of PDN's point straight from the horse's mouth. He said that "Christianity opened the way for institutions to develop, institutions that failed to develop anywhere else in the world". It might be a certain bet that you will disagree with this, but I don't see why there remains any confusion. Nor for that matter do I see why there is a need to cite large proportions of wikipedia or bring Hitler, Stalin or Himmler into this.

    To reiterate, the point being made -- at lest as far as I can see -- is not that Christians don't do bad things or that Christian institutions have not stood in the way of what we now consider to be progress. It's that Christianity (with all that this word entails) shaped Europe in such a way that made certain things we now take for granted a reality - the same things we didn't see develop in other parts of the world.

    It's interesting that an atheist like Alain de Botton can happily admit that something like the Welfare State arose because, and not in spite, of Christianity. On the other hand, you seem to think that we got here against the best efforts of Christianity.

    What you you think is the primary achievement (and by this I speaking terms of positive impact) that Christianity has had on mankind and why?

    Yes, I have checked all of the footnotes - as I said, I have lectured on this for many, many years and as students like to use wikipedia its a good idea to keep up to date with the standard of the articles they may be using.

    Here are a few non-wikipedia articles and sources http://www.dmoz.org/Society/History/Education/Ancient_Civilizations/ in case anyone want to get pedantic about sources.

    I look forward to seeing what links PDN will provide to back up his statements...


    Perhaps PDN also would care to enlighten us while he is about it as to exactly what these mysterious institutions he was referring to are?

    As for my reference to Hitler, Himmler etc - this was again in direct response to PDN's linking of the work of Newton, Galileo (PDN was the first to mention them - not me) and Locke as derived from Christianity as they were educated by Christians - I simply pointed out that Hitler, Himmler and Stalin were also the product of Christian education but he seemed strangely disinclined to claim credit for their work.

    Not once did I ever claim that positives did not emerge from European Christianity - I merely demonstrated that a particular statement made by a particular poster was demonstrably factually untrue.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    philologos wrote: »
    Claims about why religion X are wrong are simply claims. I've not seen any convincing argument which has destroyed Christianity on boards.ie even if that is your aim.

    It doesn't advance your position to rubbish Christianity any more than it advances Islam, or other ideologies. That's my point. That's why I'm suggesting an alternative approach may be of use.

    I have already addressed this using the example you are refusing to acknowledge.
    How does rubbishing Blue Fairyism advance afairyism when there's Red or Green fairyism?

    The reason we on Boards focus of Christianity it is simply because we are mostly living in a country that is predominantly Christian and get most of our media from countries with the same.

    But of course, a lot of the arguments tend to crossover fairly easily.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    Claims about why religion X are wrong are simply claims. I've not seen any convincing argument which has destroyed Christianity on boards.ie even if that is your aim.

    Well of course not, you are a Christian. That doesn't mean the arguments are not there, it just means you don't like them.
    philologos wrote: »
    It doesn't advance your position to rubbish Christianity any more than it advances Islam, or other ideologies. That's my point.

    The point is nonsensical. Rubbishing the claims of Christianity removes Christianity as a theistic religion to believe in. Rejecting a theistic religion by definition moves someone closer to rejecting a theistic claims, ie being an atheist.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    King Mob: Firstly, I don't disagree that negative arguments can work. I do think that in the presence of many positions on the God question that taking a negative approach isn't as convincing as taking a positive one. In respect to fairies (which isn't at all comparable to God given the basis of a necessary first cause in Creation) there's not very many positions that one can take on it. There's only two as far as I can tell.

    The problem is very simple - even if you did successfully rubbish Christianity, it does not further atheism ultimately.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Well of course not, you are a Christian. That doesn't mean the arguments are not there, it just means you don't like them.

    Not at all. It means that they aren't really all that good.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    The point is nonsensical. Rubbishing the claims of Christianity removes Christianity as a theistic religion to believe in. Rejecting a theistic religion by definition moves someone closer to rejecting a theistic claims, ie being an atheist.

    No it isn't. If you attempt to rubbish Christianity - and even if one were successful. One could choose anything that wasn't Christianity on the basis of that information. It doesn't lead to atheism. I've heard Muslims attempting to rubbish Christianity when they are out doing dawah in the street, and indeed in Speaker's Corner on the few occasions when I went there. The problem is that attempting to rubbish Christianity can serve any non-Christian ideology, not just atheism.

    There is no guarantee that one will be an atheist on the basis of that information.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    The problem is very simple - even if you did successfully rubbish Christianity, it does not further atheism ultimately.

    What the heck are you supposing atheism is Phil, because there is no part of that sentence that is correct or even make sense.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zombrex wrote: »
    What the heck are you supposing atheism is Phil, because there is no part of that sentence that is correct or even make sense.

    If you can't follow the very simple logic of what I've said to you, then I don't know what more you need me to say to have it made crystal clear.

    It's obvious that even if you demonstrated Christianity to be false (and you haven't), then it could serve any thought that is non-Christian on that matter including Islam for example. It is not a good argument for atheism.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    If you can't follow the very simple logic of what I've said to you, then I don't know what more you need me to say to have it made crystal clear.

    Your "simply logic" seems to be that a rejection of theistic claims moves someone no closer to a rejection of theistic claims (ie atheism)

    I think you can see the problem with that, it is nonsense. If this is your standard of logic I can see why Christianity makes perfect sense to you ...
    philologos wrote: »
    It's obvious that even if you demonstrated Christianity to be false (and you haven't), then it could serve any thought that is non-Christian on that matter including Islam for example. It is not a good argument for atheism.

    It is a good argument for rejecting Christianity. There are other good arguments for rejecting Islam. Once you have rejected both of those you might be an atheist, if Christianity and Islam were the only two theistic religions you knew about. Or you might have to reject a few more religions. When you have rejected all the religions you know about, you are an atheist, by definition.

    Please for the love of Zeus explain to me how rejecting claims of theism does not advance the rejection of theism. :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    philologos wrote: »
    King Mob: Firstly, I don't disagree that negative arguments can work. I do think that in the presence of many positions on the God question that taking a negative approach isn't as convincing as taking a positive one.
    But we can't take a positive approach as it is not possible.
    philologos wrote: »
    In respect to fairies (which isn't at all comparable to God given the basis of a necessary first cause in Creation) there's not very many positions that one can take on it. There's only two as far as I can tell.
    First, assuming your problem with the comparison holds, it has no baring on the reasons why you don't think they exist.
    Second, neither does the variety of positions. And of course even if I couldn't find you a multitude of completely different beliefs on that exact subject, the fact that you cannot think of any does not mean there can't be many others.

    So again, can you please provide what you are asking from us and provide the exactly positive arguments you use to support your afairyism?
    If you can't do that can you please state clearly the exact reasons you lack a belief in fairies?
    philologos wrote: »
    The problem is very simple - even if you did successfully rubbish Christianity, it does not further atheism ultimately.
    And you seem to be getting stuff backwards.
    Atheism isn't just against christianity, it's against all theism.
    The reason we here focus on Christianity is because it is the one we run into the most.

    And the idea of "furthering" atheism is kinda as stupid as furthering Afairyism.
    They're simply the default positions in the face of a lack of good evidence.
    The only reason Atheism is a thing while Afairyism isn't is simply because theism was assumed to be the societal norm for centuries but no one is trying to get laws enacted because the fairies told them to (or at least not in numbers that are worrying.)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    We're dealing in the hypothetical. I don't believe that Christianity has been rubbished. If it were though, it wouldn't do any favour for atheism. It isn't anywhere near as beneficial for atheism to present negative arguments as it is to present positive arguments for why God's existence is improbable. One requires that one go systematically through each faith and claim that they are false. The other just requires that one phrase general reasoning behind why God's existence is improbable.

    The latter is a heck of a lot more convincing and useful for people like me. The former isn't convincing at all.

    King Mob: Atheism is against all theism. That's my point. That's why if you rubbish Christianity, you're not advocating atheism. It's a win for anyone who is opposed to Christianity, someone who advocates for Islam for example.


  • Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭muppeteer


    philologos wrote: »
    Indicatory evidence is valuable in any respect. There are plenty of unique things about Christianity, which will inevitably set it apart from other faiths. I don't need to go around refuting every single belief system. If I find that there is evidence to back Christianity up, and the more and more that Christianity and the Biblical record are attested to in reality, the more and more confident I can be in believing it.
    When your indicatory evidence is indistinguishable from a host of other faiths' indicatory evidence you are left in the tricky position of helping to prove every other religion is true at the same time. Unless you are of the position that all religions are equally true you are actually undermining your own position. Every time you dismiss a Sathya Sai Baba or a Joseph Smith as being charlatans because they were not true prophets you remove a stone form your own foundation. This is because huge portions of what made these people prophets also apply to Jesus.
    However, atheism is a different kettle of fish. In order for atheism to be demonstrated to be true, every single other position on God must be wrong, and there should be good reason for this. Atheists in the past have presented positive arguments as to God's existence, and in my opinion they can be reasonably expected to again. An example would be the Problem of Evil a commonly put positive atheist argument as to why they believe that God's existence is less likely than not. I respect that argument far more and find it more valuable precisely because it is a demonstration of why people regard atheism to be an accurate position in reality.
    I have, among others(King Mob) tried to explain that it is unnecessary to have a positive position of atheism. I will let you respond to King Mob as my questions would only overlap his.

    Ethical behaviour simply put, is not relative.
    Simply put ethical behaviour is relative and subjective, even for you and all those who claim it is absolute.
    Even if I were to accept for a moment that ethics are somehow absolute in the universe it makes no difference to your position.
    Your and everyone else's ethics are subjective as you have no way of determining what is the absolute without falling back on your own subjective opinions and assessments of what the absolute is.
    The entire principle of universal human rights is also built on the concept of an objective standard. Some examples would be the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the US Declaration of Independence where Thomas Jefferson wrote:
    The Declaration of Human Rights are a self made, subjective human invention. A set of playground rules we made for ourselves as we stamp around the planet trying not to kick sand in other kids faces.
    And just because a deist may have attributed his own ethical creation to a deist god does not give any support to the concept of an absolute morality.
    Human rights are undeniable precisely because they are not ours to give, and not ours to take away. There is an objective moral law that humans generally attempt to adhere to, humans fail to do this many times, but none the less when ethical issues arise, humans go for objective standards, they do not pfaff around with moral relativity. An objective moral law, has a law giver, much as other conventions have a law giver.
    Subjective morality is rarely if ever demonstrated.
    They are ours to give and to take at our leisure. Humans do have an in built, evolved, sense of right and wrong. It has served humanity well enough, but our greatest ethical achievements have been the ones we chose for ourselves.
    The universal(as in wherever you find humans) declaration of human rights, gender equality, abolition of slavery. These are all invented ethics created by subjective minds. Subjective morality is demonstrated in every one of these achievements as they are human inventions.
    You assert that "There is an objective moral law" but have nothing to back this up but an appeal to how human ethics seems to work to you. You fail to recognise that as soon as a value judgment involves a human mind it becomes inherently subjective.
    Again. Firstly, archaeology does matter. You're making the mistake that each of these arguments on their own should be absolute proof of God's existence. That's false. In the same way that finding an item of someone elses clothing beside a murdered body does not demonstrate absolutely that that other person killed the person.
    True, each argument one its own does not have to prove a god. However when each of your arguments is in turn refuted you are left with no arguments to assemble into an argument for a god.
    What I am suggesting is that the more and more we find that demonstrates the Bible is true, the more and more reason that I have to believe and trust in His Word. That's simple. As for Biblical prophesy. It's not unreliable in the case of Jesus when we have clear mentions of His birth, death, ministry, and His resurrection written 600 years before his death. They can be clearly cited and demonstrated. These prophesies go right down to His death on the cross (Psalm 22), to that He would be buried in a rich mans tomb (Isaiah 53:9). There are literally hundreds of these and they deserve consideration rather than being fobbed off, I could go on, but I want to address the rest of your post. When documents that precede Jesus by 600 years back up the Gospel accounts of His life, that gives them more credence.
    Again, prophecy proves nothing bar a desire to interpret documents to fit a narrative. If prophecy is an indicator of some divine power then Nostradamus must be a prophet sent from God? If not then you have again undermined your own argument.
    Well. Let's look at it, on the basis of my previous 2009 post because I don't believe this was addressed. I had Jim Jones mentioned, I've had Joseph Smith mentioned. These situations differ to the Resurrection clearly. That's why the Resurrection should be considered in its own right on its own circumstances. Most of the comparisons I had discussed on the A&A forum before, simply differed fundamentally to the situation that the Gospel presented. Secondly, I have zero interest in discussing anything else, I want to discuss Jesus.
    You only want to discuss Jesus as bringing in all the other parallels make for uncomfortable reading and undermine your position. A resurrection story is nothing special in the origin of religions. Supernatural events are ten a penny across the globe.
    Firstly, the idea that one person would be deluded about someone that they were with for 3 years is fair enough. It's possible that one person could be. When we go up the scale in terms of numbers, this becomes less and less likely when we consider the 11 disciples as a whole. Indeed, it becomes even less likely when we consider 500 witnesses as Paul mentions. He mentions even that they were still alive and that believers could go to Jerusalem to see them. The delusion argument is limited in its scope. It is extremely unlikely to presume that all were of an unsound mental state, and it is extremely unlikely that up to 500 people would make the same mistake in identifying a man even if for a moment we thought that all 11 disciples were deluded.
    Jonestown had 909 people deluded enough to kill themselves. Sathya Sai Baba has millions of followers and many followers have had objects spontaneously appear on pictures of him. Deluding 500 people is child's play in comparison.
    Secondly, the idea that the Apostles made up the New Testament as fiction is laughable also given how silly the disciples are presented in it. Indeed, as I've already mentioned placing women as the first witnesses to the Resurrection would have been a very humbling revelation in Jewish, Greek and Roman societies which were inherently misogynistic. If you read the beginning of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics for example you'll see exactly how Greek society was.
    I wouldn't suggest it is fiction entirely. The authors may have genuinely believed the story but somewhere along the line reality was left behind.
    Thirdly, think about it. You realise that Jesus died, and that was it. There is no benefit in risking your life to tell people that He has been resurrected for the dead and that all can be saved through His name. Motivating one person to risk their lives for nothing is difficult enough. Motivating 500+ people to do the same is considerably more difficult. You would think that returning to Galilee to fish would be the more logical option.
    Their Christ/messiah was supposed to be a King of Israel, having him die was a little inconvenient for that. For the movement to continue they needed him to not have died. Clinging to the movement and prophecy despite huge setbacks is not uncommon in cult movements.
    Let me why I say this is nonsense. What I'm doing is looking to the Bible, and seeing how it is evident in the world around us, and how history and archaeology can help us in determining its truth. That's a rather good approach to deal with any text in terms of seeing its truth or falsity. I don't see why you consider that approach to be lacking, and I don't know how else you expect me to argue for the Bible if I can't look to the Bible and say, I see X, Y and Z in the world.
    You can argue from the bible all you want but is disingenuous to ignore all the parallels in all the false religions that you gloss over in your own.
    As opposed to the hyperactive there is no rhyme, ultimate cause, or ultimate reason to the world.
    There is no need for an ultimate reason. I suspect you only have a deep desire for one.

    Please don't try to just ignore serious questions with wishy washy answers. Did the early Jews and Christians have some sort of defense so that hyperactive agency detection did not make them see gods in the natural world?
    As opposed to the idea that the universe created itself, or indeed postulating a multiverse just to explain this one.
    I don't know is an acceptable stance given our current science. Postulating a hyper intelligence that just created itself is no improvement and arguably worse.

    Thank you for taking the time to reply anyway even if a lot of what i originally said seems to have slipped by you.
    I have some sinning to do for the rest of the weekend so I might not be able to respond for a while:)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Your "simply logic" seems to be that a rejection of theistic claims moves someone no closer to a rejection of theistic claims (ie atheism)

    I think you can see the problem with that, it is nonsense. If this is your standard of logic I can see why Christianity makes perfect sense to you ...
    I think he's mis-applying a version of the false dichotomy.
    For example we might argue that disproving evolution does not prove or provide support to the idea of creationism and vice versa, and suggesting otherwise is a false dichotomy or dilemma.
    However he does not understand that atheist is simply a lack of a belief, and would be more akin to the position of believing neither evolution or creationism in the above example.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    We're dealing in the hypothetical. I don't believe that Christianity has been rubbished. If it were though, it wouldn't do any favour for atheism. It isn't anywhere near as beneficial for atheism to present negative arguments as it is to present positive arguments for why God's existence is improbable.

    Groan.

    First of all an argument for why God's existence (ie THE CHRISTIAN GOD) is improbable is an argument rubbishing Christianity. If you demonstrate that Yehovah's existence is improbably it does nothing for Zeus' existence. Or Odin.

    Secondly it isn't a particularly good argument against Christianity, since how the heck do you demonstrate that the existence of a deity is or isn't probable.

    I suspect that is why you like it. Your whole position seems to be atheists should try and come up with worse arguments against Christianity.

    As a Christian I can see why you would think that, but jez do you have to be so blatant about it.
    philologos wrote: »
    One requires that one go systematically through each faith and claim that they are false. The other just requires that one phrase general reasoning behind why God's existence is improbable.

    Your god. You still have to go through each faith. A Hindu might say the arguments why Yehovah doesn't exist says nothing for his gods.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    King Mob wrote: »
    I think he's mis-applying a version of the false dichotomy.
    For example we might argue that disproving evolution does not prove or provide support to the idea of creationism and vice versa, and suggesting otherwise is a false dichotomy or dilemma.
    However he does not understand that atheist is simply a lack of a belief, and would be more akin to the position of believing neither evolution or creationism in the above example.

    This is why I asked him what the heck does he think atheism is. I think he thinks atheism is the position that deities don't exist. Needless to say it isn't. And needless to say Phil really has no excuse for thinking it is.

    This all seems to be smoke and mirrors because he came up against arguments against Christianity that challenged him more than he would care to admit.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    philologos wrote: »
    It isn't anywhere near as beneficial for atheism to present negative arguments as it is to present positive arguments for why God's existence is improbable.
    But we can't provide positive arguments as that's impossible, which you now know since you've yet again failed to provide examples.
    philologos wrote: »
    One requires that one go systematically through each faith and claim that they are false. The other just requires that one phrase general reasoning behind why God's existence is improbable.

    The latter is a heck of a lot more convincing and useful for people like me. The former isn't convincing at all.
    First, explaining why God's existence is improbable, is by definition a negative argument. It is criticising the claim that god exists.

    And again, to use the example you are ignoring, you know the other option is nonsense because you haven't and can't gone through every version fairyism and rejected them all.

    Or maybe you can provide these while you provide your positive arguments for afairyism I'm still waiting for.
    philologos wrote: »
    King Mob: Atheism is against all theism. That's my point. That's why if you rubbish Christianity, you're not advocating atheism. It's a win for anyone who is opposed to Christianity, someone who advocates for Islam for example.
    Often times when rubbishing Christianity the arguments cross over to others.
    But the only reason we rubbish christianity the most is because those are the claims we encounter the most.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zombrex: Actually, I have zero interest in rubbishing anyones opinion. What I do have an interest is in advocating Christianity as a positive argument, in its own rights and in its own terms.

    muppeteer: I'm going to address the argument purely in terms of Christianity. The situation of Baba, or Smith or anyone else is entirely different to the case of the Resurrection. It would be ignoring the argument if you're simply going to bring in cases which have no relation to that topic, and to be honest it could very quickly become a waste of both our time.

    I'm going to address the post in full at some stage tomorrow, and I'll explain exactly my reasoning for this position, but simply put, I'm not going to address other faiths in my argument, I'm simply going to present Jesus and His word.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    Zombrex: Actually, I have zero interest in rubbishing anyones opinion. What I do have an interest is in advocating Christianity as a positive argument, in its own rights and in its own terms.

    Good luck with that.
    philologos wrote: »
    muppeteer: I'm going to address the argument purely in terms of Christianity. The situation of Baba, or Smith or anyone else is entirely different to the case of the Resurrection. It would be ignoring the argument if you're simply going to bring in cases which have no relation to that topic, and to be honest it could very quickly become a waste of both our time.

    I'm going to address the post in full at some stage tomorrow, and I'll explain exactly my reasoning for this position, but simply put, I'm not going to address other faiths in my argument, I'm simply going to present Jesus and His word.

    If you are going to present argument about what humans would or wouldn't do in order to strengthen your evidence for the resurrection (and lets be honest that is all you have to support the resurrection) it shouldn't be a surprise to you when you are presented with counter arguments showing humans acting the opposite to how you claim they would.

    You can say you are going to ignore these, but then you should remove from our arguments appeals to what humans will or won't do.

    I would be very interested in any argument for the resurrection that remains once you have done this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Philologos - I just don't get your point at this stage. Atheism has no values as such

    Think of it this way . It is like being a smoker or a non-smoker
    To become a non-smoker you don't have to try every brand just to prove they are all equally bad/addictive/pleasurable/comforting- whatever /

    On the other hand if one never smoked one takes it for granted that this is the natural order.:)


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Yes, I know where it can be found. I linked to it first, remember?

    OK, so you checked the footnotes - all 64 of them, I gather. Fine. But I still don't understand what the history of education according to a wikipedia article has got to do with PDN's point? As afar as I can see he didn't claim that formal education began with Christianity. Rather, he talked about the development of institutions. But perhaps I am missing something?


    No. You may not ask :P



    To my mind he did play the ball and perhaps he played the man after that. But that is all part of the sport, no?

    In answer to your question above, I take my understanding of PDN's point straight from the horse's mouth. He said that "Christianity opened the way for institutions to develop, institutions that failed to develop anywhere else in the world". It might be a certain bet that you will disagree with this, but I don't see why there remains any confusion. Nor for that matter do I see why there is a need to cite large proportions of wikipedia or bring Hitler, Stalin or Himmler into this.

    To reiterate, the point being made -- at lest as far as I can see -- is not that Christians don't do bad things or that Christian institutions have not stood in the way of what we now consider to be progress. It's that Christianity (with all that this word entails) shaped Europe in such a way that made certain things we now take for granted a reality - the same things we didn't see develop in other parts of the world.

    It's interesting that an atheist like Alain de Botton can happily admit that something like the Welfare State arose because, and not in spite, of Christianity. On the other hand, you seem to think that we got here against the best efforts of Christianity.

    What you you think is the primary achievement (and by this I speaking terms of positive impact) that Christianity has had on mankind and why?

    To be honest Fanny Cradock , while Christianity may have given comfort on an individual basis throughout the first millenium , overall I believe its influence was negative - most definitely so from the time of the so called
    Donation Of Constantine and the Church becoming a Temporal Power. Any good that came thereafter was purely incidental as its main goal was the pursuit and maintenance of power.

    Thereafter it really is the story of shaking off this influence through the renaissance/reformation/enlightenment right up to our own times.

    Any unique message was lost when religion became organised on such a centralised scale. Now that christianity is losing influence and in many cases not wishing to have such influence in temporal affairs they are carrying that message better than ever before.

    Dante pointed that out way back when he consigned Pope Boniface VIII to the 8th Circle of hell for proclaiming that not alone was he the spiritual head but also superiour in temporal matters to the Emperor. Christians should have listened more to Dante and less to the popes.

    As for all the claims regarding Art Sculpture etc- I don't really buy it- what was it Gene Kelly said ''Gotta Dance'' - Michelangelo- Titian- Bernini - Palestrina- Giotto would have followed their gift no matter what- talent like that dos'nt give them a choice. They just would have had different patrons.

    That is obviously my shorthand version , if you want to continue the conversation -then no problem.

    Now may I ask you a question ? Accepting you believe in Christianity and you believe it is unique and accepting that as yer man said the medium is the message and not wishing to get into a slanging match ,

    Can you tell me what ideas , philosophy , message that is unique to Christianity ? That was not already known and discussed or practiced in some shape or form somewhere else?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,882 ✭✭✭Doc Farrell


    Marienbad the central event of Christianity is the Resurrection. If one doesnt believe in that then one isn't a Christian. Christianity is about love for all, no matter what tribe or class or background, that's the revolutionary aspect of it, or it used to be!

    I normally avoid this thread because it goes around in circles so in shorthand I think it's fair to say that if one doesn't believe in the supernatural, any aspect of it in any way, then one is an atheist.
    Unfortunately my Buddhist friends believe in the supernatural but not in God! So with them the question becomes how does one define the nature and concept of God!

    But basically if you think, after investigation, that the supernatural is nonsense then you are an atheist. Of course one can choose to be a lazy or, God forbid, an arrogant atheist, and not investigate the supernatural.
    (As you are aware there have never been lazy or arrogant Christians!) :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    marienbad wrote: »
    To be honest Fanny Cradock , while Christianity may have given comfort on an individual basis throughout the first millenium , overall I believe its influence was negative...

    Sorry, what is the significance of the first millennium? Are you suggesting that people stopped deriving comfort sometime after 1000 AD?
    marienbad wrote: »
    That is obviously my shorthand version , if you want to continue the conversation -then no problem.

    I would certainly love to hear more. Maybe with something to back up your position. I find it interesting to read that you think that Christianity with all it's far reaching influence over the centuries (for better or worse) has contributed nothing positive apart from some warm fuzzy feeling it gives the individual. I've honestly never heard anyone go so far as to claim this. So please fill me in on the long-hand version. PM me if you like.
    marienbad wrote: »
    Michelangelo- Titian- Bernini - Palestrina- Giotto would have followed their gift no matter what- talent like that dos'nt give them a choice. They just would have had different patrons.

    Please note that what I didn't ask was what would have happened if Christianity had never existed. What I asked you presupposed history as we know know it (or think we do) and not a fantasy realm without McDonalds, Christianity, Manchester United or any other staple of reality. I'm not asking a "what if..." question. I'm asking you what is the main positive contribution Christianity (and this can mean anything from a religious institution like the RCC to social reform to art or whatever) has made to humanity. Now this correction may not change your answer but it is nevertheless worth clarifying exactly what I was asking.
    marienbad wrote: »
    Can you tell me what ideas , philosophy , message that is unique to Christianity ? That was not already known and discussed or practiced in some shape or form somewhere else?

    I don't think I am well versed enough in world religions or philosophy to adequately answer your question. But let me be clear - I don't claim that Christianity must have brought something new to the table in order for it to be true. Indeed, the idea the that law has been written to all hearts is fairly fundamental to the NT. Besides, the fact that Christianity grew out of Judaism and in opposition to other hostile pagan world-views means that it was never a tabula rasa religion. It didn't pull itself up by its own bootstraps. Your question seems like a modification of Christopher Hitchens' rhetorical stunt - "Name me one act of kindness that a theist can do that an atheist can't ". (I'm paraphrasing there). I am not saying that Christianity created absolutely unique ideas or that Christians are somehow able to be kinder than atheists.

    The unique claims of Christianity - for example, the idea that the Messiah was God himself or the formulation of the Trinity - aren't things that would move you. So in a way I am confused by the question. Is this the point you mention Zeitgeist: The Movie and the parallel claims with Christ and other near-eastern religions?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    BTW, you might be interested in this discussion between Terry Sanderson of the UK's national Secular Society - who would probably be sympathetic to your perspective - and David B Hart. The discussion, which is not entirely dissimilar to the one that has been raging over the last few pages, might take a while to get going, but I found it edifying enough that I've now listened to it on two occasions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    PDN wrote: »
    Thank you for proving my point so eloquently. For someone who claims to be a historian you seem to have real difficuloty with understanding what it is written in front of your eyes.

    My one straightforward point (in response to himnextdoor) was that Christianity was pivotal to the development of so much of modern life. You appear to be trying to argue against some other position that neither myself nor anyone else here has taken - namely that Christianity came up with everything as original ideas.

    You could have saved yourself a whole lot of typing if you had actually taken the time to read my post.

    I'm sorry; I got the impression that you were saying that Christianity is responsible for bringing about less cruelty in the world.

    You espoused capitalism as a virtue that was enabled by Christianity but isn't losing your home over interest rates an act of barbarism?

    Catholicism was so effective in its fear campaign that when democracy came along it gave people an opportunity to bury their heads in the sans; rather than be tortured we will suffer to be abused by the state and content ourselves with the notion that we are leading the way forward as opposed to being led to oblivion.

    Sound dramatic? Read Revelations.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    PDN wrote: »
    Fair enough, apology accepted.

    Btw, you can use the same point for many bad things as well as good things. I could say (as I have on many occasions) that without Christianity there would be no Crusades, Inquisition, or 9/11. But then, if you and the chorus were consistent, you would argue that this only happened because Christianity borrowed ideas from other people. Or, of course, you could make the claim that these things would all have happened anyway, even if there had been no Christianity.

    The problem with counter-factual history is that it allows people's prejudices to dominate over reason or logic. So we get one-eyed reasoning that says:
    "Yeah, all the good things would have happened if there was no Christianity, but none of the bad things would have happened".

    And my point was precisely that the world would not necessarily be a worse place without Christianity.

    Apology accepted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    Sorry, is there some kind of cruelty index that I'm unaware of? With regard to suffering, it might help to familiarise yourself with what Christians actually believe. A good place to start might be the many fine Christian organisations which are working to relieve human suffering.

    As for your final sentence, both are bad. If you can find a single Christian here who thinks that either of those acts are ok on the basis of the Gospel, I may.concede you have a point. I'd doubt it somehow.

    You miss the point; Christian authorities are recorded as being every bit as cruel as non-Christian ones.

    Or else tell me, what did Ghengis Khan do that was worse than what the inquisition did?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    PDN wrote: »
    I think you're falling into the trap of feeding the troll, Benny.

    There are atheists who will use this thread to engage in discussion - and others that use it to simply bait Christians and throw out vague or generalised insults.

    And there are those who call a spade a spade.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    PDN wrote: »
    Anyway, stimulating as I'm finding this conversation, I'll have to bow out now. I'm flying out to work on a project in a location where, for centuries and until very recently, they were free from the stultlfying repression and anti-intellectualism of Christianity. As a result I won't have access to electricity or the internet for the next couple of weeks. ;)

    Would you be going to a location that has been stripped of its resources by Christian nations?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    King Mob wrote: »
    F. None of the above.

    The closest you can get would be a combination of A and B with modification and better wording.

    which is still NOT A i.e NOT atheist as defined and quoted in the research!
    when I refer to "atheist3 and when they do they are referring to the people who answered A.
    As long as we are clear on that you can call yourself anything you like.
    The options you are offering do not properly cover what I and most atheist positions are, hence your definitions are useless.

    They are not MY definitions and they are peer reviewed research and published . If your personal opinion is that the report is useless you are entitles to that opinion. you are also entitled to believe the Moon is made of cheese or invisible pink unicorns are controlling a world government. We have however gone to the Moon and returned rocks from it which we can analyse using geology. Trinity college conducted a VALID statistical analysis of NONES. If you believe it is useless that is your perogative. it does not however make the survey invalid nor does it make it unrelable.

    the validity is the main issue above. that is why i am being so stringent as to what "atheist" means when i use it i.e. it is as defined in the search. Because i am not talking about MY unsuppoeted opinion but about a valid and reliable objective statistical and scientific measurement

    By the way F "none of the above" comes under "dont know" and is covered by the survey. It is still not A and therefore not atheist as objectively defined.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    muppeteer wrote: »
    Apologies if I appear "lofty", it is not my intention.

    I disagree. i believe it is you intention not to appear so and you believe you are not so but perhaps you are so and are not aware of your own mindset.
    coming from someone who stated "I have to say I don't think of all Christians as lacking ability. I wouldn't even bother talking to you if I believed that." You come across as having an elitist mindset. you may believe you dont have such a mindset but Ill hold my judgment on that until you admit you are no better than anyone else and have much to learn or are ignorant of much. when you are humbled then you might become exalted but when you exalt yourself you had better prepare to be humbled.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ISAW wrote: »
    which is still NOT A i.e NOT atheist as defined and quoted in the research!
    when I refer to "atheist3 and when they do they are referring to the people who answered A.
    As long as we are clear on that you can call yourself anything you like.

    By the way F "none of the above" comes under "dont know" and is covered by the survey. It is still not A and therefore not atheist as objectively defined.
    Lol. Not only do you have no idea what I believe, you don't even seem to know what this survey you are so attached to actually says.
    I specifically explained which of your narrow definitions kinda sorta apply, you ignored that point.

    I've tried several times to describe my position, but you are not interested in listening, nor do you have a point. So trying to explain it again or more simply would just be a waste of time.

    But please, continue to tell me what I believe.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    koth wrote: »
    Atheist= belief there is no such thing
    agnostic = not sure/dont know
    deist= belief ther is a higher power
    theist= belief ther is a personal god

    A person can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Agnostic refers to knowledge not belief.

    Atheist is defined in the survey as thinking "there is no such thing" as God the options of
    higher powers or spirits are also offered. It does not matter what you might think about it. That is what was measured. As defined.
    Morbert wrote: »
    There are crossed wires here. The speed of light postulate of special relativity is regarding the local speed of light. Spin around on the spot, for example, and you will see the stars rotate around you much faster than the speed of light.

    No you wont.
    So galaxies can recede at faster than the speed of light because the expansion of the universe is an expansion of spacetime itself,

    nothing to do with you spinning as you look out.
    Even in expanding space light or galaxies do not travel faster than c.


    King Mob wrote: »
    F. None of the above.

    not offered as an option and covered by "I dont know/ not sure
    "
    The closest you can get would be a combination of A and B with modification and better wording.
    The options you are offering do not properly cover what I and most atheist positions are, hence your definitions are useless.

    Those are what the survey measured. You have produced no evidence most NONES believe a combination of A and B.
    Morbert wrote: »
    I feel your pain

    You may feel the Moon is made of cheese or astrology works .
    i prefer to go by objective evidence.

    You seem confused: 'a disbelief in the existence of a deity' is not the same as 'a belief that no deity exists'.

    You seem to be confused. Atheist is defined in the NONES survey. go and read it!
    We have also been over the eurostat and various surveys with respect to Morberts clmai, of Norway being 70% atheist. it clearly isnt and this is supported by several published research sources. Even the one on which is 70% claim is based!
    Your attempt to twist the meaning of the word 'atheist' by replacing the word 'disbelief' with 'belief' is ironic really if you bear in mind your reaction to the suggestion that since only 32% of people polled classified themselves non-atheist, 68% can be said to have classified themselves as atheist.

    32 people stated belief in A God i.e they would be monotheist

    From memory that survey had 17% atheist Yup i checked
    http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf

    They had four options
    there is a god
    there is a spirit or lifeforce
    I dont believe there is a god/s spirits or lifeforce
    dont know


    Page 9- Norway =17%
    Disbelief requires no data; no mental processing; it takes up no space.
    disbelief in God spirits or supernatural in Norway = 17% not 70%
    Disbelief is used in the definition
    Atheists lack faith and therefore the mental framework that is required to 'house' the 'God effect'; the mechanism of 'belief' is missing from their mental 'toolkit'.

    An atheist is unable to believe in God (no comparative data for it) therefore the question of the non-existence of a God that is supposed not to exist is rendered meaningless.

    A non-belief in a positive is not always the same as a belief in a negative.

    And in the survey quoted they were 17% and NOT 70% as claimed.
    Oh, and for an example of Christians not being involved in wholesale slaughter just have a look at the Middle-East, and Africa.

    Where did i claim, Christians or christian government governments had NOT been involved in slaughter?

    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Oh dear - is that really the best you can do?

    Is that what passes for debate and discussion in this particular forum?

    But apparently posting LOL and links to cartoons of robots laughing does?
    Anyone who demonstrates that your pontifications on European history have no basis in historical fact is treated to some thinly veiled insults, a few slight digs followed by some bizarre claim that they have proven your point.

    Give,n you claim "basis in historical fact" care to produce the historical data which you claim is in error?
    Your needlessly highlighted passage are an attempt to link educated people to the church - I believe I mentioned the monopoly Christianity had on education in Europe so of course scholars were educated in church controlled universities. There weren't any other kind - the church forbade it.

    One cant argue an influence is non existent based on a "what if" history in which the influence didn't exist in the first place if the influence DID in fact exist in the first place! the church/ Christianity DID exist in history and DID have an influence on education and society. to argue it didn't is ridiculous.
    Would you also claim that all Irish people are Catholics - or just the 99% who attended national schools under the control of the Catholic Church?

    Try getting your facts correct first. 99% of Irish people do not attend Catholic schools.
    Some have left school.
    Some have emigrated.
    some have grown up abroad or are attending schols abroad.
    The RCC does not control 99% of Primary schools.
    etc.
    Your assertion was that Christianity was responsible for the technological advances in Europe - your 'proof' of this is that every intellectual in Europe was apparently a Christian. Considering that prior to the Reformation every Christian in Europe was also a Catholic (or risked a visit from the Inquisition) shall we also try and say that all advances prior to 1521 were Catholic advances?

    Catholic Church influenced yes just as they were hugely influenced by say science or economics. It is nonsense to suggest christianity was not a factor just as to assert for example science or economics or feudalism were not major factors.
    If that was the case - makes you wonder why Luther (and Hus and Wycliffe and Calvin, and the Cathars, and the Anabaptists, and the Lollards etc etc ) had such a problem with Rome - patron of the arts and sponsor of technological advances as you claim it was.

    so if the Klingon Empire had developed Warp technology and the federation found the Klingon Empire unjust then that means Warp technology doesnt exist or that the federation should have a problem with using it? Similar happened in china with gunpowder didnt it?
    You have, I noticed, completely missed the point that advances such as the Renaissance occurred after information suppressed by the Christian authorities became available again in Europe. Including the Reformation.

    And who developed the knowledge of these advances in the first place?
    Are you telling me that if the US developed the Atomic Bomb but surpressed the invention and then the USSR made their own bomb that the original US bomb would not have been invented by the US?
    That these rediscovered ideas led to scientific experimentation and new political theories which undermined the domination of Christianity as the only game in town is ignored as it doesn't conform to your pseudo-history.

    this has more to do with feudalism in the Middle ages but- if other non church organisations developed learning independently of the church or even if the Church stifled learning that would still NOT lean the church had not made a huge contribution to learning in history.
    Shall we ignore all other patronage apart from that of the Church?

    As you pointed out before the Renassaince the Catholiuc church was the only game in town - in Western Europe anyway

    The broader argument that scientific development is a particularly European thing rooted in the same greek rationality that the roman church is is already established.
    No Charles I and the Royal Societies? No mention of Sophia, Elector of Hanover, her daughter Sophia Charlotte Queen of Prussia and Caroline Queen of Britain as Von Libnitz's patrons? What about the de Medici? How about the role of the German princes in protecting Luther from Rome?

    As pointed out you can get around that by looking at per renaissance europe. It is historically incorrect in my opinion to call thazt period the "dark Ages"

    Luther by the way and Protestants were -CHRISTIANS which is what the original claim was i.e the influence of christianity on history.
    Shall we mention that Hitler was a Catholic - he was educated at a Catholic School in Lambach, Austria?

    Ther is a very long thread on this just like on the -book of the dead and other pre christian myths being the cause of / or adapted in to the Bible
    Himmler was a devout Catholic and the architect of the Holocaust.

    That Stalin was a member of the Orthodox Russian Church - he won a scholarship to a seminary in Georgia?
    Or do you want to cherry pick who you claim was a Christian and who wasn't?


    Yep i do!
    Hitler Himmler and Stalin were not! they rejected Christianity as is evident in their persecution and execution of Catholic clerics and the opposition of successive popes to naziism.


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol. Not only do you have no idea what I believe, you don't even seem to know what this survey you are so attached to actually says.
    I specifically explained which of your narrow definitions kinda sorta apply, you ignored that point.

    Nones are a tiny percentage of people and atheist as defined a tinier number. It is clear fro, the published research.
    I've tried several times to describe my position, but you are not interested in listening, nor do you have a point. So trying to explain it again or more simply would just be a waste of time.

    But please, continue to tell me what I believe.

    You can believe whatever you like.
    Yo can claim astrology works or that you can use psychic powers.
    But when you make a claim it is objectively true then you have to provide evidence.
    I have provided peer reviewed research to support my position.
    What evidence have you got?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »

    This is meant to be a counter argument.

    why dont you produce some actual figures and we can compare Christian regmes with atheist ones?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    This is meant to be a counter argument.

    why dont you produce some actual figures and we can compare Christian regmes with atheist ones?

    No, this is meant to be me laughing at your utterly ridiculous statement.

    You have been given plenty of figures already, such as Christian Europe being a constant state of war for most of its existence, or the African Christian militias killing their own people, you have simply ignored them because they don't fit your nonsense idea of reality.

    Eventually when it has become clear that you have no interest in actually engaging or responding to rebuttals, all one can do is laugh at your nonsense.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Yes, I have checked all of the footnotes - as I said, I have lectured on this for many, many years

    Great ! Im sure you know what "argument from authority" is then?
    Here are a few non-wikipedia articles and sources / in case anyone want to get pedantic about sources.

    And your claim is that these sources support what position?

    As for my reference to Hitler, Himmler etc - this was again in direct response to PDN's linking of the work of Newton, Galileo (PDN was the first to mention them - not me) and Locke as derived from Christianity as they were educated by Christians - I simply pointed out that Hitler, Himmler and Stalin were also the product of Christian education but he seemed strangely disinclined to claim credit for their work.

    i have no problem in admitting anyone was educated by christians. Imparting knowledge is NOT creating evil. you cant blame the creators of the school system if one of the people they educated was evil. The choice to do evil isnt caused by christianity. the knowledge gained in All developments for good or ill was heavily influenced by the fact that christianity/the church was involved in education.
    ther is another factor however.The church held no responsibility in encouraging hitler. In fact it opposed him. On the other hand they did encourage the positiv developmen,ts. Christianity rarely encouraged the negative things that atheistic regimes did?
    Not once did I ever claim that positives did not emerge from European Christianity - I merely demonstrated that a particular statement made by a particular poster was demonstrably factually untrue.

    good for you! so the church were a huge factor in causing the positives in history and oppose all the negatives certainly opposede Hitler and if they made mistakes in any other negatives which unlike Atheistic regimes were a tiny percentage of their influences they admit these mistakes.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74015392&postcount=134
    Befiore the Book of the Dead is an early version of the Bible or Babylonia had the same stories arrives look at this earlier comment

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74005738&postcount=130

    If we are going into Christianity is really an amalgam of earlier philosophues I suggest an different thread on that.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »

    You have been given plenty of figures already, such as Christian Europe being a constant state of war for most of its existence,

    Not ordered by the church or in the name of christianbity. With the exception of the crusades or sending Missionaries into non christian lands or religious wars.
    the numbers of dad due to such church influences runs into millions but only just i.e maybe a million or two in 2000 years. Atheistic regimes over a century killed hundrds of millions - hundreds of times the church did over twenty timles the period.
    or the African Christian militias killing their own people,
    [/qutoe]

    Leopold of Belgium was NOT an African expansion on behalkf of Christianity!

    If i missed anything else please list it.
    you have simply ignored them because they don't fit your nonsense idea of reality.

    what are yu claiming i ignored? I didnt ignopre anything. You are lying if you say i did because i did not! Care to prove what you claim i ignored?
    Eventually when it has become clear that you have no interest in actually engaging or responding to rebuttals, all one can do is laugh at your nonsense.

    what rebuttals?
    Care to list them?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    Not ordered by the church or in the name of christianbity.

    And? You claimed "Christian societies rarely killed people"

    Your claim wasn't "Christian societies rarely killed people under order of the Church"

    Atheist societies have never killed people under order of the Church, so I guess we are still the best society. :rolleyes:
    ISAW wrote: »
    Leopold of Belgium was NOT an African expansion on behalkf of Christianity!

    They were Christians. They killed people.
    ISAW wrote: »
    what are yu claiming i ignored? I didnt ignopre anything. You are lying if you say i did because i did not! Care to prove what you claim i ignored?

    You are ignoring examples of Christian killing people. You are saying they are not relevant because they weren't killing people in the name of the Church or the name of Christianity or some other nonsense addition you add after your nonsense has been exposed and you are trying to save face.

    How many atheist societies have killed people in the name of the Church? I bet none. So clearly atheists are better than Christians, right?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ISAW wrote: »
    not offered as an option and covered by "I dont know/ not sure
    It's not offered as an option because the survey had narrow, stupid definitions.
    My stance is not covered by any of the options.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Those are what the survey measured. You have produced no evidence most NONES believe a combination of A and B.
    Because the survey had narrow, stupid definitions and didn't offer the option.

    And again, my stance is not covered accurately by the survey.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Nones are a tiny percentage of people and atheist as defined a tinier number. It is clear fro, the published research.
    This sentence has no connection to the sentence it quotes.
    ISAW wrote: »
    You can believe whatever you like.
    Yo can claim astrology works or that you can use psychic powers.
    But when you make a claim it is objectively true then you have to provide evidence.
    I have provided peer reviewed research to support my position.
    What evidence have you got?
    Lol. The ironing is delicious.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    King Mob wrote: »
    It's not offered as an option because the survey had narrow, stupid definitions.
    My stance is not covered by any of the options.

    it is. If you do not agree with any of the options then you are covered in dont know/not sure; Even assuming ALL these people we another category not covered by the existing answers even they only amount to 7%

    You may claim to represent all atheists or all agnoiostice but when pressed we have objective research and the objective research on a broad basis in various parts of the world is in agreement. Atheism is a small percentage in modern democracies.

    And again your opinion as to whether something is stupid does not mean their measurement as defined is valid and reliable. It is a research of a higher standard than a
    nything yu have produced. all we have from you is your opinion.
    And again, my stance is not covered accurately by the survey.

    If you were surveyed and you said ther is no such thing as god then you would be classed atheist.
    If you said you were not sure or do not believe you fit in any of the definitions then you would be classed "dont know /not sure"

    but we are not arguing about YOU!
    We are discussing atheism and i have offered objective research which gives definitions of atheist and agnostic and produces statistics on that. Whether or not you think atheist is something else does not change the validity or reliability of their results!
    Lol. The ironing is delicious.

    What objective evidence have you got?

    you offer only your unsupported opinion! where is there any empirical research to support your claims?

    Satire appeals to irony insult and cartoons will not make any convincing objective arguments.
    Nor will puerile behavior or cryptic comments.

    What evidence other than your unsupported personal opinion on atheism do you have to support any claims about atheism?


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement