Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

outabout

Gnostic spirituality works good for me. I can accept christianity on a personal interpretation of who JC was and believe the holy spirit power force is the fundemental teaching he conveyed. That is personal spiritual joy in ones existance. I can only relate to him as an equal human. I find it a pity they had to dramatise edit dilute and revise his messages afterwards. Christianity died with him and with the people who really knew him. There is only a christian essence to the bible now.

tommy2bad

outabout;
believe the holy spirit power force is the fundemental teaching he conveyed

Can you expand on that, it's not a notion I'v heard before, some kind of stars wars force or something else?

I wonder if the idea that Jesus was an anomaly is the sticking point for some people. Perhaps if it was rephrased as a classic instance rather than a unique event the incarnation would be easier grasp.

Northclare

I think some people came to believe Jesus was the next step in human evolution and Bruno Groening was similar.

There are many people who evolved spiritually over the years.

Some intelligent idiots say Jesus isn't imortal but yet they still talk and are obsesseds about him.

He lives on.

outabout

yes a cosmic spiritual force. I think in the east they have pranna and chi and yep also in star wars. The understanding that energetic relationships matter more than material things. yup the guy is a classic prophet but such prophetic people can be found in the pub too. As a gnostic i can incorporate mayan and ancient egyptian views into my musings. I believes it helps giving a bigger picture of spirituality.

outabout

northcare i firmly believe the essence and spirit of JC is very alive now. Spirituality is an immortal force good and evil. I have to consider JC as an exceptional mind and man of charachter and conviction. A bit like Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King. Simillarly oppressed people breaking through barriers imposed.

Northclare

Hi Outandabout JC had a powerful infulence on humanity.

I was watching a movie in the IFI last night about the life of John Moriarty which was very insightful.
He was another human being who could see things differently to most but yet identify with higher and lower nature within us.

We all crossed the Kedron with Jesus at one time or the other.

HamletOrHecuba

outabout wrote: »

northcare i firmly believe the essence and spirit of JC is very alive now. Spirituality is an immortal force good and evil. I have to consider JC as an exceptional mind and man of charachter and conviction. A bit like Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King. Simillarly oppressed people breaking through barriers imposed.

Nelson Mandela was a terrorist who master minded the deliberate murder campaign against civilians of the ANC, very different from Christ who said that is Kingdom was not of this world to render to Caesar the things that were Caesars.

HamletOrHecuba

outabout wrote: »

Gnostic spirituality works good for me..

So you believe that this creation outside of a divine spark in some people is the work of an inferior or outright evil being?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

The question I was asking here ISAW was why extract religion from that mix as opposed to trade unions or politicals parties etc. One could argue that political parties have been targeted much more than religion in all of those regimes you quote . Is that not correct ?

This is a shift of emphasis. A bit like shifting from talkoing about victime to focusing on analysing abusers. Here you are shifting from the driving force of regimes to the victims of it.
I have no doubt regimes spreading communism, atheism, Christianity, capitalism or whatever belief killed a mix of people some of whom mlight even have been atheists. My point is that the regimes which were not Christian and godless killed much much more than anyone else. Why was that? My thesis would hark back to my arguments on natural law.

You now are proposing a different senario -that of the targets of such regimes. i havent analysed things in such terms. I could say in the first instance that no the political parties thing isnt correct since they are a recent invention. In the more modern political party recent past i would also say the non christian and atheistic regimes of hitler Mao Pol Pot and Stalin for example didnt target political parties so much as "belief" . this indeed may have been belief in a political philosophy such as communism or capitalism but far and away the majority of thiose targeted were believers in a moral code or a god or a religion. that would be my first thoughts on it and i believe the stats would bear them out. so NO political parties have not been targeted more than religion.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

This is a shift of emphasis. A bit like shifting from talkoing about victime to focusing on analysing abusers. Here you are shifting from the driving force of regimes to the victims of it.
I have no doubt regimes spreading communism, atheism, Christianity, capitalism or whatever belief killed a mix of people some of whom mlight even have been atheists. My point is that the regimes which were not Christian and godless killed much much more than anyone else. Why was that? My thesis would hark back to my arguments on natural law.

You now are proposing a different senario -that of the targets of such regimes. i havent analysed things in such terms. I could say in the first instance that no the political parties thing isnt correct since they are a recent invention. In the more modern political party recent past i would also say the non christian and atheistic regimes of hitler Mao Pol Pot and Stalin for example didnt target political parties so much as "belief" . this indeed may have been belief in a political philosophy such as communism or capitalism but far and away the majority of thiose targeted were believers in a moral code or a god or a religion. that would be my first thoughts on it and i believe the stats would bear them out. so NO political parties have not been targeted more than religion.

It is not shifting anything ISAW - you can analyse it anyway you want- but the common ground of all the targets/victims/believers is that they had or were percieved to have the ability to generate dissent. That is why as well as those that offered a moral code such as parties religions unions even sports groups social groups were were taken over.

After all this time,along with this post and 2344 you are now just saying that your crowd killed less than their crowd. Which is just saying totalitarianism is a bad- big deal .

There are a number of versions of natural law , what one are you referring to ?

joseph brand

Northclare wrote: »

Maybe your right Zombrex but you may also be wrong.

If he wants to call himself an atheist so be it, he is a good friend of mine and if he is content feeling that way that's ok.

I was out with an atheist this eve and he is struggling within himself, but he used to believe in God but after he lost a loved one he walked away from his faith.

But he told me he doesn't believe in God but knows God believes in him.

Therefore, NOT an Atheist. Just a disgruntled follower. Simple really.

Northclare

Or maybe he is a disgruntled Atheists,caught between a life of comparing himself to being a glass half full or a glass half empty.

For me the advantages of being a believer, gives me the reassurance that I don't have to compare myself to being a bag of groceries "you are what you eat".

It's comforting not to believe that all I have to look forward to when I die is to be rotting away in a wooden box

I have an Esotheric way of looking at death.

Read the Poem by Dylan Thomas called
"And death shal have no Dominion".

I can be open to Atheism because Atheism and God are two sides to the one coin and when I was born it just happened that the right side of the coin fell face up when it landed.

Atheism keeps God alive.

I have read some wonderful biblical quotes which were a contribution from Atheists.
You guys worked tirelessly to copy and paste lines from the old Testament and New Testament.
And Thanks for that.

Have any of you Atheists much info on Sufism.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Not q christian regime done in any way for the spreading of christianity. You of course refer to the Leopold of the Belgian Congo who was not about spreading Chrtistianity like the Marxist ATHEISTIC congo revolutionaries?

Theosophy is NOT christianity and successive pope OPPOSED the Nazis!

Yes SOME of which was done to spread christianity. Particularly in the Early days of the spanish Preponderance. this was not the Us but Carribean and in the very early days Irish slacves outnumbered African ones. But you can add several (by which i mean one or maybe a little mlore i.e; two million NOT eight or nine) million to the numbers of dead for which Christian rules doing political deals involving the church or spread of christianity
Not insignificant but still not near 100 or 200 million!
Indeed I would partly dispute it (on the basis not all were to do with christianity) but the source i gave above Rummel suggests 13 million deaths of American natives from the 16th to 19th century. Not all christainity related and over 400 years. Still not anyway near Mao or stalin woith tens of millions eaqch oin a few decades or the godless Mongols or atheitic chinese of the Middle ages. and I didnt even cite ancient regimes.

Little or nothing to do with the church in europe. Yes some natives were killed to spread the US system but if you are going to argue this you cant call the US a "secular" country after that! As you are wont to. then again you believe Norway is 70% atheist dont you?

Hope i softened your cough for you.

Ahh I see now. All this time I thought you were arguing that atheism causes atrocities, and that atheist regimes were always worse than non-atheist regimes, and that a secular pluralist, but nevertheless predominantly Godless society would commit atrocities. What you have actually been claiming is that regimes which explicitly promote self-described "Christian" values like "do not murder", only murdered thousands of people, which "isn't that bad" compared to other non atheistic and atheistic regimes, or non-European "Christian Value" governments. Governments like Nazi Germany, the U.S. in Vietnam, and Pol Pot. My bad.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Ahh I see now. All this time I thought you were arguing that atheism causes atrocities, and that atheist regimes were always worse than non-atheist regimes, and that a secular pluralist, but nevertheless predominantly Godless society would commit atrocities. What you have actually been claiming is that regimes which explicitly promote self-described "Christian" values like "do not murder", only murdered thousands of people, which "isn't that bad" compared to other non atheistic and atheistic regimes, or non-European "Christian Value" governments. Governments like Nazi Germany, the U.S. in Vietnam, and Pol Pot. My bad.

Nazi germany was NOT a "Christian value" government! successive popes OPPOSED the nazis.
Pol Pot was not a christian value government! He specifically promoted atheism.
Leopold of Belgium did not promote any "christian value government" of the Congo!

I have yet to see evidence of a beneficial atheistic regime.
I have yet to see successful influence of atheism on society.
I am not aware of any majority atheist countries (maybe Japan or China depending on whether Buddhism is atheism) but I have yet to see any officially atheist countries which did anything good for society when they promoted atheism.

You cant have it both ways. You cant claim, the US is a secular democracy which separates church from state constitutionally and then also claim it is a "christian value " country.
Which is it?

Morbert

Morbert wrote:

What you have actually been claiming is that regimes which explicitly promote self-described "Christian" values like "do not murder", only murdered thousands of people, which "isn't that bad" compared to other non atheistic and atheistic regimes, or non-European "Christian Value" governments.

ISAW wrote: »

Nazi germany was NOT a "Christian value" government! successive popes OPPOSED the nazis.

Nazi Germany was a non-atheistic regime.

Pol Pot was not a christian value government! He specifically promoted atheism.

Correct.

Leopold of Belgium did not promote any "christian value government" of the Congo!

His was a non-atheistic regime.

You cant have it both ways. You cant claim, the US is a secular democracy which separates church from state constitutionally and then also claim it is a "christian value " country.
Which is it?

It is a non-atheist country, with "Christian values" employed heavily as rhetoric. I would certainly like it to be more secular.

philologos

Why are we arguing about who killed more people?

Why is this relevant to Christianity? - What relevance does this have to the Gospel that has nothing to do with mass murder? What does it have to do with the saving death of Jesus?

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

Why are we arguing about who killed more people?

Why is this relevant to Christianity? - What relevance does this have to the Gospel that has nothing to do with mass murder? What does it have to do with the saving death of Jesus?

Because ISAW contends that unless you believe in God atrocities will inevitably result

philologos

I'm going to suggest that we put this line of reasoning away and actually focus on what the real issues that atheists have with Christianity are.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

I'm going to suggest that we put this line of reasoning away and actually focus on what the real issues that atheists have with Christianity are.

Love to, let me start , why is it that theism inevitably leads to atrocities

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

Love to, let me start , why is it that theism inevitably leads to atrocities

It doesn't. People do.

Again, this is a pointless topic that IMO has zero relevance to Christianity.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Nazi Germany was a non-atheistic regime.

I never said it was atheistic. You however stuck them in with others as 3christian value" regimes

when in 2362 i stated christianity is around for 2000 years and coulda shoulda woulda but DIDNT do as you expect them to have done over the last 2000 years to any degree even approaching the godless atheistic regimes.

you in reply 2363 stated

*cough* Leopold of Belgium *cough*
*cough* Nazis *cough*
*cough* New World Colonisation *cough*
*cough* USA *cough*

Clearly you link the above four with Christianity doing what godless atheistic regimes did or you dont -which is it?

Correct.
His was a non-atheistic regime.
It is a non-atheist country, with "Christian values" employed heavily as rhetoric. I would certainly like it to be more secular.

you link the above four with Christianity doing what godless atheistic regimes did or you dont -which is it? when you want tweedledum the Us is secular . When you want to have a go at christianity the Us becomes a Christian Tweedledee which is not secular enough.

how can you prove the level of death in the US is correlated with secularism? How many abortions in the US for example? Or dont they count?

I dont claim all the bad regimes ever were all atheistic. Only the worst murder and genocide were. Indeed some other non christian regimes were godless but didnt push atheism. others were pagan. But even christian ones did kill some people . Millions in fact. Over 2000 years that averages out at thousands per year. equivalent to say the number of road deaths in the UK per year. Nothing at all in the League of the hundreds of million killed by atheistic regimes over decades to a few centuries. And not done in the name of christianity for over 500 years. Atheistic regimes are still persecuting people. i wont get into Sharia law and whether Islam is a killer as that is not a Christianity discussion.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Because ISAW contends that unless you believe in God atrocities will inevitably result

No . i accept religious societies also kill people. Even so called "christian" ones. But on a tiny scale compared to atheistic and godless ones. It is a bit like ignoring 99% of child abusers and focusing only on the less than 1% of abusers who were roman Catholic Priests.

long range shooter

Morbert wrote: »

So I will ask again. Are you changing your position from "atheism causes atrocities", to "atheist societies can be perfectly healthy, but state-enforced atheism, due to the nature of the regimes imposing atheism, will more than likely lead to atrocities."



No. Not in other words. I do not consider Pol Pot's regime, for example, to be a religious regime. A regime like North Korea, on the other hand is deeply religious. It is an example of a secular religion, with its own mythology and worship. It is an example of a bad religion, and hence an example of a religious instruction being a bad influence. This was entirely beside the point, and was part of a tangent you brought up.

Instead, what I brought up as a counter-point was a) An example of a predominantly atheist society that is perfectly functional, culturally rich, and does not commit atrocities. b) Reasons why your understanding of the underpinning causes behind the atrocities you mention (like Pol Pot's) is wrong.



This has nothing to do with what I said.



Atheist regimes (not religions), unlike Christian regimes, have always emerged as a symptom of anti-democratic "revolutionary" totalitarianism, like the "socialism" practised by Pol Pot. Their entire philosophy is to blame. You are making the mistake of assuming atheism is the offending component of their philosophy, and I have pointed out that plenty of atheists abhor the philosophies of people like Stalin and Pol Pot.



Again, I see the blame lying squarely on the policies of Pol Pot. Perhaps you are claiming that, if Pol Pot was not an atheist, he wouldn't have committed atrocities? A claim as baseless as the claim that, if King Leopold was an atheist, he would not have committed atrocities. As you said yourself, we know what we know, and there is no point in conted speculation.

I like this cartoon:

I hope they speak norwegian in hell too,or maybe its valhalla they call it;):D:D

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

No . i accept religious societies also kill people. Even so called "christian" ones. But on a tiny scale compared to atheistic and godless ones. It is a bit like ignoring 99% of child abusers and focusing only on the less than 1% of abusers who were roman Catholic Priests.

As I already said in one of the posts you did'nt reply to- ''our crowd killed less than their crowd''- big deal . A long way from atheism causes atrocities.

Anyway I agree with Philologos - theism ( and I assume atheism ) dos'nt cause atrocities - people do . And with that I am done on this issue.

lmaopml

ISAW wrote: »

No . i accept religious societies also kill people. Even so called "christian" ones. But on a tiny scale compared to atheistic and godless ones. It is a bit like ignoring 99% of child abusers and focusing only on the less than 1% of abusers who were roman Catholic Priests.

I thought, I could be wrong - that Norway entered the discussion in relation to and as an example of an 'Atheist' society that hasn't resorted to totalitarianism, but is an overly atheist society?

Where did Norway enter the debate anyway?

I don't believe ISAW quoted 'Norway' as an example either way.He/She simply said it was not an 'Atheist' top heavy nation - and there is more to be considered, like progress, and natural and rich resources.

Afterall, it's a long time ago since they put away the tin hats with the horns on, and plundered the coastlines of western europe, and discovered they were rich in natural resources. In between same they lived among us and were converted pagans. No?

All the 'Fitz' names are pretty Irish these days.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

As I already said in one of the posts you did'nt reply to- ''our crowd killed less than their crowd''- big deal . A long way from atheism causes atrocities.

there IS a BIG difference between thousands of dead over 2000 years and hundreds of millions of dead over a century!


what are the nazis remembered for? the war cost tens of millions of dead but the extermination and targeting of ten million people in camps are what the Nazis are particularly remembered for. And before you suggest it Im not suggesting the nazis prompted atheism. Im just pointing out promoting a belief or set of beliefs as a causal factor in mass genocide. christians promoted a belief in christianity. no mass genocide. But whenever atheism was promoted we had genocide.
How come?

And dont go on about I didnt reply. I did then Im sure and i do now .

If you know anything about statistical analysis and control groups and population analysis you would know an "our crowd" versus "their crowd" is in fact a valid statistical analysis which is used in social science. If you can explain it by something other then their political philosophy please feel free to supply how come nazis and atheistic regimes slaughtered people. surely you cant believe bit was because the controllers of such regimes were human beings and that is the only thing we can consider? so itf it isnt the "crowd" they ran with what other explanation have you to offer?


Unlike you who claimed God in the Bible ordered his people to rape children and when challenged on it you ran away from the issue!

Anyway I agree with Philologos - theism ( and I assume atheism ) dos'nt cause atrocities - people do . And with that I am done on this issue.

so in yur theory Nazis atheists and christians are all the same because they are all people and their beliefs dont cause anything? How come then the christians were not committing genocide and the Nazis and atheists were? Indeed maybe even some so called christians were in support of Naziism or in support of spreading atheism? If the atheism or naziism had nothing to do with it how do you explain the statistical anomaly.


It is nonsense to say "guns dont kill people -people do" without considering the type of thinking that person entertains in relation to their killing. The point of the phrase is it isnt just because ther is a gun there one must have a person ther to use it. But a person being there isnt enough either; they hzave to have a particular mindset which is more likely to cause them to kill!
so i am asking you. why is the Nazi or atheist or heathen mindset when compared to the christian one statistically more likely to lead to someone killing someone else?

ISAW

lmaopml wrote: »

I thought, I could be wrong - that Norway entered the discussion in relation to and as an example of an 'Atheist' society that hasn't resorted to totalitarianism, but is an overly atheist society?

Where did Norway enter the debate anyway?

When Morbert orifinally posted the Russels Teapot Cartoon http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=76811495#post76811495
in order to suggest atheist majority countries are not necessarily atrocious. In spite of plenty of other evidence and of the fudging of what Norwegian stats actually say he then claimed based on this that Norway was 70% atheist.

Zorbas

ISAW wrote: »

No . i accept religious societies also kill people. Even so called "christian" ones. But on a tiny scale compared to atheistic and godless ones. It is a bit like ignoring 99% of child abusers and focusing only on the less than 1% of abusers who were roman Catholic Priests.

Has anyone noticed how the same arguments are being constantly repeated as if that will give them added credence?
Try to change the record- there are too many shrill posters on this.

PDN

Zorbas wrote: »

Has anyone noticed how the same arguments are being constantly repeated as if that will give them added credence?

Indeed, like the claim that Norway is 70% atheist.

long range shooter

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, like the claim that Norway is 70% atheist.

It is 70% Atheist and i am one of them;)