Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

marty1985

himnextdoor wrote: »

I'm sorry, where did you get this?

I was under the impression that the human tendency was to over-produce boys; boys that could go to war.

Besides, since the dawn of time, everything that man does is to please women; women are the most valued and important to men.

This is where Christianity falls down; it attempts to subvert human nature.

I really am not sure which part of my post you have a problem with.

I'll assume your used to hearing of Christianity as being sexist and patriarchal. That allows me to assume that that's the reason your unfamiliar with the fact that the early church was highly appealing to women.

You're right to say that the human tendency was to over-produce boys. It's been estimated that there were around 130 males for every 100 females in ancient Rome. That won't surprise you, but it is an extreme sex ratio, and can obviously occur only with some tampering to human life. And tampering there was. Exposure of unwanted female infants and deformed males infants was legal, morally acceptable, and widely practiced by all social classes in the Greco-Roman world. Oddly, you say Christianity subverted human nature, when it was Christianity that removed the gender imbalance that existed in society.

If, as you say, "since the dawn of time, everything that man does is to please women; women are the most valued and important to men", then they had a bizarre way of showing it.

Celsus regarded the disproportionate number of women among the Christians as evidence of its irrationality and vulgarity. No study of early Christianity could lead you to any other conclusion than that this was a religion to which women were powerfully drawn, and it would not have spread so far and so quickly but for those women.

Christianity both forbade the ancient practice of the exposure of unwanted infants - almost always girls, as you point out "boys could go to war" - and insisted upon communal provision for the needs of widows, the most disadvantaged and helpless of all class of persons in ancient society. It is simply an anachronism to say Christianity has always been sexist - Christianity demanded that females be allowed to live and provided the means for them to live out their lives with dignity and material security. Can we not be bold enough to assume that not all pagan women were content to submit to abortions at the behest of their husbands or to consent to infanticide against their daughters?

The more favorable Christian view of women is also demonstrated in their condemnation of divorce, incest, marital infidelity and polygamy. Christian husbands were commanded to remain faithful to their wives.

Penn raised a fair question regarding the appeal of Christianity, but I'm sure he won't find it hard to accept that Christian women were not entirely unconscious of the degree to which their faith affirmed their humanity.

As Peregrinus has noted, we need to look deeper for reasons as to why Christianity spread. Penn offered that it may be because of a novel notion of an afterlife. The truth of large cultural movements is never so simple a thing as that. It is disheartening to see so many atheists on the A&A forum claiming that No Good Thing ever came from Christian faith. Christian teaching placed charity at the centre of spiritual life as no pagan cult ever had, and raised the care of widows, orphans, the sick, imprisoned, and the poor to level of the highest religious obligation. It created a system of social assistance that no civic or religious office of the pagan state provided, and would later become the first large, organised institution of public welfare in Western history. This had far reaching effects on the rise of Christianity than being mere public displays of caring - it distinguished Christians for their willingness to care for the ill during pandemic plagues and earthquakes, which were common. One reason paganism fell away was for its inability, relative to Christianity, to confront those crises socially or spiritually.

himnextdoor

marty1985 wrote: »

I really am not sure which part of my post you have a problem with.

I'll assume your used to hearing of Christianity as being sexist and patriarchal. That allows me to assume that that's the reason your unfamiliar with the fact that the early church was highly appealing to women.

I included the part of your post I have a problem with so there was actually no reason for you to make any invalid assumptions at all.

But I think that the Church treated women as second class citizens; they could not be ordained suggesting that Christianity was never as inclusive as you claim. Unmarried mothers were an anathema to the Catholic church but their lovers weren't. Seem a little unbalanced if you ask me. Women were treated as slaves in the workhouses and sepeated from their children.

And have you forgotten that until fairly recently, women who had given birth needed to be re-baptised because they were considered to be dirty and stained by the sin of giving birth.

And which sex was branded as witches? To be burned at the stake?

It is strange that you claim women were worthless to their non-Christian societies but were allowed to convert to Christianity by the men that abused them. Women had freedom to choose then; subjugated women do not get to choose and they certainly don't affect the religious leanings of the men.

How do you explain the 'glass ceiling'? Women get paid less than men for doing the same job.

Even today's society is not as inclusive to women as you claim it was nearly 2000 years ago.

Christianity was forced onto men and their women had to go with them, not the other way around.

So again, where do you get the notion that women became overproduced?

Penn

marty1985 wrote: »

As Peregrinus has noted, we need to look deeper for reasons as to why Christianity spread. Penn offered that it may be because of a novel notion of an afterlife. The truth of large cultural movements is never so simple a thing as that. It is disheartening to see so many atheists on the A&A forum claiming that No Good Thing ever came from Christian faith. Christian teaching placed charity at the centre of spiritual life as no pagan cult ever had, and raised the care of widows, orphans, the sick, imprisoned, and the poor to level of the highest religious obligation. It created a system of social assistance that no civic or religious office of the pagan state provided, and would later become the first large, organised institution of public welfare in Western history. This had far reaching effects on the rise of Christianity than being mere public displays of caring - it distinguished Christians for their willingness to care for the ill during pandemic plagues and earthquakes, which were common. One reason paganism fell away was for its inability, relative to Christianity, to confront those crises socially or spiritually.

Not just an afterlife, but any benefits. The point I'm trying to get across is that for religion to take hold, even if you already believe there is a god and you already live your life in a moral way, but to actually say "You know what, I'm going to join this religion and live my life in this way in accordance to how it says I should live my life", there has to be a benefit.

If all religion was was worshipping a deity in accordance with the beliefs set by the religion, knowing there is no reward for doing so and no punishment for not doing so, that all there was to the religion was living your life as morally as you can, in a charitable way, selflessly helping others (all of which you could do anyway without religion) but there was no benefit to actually belonging to a particular religion and you had to go to church and pray regularly and thank god for everything and worship him, far fewer people would do so.

I do think good things have come out of the Christian faith, though believing as I do that there is no deity therefore nothing to base a faith upon, I don't think the good things justify the bad things. Though of course, good/bad is subjective, and it's difficult to say if the good things would still have happened without religion, and vice versa.

marty1985

I included the part of your post I have a problem with so there was actually no reason for you to make any invalid assumptions at all.

But I think that the Church treated women as second class citizens; they could not be ordained suggesting that Christianity was never as inclusive as you claim.

And have you forgotten that until fairly recently, women who had given birth needed to be re-baptised because they were considered to be dirty and stained by the sin of giving birth.

And which sex was branded as witches? To be burned at the stake?

It is strange that you claim women were worthless to their non-Christian societies but were allowed to convert to Christianity by the men that abused them. Women had freedom to choose then; subjugated women do not get to choose and they certainly don't affect the religious leanings of the men.

Christianity was forced onto men and their women had to go with them, not the other way around.

So again, where do you get the notion that women became overproduced?

Bear in mind we are discussing early Christianity, and its rise.

If women were not allowed to hold leadership positions, it's news to me. There is virtual consensus among historians of the early church as well as biblical scholars that women held positions of honor and authority. Deacons were of considerable importance in the early church, and Paul referenced "sister Phoebe" who is a "deaconess". Clearly, he felt it entirely proper for a woman to hold that position. This was not an isolated case. Clement of Alexandria wrote of women deacons too. On the pagan side, Pliny the Younger reported that he had tortured two young Christian women "who were called deaconesses".

In fact, Paul's letters are full of greetings to prominent women in various congregations. That women served as deacons was long obscured by the translation of the KJB which chose to refer to Phoebe as a "servant" instead of a deacon, but this reflects the sexist norms of the 17th century, not the realities of the early Christian communities. All important modern translations that I'm aware of restore the original language used, but unfortunately the illusions fostered by the KJB remain the common wisdom.

Nobody said women were "overproduced". They enjoyed a favorable sex ratio within the Christian communities, attracted to it for reasons already stated. This favorable sex ratio gave them more power within family and religious subculture.

Paganism and Christianity could not coexist indefinitely, and only a moral imbecile could unreservedly regret which of the two it was that survived.

Nobody is saying religion is wonderful for women, but historians agree that Christianity, and even Islam, began positively for women, while it may have been dragged back to the old patriarchy in subsequent generations. But this is changing, women in all faiths are challenging men on the grounds of the egalitarianism that is characteristic of those religions.

Whatever your opinion of modern Christianity, or of Christianity in the middle ages, I was referring to early Christianity. If you have no desire to assess what social or moral differences Christianity made, then we won't get far. But I would like to point out that your mix of modern and middle ages criticisms don't help a discussion on early Christianity, and I want to caution against the anachronism of allowing your own cultural premises to determine your understanding of ancient society.

You obviously feel discomfort at the church's adoption of a male priesthood, but no ancient person, male or female, would have thought that unfairly exclusive. There was simply no cultural grammar for such ideas. Instead, consider that most organised religious societies of the ancient world admitted only one sex and strictly excluded slaves from membership. Christians by contrast, admitted men, women, slaves, masters, to equal membership and obliged them to worship together. A radical novelty that transcended human divisions.

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

Which is shifting the burden to theists to supply verification of "there is a god" rather than
appealing to positive evidence that there is not a god!

Let us deal with this seperately.

You seem to suggest that theists are uncomfortable with the burden of proof but don't priests and vicars talk about positive proof of God all the time? How do they Christianise people if they don't persuade them that there positively is a God? That there is 'proof' of God all around us?

Of course, we are back to the nature of 'faith'; people's tendency to have faith predisposes them to accepting information at face value. This makes them easy to religionise.

It seems to me that theists only become uncomfortable about their positive proof when confronted by atheism.

And religionists know that their positive proof requires the recipient to have faith. Without faith, their positive proof is not any kind of proof at all.

Atheists don't have faith and you do not have positive proof.

What religion are the inhabitants of the top five murder capitals of the world? Is this positive evidence that the God of the Bible exists?

Of course not; Christian people kill less than non-Christians. Oops! They don't though do they?

Was the current state of Africa part of God's plan? The AIDS, hunger and disease, not to mention the wars; were these things part of God's plan for the African people?

Why would Jesus choose to convert a puppet megalomaniac like Saul on the road to Damascus rather than convert the Emperor? Rome could have become Christianised overnight. It seems that rather than save as many people as possible, Jesus decided to save as few as possible, Saul and Peter both ended up as victims of the persecution of Christians.

What does this mean as evidence? That prolonged human suffering was necessary? That Jesus didn't want peace in the world just yet?

Why appeal to the sheep to change the world when it is the farmers who run it?

So God wanted Christians to be persecuted. He must have. I mean how can God's plan go so wrong? (I know, free-will.)

If God was clever and wanted peace on earth and for all men to follow the path of Jesus then why didn't He start the conversion from the top. Surely it would have been more effective to have Jesus born as the son of Nero for example, or Ghengis Khan for another. Persecution of Christians could have been avoided altogether. Why would God choose a method that would tend to maximise casualties?

So, while I am not arrogant enough to claim that no God exists, I can state that if God does exist, He is not the Hebrew God of the Bible as depicted by Christianity. He can't be.

If God does exist, He is either powerless to intervene or He approves of the way the world is. Either way, this is not the kind of God portrayed in the Bible.

Ergo, Christians have the wrong idea about God.

And I can still claim to be an atheist.

tommy2bad

himnextdoor ;
So, while I am not arrogant enough to claim that no God exists, I can state that if God does exist, He is not the Hebrew God of the Bible as depicted by Christianity. He can't be.

If God does exist, He is either powerless to intervene or He approves of the way the world is. Either way, this is not the kind of God portrayed in the Bible.

Ergo, Christians have the wrong idea about God.

And I can still claim to be an atheist.

He is not the Hebrew God of the Bible as depicted by your misrepresentation of Christianity certainly.
God doesn't have a plan, He has a goal for man. Hes not the puppet master you seem to desire.
Read the bible and you won't find the God you describe or you could go down a side road of Calvinist predestination and try to find Him that way but I think you'll find that a cull de sac.

Peregrinus

Penn wrote: »

Not just an afterlife, but any benefits. The point I'm trying to get across is that for religion to take hold, even if you already believe there is a god and you already live your life in a moral way, but to actually say "You know what, I'm going to join this religion and live my life in this way in accordance to how it says I should live my life", there has to be a benefit.

If all religion was was worshipping a deity in accordance with the beliefs set by the religion, knowing there is no reward for doing so and no punishment for not doing so, that all there was to the religion was living your life as morally as you can, in a charitable way, selflessly helping others (all of which you could do anyway without religion) but there was no benefit to actually belonging to a particular religion and you had to go to church and pray regularly and thank god for everything and worship him, far fewer people would do so.

Well, let’s think this through.

My starting point is that an atheist or agnostic is capable of living altruistically and ethically. Is there a benefit (or an expectation of benefit) to them from doing this? Not, obviously, the benefit of a glorious afterlife, or the benefit of divine favour in the present life. But there is the satisfaction of knowing that they are living in a worthwhile way, as opposed to a worthless way; that they are doing good, as opposed to evil. And there is perhaps the satisfaction of knowing that they are fulfilling their potential; growing into the best kind of person than they can become. Satisfaction of that kind is surely a benefit, and it is surely a sufficient benefit to induce them to live ethically, rather than unethically?

Right. If that’s a benefit, and a sufficient benefit, for an atheist or agnostic, why should it be impossible that it should be a benefit, and as sufficient benefit, for a theist? It would seem smug, arrogant and entirely unsupported by any evidence to assume that atheists and agnostics are more inherently altruistic than theists, or are more likely to find the inherent benefit of living well sufficient than theists are.

In fact, it seems to me that the benefits of living this way, rather than that way, are to a large extent common to theists and atheists alike. There’s the “high-minded” benefit of personal satisfaction/gratification of being able to live up to your own ideals. There’s the perhaps less high-minded but still real gratification of social acceptance/approbation of your behaviour or way of life, to the extent that your ethical views coincide with the prevailing views of your society. I would cheerfully accept that, for an awful lot of religious people, their religiosity is sustained by social convention - they live in a society which, in various ways, rewards them for being religious and, if those rewards weaken, they become less religious. In fact, I think we’ve seen that fairly clearly in Ireland over the last few decades.

Those who are still religious in Ireland today are obviously not motivated to anything like the same extent by social pressures, expectations or rewards. It’s possible they are motivated by the expectation of a glorious afterlife but, actually, this too is a much weaker motivation than it used to be, since the Catholic church no longer teaches that the non-religious are all damned, and surveys suggest that few Catholics believe that they are. So I suspect that the primary motivation is actually pretty similar to the motivation of the ethical atheist; they feel that this is a true and worthwhile way to live, and it satisfies or gratifies them to live this way.

And if that is true today, I don’t see why it couldn’t have been true in the past. Human psychology hasn’t changed that much; our basic needs, including our need for self-esteem and the esteem of others, are much as they ever were, and it’s mainly to that kind of basic need that I would look to explain religious choices made by all people in all societies. (And, in this context “religious choices” includes the choice not to be religious.)

tommy2bad

Penn;
If all religion was was worshipping a deity in accordance with the beliefs set by the religion

You say worshiping like it was a bad thing. Why do you assume thats so?
It's isnt a duty or penance, the worship aspect is no more than living your life in accordance with Gods will.
Their is no inclination to suffering as an end in itself, thats gnosticism.

Penn

tommy2bad wrote: »

You say worshiping like it was a bad thing. Why do you assume thats so?
It's isnt a duty or penance, the worship aspect is no more than living your life in accordance with Gods will.

I mean things like going to Mass, saying grace before meals, the angelus etc.

I've been an atheist for years, but I'd still end up at Mass every now and again if it was for a relative or something (I would go out of respect for my family, not to pray). But I remember there was a period of about 2 years where I didn't go. Then about a year ago, I ended up in Mass again, doing my usual thing of not listening. Then I seemed to pay attention to everyone saying in unison "It is right to give him thanks and praise."

To be honest, that sent a chill down my spine. Is it right to give him thanks and praise? Why? Why do you have to thank God for everything? Why do you have to keep a day holy for him? Why do you have to go to Church every week and praise his name and thank him for everything? Why do you have to follow the Bible? Why do you have to follow what the Church says?

Why is it not enough to lead a good, moral, charitable, selfless life, independent of religion and God? Why is that not enough?

There are good people in this world and there are bad people. I believe that with or without religion, good people will still be good and bad people will still be bad. Some religious people do many good things. Some do bad things. Some non-religious people do good things. Some do bad things.

Why do you have to live your life in accordance with God's will, especially when a lot of that "will" is "praise him and give him thanks"? Why is that in there?

ISAW

tommy2bad wrote: »

Just sayin ?

Just saying that you prove my point by adding another "true Scotsman " criterion?

King Mob wrote: »

I don't think you either understand my argument or what those words mean.
Falsifying claims about a god is not positive evidence that there is no god, it is negative evidence against a God.
We can provide plenty of these, but they are not positive arguments for atheism.

Actually you are the one that seems to have problems here. As I stated there is just evidence not negative evidence or positive evidence. the negative or positive element comes in whent the evidence is used to verify or falsify. THE SAME evidence may be used to verify or falsify different propositions. therefore it isnt negative or positive it is a consequence of what it is used for i.e. verifying or falsifying. Trying to claim it is a different kind of evidence when used to verify or falsify is adding unnecessary complications and violating Occams razor.

First, it's called the "no true scotsman" fallacy. Second that's not how it's used, you're most likely thinking of "special pleading" which is again, not what I'm doing.
And I'd love to see some examples of these.

Read back. I uded the words because of the Monty Python "only the true Messiah..." point.
But i have and will continue to refer to "only true scotsman" the point being

A. Hamish is the only true scotsman

The interlocutor B does not say "no true scotsman would NOT <condition e.g wear a sporran >
and A answer "Hamish wears a Sporran"
B says "ONLY a true scotsman would <condition>" and keeps adding conditions
Just as you and your lot are adding conditions to a true miracle. It is in fact one of the reasons why verification becomes a problem. With falsification one need only falsify a proposition once but with verification when a condition is satisfied one can add another criterion. As others have added e.g. cures for cancer or statistical levels of cures . i only pickede Lourdes because i know of them. The examples I gave satisfied all your existing criterion but people add another criterion for "miracle".

Which is why it is an "only a true miracle" fallacy. I understand what the Scotsman fallacy is.

So leaving aside that the organisation is not independent,

But it IS independent! didnt you read the reference?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau
It is an official organization within the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes, but is administered and run only by doctors. Its most noted function is the medical investigation of apparent cures associated with the shrine of Lourdes.
...
Members are given (and invited to wear) a small but distinctive badge displaying a red cross on a white background surmounted by the word Credo ("I believe"). However, members of any religious affiliation or none are welcomed.
...
For a cure to be recognised as medically inexplicable, certain facts require to be established:

The original diagnosis must be verified and confirmed beyond doubt
The diagnosis must be regarded as "incurable" with current means (although ongoing treatments do not disqualify the cure)
The cure must happen in association with a visit to Lourdes, typically while in Lourdes or in the vicinity of the shrine itself (although drinking or bathing in the water are not required)
The cure must be immediate (rapid resolution of symptoms and signs of the illness)
The cure must be complete (with no residual impairment or deficit)
The cure must be permanent (with no recurrence)

nor do they explain how they exclude the above possibilities, we are still left with quite a big problem.

Nor do you explain how you added criteria to your scotsman!

We have 12 cases from the last 150 years. And how many people visit Lourdes every year? According to wikipedia it's over 200 million visitors since it's opened.

Number of cases were not in your original criteria but...read the reference
Approximately 35 claims per year are brought to the attention of the Lourdes Medical Bureau.

So that's 12 in 200 million.
That's not really a miracle...

LOL! Not a TRUE miracle you mean?
No it is a true Scotsman:) Lourdes was taken as just one example which fulfill your additional criteria. im sure there are others. but if i produce them you will add more Scottish criteria to discount them wont you?

himnextdoor wrote: »

Let us deal with this seperately.

You seem to suggest that theists are uncomfortable with the burden of proof but don't priests and vicars talk about positive proof of God all the time? How do they Christianise people if they don't persuade them that there positively is a God? That there is 'proof' of God all around us?

Depends on what you mean by "proof" or "evidence". Some people may use "evidence" in a non scientific sense.
Also this isnt about
A "Prove there is no God"
B "no you prove ther is one"

It is about whether it is a reasonable plausible position to maintain that there is.
In particular Atheists come here to laugh at Christianity referring to the bible as a "book with talking animals" or commandments to rape. But they encounter that christianity has a strong rationalist and objective vein.

i should point out here that modern scientific medicine is in two minds (excuse the pun) about whehter the mind exists as a physical entity or as part of the body.
It seems to suit atheists to argue that a gestalt entity does not exist biologically but then later when it suits them to do so they contradict that by arguing about memes and sociological entities using the same agrument that applied to biological entities.

Of course, we are back to the nature of 'faith'; people's tendency to have faith predisposes them to accepting information at face value. This makes them easy to religionise.

some of the same sort believe in the laws of physics or laws of nature and attack religion based on belief in something they dont fully understand.

It seems to me that theists only become uncomfortable about their positive proof when confronted by atheism.

I dont agree with that; also blind faith isnt necessarily a good thing even faith in the laws of physics . One cant have faith without some level of doubt I suppose. and doubt can lead to progress.

And religionists know that their positive proof requires the recipient to have faith. Without faith, their positive proof is not any kind of proof at all.

that is just redefining "proof". But you have seen christianity has faith ANDreason.

What religion are the inhabitants of the top five murder capitals of the world? Is this positive evidence that the God of the Bible exists?

what do you claim are the top five murder capitals?

In fact the top five murder cultures of all times arte atheist as far as i know. certainly not christian.
Atheist china, Stalinist Mao etc.

Of course not; Christian people kill less than non-Christians. Oops! They don't though do they?

Yes they do! Atheism is in the tiny single digit percentages but whenever they get in control they dwarf christian killings.

Was the current state of Africa part of God's plan? The AIDS, hunger and disease, not to mention the wars; were these things part of God's plan for the African people?

"Problem of evil" was discussed eariler look it up

Why would Jesus choose to convert a puppet megalomaniac like Saul on the road to Damascus rather than convert the Emperor? Rome could have become Christianised overnight. It seems that rather than save as many people as possible, Jesus decided to save as few as possible, Saul and Peter both ended up as victims of the persecution of Christians.

not a valid argument against christianity.
Not an elitist king of this world.

Why appeal to the sheep to change the world when it is the farmers who run it?

displays your elitist mindset but you also ignre revolutions are done by peopàle not by leaders.

So God wanted Christians to be persecuted. He must have. I mean how can God's plan go so wrong? (I know, free-will.)

If you know why ask?

If God was clever and wanted peace on earth and for all men to follow the path of Jesus then why didn't He start the conversion from the top. Surely it would have been more effective to have Jesus born as the son of Nero for example, or Ghengis Khan for another.

In the case of genghis Kahn that happened with Kublai. the Pope however died before Polo got back.
the reason why the king of kings was born in a stable is quite clear to most christians.
It isnt about a fascist elitist state.

If God does exist, He is either powerless to intervene or He approves of the way the world is. Either way, this is not the kind of God portrayed in the Bible.

This epicurian??? fallacy was dealt with in the problem of evil debate

ISAW

Penn wrote: »

I mean things like going to Mass, saying grace before meals, the angelus etc.

I've been an atheist for years, but I'd still end up at Mass every now and again if it was for a relative or something (I would go out of respect for my family, not to pray). But I remember there was a period of about 2 years where I didn't go. Then about a year ago, I ended up in Mass again, doing my usual thing of not listening. Then I seemed to pay attention to everyone saying in unison "It is right to give him thanks and praise."

sorry to be pedantic but that bit was just changed (no pun intended) less than a year ago.
to It is right and just.

To be honest, that sent a chill down my spine. Is it right to give him thanks and praise? Why? Why do you have to thank God for everything? Why do you have to keep a day holy for him? Why do you have to go to Church every week and praise his name and thank him for everything? Why do you have to follow the Bible? Why do you have to follow what the Church says?

You dont have to! and the people that do would say you are not doing the right thing in rejecting God.

Why is it not enough to lead a good, moral, charitable, selfless life, independent of religion and God? Why is that not enough?

now that is an excellent question!
But im not going to answer it now -ill ell you why below-because it is sufficent to say that christians believe agnostics or people who never heard of God could be saved or go to heaven (which is a bad choise of phrase because it isnt about doing it for the reward)
The point is people may have some of the truth and they may still chose to follow it or ignore it.
the issue you raise is why is one religion or denomination better than another in terms of having more of the truth but that is a dfferent issue to there being a truth or a god in the first place.

There are good people in this world and there are bad people. I believe that with or without religion, good people will still be good and bad people will still be bad.

and the criterion for deciding good and bad is made up by yourself or are there some things which are bad even if you think they are good? e.g sex between an adult and a six year old?

If so then you have to inform your conscience from somewhere outsideof yourself dont you?
And that i hope answers your question.

Some religious people do many good things. Some do bad things. Some non-religious people do good things. Some do bad things.

Indeed based on what definition of good and bad?

Why do you have to live your life in accordance with God's will, especially when a lot of that "will" is "praise him and give him thanks"? Why is that in there?

what is the source of the definition of good and bad?
Assume good=Gods will
Now, is it better to live a good life or a bad life?

Penn

ISAW, do you need religion to tell you not to have sex with a six year old?

And what about the religious people (not just priests, but any religious people) who do have sex with minors?

marty1985

That line used to creep me out a little bit also. As far as I know, that line is lifted from scripture, as are all or most lines in that part of the mass. The reasoning, I think, is that in that little exchange between the priest and the congregation, the people agree that it is right and proper in order to assent to the priest continuing the Eucharistic prayer on their behalf, which is a necessity, and that's why it's there.

King Mob

ISAW wrote: »

Actually you are the one that seems to have problems here. As I stated there is just evidence not negative evidence or positive evidence. the negative or positive element comes in whent the evidence is used to verify or falsify. THE SAME evidence may be used to verify or falsify different propositions. therefore it isnt negative or positive it is a consequence of what it is used for i.e. verifying or falsifying. Trying to claim it is a different kind of evidence when used to verify or falsify is adding unnecessary complications and violating Occams razor.

Again, you don't seem to understand the terms you are using and are ranting to cover up this fact.
None of the above makes any sort of sense or makes any connection to what I had typed.

ISAW wrote: »

i only pickede Lourdes because i know of them. The examples I gave satisfied all your existing criterion but people add another criterion for "miracle".

You shoulda picked something a little more convincing.

ISAW wrote: »

But it IS independent! didnt you read the reference?

Members are given (and invited to wear) a small but distinctive badge displaying a red cross on a white background surmounted by the word Credo ("I believe").

I highlighted the operative word there.
They are an institution owned and operated by the church to find these "miracles" not determine whether or not they are real.
They've already concluded that the miracles happen, they are looking for the evidence to support that predetermined conclusion.
That's not independant.

ISAW wrote: »

For a cure to be recognised as medically inexplicable, certain facts require to be established:

The original diagnosis must be verified and confirmed beyond doubt
The diagnosis must be regarded as "incurable" with current means (although ongoing treatments do not disqualify the cure)
The cure must happen in association with a visit to Lourdes, typically while in Lourdes or in the vicinity of the shrine itself (although drinking or bathing in the water are not required)
The cure must be immediate (rapid resolution of symptoms and signs of the illness)
The cure must be complete (with no residual impairment or deficit)
The cure must be permanent (with no recurrence)

Nor do you explain how you added criteria to your scotsman!

I have not added any criteria.
For example the above list does not detail any of the criteria they use to make their determinations. So we don't know, other than they say they do, how they exclude instances of misdiagnosis.
Nor does any of the above explain spontaneous remission.

ISAW wrote: »

Number of cases were not in your original criteria but...read the reference
Approximately 35 claims per year are brought to the attention of the Lourdes Medical Bureau.

Yes it is, when the number of supposed cures is lower that the typical chance of spontaneous remission.
You provided 12 cases out of 200 million visitors.
Are you now claiming that around 35 people per year are cured? Leaving aside the questions of why only those people and not the millions who do not get healed, we have 35 out of about million per year, which is still below the rate of random spontaneous remission even assuming all of them are actual cures (which even the church isn't dumb enough to claim).

ISAW wrote: »

LOL! Not a TRUE miracle you mean?
No it is a true Scotsman:) Lourdes was taken as just one example which fulfill your additional criteria. im sure there are others. but if i produce them you will add more Scottish criteria to discount them wont you?

No, it's not a miracle at all as they do not exclude the possibility of exaggeration, lying or other effects that don't require magic.

And again a "no true Scotman" does not apply assuming your false application held.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

ISAW

Penn wrote: »

ISAW, do you need religion to tell you not to have sex with a six year old?

Penn . if the source is just your personal view what is there to determine you are wrong?
do you not have to look outside of yourself?

And what about the religious people (not just priests, but any religious people) who do have sex with minors?

It is wrong according to their religion whether or not they do wrong.
I didnt say being religious makes you a better person than others, just that they look to certain standards which they chose to follow. Otherwise do you propose pêople just make it up themselves?

himnextdoor

tommy2bad wrote: »

God doesn't have a plan, He has a goal for man. Hes not the puppet master you seem to desire.

The Hebrew God doesn't have a plan? But He does have a goal; an ambition, desire?

So whose plan is outlined in Revelations?

It never ceases to amaze me how different Christians seem to know a different God. And intimately too.

Amazing and un-Christian.

If God doesn't have a plan then why do Christians believe that God interfered in the affairs of men?

And since you bring 'puppet-master' into it; 'Live according to my will or suffer for eternity in hell' is the attitude of a control-freak. If God wasn't a wannabe puppet-master then why would He react so badly when He lost control of the first two humans? (Eve was corrupted by the most powerful angel ever created and she then corrupted Adam; how did poor Adam deserve what he got from God?)

On that subject; it seems that only Adam and Eve were prohibited from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - was the serpent prohibited? Did the serpent have knowledge of good and evil?

I ask because it seems unreasonable of God to give man dominion over all life and at the same time disadvantage him by keeping him morally neutral; a condition that seems not to have been applied to other animals.

Why would God need such a tree in His garden? And why weren't Adam and Eve warned about the serpent?

It seems like a set-up to me. The catalog of errors that led to the fall of man indicates that either God desired the fall of man or He is inept when it comes to understanding His creation.

God set Adam a test that he was doomed to fail. It's kind of cruel if you ask me.

I find the Christian attitudes toward Adam quite sickening. And un-Christian. Wierd that.

Why didn't God just un-create Lucifer when He realise he was a screw-up? Maybe it's because Lucifer wasn't a screw-up or perhaps Lucifer is too powerful.

God seems to be a poor General too.

tommy2bad

himnextdoor wrote: »

The Hebrew God doesn't have a plan? But He does have a goal; an ambition, desire?

So whose plan is outlined in Revelations?

It never ceases to amaze me how different Christians seem to know a different God. And intimately too.

Amazing and un-Christian.

If God doesn't have a plan then why do Christians believe that God interfered in the affairs of men?

And since you bring 'puppet-master' into it; 'Live according to my will or suffer for eternity in hell' is the attitude of a control-freak. If God wasn't a wannabe puppet-master then why would He react so badly when He lost control of the first two humans? (Eve was corrupted by the most powerful angel ever created and she then corrupted Adam; how did poor Adam deserve what he got from God?)

On that subject; it seems that only Adam and Eve were prohibited from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - was the serpent prohibited? Did the serpent have knowledge of good and evil?

I ask because it seems unreasonable of God to give man dominion over all life and at the same time disadvantage him by keeping him morally neutral; a condition that seems not to have been applied to other animals.

Why would God need such a tree in His garden? And why weren't Adam and Eve warned about the serpent?

It seems like a set-up to me. The catalog of errors that led to the fall of man indicates that either God desired the fall of man or He is inept when it comes to understanding His creation.

God set Adam a test that he was doomed to fail. It's kind of cruel if you ask me.

I find the Christian attitudes toward Adam quite sickening. And un-Christian. Wierd that.

Why didn't God just un-create Lucifer when He realise he was a screw-up? Maybe it's because Lucifer wasn't a screw-up or perhaps Lucifer is too powerful.

God seems to be a poor General too.

Their are so many misunderstandings and misrepresentations in this post that I don't know where to begin.
Revelations isnt anyones plan or even a phrophesy of things to come, thinking that it is is your first mistake.
God never said anyone would suffer in hell for eternity.
Its not about control. You seem to rail against a God that dosn't exist.
I know that God has been used terribly by people with an axe to grind, agenda to hide or cause to promote but thats not God, thats a story for to scare people or cajole them. Hell I'll join you in rejecting that god, piss on his idols and burn his temples.
None of which removes God or replaces him. Finding the God of the bible is easy; read it.

ISAW

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you don't seem to understand the terms you are using and are ranting to cover up this fact.
None of the above makes any sort of sense or makes any connection to what I had typed.

I am not trying to cover up anything and i resent you suggesting that!
It makes complete sense;
Evidence is evidence . it isnt positive evidence or negative evidence.
I proves/verifies something or disproves/falsifies it.

You shoulda picked something a little more convincing.

Care to list what criterion the Lourdes example didnt fulfill?

Your claim about supernatural events was:

supernatural events have never once been verified to have been observed in circumstances that exclude the possibility of delusion, misidentification, exaggeration or just plain out and out lying.
If you think otherwise, you need to present them for us to be convinced.

i suggested Medical evidence from LMB;Care to show where it is is it
delusion, misidentification, exaggeration or just plain out and out lying.?

They are an institution owned and operated by the church to find these "miracles" not determine whether or not they are real.

Wrong! they are an independent medical institution!
You are suggesting Medical doctors are working under church orders and seeking to prove miracles. they arent! The doctors dont have to be religious at all. They do however have to be Medical doctors. Any MD in Lourdes can become a member.

They've already concluded that the miracles happen, they are looking for the evidence to support that predetermined conclusion.

Actuamlly they do the opposite. they are there to rule out anything which they can explain. they do not decide on whatr a miracle is! That isnt part of their remit!
Read the reference.

That's not independant.

LMB IS independent.
It is NOT an organ of the church.
It does not act under instructions from the Church.
Next you will be saying St Bartholemews hospital in London is acting for the church and the doctors are not independent doctors.
You are casting aspersions on the professionalism of medical doctors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Lourdes#The_Lourdes_Medical_Bureau
To ensure claims of cures were examined properly and to protect the town from fraudulent claims of miracles, the Lourdes Medical Bureau (Bureau Medical) was established at the request of Pope Pius X. It is completely under medical and not ecclesiastical supervision. Approximately 7000 people have sought to have their case confirmed as a miracle, of which only 68 have been declared a scientifically inexplicable miracle by both the Bureau and the Catholic Church.

I have not added any criteria.

what doctors in Lourde professionally suffer from delusion, misidentification, exaggeration or just plain out and out lying.?

For example the above list does not detail any of the criteria they use to make their determinations. So we don't know, other than they say they do, how they exclude instances of misdiagnosis.

You are saying they have all misidentified things like someone having an arm hanging off or crippled?

I mean they get cases every month but the twelve area sample of cases which they can not explain and which are NOT delusion, misidentification, exaggeration or just plain out and out lying.!

Your criteria have been fulfilled and you still try to insist they havent?

Marie Bigot
Visited Lourdes: 8 October 1953 and 10 October 1954.

Age 32, from La Richardais, France. Arachnoiditis of posterior cranial fossa (blindness, deafness, hemiplegia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachnoiditis#Prognosis
Arachnoiditis is a chronic disorder and there is no known cure at this time

Misdiagnosed? Not a true cure? Maybe she was Scottish?

Alice Couteault, born Alice Gourdon
Visited Lourdes: 15 May 1952.
Age 34, from Bouille-Loretz, France. Multiple sclerosis for three years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_sclerosis#Management
there is no known cure for multiple sclerosis,

Misdiagnosed? Not a true cure? Maybe she was Scottish?

Nor does any of the above explain spontaneous remission.

True the 65 or so cases could all have happened by a miracle of spontaneous remission.
But one of the things about miracles is that if such an explanation is plausible it is probably more unlikely than a miracle.

Jean-Pierre Bély
Visited Lourdes: 9 October 1987.
Age 51, French. Multiple sclerosis. His cure was recognised on 9 February 1999.

So how many other cases of spontaneous remission from Multiple sclerosis are you aware of?

Maybe they are all miracles but you have yet to produce any!

where are all you MS spontaneous remission events that have been verified to have been observed in circumstances that exclude the possibility of delusion, misidentification, exaggeration or just plain out and out lying.
You need to present them for us to be convinced.

Like i did. Or do you have double standards?

Yes it is, when the number of supposed cures is lower that the typical chance of spontaneous remission.
You provided 12 cases out of 200 million visitors.

I think there are about 65 church miracles. the LMB dont decide on miracles. Ther are hundreds of other cases but other plausable explainations exist. They may still be miracles however . We cant say they are not. We just dont know. But the LMB are not able to explain the miracle cases using the best modern science has to offer.

Are you now claiming that around 35 people per year are cured? Leaving aside the questions of why only those people and not the millions who do not get healed, we have 35 out of about million per year, which is still below the rate of random spontaneous remission even assuming all of them are actual cures (which even the church isn't dumb enough to claim).

the 65 or so are only the ones documented.
There are not one million MS sufferers per year!
There may be a million tourists or Pilgrims.
http://sacredsites.com/europe/france/interesting_lourdes_facts.html
Four to six million pilgrims from around the world visit the shrine each year and it is estimated that more than 200 million pilgrims have come to Lourdes since 1860.

The 67th Miracle was recognised on 9 November 2005, as the cure of Anna Santaniello in 1952.

No, it's not a miracle at all as they do not exclude the possibility of exaggeration, lying or other effects that don't require magic.

what is the name of the doctor who you claim was lying? what other effect do you have for curing MS?

And again a "no true Scotman" does not apply assuming your false application held.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[/quote]
given you can rule out lying or other effects in the above well doccumented cases
Either that or you are saying the doctors were lying about MS or other ailments
People were faking tumors pêrhaps?
Faking comas?

Well doccumented cases and all 67 are wrong?
My you are a skeptic to have such blind faith that they cant be uneexplained!
But they are! Science can NOT explain them!

No true miracle say you bit it isnt delusion, misidentification, exaggeration or just plain out and out lying.!

so what is your plausible explaination ? I know - just add another criterion!
Are you Scottish?

philologos

Sorry I've taken this long muppeteer, been absolutely swamped this week but I want to take a look at this

muppeteer wrote: »

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.

The thing is it isn't indistinguishable. I'm asking you to look to the very specific instance of Jesus' death, and what occurred between that point and the disciples evangelising to all nations. This is a specific instance, and it doesn't have any relation to Joseph Smith or Baba, because it was neither claimed that Joseph Smith, or Baba rose from the dead, and neither the followers of Joseph Smith, or Baba risked their very lives and reputations on the basis that either were raised from the dead.

That's why the points that I have given are worthy of consideration rather than being fobbed off in this manner. If you were a follower of Jesus for 3 years, and you knew He was simply dead, why would you go out and face certain death rather than returning to Galilee to fish with almost certainty of a safe existence? Why would you go out into the world and proclaim that Jesus had risen from the dead?

Is it that the disciples were deluded about Him? - One person perhaps, but if you've been with someone 3 years, it's quite a difficult thing to mistake them, particularly when you claim that they have been with you for 40 days.

Is it that the disciples were lying about Him? - Perhaps, but then again would you choose to go out to certain death with no gain for a lie?

Is it that there was an extraordinary event in the place of X in my previous description? - Seems natural, given that there was a clear and consistent shift in behaviour between how the disciples were at either side of it.

I really think firstly, bringing in examples which aren't comparable to the Resurrection is weak, and secondly that if one is to simply fob off the logic here, that is weak also. We need to engage with what historically happened rather than ignoring it.

muppeteer wrote: »

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.

Perhaps not necessary for you. It would be necessary for me to be convinced that atheism corresponded with reality to see why it does.

muppeteer wrote: »

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.

It isn't subjective, and nobody operates on that basis.

It's really simple to find this out. If morality was subjective to the person, you would have no right or no means of claiming that it wasn't objectively wrong for another person to go fieldshooting humans on a Sunday morning. Who would you be to claim that your relative moral standard was any more significant or meaningful than the others was?

Again, it is not true in the case of diplomacy, or in any other means of human ethical reasoning. The more and more one sees what happens in the world, the more and more that people can see that it is a plain lie that ethics are down to the observer. There are things that are wrong, and there are things which are right. It doesn't necessarily mean that people can't be mistaken or confused on moral or ethical issues, but it does mean that they are there and can be objectively grasped. Much in the same way that the principles on which mathematics are built exist and are there to be grasped.

The problem with your position is, that yes, if we are merely postulating an absolute, then you're right it's only my opinion and your opinion that matters, but if there is a God who has clearly spoken into this reality through His word to us, then it is neither a matter for you or for me to speculate on. It is abundantly real.

Look at it this way. Let's say that there's a girl called Lucy. One of her classmates at school writes a nasty note claiming that Lucy is a dog. Any reasonable person could speculate as to whether or not it was true that Lucy was a dog, Lucy could after all be someone's pet. However, if Lucy speaks for herself, then it is Lucy's word that is authoritative. Likewise, if God speaks, and He is the moral law giver, then His word counts, particularly if He is to judge by it.

So yes, if there is no God and if that is a near certainty, then there is no objective moral standards. The problem is that it is abundant that people work on objective moral principles. This leads me to think that it is more probable that there is an objective moral law, and there is an objective moral law giver, and by implication there is an objective being with authority over us, and that He like Lucy has the right to speak about Himself.

muppeteer 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.

As for a deist Thomas Jefferson. My point was that the common idea of human rights in the West is on the basis that they are unalienable. If human rights are unalienable, why is that? If human rights are dispensible what use are they if nations can give and revoke them. If human rights are no assurance as to how nations should act, what is the point of them. I.E if human rights are not unalienable or beyond human authorities, they are null and void, they are meaningless, and they shouldn't be strived towards. If human rights are the essential ethical liberties that all people should have, then they cannot be based on mere opinion, but they must be principles which humans can neither give, or take away. Even if States do suppress these liberties, our objective moral sense would say that people have been wronged. I.E - that the party that denies these principles are wrong. If they are wrong, then there must be an objective standard between both parties to suggest that they are wrong. Otherwise, it could be just as likely that the other party is right.

That's the problem with atheism in a sense. If there is no objective moral value, one cannot make objective moral claims about ethical truth, or truth in general. As a result one cannot argue genuinely that the other is objectively wrong as there is no concept of an objective arbitrator between good and evil.

muppeteer wrote: »

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.

Evolution doesn't explain away my argument either, nor does it explain away a Creator as much as atheists would like it to. There is no reason why one can't believe in evolution and in God as the force behind Creation.

Even if evolution gave us our conscience. One cannot argue that evolution itself is the standard we appeal to for objectivity in decision making. Also, you've just claimed that morality is relative, not objective. To say that ethical decision making is relative and objective at the same time is like having your cake and eating it too.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty interested in computers and that's what I work with, so I'll give you an example in respect to that. It's like saying that one can have an absolute and a relative path to a directory in the same path.

Let's say
C:\test\folder and folder. One is absolute because it goes from the root drive up. The other is relative from C:\test, it is defined in relation to that folder.

Likewise, an objective ethical standard is absolute to all of us. A relative ethical standard is in relation to ourselves. Either we are the moral arbitrators of ourselves. Or an objective standard external to us is. If we are the ethical arbitrators of ourselves, it follows logically that others are the moral arbitrators of themselves. As a result you have limited jurisdiction to claim that they are doing anything wrong, you can only speak for yourself. If there is an ethical standard external to ourselves which we all naturally appeal to, then you can appeal absolutely to it in the case of ethical wrongdoing, because right and wrong are clearly defined, they are not up for individuals to decide for themselves. If there is a moral law external to us, there is also a moral law giver, an arbitrator of this standard. That seems to be God.

That's simple logic.

muppeteer wrote: »

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.

The problem is that they haven't been refuted. I can respond to each and every one of your objections. Even if I do respond to your objections, I think nonetheless you will suppress the truth. I am glad to be able to defend the Gospel whenever I can though, so that perhaps someone might read what I say and think a bit more about why God makes sense, and about Jesus saving them from their sin as He rescued me, and He can rescue all mankind if they are willing to accept it.

muppeteer wrote: »

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.

My point is that the Old Testament was written 600 years before Jesus. Jesus according to both the New Testament, and according to external historical documents has fulfilled the Old Testament.

muppeteer wrote: »

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.

No, I only want to discuss Jesus, because I am a Christian. A follower of Jesus.

If you want to discuss these other guys, find someone who is concerned with defending them.

muppeteer wrote: »

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.

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.

I've explained to you why that analogy is weak. It ignores the specific instance of the Resurrection, which I've asked you to respond to rather than running away from. The Resurrection differs clearly from the other events you've described, and I'm fairly sure you know that.

muppeteer wrote: »

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.

He was the King of Israel. Not in a political sense, but in a sense that He would redeem the people of Israel, and the Gentile world as was described of Him in the Old Testament on hundreds of occasions.

muppeteer wrote: »

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.

I'm happy to consider them when you actually respond to my points on the Resurrection. All of these other "parallels" are not parallels in so far as they are not even similar to the Resurrection as presented Biblically.

muppeteer wrote: »

There is no need for an ultimate reason. I suspect you only have a deep desire for one.

I don't particularly care for what humans claim they need. It's not about need, it's about seeing what is real over what isn't.

muppeteer wrote: »

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?
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.

It's hardly "hyperactive" when there are very good grounds for believing in a God, over postulating a multiverse to explain Him away. Besides, if there is no objective truth, and if humans cannot speak objectively about anything, this puts your position into quite a conundrum as to whether or not there can be any truth external to the mind.

Postulating multiverses to explain this universe seems to be "hyperactive" to me, but each to their own. I'll take the "hyperactive" and abundantly reasonable God.

muppeteer wrote: »

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:)

Irrespective of what "sinning" you may or may not have to do. There'll be a time when we have to acknowledge what is true, and where we stand in relation to God. We can only run for so long, and we've all tried it. Myself included.

King Mob

ISAW wrote: »

so what is your plausible explaination ? I know - just add another criterion!
Are you Scottish?

ISAW your post is overly long, rambling and barely coherent. You are shouting at points I did not make, ignoring most of the ones I did, and occasionally misrepresented or misunderstood what I've type. And to top it off you did so in a belligerent, arrogant manner.

I have no interest in countering your post only to receive an even longer version of you ramblings.

If you want me to address your points, try doing so in a clear, adult manner.
Otherwise, I think we're done.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

Perhaps not necessary for you. It would be necessary for me to be convinced that atheism corresponded with reality to see why it does.

Can you please do the same, but with afairyism or ateapotism to demonstrate this can in theory be done to your satisfaction?

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

Care to list what criterion the Lourdes example didnt fulfill?

I'll take that; the first in the list of notable cases, Pieter De Rudder wasn't actually at Lourdes which is listed as a requirement and (from the same list that was premised by the requirement for recognition) Vittorio Micheli's cure didn't come until eight months after he'd visited Lourdes which seems to be less than immediate under the terms of requirements for recognition, i.e.,

The cure must be immediate (rapid resolution of symptoms and signs of the illness).

How could an examiner say when the cure of Vittiorio started? He might well have been on the road to recovery before he even visited Lourdes. The same applies to Delizia Cirolli whose case actually fails the 'The cure must be complete (with no residual impairment or deficit)' criterion as well.

Like I said, Christians are good at 'cherry-picking' evidence.

And as for the other cases: The cases of MS may not have been MS at all as it was easy to mis-diagnose and there seems to be a large dose of heresay concerning the others.

Do you see what I mean about Wikipedia; all that information comes from the same article?

himnextdoor

philologos wrote: »

That's why the points that I have given are worthy of consideration rather than being fobbed off in this manner. If you were a follower of Jesus for 3 years, and you knew He was simply dead, why would you go out and face certain death rather than returning to Galilee to fish with almost certainty of a safe existence? Why would you go out into the world and proclaim that Jesus had risen from the dead?

Is it that the disciples were deluded about Him? - One person perhaps, but if you've been with someone 3 years, it's quite a difficult thing to mistake them, particularly when you claim that they have been with you for 40 days.

Is it that the disciples were lying about Him? - Perhaps, but then again would you choose to go out to certain death with no gain for a lie?

Is it that there was an extraordinary event in the place of X in my previous description? - Seems natural, given that there was a clear and consistent shift in behaviour between how the disciples were at either side of it.

I really think firstly, bringing in examples which aren't comparable to the Resurrection is weak, and secondly that if one is to simply fob off the logic here, that is weak also. We need to engage with what historically happened rather than ignoring it.

I've only quoted this section of your post because it demonstated that the rest of the post is not worth reading.

Firstly, your 'logic' is only worthy of dismissal.

Do you think that you can 'know' someone after three years? How many husbands or wives have been deceived for even longer; how could the wife live with a man for fourteen years and not 'know' he was a homosexual? It happens and if you choose simple, uneducated people to dupe it happens often. Think of the 'Tarot card' phonelines and spiritual mediums etc.

It would not be difficult to convince ignorant people that a 'resurrection' took place. Mystic Meg has many more people than twelve believing every word that comes out of her mouth. People can be conned.

Also, atheists would consider the resurrection event as a fairy-tale, fiction; what should pass as an example comparable to the resurrection if not 'Little Red Riding-Hood'?

The disciples didn't know that Jesus was dead; Pontious Pilate was surprised to hear that Jesus died so quickly or, to put it another way, He didn't suffer on the cross as much as most people did and Joseph of Aramathea talked the roman guard into believing that Jesus was dead in order to stop the soldiers from breaking Jesus' legs in order to make sure He was.

To an atheist, or a rationalist, the evidence indicates that the disciples were duped.

You asked why someone should risk their life for their religious beliefs. Well it's for the same reason as anyone would; they are afraid not to. If you can teach people to fear God then you can make them martyrs. It's for the same reason that people straps bombs to themselves and detonate them. Are you saying that people wouldn't lay down their lives for a false God?

Now that's logic that needs to be dealt with. Dismissal will be viewed as weak.

himnextdoor

philologos wrote: »

Perhaps not necessary for you. It would be necessary for me to be convinced that atheism corresponded with reality to see why it does.

I'm sorry, I did carry on reading your post and got to the above. You have this backwards; atheism cannot be disproved by reality but religion is not supported by reality: In what way does the atheist view clash with reality?

And how does a paedophile Priest give rise to a clash between religion and reality?

It's not that atheism corresponds to reality, reality corresponds to atheism. Atheism is what you are left with when you get rid of all the made-up stuff.

himnextdoor

philologos wrote: »

It isn't subjective, and nobody operates on that basis.

It's really simple to find this out. If morality was subjective to the person, you would have no right or no means of claiming that it wasn't objectively wrong for another person to go fieldshooting humans on a Sunday morning. Who would you be to claim that your relative moral standard was any more significant or meaningful than the others was?

Again, it is not true in the case of diplomacy, or in any other means of human ethical reasoning. The more and more one sees what happens in the world, the more and more that people can see that it is a plain lie that ethics are down to the observer. There are things that are wrong, and there are things which are right. It doesn't necessarily mean that people can't be mistaken or confused on moral or ethical issues, but it does mean that they are there and can be objectively grasped. Much in the same way that the principles on which mathematics are built exist and are there to be grasped.

The problem with your position is, that yes, if we are merely postulating an absolute, then you're right it's only my opinion and your opinion that matters, but if there is a God who has clearly spoken into this reality through His word to us, then it is neither a matter for you or for me to speculate on. It is abundantly real.

Look at it this way. Let's say that there's a girl called Lucy. One of her classmates at school writes a nasty note claiming that Lucy is a dog. Any reasonable person could speculate as to whether or not it was true that Lucy was a dog, Lucy could after all be someone's pet. However, if Lucy speaks for herself, then it is Lucy's word that is authoritative. Likewise, if God speaks, and He is the moral law giver, then His word counts, particularly if He is to judge by it.

So yes, if there is no God and if that is a near certainty, then there is no objective moral standards. The problem is that it is abundant that people work on objective moral principles. This leads me to think that it is more probable that there is an objective moral law, and there is an objective moral law giver, and by implication there is an objective being with authority over us, and that He like Lucy has the right to speak about Himself.

Ah, I see where you are going wrong; morality is subjective. Do you disapprove of the actions of any Christians you know?

I think you are naive.

Let me ask you this: In your Lucy scenario; suppose that when she speaks out, Lucy says that she is a dog - should anyone try to convince her that she is not or should she be allowed to have sexual relations with a Bull-Mastiff?

himnextdoor

philologos wrote: »

As for a deist Thomas Jefferson. My point was that the common idea of human rights in the West is on the basis that they are unalienable. If human rights are unalienable, why is that? If human rights are dispensible what use are they if nations can give and revoke them. If human rights are no assurance as to how nations should act, what is the point of them. I.E if human rights are not unalienable or beyond human authorities, they are null and void, they are meaningless, and they shouldn't be strived towards. If human rights are the essential ethical liberties that all people should have, then they cannot be based on mere opinion, but they must be principles which humans can neither give, or take away. Even if States do suppress these liberties, our objective moral sense would say that people have been wronged. I.E - that the party that denies these principles are wrong. If they are wrong, then there must be an objective standard between both parties to suggest that they are wrong. Otherwise, it could be just as likely that the other party is right.

That's the problem with atheism in a sense. If there is no objective moral value, one cannot make objective moral claims about ethical truth, or truth in general. As a result one cannot argue genuinely that the other is objectively wrong as there is no concept of an objective arbitrator between good and evil.

You have to get off this ethics thing dude. Right and wrong aren't the same as good and evil.

Consider, is there an objective difference between something going wrong in a robbery and something going wrong with the police response? Of course not; bad planning is bad planning, the difference is entirely subjective.

Objectivity is what happens and subjectivity is how we experience it. And we are all different.

But it is dangerous to be different and so we have evolved the mechanism of law in order to maintain order in order to free up resources that would be spent by those who rule us on maintaining power.

Morals are our personal law and the law is the enshrinement of social morality. Societies differ and so do their laws.

Morality is how 'they' can exploit 'us'; it is our 'weak point' or 'Achilles' Heel'. And we all have different weaknesses.

It is ironic that evolution's selection of morality should open the door to religions which deny it.

Here's a test for you, try to be objective the next time a friend gets into an argument with someone then ask someone what they would have said and why.

I bet you will end up in an argument yourself.

himnextdoor

philologos wrote: »

I've explained to you why that analogy is weak. It ignores the specific instance of the Resurrection, which I've asked you to respond to rather than running away from. The Resurrection differs clearly from the other events you've described, and I'm fairly sure you know that.

But it's not weak in the context of this discussion. The point is that people can be convinced of anything. Including a 'Resurrection'.

He (a Muslim) believes in his God just as much as you (a Christian) believe in yours; why does he think that you are the one who is misinformed?

ISAW

King Mob wrote: »

ISAW your post is overly long, rambling and barely coherent. You are shouting at points I did not make, ignoring most of the ones I did, and occasionally misrepresented or misunderstood what I've type. And to top it off you did so in a belligerent, arrogant manner.

I have no interest in countering your post only to receive an even longer version of you ramblings.

run away if you want.

It is clear what a the Scotsman fallacy is!

someone -you- says something is the case because it satisfies certain criteria.
You say miracles didnt happen happen because they are based on delusion, misidentification, exaggeration or just plain out and out lying

someone else -me- says but here is an example -LMB- which is not delusion, misidentification, exaggeration or just plain out and out lying

The first person then ADDS another criterion you refer to "other effects"
And as each other effect is shown not to apply you add another.

As for the word "credo/ I believe" on the doctors badge; This is a badge they are offered . they dont have to wear it or they dont have to believe. their only requirement is that they are medical doctors. They are not asked their religon or whether they are catholic. In all likelihood they would be because atheism are a tiny percentage of people and not likely to travel to Lourdes. It is a straw man fallacy whether or not doctors are gay black or believers.

ISAW

King Mob wrote: »

Can you please do the same, but with afairyism or ateapotism to demonstrate this can in theory be done to your satisfaction?

You are asking someone to prove a negative?
You do realise it is a logical fallacy?
so you admit "there is no God" can not be proved?

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

You have to get off this ethics thing dude. Right and wrong aren't the same as good and evil.

Consider, is there an objective difference between something going wrong in a robbery and something going wrong with the police response? Of course not; bad planning is bad planning, the difference is entirely subjective.

You are fiddling with the word "wrong" here as "Not according to plan" ; Even then if not according to plan is "bad" planning or a bad plan then bad is wrong in this case.
But the problem arises from the idea of choosing to do a wrong and the concept of something "going wrong" One is a moral choice the other an accident or chance event.

Objectivity is what happens and subjectivity is how we experience it. And we are all different.

Is an adult having sex with a child always wrong no matter how any of them say they experience it?

But it is dangerous to be different and so we have evolved the mechanism of law in order to maintain order in order to free up resources that would be spent by those who rule us on maintaining power.

You use "evolved" in an unscientific way too!
Evolution of a species and evlution of a society are different used of the word!
the idea that authoritarians believe in conforming to authority and may thwart an objective moral has no relation to whether that moral is absolute.
for example in an authoritarian State when the state do not say it is unacceptable would an adult having sex with a child be right?

Morals are our personal law and the law is the enshrinement of social morality. Societies differ and so do their laws.

so in a society where child sex is allowed or accepted then it is right?
Or do you believe it is ALWAYS wrong?

Morality is how 'they' can exploit 'us'; it is our 'weak point' or 'Achilles' Heel'. And we all have different weaknesses.

who is us and them above?
And you are saying morality is a method of exploitation now?

It is ironic that evolution's selection of morality should open the door to religions which deny it.

Religion do not deny morality of evolution!
Biological "evolution" or an organism and sociological "evolution" of a society are DIFFERENT uses of the word. they are not the same! You are making an error in comparing them as operating under the same scientific rules. the same error memetics did!

Here's a test for you, try to be objective the next time a friend gets into an argument with someone then ask someone what they would have said and why.

Her is a test for you: Is sex between a grown adult of sound mind and a six year old always wrong?

I bet you will end up in an argument yourself.

Of course if your friends interlocutor was saying "of course it is not always wrong to have sex with children" you would have no argument with them at all?