Baptism banned until child can decide for themselves.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

perhaps I'm not intelligent :pac:

It's not that you're not smart. On the contrary, I think you've put quite a lot of hard work, and a little bit of though, into confusing yourself

The main point you're missing is that any of the kind of argument that you've just posited in support of your specific interpretation of the christian deity, also works for the flying spaghetti monster.

You do need to think about this stuff more carefully

Max Power1

philologos wrote: »

There's very little magical about the idea that the universe has a Creator, and that that Creator can work in it. If the first clause is true, then the second clause is logical.

Then again, perhaps I'm not intelligent :pac:

Im afraid you have come to the wrong place if you wish to use the word logical and also spout nonsense about a creator of the universe, and said "creator" interfering with the said universe - within the same post.

Any notion of a "god" cannot be used with notions of credible logic, the two are mutually exclusive.

philologos

Max Power1 wrote: »

Im afraid you have come to the wrong place if you wish to use the word logical and also spout nonsense about a creator of the universe, and said "creator" interfering with the said universe - within the same post.

Any notion of a "god" cannot be used with notions of credible logic, the two are mutually exclusive.

Actually, I can say whatever the heck I like here! :pac:

I believe that it is more reasonable that there is a Creator than not, in many ways, but not limited to consideration of what caused the universe to exist, where does morality come from, and the case for the Resurrection. C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity was quite influential to me at the time as well when considering whether or not Christianity was true.

I would introduce any hypothetical-child I may or may not have to these things, and to the Scriptures themselves. On the basis of what they have heard, they can decide if they find them convincing later.

I believe there's plenty of good logic for the Christian position, and formerly as an agnostic, I found that my position lacked any good logic.

fatmammycat

Morality lessons from a capricious god? Hah, as if. As to a creater, again, there's no evidence for one, so why suppose it exists? And why suppose, knowing about the many gods humans have worshipped over the years, that your one must be the right one? That kind of 'logic' is exactly why I can't take a belief like yours seriously. It makes no sense to me.

philologos

I'm thinking more in terms of the mechanics of morality. How morality actually works seems to be based on objectivity rather than subjectivity in practice.

I think that the more and more arguments that one finds in favour of God's existence, the more and more it becomes likely. The question we need to ask ourselves is how likely is it that God exists, and how likely is it that He doesn't. You believe the latter is more likely, personally I believe the former is more likely.

In essence, I believe there is evidence that God exists in a number of ways around us, ranging from arguments as to God's interaction in the world, to experience in my case. I'm convinced that God exists for these reasons.

fatmammycat

philologos wrote: »

I'm thinking more in terms of the mechanics of morality. How morality actually works seems to be based on objectivity rather than subjectivity in practice.

I think that the more and more arguments that one finds in favour of God's existence, the more and more it becomes likely. The question we need to ask ourselves is how likely is it that God exists, and how likely is it that He doesn't. You believe the latter is more likely, personally I believe the former is more likely.

In essence, I believe there is evidence that God exists in a number of ways around us, ranging from arguments as to God's interaction in the world, to experience in my case. I'm convinced that God exists for these reasons.

Indeed, like I said in an earlier post, such reasoning astounds me. I suspect never the twain shall meet, so I'm going to leave it there.

recedite

J C wrote: »

.. but on this thread I am faced with an idea presented by an avowed Atheist, that passing on the Christian Faith is tantamount to Child Abuse ... with all of the legal follow-on that this implies!!!
... no Atheist has dissociated themselves from this statement ...

To be fair, "tantamount" is your own word, and so nobody is jumping to attack your strawman.
The atheist said that civil law no longer considers that parents can do whatever they like to their child's body, but they can do more or less whatever to the child's mind. It's not completely black and white though; for example if you failed to send the child to school (or home educate) the State would intervene. However, when it comes to mis-education, for example filling their heads with myths presented as facts, the state does not intervene. Whether it ever will in the future is an open question, and one which some of us find interesting to speculate on.

Max Power1

philologos wrote: »

Actually, I can say whatever the heck I like here! :pac:

I believe that it is more reasonable that there is a Creator than not, in many ways, but not limited to consideration of what caused the universe to exist, where does morality come from, and the case for the Resurrection. C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity was quite influential to me at the time as well when considering whether or not Christianity was true.

I would introduce any hypothetical-child I may or may not have to these things, and to the Scriptures themselves. On the basis of what they have heard, they can decide if they find them convincing later.

I believe there's plenty of good logic for the Christian position, and formerly as an agnostic, I found that my position lacked any good logic.

Ignoring the religious BS in the first paragraph. Someone who believes in something for no good reason cannot have their opinion swayed by logic, no matter how compelling.

Regarding introducing children to religion so that they can "decide later".. thats all well and good, but if you introduce a child (brainwash) at 4-5 years old in schools, then what hope is there in later years?

I have to laugh at your last sentence. I've heard of "seeing the light" of knowledge, but never "seeing the darkness" of ignorance. Enjoy your bliss!

Max Power1

recedite wrote: »

To be fair, "tantamount" is your own word, and so nobody is jumping to attack your strawman.
The atheist said that civil law no longer considers that parents can do whatever they like to their child's body, but they can do more or less whatever to the child's mind. It's not completely black and white though; for example if you failed to send the child to school (or home educate) the State would intervene. However, when it comes to mis-education, for example filling their heads with myths presented as facts, the state does not intervene. Whether it ever will in the future is an open question, and one which some of us find interesting to speculate on.

This is my main issue with religion being taught in schools. It is easier to brainwash a 5 year old than it is to teach critical thought, logic, and reason at a later age.

If it must be indoctrinated at schools, then surely the myths should be debunked at the same age as Santa/Tooth Fairy, perhaps at age 8-9?

recedite

philologos wrote: »

as an agnostic, I found that my position lacked any good logic.

It is logical to be "agnostic" when you lack sure knowledge of something.

philologos wrote: »

I'm thinking more in terms of the mechanics of morality. How morality actually works seems to be based on objectivity rather than subjectivity in practice.

In the Old testament it was OK to stone homosexuals to death, and to enslave rival tribes. Nowadays it isn't. Explain that.

J C

recedite wrote: »

To be fair, "tantamount" is your own word, and so nobody is jumping to attack your strawman.
The atheist said that civil law no longer considers that parents can do whatever they like to their child's body, but they can do more or less whatever to the child's mind.

Civil/Church Law never considered that parents could do anything they liked to their child's body ... there have been laws prohibiting incest and child abuse down the centuries!!!
... and there are (perfectly adequate) Laws protecting childrens minds as well ... laws banning the exposure of children to age-inappropriate material, for example ... and Laws banning the provision of mind-altering substances, like alcohol, to minors ... and laws requiring that children be educated.
All responsible parents fully support such reasonable legisation as appropriate for the protection and benefit of their children.

... however, what you guys want to do, is to use laws to ban young people being educated in the Christian Faith of their parents ... when this can only be to the benefit of children ...
... ye want the law to promote ignorace of the largest Faith on Earth and by far the main cultural influence historically and currently within our society.
I think that all children should learn about the beliefs and culture of the people that they will be interacting with throughout society ... and any liberal education worthy of the name should do this.

recedite wrote: »

It's not completely black and white though; for example if you failed to send the child to school (or home educate) the State would intervene. However, when it comes to mis-education, for example filling their heads with myths presented as facts, the state does not intervene. Whether it ever will in the future is an open question, and one which some of us find interesting to speculate on.

It's a gross caraciture to imply that people of Faith conflate Facts and Faith. Christians are well aware of the Facts supporting their Faith and the line where Facts stop and Faith starts.
Atheists also have the same facts ... but they choose to put their faith in God not existing ... which is a very high risk strategy ... if He does exist ... and is the loving and just God that he has said He is!!!

Be that as it may, I will agree to differ with you on that particular issue ...
... but, in any event, there is no reason to only present a materialist worldview to children ... and to start talking about banning all alternative views by law.

J C

Max Power1 wrote: »

Ignoring the religious BS in the first paragraph. Someone who believes in something for no good reason cannot have their opinion swayed by logic, no matter how compelling.

I guess that also applies to Atheists ... they believe that God doesn't exist ... for no good reason ...

Max Power1 wrote: »

[Regarding introducing children to religion so that they can "decide later".. thats all well and good, but if you introduce a child (brainwash) at 4-5 years old in schools, then what hope is there in later years?

... children should be educated ... and not brainwashed by anybody!!!

... schools should be centres of cultural, religious and technical education.

philologos

Ignoring my whole post you mean Max Power1. If you don't want to actually engage with anything other than atheism, just stick me on your ignore list as a whole, or stop reading posts, articles or anything else from believers of any form.

J C

recedite wrote: »

It is logical to be "agnostic" when you lack sure knowledge of something.

It isn't actually ... we never have perfect knowledge of anything
... it is therefore logical to evaluate the risks of different actions based on the known (allbeit limited) information.
For example, if somebody tells you that there is a dangerous cliff ahead, but you are unsure if they are telling the truth ... it is logical to take an alterative route ... even though you aren't certain that the cliff is there or whether it is dangerous ... the potential downsides of proceeding ahead vastly outweigh the few extra miles involved in diverting.
This is known as the Precautionary Principle ... and it underpins all modern Environmental Safety Systems.

Equally, even if we don't know for certain that God exists ... it makes sense to act as if He does exist ... because an eternity of damnation could await us, if we refuse to believe that a Just God exists ... and we find out He does exist, when we die!!!:eek:

I guess, Christianity is the spiritual application of the Precautionary Principle.:)

recedite wrote: »

In the Old testament it was OK to stone homosexuals to death, and to enslave rival tribes. Nowadays it isn't. Explain that.

Stoning was used to punish many things in the Old Testament ... which was a society under Law ... but we are now under God's Grace (or Mercy).
The change is best illustrated by what happened when the Pharisees took a woman caught in adultery before Jesus and asked Him to condemn her to death by stoning (which the Law demanded).
He extended His mercy towards her instead ... and He illustrated the inherent weakness of the Law ... whereby one law-breaker condemns another law-breaker.
When Jesus asked for somebody without sin to throw the first stone ... nobody was to be found to do it!!!

J C

Max Power1 wrote: »

This is my main issue with religion being taught in schools. It is easier to brainwash a 5 year old than it is to teach critical thought, logic, and reason at a later age.

You seem to be making the erroneous assumption that Atheists, for some unknown reason, have a monopoly on critical thought, logic and reason.
Christian Philosophers and Theologians spend years training in these very disciplines ... and all good Christian Education Programmes are based on these principles.

The Quadratic Equation

MrPudding wrote: »

Agreed. When you are looking for a crutch to help you get through life or something to tell you "don't worry, you are really really important" or something to help you with your fear of death then athiesm, new or otherwise, does not offer much.

Another myth peddled about why Christians believe what they do to make Atheists feel smugly superior. Life would be much simpler if I was not a Christian. Yes my faith gives me comfort, but it is not the reason for it.

MrPudding wrote: »

we must add the possibilities of others exaggerating the story of Jesus, for whatever reason

Yes its been added and found wanting, or perhaps all the apostles and all other eyewitnesses were ALL mad or lying as well.

MrPudding wrote: »

Nice use of the strawman there. Who is denying the existence of a MAN called Jesus? I have little doubt a MAN called Jesus existed. In fact, there are currently 10s, if not 100s, of thousands of men called Jesus in the world.

Where is the evidence for him being the son of a sky wizard and him doing magic tricks?

The strawman is all your own, I work with a guy called Jesus from Brazil, who happens to be an excellent football player on our 5 a side team, but I think we all know we're discussing Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

fatmammycat wrote: »

I couldn't care less about Jesus, he lived, he died, he was a mortal historical figure. It's when people declare he was the son of a god that I start to wonder about the power of cognitive dissonance.

Jesus (Christ of Nazareth for the strawman attempters) declared it.

J C

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Jesus (Christ of Nazareth for the strawman attempters) declared it.

He also proved it ... by His miracles and by His resurrection ... that was witnessed by over 500 people.

johnners2981

J C wrote: »

He also proved it ... by His miracles and by His resurrection ... that was witnessed by over 500 people.

I died the other day, resurrected myself a couple of days later. 500 witnessed this, you can call me Jesus Jnr if you wish

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

He also proved it ... by His miracles and by His resurrection ... that was witnessed by over 500 people.

By comparison, how many people have seen Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster?

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

By comparison, how many people have seen Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster?

They haven't put their hands on their flesh ... and talked to them!!!!:)

J C

johnners2981 wrote: »

I died the other day, resurrected myself a couple of days later. 500 witnessed this, you can call me Jesus Jnr if you wish

You would need to be executed by the civil authorities (who tend to do the job, once they start) ... and have your body laid in a tomb, guarded by highly trained soldiers and if you then resurrected, and still had the fatal wounds from the execution ... I guess CNN might cover it!!!:)

ShooterSF

J C wrote: »

They haven't put their hands on their flesh ... and talked to them!!!!:)

So the difference between Jesus and Big Foot/ The Loch Ness Monster is the former likes to engage in small talk during intercourse whereas the others don't. Got ya.

*takes note of today's lesson*

J C

ShooterSF wrote: »

So the difference between Jesus and Big Foot/ The Loch Ness Monster is the former likes to engage in small talk during intercourse whereas the others don't. Got ya.

*takes note of today's lesson*

You really do have a 'one track mind' ... the difference is nobody has ever claimed to be close enough to BF or the LNM to physically touch them ... and thus 'sightings' may be optical illusions or practical jokes.

In the case of Jesus Christ the encounters were 'up close and personal' in that Thomas, (the First Christian Skeptic), put his hands into the wounds of Christ ... and Jesus also met with and talked to many people after His Resurrection.
Love ya!!!:)

J C

fatmammycat wrote: »

Since there is no evidence for a creator I see no real reason to believe in one.

As your premise is incorrect ... your conclusion is also erroneous.:)

... any further discussion here please:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056030584&page=467

ShooterSF

J C wrote: »

You really do have a 'one track mind' ... the difference is nobody has ever claimed to be close enough to BF or the LNM to physically touch them ... and thus 'sightings' may be optical illusions / practical jokes.

In the case of Jesus Christ the encounters were 'up close and personal' in that Thomas, (the First Christian Skeptic), put his hands into the wounds of Christ ... and Jesus also met with and talked to many people after His Resurrection.
Love ya!!!:)

If you're gonna have a one track mind what better subject? hooah.

So then what of Muhammad or Joseph Smith? Both also had superpowers, were witnessed by people (we have books that tell of them being witnessed) etc.?

J C

ShooterSF wrote: »

If you're gonna have a one track mind what better subject? hooah.

... if you wish to love Jesus try doing it platonically.

ShooterSF wrote: »

So then what of Muhammad or Joseph Smith? Both also had superpowers, were witnessed by people (we have books that tell of them being witnessed) etc.?

Neither claimed to be God ... and, as far as I know, neither raised themselves or anybody else from the dead.

philologos

ShooterSF: Is it really necessary to post that kind of tripe or could we actually look at the topic seriously?

fatmammycat

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Jesus (Christ of Nazareth for the strawman attempters) declared it.

So what? That doesn't make it any more believable. I'm sure there are psych-houses filled with people who declare the same. Fact is he was mortal, was crucified and died. ( I don't believe a single word about his popping up a few days later, followers had to create that one for how could the 'son of god' die as the thieves next to him - what message might THAT send out.)

fatmammycat

philologos wrote: »

ShooterSF: Is it really necessary to post that kind of tripe or could we actually look at the topic seriously?

It's not tripe, he's actually correct. People believe in all kinds of crazy things, UFOs, monsters, the walking dead, angels, fairies, gods, Joe Coleman. All of them believe their supernatural passion/entity must be true, yours happens to be a belief in a Christian god, but that doesn't afford you any grand level of respect from a non believer. Why would it?

philologos

I was referring to some of the other contents of his posts. We could do without a lot of it:

So the difference between Jesus and Big Foot/ The Loch Ness Monster is the former likes to engage in small talk during intercourse whereas the others don't. Got ya.

What the problem is with the concept of Christians and atheists simply sharing about their point of view in a respectful manner is I'll never know. Until we hit that point a lot of our discussions will be simply futile.