How come Atheists are against anti blasphemy laws but are OK with bashing other .....

Galvasean

Oranage2 wrote: »

The fact that he hasnt smite anyone on this forum yet shows he's real

The fact that he has done nothing to show his existence proves he is real.... That's all the evidence you need? And yet you felt there wasn't enough evidence to support evolution. Indeed.

Oranage2

Galvasean wrote: »

The fact that he has done nothing to show his existence proves he is real.... That's all the evidence you need? And yet you felt there wasn't enough evidence to support evolution. Indeed.

Ah yes but dying and being wrong about evolution wont mean anything - Dying and being wrong about God well....

Galvasean

Oranage2 wrote: »

Ah yes but dying and being wrong about evolution wont mean anything - Dying and being wrong about God well....

He's supposed to be a forgiving dude. I'm sure he'd understand if people didn't believe he existed because he made it look like he didn't.
Of course if he's more of the vengeful God type, well he is all knowing so he'll know you were only professing to believe because you wanted to be rewarded in the after life. He probably wouldn't be too cool with that.

Captain Chaos

Oranage2 wrote: »

Ah yes but dying and being wrong about evolution wont mean anything - Dying and being wrong about God well....

Yep, we're all going to burn forever.

Well I will for a few hours but I won't be aware of it.

shizz

Oranage2 wrote: »

Ah yes but dying and being wrong about evolution wont mean anything - Dying and being wrong about God well....

Do you not feel that it seems strange that a God wishes only for you to believe in him/her/it, and if you don't you are condemned for all eternity in Hell?

A God that isn't intervening in any way, except to help people win football games and such, expects you to put blind faith into him and give you no evidence to help his cause.

Does it not sound like scaremongering to you?

philologos

Galvasean wrote: »

The fact that he has done nothing to show his existence proves he is real.... That's all the evidence you need? And yet you felt there wasn't enough evidence to support evolution. Indeed.

Except for a lot of things. I don't agree with Oranges approach to Christianity, but it is denial to say that God hasn't done anything to show that he is real from a Christian POV in a number of ways. He's done plenty to show that He is real through creation, and through Jesus coming into the world to die a sinners death in our place on the cross, and through the Resurrection. He's done plenty to show us that He is real in terms of how the Bible corresponds to the world around us a whole lot of ways, through history, archaeology, geology, through how human ethical behaviour operates. The Biblical text is also fantastically clear as to the nature of humanity, that we've all screwed up, we've all done stuff which is wrong. It goes further in demonstrating that although doing what is wrong is worthy of punishment, that He sent Jesus into the world to rescue us from that judgement if we repent and accept Him.

There couldn't be much more to convince of the Gospel, the question is do we want to receive it? The question for most people here, and on this forum is no.

The relieving thing is, that I don't save anyone, that's not what I'm called to do. What I feel burdened to do is present God's word, as if God's word is true, faith comes by hearing in it (Romans 10:17). That's what I enjoy about boards.ie, a chance to point people to God's word, saying come and see for yourselves. That's one of the best things about the Bible essentially the freest book available to mankind.

The liberty of not having blasphemy laws to tell us what is good and what is bad to say is that we can have a good discussion in society. We can regard society as a market place of ideas. In some ways that is good, and in some ways that can be horrendously bad (believe me, I tried frequenting Speaker's Corner on a Sunday morning for a while! Free speech does not guarantee good speech), but we put up with it for the greater good of society around us.

Barr125

Oranage2 wrote: »

Ah yes but dying and being wrong about evolution wont mean anything - Dying and being wrong about God well....

So, what you're saying is that I should believe in God, just in case I'm wrong? Pascal's Wager anyone? And what exactly will happen when I die? I'll meet your all-loving God and he'll send me to Hell, because despite the fact I've been a good person in my life so far (IMO) and see no plans or actions in changing that?

Ah yes the Mods here are perhaps generous with their leniency, they sound like well balanced people. Though people that believe in nothing or pseudoscience like astrology and evolution arent really offended by much so perhaps that why they are that little more lenient.

I think you mean Astronomy, which is an actual science, that studies the planets and stars and orbiting bodies like our own Moon. However, if you do mean astrology, can't fault you there....

Where I can fault you is saying evolution is a pseudoscience. Please, tell us all why evolution is a pseudoscience, in your opinion.

muppeteer

philologos wrote: »

There couldn't be much more to convince of the Gospel, the question is do we want to receive it? The question for most people here, and on this forum is no.

I would suggest that there could be much much more needed to convince. Especially in light of all the competing ideas and lack of evidence.

The question for most people I would think is, like you, what best fits with the reality we see. Do we want to receive this insight? Yes. Do we look in many different places? Yes. Do we see an Iron age theology as likely to increase our insight into reality? No.
That doesn't mean we aren't willing to consider it though. Or to use the lingo "open our hearts".

On topic, blasphemy laws are as bad as any curtailment of free speech. Can't we all just hold hands and bash each other with words:)

fatmammycat

philologos wrote: »

I think it is obnoxious. I have no problem with an atheist criticising my faith. I can handle criticism. I do think that if I show an atheist respect, that it should be expected in civilised discussion that they show me respect as a person. There is a difference between criticism and ridicule. Sure, if I was discussing with a Muslim about my faith in Jesus, I could go for the approach of ridiculing Muhammad, or ridiculing the Islamic concept of God. Or I could go for the approach where I listen to them, and respond accordingly. One approach is obnoxious, the other is respectful. I have spoken with Muslims out in the street doing dawah about why I disagree with the Islamic position on Jesus (I generally focus on that, because I find that it is the most significant and relevant difference in respect to Islam and what is crucial about the God that Christians believe in), but I don't laugh at Islam as a faith. If you want people to listen to you, and take what you say seriously, it's not a great start if you think about it.

I consider any approach where people intentionally ridicule the other, and what they believe in what is meant to be a respectful discussion as being obnoxious and rude especially when a more productive discussion could be had with a bit of respect.

I guess for me there is another factor in that the Bible tells me that I should tell people about Jesus in a respectful and loving manner (1 Peter 3:15). I would start to doubt who I was speaking for if it became a matter of ridicule. Would I be really speaking for Jesus, or for my own mere temporal satisfaction? I need to ask that here, and in other places where I speak about Jesus as well, as I need to regard it seriously.




I doubt it. I'm a little bit too convinced that Jesus is Lord, and I am becoming more and more convinced each year that passes since He first showed me the truth through the Bible.

No you're not; when I asked you to provide manifest evidence that you had anything to convince others that your version of a god is real you avoided my question. You're just another wannabe with no real evidence for your 'faith'.

Galvasean

philologos wrote: »

Except for a lot of things. I don't agree with Oranges approach to Christianity, but it is denial to say that God hasn't done anything to show that he is real from a Christian POV in a number of ways. He's done plenty to show that He is real through creation, and through Jesus coming into the world to die a sinners death in our place on the cross, and through the Resurrection. etc.

And of course I will counter that there isn't a scrap of tangible evidence for the things you've listed. And no doubt you will counter and i will counter ad infinum. Of course we've danced this dance before Phil on many threads so perhaps we should leave it out on this thread as we are not likely to sway each other here and now because it always boils down to this:

philologos wrote: »

There couldn't be much more to convince of the Gospel, the question is do we want to receive it? The question for most people here, and on this forum is no.

Which, frankly, I think is a daft argument but obviously there are those who think it's the perfect argument.

But hey, on to something we can agree upon!

philologos wrote: »

The liberty of not having blasphemy laws to tell us what is good and what is bad to say is that we can have a good discussion in society. We can regard society as a market place of ideas. In some ways that is good, and in some ways that can be horrendously bad (believe me, I tried frequenting Speaker's Corner on a Sunday morning for a while! Free speech does not guarantee good speech), but we put up with it for the greater good of society around us.

Amen!

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Except for a lot of things. I don't agree with Oranges approach to Christianity, but it is denial to say that God hasn't done anything to show that he is real from a Christian POV in a number of ways.

God creates the Earth. He decides to do this in a manner that looks like it could have happened entirely without him.

God creates life. He decides to do this in a manner that looks like it could have happened entirely without him.

God creates humans. He decides to do this in a manner that looks like it could have happened entirely without him.

God then, after a few hundred thousand years of human existence, decides to start revealing himself to humanity. He decides to do this to a very small select group of people in the Middle East so that their stories of his revelation will appear among the thousands of other stories invented by humans of other gods revealing themselves to humanity that are all false and have nothing to do with the real God other than to annoy him that these other people are worshipping these fake gods.

God's first set of revelations given to humanity are stories about magical gardens, super human people, global floods, towers to heaven and other various events that have absolutely nothing to do with real history or what God was actually doing with humanity during our early years. It takes hundreds of years for humans to realize this, only after scientific study has shown these stories do not relate to real events, at which point it becomes clear to everyone that we weren't supposed to take these stories literally in the first place. For some reason only God is aware of these stories take the form you would expect from stories that were just made up by ancient humans trying to understand the world around them but without any real understanding of things like language, population spread, genetics or evolution, a mystery compounded by the fact that none of them relate to any real events.

God continues to reveal himself to his select group of tribes, mostly by telling them to go over to another tribe and kill them all and take the land for themselves. Again this causes mild confusion for some humans since most other tribes are also waging war with each other, themselves saying that they are doing so under order from their gods despite none of their gods actually existing.

God decides to send his son to Earth. Despite being formed through a supernatural process this takes the form of a man indistinguishable from any other man.

Jesus performs miracles on people. Again confusingly for some humans these miracles are limited to the sort of supernatural events other false prophets have been able to convince people they could do as well.

Jesus is executed but God raises him from the dead. He decides to do this in an empty tomb with no witnesses. God seems untroubled that this event will be recorded by no other group of people other than Jesus' devoted followers.

A resurrected Jesus decides to reveal himself to his followers to demonstrate that he has risen but decides to do so in a manner such that he looks like a different person so his followers do not at first recognize him.

After Jesus has left for good over the next few thousand years God decides to cut back a bit on the direct appearances, preferring instead to let humans go about the task of figuring out the bits of the Bible they should or shouldn't take literally, based on which bits are demonstrated to clearly have never happened.

You are right Phil, God has gone out of his way to show us how real he is, not like all those other gods we made up!

Corkfeen

Reminds me of the Babel Fish in 'The Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy' that could translate all languages...

'Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.'

In other words, I really wanted to use this quote for something and this seems suitable... :P

robindch

philologos wrote: »

The Biblical text is also fantastically clear as to the nature of humanity [...]

I don't think I've read any text which is more trivially and spectacularly wrong about humans than the bible, and one which is less applicable to where humanity now finds itself.

The vast majority of that miserable, unenlightened book was written by miserable, unenlightened poets and despots of the Bronze and Iron Ages, and their thankfully-departed zeitgeist contextualizes, while not excusing, every account of ritual murder, every mass slaughter, every violation and every piece of shameless, unadorned savagery and its banal legitimization.

It is unsettling that any modern human could look at it and think the book anything other than a blood-soaked account of the intellectual and ethical childhood of our species.

Sarky

But but but logic!

Oranage2

RichieC wrote: »

So I was pretty much right to suspect Orange was trolling the evolution thread. I felt kinda bad just dropping a picture in.

No, it was you who was trolling, I asked a question and you posted some kind of 4chan style quip. Evolution does fascinate me and I got very interesting answers from people here with a lot of expertise on the subject, though they couldnt convince me it was real as the fossils talked about are scarce and it would be one of those things you'd really have to see to believe, though it did make for interesting reading all the same.

Galvasean wrote: »

The fact that he has done nothing to show his existence proves he is real.... That's all the evidence you need? And yet you felt there wasn't enough evidence to support evolution. Indeed.

There is evidence, take a look at the universe, it's far too complex just to exist. It's like the wind, you cant see the wind so does wind not exist?

fatmammycat wrote: »

No you're not; when I asked you to provide manifest evidence that you had anything to convince others that your version of a god is real you avoided my question. You're just another wannabe with no real evidence for your 'faith'.

Phil did answer your question, The only way to really find the truth about God is to become a follower, perhaps try it for 2 weeks and see how much of a better person you become.

Doctor Jimbob

philologos wrote: »

I think it is obnoxious. I have no problem with an atheist criticising my faith. I can handle criticism. I do think that if I show an atheist respect, that it should be expected in civilised discussion that they show me respect as a person. There is a difference between criticism and ridicule. Sure, if I was discussing with a Muslim about my faith in Jesus, I could go for the approach of ridiculing Muhammad, or ridiculing the Islamic concept of God. Or I could go for the approach where I listen to them, and respond accordingly. One approach is obnoxious, the other is respectful. I have spoken with Muslims out in the street doing dawah about why I disagree with the Islamic position on Jesus (I generally focus on that, because I find that it is the most significant and relevant difference in respect to Islam and what is crucial about the God that Christians believe in), but I don't laugh at Islam as a faith. If you want people to listen to you, and take what you say seriously, it's not a great start if you think about it.

I do get what you're saying ,and I wouldn't disrespect someone purely for being a member of a religious group. I'd disagree, and (attempt to) be polite in my critiscism. I'm more thinking of creationists and the like, who spout their ideas in spite of all observable evidence. I don't think people with beliefs like that, who ignore facts in order to further their agenda deserve any respect. Especially the likes of you know who on that thread, who blatantly ignores all the facts presented to him.

I consider any approach where people intentionally ridicule the other, and what they believe in what is meant to be a respectful discussion as being obnoxious and rude especially when a more productive discussion could be had with a bit of respect.

I think the bolded part is key here. I could have a respectful discussion with someone about the existance of a god. It's something hich can't in my eyes be proven, but it cannot be disproven either, therefore I'm not just going to automatically assume I'm correct.

I guess for me there is another factor in that the Bible tells me that I should tell people about Jesus in a respectful and loving manner (1 Peter 3:15). I would start to doubt who I was speaking for if it became a matter of ridicule. Would I be really speaking for Jesus, or for my own mere temporal satisfaction? I need to ask that here, and in other places where I speak about Jesus as well, as I need to regard it seriously.

If more people followed their religion in the way you do, I don't think half as many people would have an issue with religion. Fair play.

Oranage2 wrote: »

Ah yes but dying and being wrong about evolution wont mean anything - Dying and being wrong about God well....

Who would want o believe in such a petty god?

philologos wrote: »

Except for a lot of things. I don't agree with Oranges approach to Christianity, but it is denial to say that God hasn't done anything to show that he is real from a Christian POV in a number of ways. He's done plenty to show that He is real through creation, and through Jesus coming into the world to die a sinners death in our place on the cross, and through the Resurrection. He's done plenty to show us that He is real in terms of how the Bible corresponds to the world around us a whole lot of ways, through history, archaeology, geology, through how human ethical behaviour operates. The Biblical text is also fantastically clear as to the nature of humanity, that we've all screwed up, we've all done stuff which is wrong. It goes further in demonstrating that although doing what is wrong is worthy of punishment, that He sent Jesus into the world to rescue us from that judgement if we repent and accept Him.

The thing is though, the only evidence for all those things being written in the Bible being true is the bible says so.

There couldn't be much more to convince of the Gospel, the question is do we want to receive it? The question for most people here, and on this forum is no.

If someone wrote a book tomorrow, claiming to have been inspired by another, new god, and this book claimed it was telling the truth, would you accept that claim?

The liberty of not having blasphemy laws to tell us what is good and what is bad to say is that we can have a good discussion in society. We can regard society as a market place of ideas. In some ways that is good, and in some ways that can be horrendously bad (believe me, I tried frequenting Speaker's Corner on a Sunday morning for a while! Free speech does not guarantee good speech), but we put up with it for the greater good of society around us.

Agreed.

Ellis Dee

The thread title is a tendentious piece of whinging typical of those who profess ridiculous beliefs, often harness the power of the secular state to propagate those beliefs, indoctrinate children with them and force others to live according to the dictates of those beliefs, but immediately resort to claims of "bashing" when rational people point out the absurdity of those beliefs. Who is the more ridiculous, the one who tells us about a sky fairy creating a man and a woman and putting them in a lovely garden, where all was well until a talking snake came along, or someone like me who says such tales are merda taurorum?:):)

Most atheists do not rant and rave about their non-beliefs, but some of us have to respond when we are continually assailed by god-botherers who pester us.:rolleyes: We only want to be left alone.

Penn

Oranage2 wrote: »

There is evidence, take a look at the universe, it's far too complex just to exist. It's like the wind, you cant see the wind so does wind not exist?

But seeing is only one of our senses. We can feel (by touch, not spiritually) the wind. We can hear the wind. Hell, if there's a bad smell a hundred metres away and you're standing downwind of it, you can pretty much smell the wind. God doesn't exist in any of our senses.

As for the universe being too complex just to exist, a) wouldn't the same be relevant to God, and b) it's far too complex for us to fully understand how it exists given what we currently know about science. 600 years ago people thought the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around the Earth. Imagine what we might know 600 years from now.

Zombrex

Oranage2 wrote: »

There is evidence, take a look at the universe, it's far too complex just to exist.

But an eternal all powerful omnipotent being existing outside of space and time with different desires, goals and emotional states and the intelligence and power to create a universe as complex as ours can just exist.

Seriously, some times I weep for the educational standards in this country ...

Fortyniner

I'm a bit of an old fart now, but I am absolutely gobsmacked at what technology can do nowadays - my iphone is fekkin awesome. If anyone comes on with the 'look at nature' argument for a god, I show my iphone and reply in kind. Intelligent human design...

Dave!

If a bear shíts in the woods, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck?

Galvasean

Oranage2 wrote: »

There is evidence, take a look at the universe, it's far too complex just to exist. It's like the wind, you cant see the wind so does wind not exist?

One can feel the wind on their face.

Do you feel Jesus on your face?

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

Do you feel Jesus on your face?

Is that the second coming?

Galvasean

Robin! :eek:

Dirty mind...

Sarky

He did suffer all the little children to come on him, didn't he? Durty.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

He did suffer all the little children to come on him, didn't he?

No doubt while he was sitting on the right hand of god.

Now that's dirty.

Bannasidhe

EVIL (ADVERSARIES OF GOD) MUST ALWAYS WEAR A SIGN OF THEIR EVILNESS. (BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM)

One of the biggest “signs” of the evil ones is their HYPOCRISY: “1. The pretence (pretending) of having feelings or characteristics which one does not possess, especially deceitful presumption of virtue. 2. One who pretends to be pious and virtuous without really being so.”

http://www.laws-of-god-and-creation.com/evil.html

:D:D

RichieC

Oranage2 wrote: »

No, it was you who was trolling, I asked a question and you posted some kind of 4chan style quip. Evolution does fascinate me and I got very interesting answers from people here with a lot of expertise on the subject, though they couldnt convince me it was real as the fossils talked about are scarce and it would be one of those things you'd really have to see to believe, though it did make for interesting reading all the same.

Evolution you have to see to believe but God!, well, he's real and you heathens are going to hell.... You referred to it as pseudo science, so yes. you were trolling that thread, even after the evidence was presented to you, it didnt convince you. you either didn't read it, or didn't understand it. or as I suspect, didn't give a dam, you just wanted to wreak a thread.

fatmammycat

Oranage2 wrote: »

Phil did answer your question, The only way to really find the truth about God is to become a follower, perhaps try it for 2 weeks and see how much of a better person you become.

No he didn't. I'm already a good person, I don't need to pretend a deity exists to better myself either.

Sarky

Isn't it worrying how many people are sure that it's their imaginary friend making them a better person?

If you're a good person then that's YOUR doing. Take credit for your own accomplishments ffs.