Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

RikuoAmero

What I said was the media at present is just promoting one viewpoint.

The media as a whole? As in, there's some sort of conspiracy to promote only the one viewpoint?

What about this, then?
http://www.rte.ie/tv/religion/

I am not going to sit here and deny there is no such thing as wrong done in the name of religion.

That's what the tone and implication of your original comment was. You started by introducing yourself as being religious, and then descended into decrying the fact that the majority of media is atheist and apparently shoves atheism down people's throats. Such a decrying only makes sense if you are of the persuasion that the religion you so proudly declare yourself a member of is innocent of the same thing (didn't Jesus say "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone"?)

I pay for it afterall. And I should have a say on what is shown along with everyone else.

So do I. However, if what you say is true, that the majority of programming is atheist in nature (again, how is Voice of Ireland atheist? It's a singing competition show. Where does it fit in religious or non-religious features?), then that is the market speaking, the market saying "We will watch shows that are atheist in nature". You would be of a minority view, one not profitable to the programme producers.

Why should I have to hear some trashy, vulgar, talentless jack come on spouting their opinions while using bad language passing it off as comedy.

...you don't have to. You could change the channel or watch something else. You could clink the link I gave you up above if you want to watch/listen to some religious programming.

Sinful obscene smutty drivel made by fake Dublinfourers seriously out of touch with the rest of us.

What does this even mean? Are there people in the media saying they're from Dublin 4 when they're actually not? Out of touch with people? Do you mean, out of touch with you in particular, or out of touch with the population as a whole (which doesn't make sense with the rest of what you say, given that you say that the vast majority of programming is atheist in nature, which would only make sense if that's what the majority of the population wants to watch)
So sinful how? Is it because some shows might have a homosexual couple, I guess? Obscene...? How? Are there sex scenes being shown before the 9pm watershed? Smutty?

Brown is from the northside and Lynch is a culchie from Monaghan. So they are not even real.

I have no idea who Lynch is, and what does their apparent origins have to do with them being real or not? Brown is of course a fictional character, so obviously not real. As for your jab at Lynch being a culchie...last I checked, culchie is a derogatory term for someone who lives "out in the country"...which is a bit strange coming from someone who describes themselves as a farmer.

I have atheist friend btw

Lines like this are almost always universally said by those people trying to deflect attention away from their bias against those groups those friends are a part of.

For the record, I would still dislike all above mentioned jacks like Brown, Lynch, Panti, Tubridy, O'Doherty, Dawkins, etc. if they were Catholics. They are so talentless and what they say is agenda driven offensive nonsense.

So then...why are you complaining about them here on the Atheism/Existence of God Debates thread, if as you say, their religiosity or lack thereof is not a factor in your dislike of them? Also, you're contradicting yourself here. Earlier, you called Lynch and Brown "sinful", citing that as a reason for why you didn't like them. Since sin is a religious concept...

I think I'm gonna go ahead and call it. You're a troll.

Delirium

If posters suspected someone of trolling, please use the report button.

Thanks for your attention.

ScumLord

tommy2bad wrote: »

Also don't dismiss the ancients ability to understand the human condition. The Iliad still stands the test of time. Lets not even mention the Epic of Gilgamesh least some smart aleck say 'but the bible is the same story plagiarized'

Yes given their position of ignorance, and I don't mean that in a bad way, that they were able to come up with such insight is admirable. They're still restricted by their lack of knowledge and inability to be objective about their views. We can take their insights and couple them with scientific research to get a much better picture today. Me saying we can do everything better today doesn't take away from the efforts of people back then, the only reason we can do better today is because we're building on what came before.

Waerobic Woxajack wrote: »

I am an Irish Catholic. A believer in marriage between man and woman. A believer in the family unit. I work for a living as a farmer. I pay my taxes. Problem is that such beliefs are being marginalised.

They're not so much being marginalised as just being ignored and forgotten. Being Catholic isn't all that important to the majority people that claim to be catholic outside of weddings and funerals. I think we can both agree that the majority of catholics in Ireland are lapsed catholics. So even the supporters of the church wouldn't go out of their way to support it's ideals. Non catholics don't see any benefit to promoting catholic values so why would we?

What I am against is the loud atheists in the media who spout their opinions and that their views are the guideline for to follow.

Who promotes their opinions as a guideline for anything? They are just their opinions, take them or leave them.

Why are atheists ranging from Richard Dawkins to Ian O'Doherty to so-called Panti given such platforms while I never see a bishop or a priest on these shows anymore.

Because the media just like winding people up, and putting an atheist mouthpiece like Dawkins on a show is guaranteed to attract religious folk even more so than atheists so that you can get upset by him shoving his opinions down your throat on a medium where all you have to do is press a button to make it stop.

Why do cruel, atheist TV shows like The Voice of Ireland continue to be promoted despite their sinful treatment of people? I for one am tired of having this cruel take on atheism shoved down my throat by Ryan Tubridy and his kind. Tubridy apparently does believe in god according to the newspaper wing of his employer:

Nothing to do with atheists I think you'll find most are Christian and constantly mention the fact their Christian and thank god for getting them on the show. So maybe drop a prayer over to god and ask him to stop helping people onto the show.

Waerobic Woxajack wrote: »

I have atheist friend btw and there are good atheists. For the record, I would still dislike all above mentioned jacks like Brown, Lynch, Panti, Tubridy, O'Doherty, Dawkins, etc. if they were Catholics. They are so talentless and what they say is agenda driven offensive nonsense.

So stop watching them. I think it's funny how a Christian can say they don't like a viewpoint, they don't want it suppressed but if you won't just watch another channel then the only option left open to you is to stop everyone watching it, which basically means suppressing opinion you don't like.

RikuoAmero

Gunney wrote: »

The Bible is the word of God so you are calling God a liar. Are you sure you want to do that?

Yes.
My position (at the moment) is that I'm not convinced the bible to be the word of an all knowing deity. It doesn't match what I would expect of such a deity.
Now, in the extremely unlikely (if not virtually impossible) scenario that the bible actually is written or inspired by God, then I would have to call him a liar, since there many things in the bible that do not comport with reality.
God is described as an intelligent mind, he is described as all powerful, so he would have to have the ability to lie. If you try to reply back with some bible passage or some theology (that is itself based on bible study) that indicates that God cannot lie...then why are you taking him at his word? The first thing a liar will say to you "I don't lie".

Might as well put this in - a verse that directly says God lies.

For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. 2 Thessalonians 2:11

That is another reason I am an atheist. Even if there were a god, I couldn't trust him. Entities with minds can lie. Better to rely on yourself. Yes, I am fallible, yes I can be wrong, but at least I'm the one taking responsibility. I'm not abdicating responsibility, and just mindlessly believing every word that comes out of this other entity's mouth.
Far better to examine the evidence in reality. Reality itself isn't a mind, it has no mind with which to think to deceive you. It simply is.

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Yes.
My position (at the moment) is that I'm not convinced the bible to be the word of an all knowing deity.

Then you hold the same position as many believers

RikuoAmero

katydid wrote: »

Then you hold the same position as many believers

...*blinks*...
By believers, do you mean people who believe in the christian god, those people who believe the bible to be his word? So, by not believing it to be his word...I'm of the same position as a believer?

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

...*blinks*...
By believers, do you mean people who believe in the christian god, those people who believe the bible to be his word? So, by not believing it to be his word...I'm of the same position as a believer?

I mean people who believe in God, and who are Christians. Being a Christian doesn't mean necessarily believing that a text written by dozens of people over hundreds of years is literally the word of God.

RikuoAmero

katydid wrote: »

I mean people who believe in God, and who are Christians. Being a Christian doesn't mean necessarily believing that a text written by dozens of people over hundreds of years is literally the word of God.

I'm going to answer this in the Atheism/Existence of God thread. I'll just copy your comment and answer it there.

IT-Guy

katydid wrote: »

Then you hold the same position as many believers

More like many believers hold the same position as many atheists

RikuoAmero

katydid wrote: »

I mean people who believe in God, and who are Christians. Being a Christian doesn't mean necessarily believing that a text written by dozens of people over hundreds of years is literally the word of God.

There's the literal belief that it is the word of God i.e. that God himself put pen to paper, or the belief that it is the inspired word of God, that God, in some fashion, caused all these various authors to write the various books.
I'm neither.

katydid

IT-Guy wrote: »

More like many believers hold the same position as many atheists

In this regard, yes. It doesn't affect belief in any way, thought.

IT-Guy

katydid wrote: »

I mean people who believe in God, and who are Christians. Being a Christian doesn't mean necessarily believing that a text written by dozens of people over hundreds of years is literally the word of God.

And we come back to the cherry picking aspect of biblical based beliefs, some of it clearly is the word of god, some requires context and theological interpretation to glean the meaning from it, the rest is clearly ridiculous etc...

Maybe this discussion belongs in the existence of God thread?

katydid

IT-Guy wrote: »

And we come back to the cherry picking aspect of biblical based beliefs, some of it clearly is the word of god, some requires context and theological interpretation to glean the meaning from it, the rest is clearly ridiculous etc...

Maybe this discussion belongs in the existence of God thread?

It's not cherry picking, it's intelligent contextualisation.

RikuoAmero

katydid wrote: »

It's not cherry picking, it's intelligent contextualisation.

Except that every single believer has a different idea on what is to be read literally, what is a parable or a story or a metaphor. There is no way to determine which of them is objectively correct.

IT-Guy

katydid wrote: »

In this regard, yes. It doesn't affect belief in any way, thought.

I strongly disagree, doubt about the validity of the bible being the word of God is a very atheistic POV in terms of accepting such doubt as normal and it being the default position to take on unevidenced claims. Doubt in Christianity is seen as something that blocks faith and prevents you from getting closer to God and Jesus etc.

IT-Guy

katydid wrote: »

It's not cherry picking, it's intelligent contextualisation.

Been a while since I've heard Xtian buzzwords! That's a doozie! There's nothing intelligent about contextualisation, normally it's just used to explain away why the omnipotent, omnipresent deity allegedly responsible for the creation of the universe is such a petty dick.

RikuoAmero

IT-Guy wrote: »

I strongly disagree, doubt about the validity of the bible being the word of God is a very atheistic POV in terms of accepting such doubt as normal and it being the default position to take on unevidenced claims. Doubt in Christianity is seen as something that blocks faith and prevents you from getting closer to God and Jesus etc.

It's the danger of compartmentalized thinking that I have issues with. A normal rational person, who just happens to be a christian, will in his day to day life doubt all sorts of things. He'll doubt the claims of the politician, he'll doubt the claims of his car mechanic, he'll doubt the claims of his doctor and get a second opinion. For him, doubt serves a necessary function, he recognizes it's worth and usefulness.
But when it comes to his religion? Suddenly doubt is seen as a dangerous threat, something to be combated and not allowed to have a hold at all. Doubt is described by his religion as basically the monster in the closet, something he should be terrified of.

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

But when it comes to his religion? Suddenly doubt is seen as a dangerous threat, something to be combated and not allowed to have a hold at all.

Really? That's news to me, as a believing Christian. Doubt is part of belief.

katydid

IT-Guy wrote: »

Been a while since I've heard Xtian buzzwords! That's a doozie! There's nothing intelligent about contextualisation, normally it's just used to explain away why the omnipotent, omnipresent deity allegedly responsible for the creation of the universe is such a petty dick.

I am not an Xtian, and "intelligent contextualisation" is not a buzzword; it is a factual description of a process. A process you may not care to engage in, but a process none the less.

RikuoAmero

katydid wrote: »

Really? That's news to me, as a believing Christian. Doubt is part of belief.

Romans 14:23

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Romans 14:23

He should have been there to tell Jesus when he was having doubts in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Paul was a fallible human being, offering his opinion. His is not the definitive word in Christian doctrine.

RikuoAmero

katydid wrote: »

He should have been there to tell Jesus when he was having doubts in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Paul was a fallible human being, offering his opinion. His is not the definitive word in Christian doctrine.

So the guy who has literally HALF of the New Testament attributed to him...is not the guy with the definitive word?

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So the guy who has literally HALF of the New Testament attributed to him...is not the guy with the definitive word?

Nope. He just wrote lots of letters. He never even met Jesus.

RikuoAmero

katydid wrote: »

Nope. He just wrote lots of letters. He never even met Jesus.

So no Damascus road experience then? Cool.

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So no Damascus road experience then? Cool.

IF it happened, it was some kind of a vision. He never met him in real life. The epistles are his thoughts and opinions, and form the basis of much of Christian thought - but also the basis for much Christian debate and conjecture.

IT-Guy

katydid wrote: »

I am not an Xtian, and "intelligent contextualisation" is not a buzzword; it is a factual description of a process. A process you may not care to engage in, but a process none the less.

So you're not a Christian? What religion/denomination do you subscribe to if any? Ascribing attitudes and actions to context is one of the weakest arguments in Theology. The 'process' you refer to follows the same path one has to when believing a ruse or an outright lie. Ever seen the TV show Would I Lie To You?

TiMe2PaRtYYYYY

You can not intellectualize a fairy tale.... religion in all forms is a misleading fairy tale...

RikuoAmero

IT-Guy wrote: »

So you're not a Christian? What religion/denomination do you subscribe to if any? Ascribing attitudes and actions to context is one of the weakest arguments in Theology. The 'process' you refer to follows the same path one has to when believing a ruse or an outright lie. Ever seen the TV show Would I Lie To You?

In another thread, she described herself as an Anglican.

katydid

IT-Guy wrote: »

So you're not a Christian? What religion/denomination do you subscribe to if any? Ascribing attitudes and actions to context is one of the weakest arguments in Theology. The 'process' you refer to follows the same path one has to when believing a ruse or an outright lie. Ever seen the TV show Would I Lie To You?

Who said I wasn't a Christian? I said I wasn't an "Xtian".

Why is ascribing attitudes and actions to context a weak argument in theology? Context is all about understanding attitudes and actions.

katydid

TiMe2PaRtYYYYY wrote: »

You can not intellectualize a fairy tale.... religion in all forms is a misleading fairy tale...

Your opinion.