Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Options
1…1415171920…141

Comments

  • Options
    #482
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    katydid wrote: »
    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.

    This is literally the first time (at least that I can remember) where Christian and Xtian are claimed to not be the same. I even looked it up on Urban Dictionary, and all it says there is Xtian = Christian.


  • Options
    #483
    TiMe2PaRtYYYYY
    Registered Users Posts: 101 ✭✭TiMe2PaRtYYYYY


    katydid wrote: »
    Your opinion.

    as is yours


  • Options
    #484
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Katy do you want to take the direction this thread is going elsewhere? Earlier on tonight I copied and pasted a response from you onto the Atheism/Existence of God thread, and you haven't replied there. yet.
    Where this discussion is headed, we'll soon see the mods again.


  • Options
    #485
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Katy do you want to take the direction this thread is going elsewhere? Earlier on tonight I copied and pasted a response from you onto the Atheism/Existence of God thread, and you haven't replied there. yet.
    Where this discussion is headed, we'll soon see the mods again.

    No, I don't particularly want to take this in another direction. I just made a point in response to another poster. I've made my point.


  • Options
    #486
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    TiMe2PaRtYYYYY wrote: »
    as is yours

    Yep


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #487
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    *Shrugs*
    Fair enough. I honestly wasn't sure whether I wanted to go down that rabbit hole again, that whole business of logic and reason not being applicable to religion or a discussion of religion or whatever it was that got us all caught up in circles.


  • Options
    #488
    TiMe2PaRtYYYYY
    Registered Users Posts: 101 ✭✭TiMe2PaRtYYYYY


    katydid wrote: »
    No, I don't particularly want to take this in another direction. I just made a point in response to another poster. I've made my point.

    A point is only made when it is accepted by the person it was intended for....


  • Options
    #489
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    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?

    Agreed.

    A la carte Christianity, a la carte Catholicism, it's basically prioritising a persons own view at the expense of what Scripture and Tradition teach.


  • Options
    #490
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,751 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Posts moved to more appropriate thread.

    If posters see a discussion is more appropriate to another thread, feel free to report a post to inform the mods.

    Thanks for your attention.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #491
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    TiMe2PaRtYYYYY wrote: »
    A point is only made when it is accepted by the person it was intended for....

    Really? That's a new one on me. And on the whole rhetoric of debate.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #492
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    hinault wrote: »
    Agreed.

    A la carte Christianity, a la carte Catholicism, it's basically prioritising a persons own view at the expense of what Scripture and Tradition teach.

    Hardly. Since Scripture and tradition don't teach, they simply put forward words or practices to be interpreted and understood, from which churches or people can teach - and learn


  • Options
    #493
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    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.

    I'll just quote Chesterton here "the opposite of faith is not doubt, it's certainty"
    Doubt is the very basis of faith, the dark night of the soul, all through the history of faith it has been the faith born from doubt that is the strongest. Blind certainty has led to error and zealotry.


  • Options
    #494
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    This is literally the first time (at least that I can remember) where Christian and Xtian are claimed to not be the same. I even looked it up on Urban Dictionary, and all it says there is Xtian = Christian.

    Just because the "Urban Dictionary" says something doesn't mean it's so. "Xtian" is a term many Christians find lazy and disrespectful. It was used in the past for various reasons; and isn't even accurate. X is the Greek for "Chi", so Xtian actually means "Chitian"

    But Christians in general don't use it.


  • Options
    #495
    Harika
    Registered Users Posts: 4,431 ✭✭✭Harika


    katydid wrote: »
    Just because the "Urban Dictionary" says something doesn't mean it's so. "Xtian" is a term many Christians find lazy and disrespectful. It was used in the past for various reasons; and isn't even accurate. X is the Greek for "Chi", so Xtian actually means "Chitian"

    But Christians in general don't use it.

    So where is the difference between Christians and Xtian/Chitian?


  • Options
    #496
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,873 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    I'll just quote Chesterton here "the opposite of faith is not doubt, it's certainty"
    Doubt is the very basis of faith, the dark night of the soul, all through the history of faith it has been the faith born from doubt that is the strongest. Blind certainty has led to error and zealotry.

    I can understand someone having faith or even something in their head that says there "must" be a god. What I don't get is the irrational jump into a particular religion or even sub sect of that religion. Most religious people opt for the god they grew up with which should be a red flag. Then looking at Christianity in a detached way its origins are odd to say the least given the way it bolted itself onto Judaism which was one of the least universal religions one could come up with which leads to all kinds of absurdities about a universal god which on the one hand knows how many hairs are on your head yet unconcerned about the millions of people not contacted either before or after. The story is indistinguishable from any man made religion.
    My advice to any religious person would be keep looking if you wish but you ain't there yet.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #497
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    silverharp wrote: »
    I can understand someone having faith or even something in their head that says there "must" be a god. What I don't get is the irrational jump into a particular religion or even sub sect of that religion. Most religious people opt for the god they grew up with which should be a red flag. Then looking at Christianity in a detached way its origins are odd to say the least given the way it bolted itself onto Judaism which was one of the least universal religions one could come up with which leads to all kinds of absurdities about a universal god which on the one hand knows how many hairs are on your head yet unconcerned about the millions of people not contacted either before or after. The story is indistinguishable from any man made religion.
    My advice to any religious person would be keep looking if you wish but you ain't there yet.
    Religion is a man made construct; our way of explaining, or at least trying to explain what we find it hard to comprehend in terms of the existence of a deity. It has developed in different ways in different cultures; in so far as religion per se is irrational (it is not based on factual science or knowledge), ALL religions are irrational.

    It is not irrational, however, for a human being to involve themselves in a religion; depending on their background, circumstances etc. they either feel the need to do so, to give structure to their thoughts. Or, indeed, because it's easier to do so, although they haven't really give it much thought.

    Religion is a path to understanding, not a destination.


  • Options
    #498
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Harika wrote: »
    So where is the difference between Christians and Xtian/Chitian?

    Christians are Christians.

    "Xtians/Chitians", no idea. Maybe some culture from the third galaxy from the planet Jupiter.


  • Options
    #499
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,873 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    katydid wrote: »
    Religion is a man made construct; our way of explaining, or at least trying to explain what we find it hard to comprehend in terms of the existence of a deity. It has developed in different ways in different cultures; in so far as religion per se is irrational (it is not based on factual science or knowledge), ALL religions are irrational.

    It is not irrational, however, for a human being to involve themselves in a religion; depending on their background, circumstances etc. they either feel the need to do so, to give structure to their thoughts. Or, indeed, because it's easier to do so, although they haven't really give it much thought.

    Religion is a path to understanding, not a destination.
    That's fine but it is then irrational in the fantasy sense to get caught up in the particular dogma of any religion. I am sure that most people more then passively involved in their religion would disagree with your stance because it sounds like you are happy to believe there is nothing factually underpinning any religion ,its acceptable for you to say that Jesus was just a man who died believing his own subjective view of his place in the world?

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #500
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    silverharp wrote: »
    I can understand someone having faith or even something in their head that says there "must" be a god. What I don't get is the irrational jump into a particular religion or even sub sect of that religion. Most religious people opt for the god they grew up with which should be a red flag. Then looking at Christianity in a detached way its origins are odd to say the least given the way it bolted itself onto Judaism which was one of the least universal religions one could come up with which leads to all kinds of absurdities about a universal god which on the one hand knows how many hairs are on your head yet unconcerned about the millions of people not contacted either before or after. The story is indistinguishable from any man made religion.
    My advice to any religious person would be keep looking if you wish but you ain't there yet.

    Religion is not irrational, It's a cultural system of separating sacred from profane, forbidden from encouraged. It donst even need a supernatural deity to be a religion.
    Point of order but Christianity grew out of Judaism, it wasn't bolted on.

    You are right in spotting a difference between religion and faith, they are not the same thing.
    You are also right in spotting that we are not their yet!


  • Options
    #501
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    katydid wrote: »
    Just because the "Urban Dictionary" says something doesn't mean it's so. "Xtian" is a term many Christians find lazy and disrespectful. It was used in the past for various reasons; and isn't even accurate. X is the Greek for "Chi", so Xtian actually means "Chitian"

    But Christians in general don't use it.

    They use it all the time, I never met one who found it offensive unless looking for offence.It's like xmass, shorthand that works well in a Christian culture but becomes lost once that culture looses it familfamiliarity with christian imagery and phrasing.
    It's time may be up!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #502
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    silverharp wrote: »
    That's fine but it is then irrational in the fantasy sense to get caught up in the particular dogma of any religion. I am sure that most people more then passively involved in their religion would disagree with your stance because it sounds like you are happy to believe there is nothing factually underpinning any religion ,its acceptable for you to say that Jesus was just a man who died believing his own subjective view of his place in the world?

    What do you mean "the fantasy sense to get caught up in the particular dogma of any religion"? You are presupposing that religious beliefs are fantasy, but of course that can only be an assumption.

    Anyone who subscribes to a religion knows that there is nothing factually underpinning it; I'm not unique in that. No one can prove the existence of a deity, or the specific claims made by any religion - it's not about proving anything, it's about faith.


  • Options
    #503
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    katydid wrote: »
    What do you mean "the fantasy sense to get caught up in the particular dogma of any religion"? You are presupposing that religious beliefs are fantasy, but of course that can only be an assumption.

    Anyone who subscribes to a religion knows that there is nothing factually underpinning it; I'm not unique in that. No one can prove the existence of a deity, or the specific claims made by any religion - it's not about proving anything, it's about faith.

    I'm going to kick myself for asking this - but could you honestly try to make a comment that makes less sense than this, Katy?
    Let's see - you assert that religions have nothing factual underpinning them, but then you chastise someone else for saying that religious beliefs are fantasy. Do you not see the contradiction here? If one is saying Belief X is factually unsupported, then someone else saying Belief X is a fantasy is only agreeing with you!
    As for your assertion that "anyone who subscribes to a religion knows"...no they don't. Quite frequently I hear from many people who claim there is logic, reason and/or evidence in their religion.
    In fact Katy, I have to say it - you are unique. In all my years of study, you are the ONLY person I've come across who subscribes to a religion (Anglican Christianity) while simultaneously stating that religions have no basis in fact and who is completely unconcerned with what must be to you a non problem - the lack of a way to prove any specific claim made by a religion.


  • Options
    #504
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    I'm going to kick myself for asking this - but could you honestly try to make a comment that makes less sense than this, Katy?
    Let's see - you assert that religions have nothing factual underpinning them, but then you chastise someone else for saying that religious beliefs are fantasy. Do you not see the contradiction here? If one is saying Belief X is factually unsupported, then someone else saying Belief X is a fantasy is only agreeing with you!
    As for your assertion that "anyone who subscribes to a religion knows"...no they don't. Quite frequently I hear from many people who claim there is logic, reason and/or evidence in their religion.
    In fact Katy, I have to say it - you are unique. In all my years of study, you are the ONLY person I've come across who subscribes to a religion (Anglican Christianity) while simultaneously stating that religions have no basis in fact and who is completely unconcerned with what must be to you a non problem - the lack of a way to prove any specific claim made by a religion.
    Déja vu....ok, let's try.Just because you can't prove something isn't true doesn't mean it's necessarily a fantasy.

    Actually it's that simple. It's not half as complicated as you think; no religion can prove its claims, but depends on faith.


  • Options
    #505
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    katydid wrote: »
    Déja vu....ok, let's try.Just because you can't prove something isn't true doesn't mean it's necessarily a fantasy.

    Actually it's that simple. It's not half as complicated as you think; no religion can prove its claims, but depends on faith.
    ... and irreligion has the exact same issue ... as it depends on faith (in the non-existence of God) as well.


  • Options
    #506
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    J C wrote: »
    ... and irreligion has the exact same issue ... as it depends on faith (in the non-existence of God) as well.
    True.


  • Options
    #507
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    katydid wrote: »
    True.


    Not true- meaningless actually .


  • Options
    #508
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    marienbad wrote: »
    Not true- meaningless actually .

    How?


  • Options
    #509
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    katydid wrote: »
    How?


    Well for a start ,which God ?


  • Options
    #510
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    Well for a start ,which God ?
    Any God.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #511
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    marienbad wrote: »
    Well for a start ,which God ?

    I don't understand what your question has to do with the idea that "irreligion depends on faith (in the non-existence of God). Does it matter what god you don't believe in if you don't believe in god?

    (This discussion is getting surreal)


Advertisement