nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Northclare

Would it be easier if Atheists and Believers integrated their contradictions rather than be in collision with their contradictions.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Again, at least FOR TWO YEARS now in exchanges YOU have had with me on in discussions on which you have replied on the same page as me I have been consistent as to what the definition og atheist and agnostic were.

I gave a reference to the US survey and quoted several people from the A&a forum.
atheism is a belief there is no God or Gods or supernatural.

Agnostics say there might be a god or they just dont know.
I have been quite clear about these definitions here and everywhere else where you were party to the discussion.
I have clearly defined it from the very momlent you stated Norway was 70% atheist.
I have clearly stated it and supported it.

I cant formally prove this until the facts arrive but like my suspicions about atheism i have good grounds for suspcting it is true. Bt "this" i mean the trend in the future and NOT the FACT that Norway is not 70% atheist.

You have defined atheism as gnostic materialism. You then contradict yourself by claiming atheism is a lack of belief in a God or gods. Which type of atheists commits atrocities? I, for example, am an agnostic materialist. Which definition of atheism do I fall under?

What you are or are not has no bearing on the issue. Your claim was Norway is 70% atheist. It is only so in your cartoon imagination.
You are well aware that several peer reviewed research findings do NOT support this but you continue to claim it!
I have no doubt that as time goes on more and more research will emerge which shows Norway is not 70% atheist and in fact belief is growing in Norway.

It has everything to do with the issue. If you use a specific definition of a word, it is important that everybody is aware of that definition. I could claim Christians cause atrocities if I define "Christian" as a specific member of Belgian royalty. So if you define atheism as gnostic totalitarian anti-clericalist anti-theist despotism then you would be right when you say atheism causes atrocities. But it would be a boring and uncontroversial statement, and would be an atheism utterly unrelated to the atheism professed by the majority of atheists around the world.

You have been shown non belief in a christian God does not necessarily maan you must be atheist!

Not non-belief in just a Christian God, non-belief in a God altogether.

Assuming all Celtic supporters do NOT support rangers do you immediately suppose that if someone does not support Celtic then they must support Rangers?

No, I assume they are aCeltic.

Would it be as old as being definitively shown fro, peer reviewed research the published definition of "atheist" "hard agnostic" and "soft agnostic"? Seems you forgot all that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

That is atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

That is not atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

That is not atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism

That is not atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche

That is not atheism.

Some of the above might be atheistic, but they are not atheism.

Similarly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

That is theism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

That is not theism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_monarchy

That is not theism. They might be theistic, but they are not theism.

You are making the same logical error as above!
Nobody claimed non atheistic regimes nrever killed
Whzat i claimed was Christian regiumes RARELY killed at the same level

Nazi Muslim and vietnam were not christian church led atrocities.

Leopold of Belgium was christian but not doing it in the name of or to promote christianity like atheistic regimes were doing it to promote "there is no god"

This is why a conversation with you is impossible. You forget everything you say. You specifically said atheist regimes were much worse than "Non atheistic" regimes. I answered. Why not accept it and move on, instead of trying to make some deflective counterpoint in your polemical randori.

PDN wrote:

For example, if you ask people "Do you believe in a God?" Then a Pantheist, an Agnostic or even a Polytheist might well answer 'No'.

The same survey showed a majority believe in some form of God, lifeforce or spirit. That would mean only a minority of the population are monotheists, but it certainly doesn't mean that a majority are atheists.

QED PDN

Let us suppose a polytheist would say no (I would contest this, but anyway). Unless the neo-pagan Åsatrufellesskapet Bifrost and Foreningen Forn Sed (around 400 members between them), and the fraction of a percentage of Hindus, and the few thousand Buddhists (the majority of which are immigrants) (defining Buddhism as theist to be generous) have gone through an explosion in the past month, it is a moot point.

Pantheism is something I have asked people to define. What differentiates it from sexed up atheism, especially the kind whose proponents answer "no" to "Does a God exist?".

Agnosticism is exactly that:Agnosticism. If an agnostic believes a God exists, they are a theist. If an agnostic (like me) does not believe a God exists, they are an atheist.

marienbad

ISAW , you are going into evasive mode again- it is not semantics I am talking about- can you name any political entities, unions ,etc that were allowed to function under totalitarian regimes that were opposed to those regimes ?

Can you give specific examples of those regimes you refered before the 20th century , middle ages , ancient?

tommy2bad

ISAW;
Not only that but people wh would answer "no " to the question still are not all necessarily atheist!

Well then they need to clarify their thinking. If they say "No" when asked if they believe in a God or Deity, they are atheist.
What other possibilities are their? Don't want to admit it? Lying to look cool? Not native speakers of the language the question is asked in?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW, those examples you quoted from the USSR are incorrect and I suspect you are aware of that- when there is only one ''political party'' there are no politival parties ( contradictory as that seems). The communist party were the totalitarian vehicle in the USSR and pravda was their mouthpiece.

Yes i am aware of that. but the oint was you are making an issue of semantic definitions! when you ask if parties or newspapers or other organisations were support ...they were! The ones which supported their atheistic regime.
Just mike in chjina an "official" Chinese version of the church is supported which supported the ironically atheist government.

you say ''non atheistic totalitarian regimes did not kill at the level of atheistic one'' ! That is a bit of a stretch don't you think ? What regimes do you have in mind ?

All given before atheist Russia and atheist china -20th century Middle ages and ancient . whether Japan being bhudhist was atheist in the past is disputable. since WWII it is secular.

Anyway in the hundreds of millions killed by their regimes.

[/quote]
You misunderstand my point about one organisation being privileged over another. That was made it reference to the definition of totalitarianism , why do you privelege religion over say- trade unions of political entities in your analysis of totalitarianism ?[/QUOTE]

If a trade union want a trade union ethos school and parents want to send their kids to it they will be supported by the state. Mondragon in spain was set up by a Jesuit Priest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Arizmendiarrieta

http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/language/en-US/ENG.aspx

Morbert wrote: »

17% are materialists. Atheists are not materialists, and can believe in spirits, souls, and life-forces. Similarly, atheists, like myself, can be agnostic, or "not entirely certain". The only demarcation is whether or not you believe "God/gods exist" is true.

Again, at least FOR TWO YEARS now in exchanges YOU have had with me on in discussions on which you have replied on the same page as me I have been consistent as to what the definition og atheist and agnostic were.

I gave a reference to the US survey and quoted several people from the A&a forum.
atheism is a belief there is no God or Gods or supernatural.

Agnostics say there might be a god or they just dont know.
I have been quite clear about these definitions here and everywhere else where you were party to the discussion.
I have clearly defined it from the very momlent you stated Norway was 70% atheist.
I have clearly stated it and supported it.

You stood by your claim and used your interpretation of a single Eurobarometer poll to claim all those saying No to "there is a god" are atheists.

they are NOT!
It is NOT supported by other findings which you have been shown!

Norway is not 70% atheist or anything near that!

Do you believe I am an atheist?

What you are or are not has no bearing on the issue. Your claim was Norway is 70% atheist. It is only so in your cartoon imagination.
You are well aware that several peer reviewed research findings do NOT support this but you continue to claim it!
I have no doubt that as time goes on more and more research will emerge which shows Norway is not 70% atheist and in fact belief is growing in Norway.

I cant formally prove this until the facts arrive but like my suspictions about atheism i have good grounds for suspcting it is true. Bt "this" i mean the trend in the future and NOT the FACT that Norway is not 70% atheist.

Yes I am. The other 70% have described themselves as not believing in a God.

No they dont!

You have been shown non belief in a christian God does not necessarily maan you must be atheist!

Assuming all Celtic supporters do NOT support rangers do you immediately suppose that if someone does not support Celtic then they must support Rangers?

This old chestnut again? I invite anyone to slog through my conversation with ISAW to note the numerous times I have explored why the totalitarian regimes in question were so barbaric, and why they chose to adopt atheism.

Would it be as old as being definitively shown fro, peer reviewed research the published definition of "atheist" "hard agnostic" and "soft agnostic"? Seems you forgot all that.

Furthermore, it is not true that Non atheistic regimes didn't kill at the same level. Leopold of Belgium, Nazi Germany, Muslim-Hindu atrocities, the war in Vietnam, the colonisation of the new world Etc. were all in the millions or tens of millions.

You are making the same logical error as above!
Nobody claimed non atheistic regimes nrever killed
Whzat i claimed was Christian regiumes RARELY killed at the same level

Nazi Muslim and vietnam were not christian church led atrocities.

Leopold of Belgium was christian but not doing it in the name of or to promote christianity like atheistic regimes were doing it to promote "there is no god"

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

ISAW, in my mind you either believe a god exists or you don't. It's a yes/no answer, you can not be sure but still believe, but you still believe.

You are contradicting yourself! Obviously Lee Harvey Oswald either shot JFK or he didnt. It is a yes no answer. If you ask people if he did then some will believe he did some will believer he didnt. Some however will not believe either and say "i dont know" or "i cant make up my mind" While it is true he did or didnt you can not say "i dont know" is the same as "he did not"

So if someone says that if a group of people were asked a question like "Do you believe in a god/diety?" and 30% of the answers were "Yes" then, necessarily, the rest of the answer are "No".

Based on that Ireland never approved the Nice treaty since the majority of the people who could vote did not vote yes.

And if you answer : "Do you believe in a god/diety?" with No, then you are atheist.

LOL! nice try. But sorry you just cant take the results of peer review research and turn a 28% yes answer into a 70% no answer! Not only that but people wh would answer "no " to the question still are not all necessarily atheist!

PDN wrote: »

While I think this whole thread is going down the toilet fast, that isn't necessarily so.

For example, if you ask people "Do you believe in a God?" Then a Pantheist, an Agnostic or even a Polytheist might well answer 'No'.

The same survey showed a majority believe in some form of God, lifeforce or spirit. That would mean only a minority of the population are monotheists, but it certainly doesn't mean that a majority are atheists.

QED PDN

PDN

Zorbas wrote: »

the only good thing you could say about the athiests was that they were somewhat less hypocritical.

At least they were until they began claiming that all the world's wars are caused by religion. :pac:

Zorbas

Morbert wrote: »

This old chestnut again? I invite anyone to slog through my conversation with ISAW to note the numerous times I have explored why the totalitarian regimes in question were so barbaric, and why they chose to adopt atheism.

Furthermore, it is not true that Non atheistic regimes didn't kill at the same level. Leopold of Belgium, Nazi Germany, Muslim-Hindu atrocities, the war in Vietnam, the colonisation of the new world Etc. were all in the millions or tens of millions.

War mongers have played what ever card they need to get the result they want. It is silly to get into this "my willie was bigger than yours" scenario. For sure those who used the religious card were not were not much worried about living a blameless religious life and the only good thing you could say about the athiests was that they were somewhat less hypocritical.

PDN

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

ISAW, in my mind you either believe a god exists or you don't. It's a yes/no answer, you can not be sure but still believe, but you still believe.

So if someone says that if a group of people were asked a question like "Do you believe in a god/diety?" and 30% of the answers were "Yes" then, necessarily, the rest of the answer are "No".

And if you answer : "Do you believe in a god/diety?" with No, then you are atheist.

While I think this whole thread is going down the toilet fast, that isn't necessarily so.

For example, if you ask people "Do you believe in a God?" Then a Pantheist, an Agnostic or even a Polytheist might well answer 'No'.

The same survey showed a majority believe in some form of God, lifeforce or spirit. That would mean only a minority of the population are monotheists, but it certainly doesn't mean that a majority are atheists.

Genghiz Cohen

ISAW, in my mind you either believe a god exists or you don't. It's a yes/no answer, you can not be sure but still believe, but you still believe.

So if someone says that if a group of people were asked a question like "Do you believe in a god/diety?" and 30% of the answers were "Yes" then, necessarily, the rest of the answer are "No".

And if you answer : "Do you believe in a god/diety?" with No, then you are atheist.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

what i think has nothing to do with it! Others claiming Norway is 70% atheist is what
others claimed:
2119 Which says "according to their latest census over 70% of Norway is atheist"
That just isn't true!

1. it isnt a case of balance it is a case of the person making the claim supporting that claim!

2. the 28% saying they believe in a god does not mean 68% or 70% do not believe in a God

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005 17% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force".

Approximately 9-10% are probably not members of any religious or philosophical communities, while 8.6 % of the population are members of other religious or philosophical communities outside the Church of Norway.
http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/07/02/10/trosamf_en/

17% are materialists. Atheists are not materialists, and can believe in spirits, souls, and life-forces. Similarly, atheists, like myself, can be agnostic, or "not entirely certain". The only demarcation is whether or not you believe "God/gods exist" is true.

Norways own statistics Religious and life stance communities, 1 January 2011

In 2005, a survey conducted by Gallup International in sixty-five countries indicated that Norway was the least religious country in Western Europe, with 29% counting themselves as believing in a church or deity, 26% as being atheists, and 45% not being entirely certain.

That's about a quarter atheist not a majority and not 70% and it is the most atheist country in Europe.
1.7% are Humanist 13% are nones.

Do you believe I am an atheist?

NO he is NOT!
He is saying if 32% say they believe in a God then the rest are all atheist!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76817865&postcount=2123

Yes I am. The other 70% have described themselves as not believing in a God.

If your point is "they were not atheistic they were just totalitarian" I have addressed that already. Non atheistic totalitarian regimes didnt kill at the level of the atheist ones.
Why not?

This old chestnut again? I invite anyone to slog through my conversation with ISAW to note the numerous times I have explored why the totalitarian regimes in question were so barbaric, and why they chose to adopt atheism.

Furthermore, it is not true that Non atheistic regimes didn't kill at the same level. Leopold of Belgium, Nazi Germany, Muslim-Hindu atrocities, the war in Vietnam, the colonisation of the new world Etc. were all in the millions or tens of millions.

marienbad

ISAW, those examples you quoted from the USSR are incorrect and I suspect you are aware of that- when there is only one ''political party'' there are no politival parties ( contradictory as that seems). The communist party were the totalitarian vehicle in the USSR and pravda was their mouthpiece.

you say ''non atheistic totalitarian regimes did not kill at the level of atheistic one'' ! That is a bit of a stretch don't you think ? What regimes do you have in mind ?

You misunderstand my point about one organisation being privileged over another. That was made it reference to the definition of totalitarianism , why do you privelege religion over say- trade unions of political entities in your analysis of totalitarianism ?

ISAW

Zorbas wrote: »

Looks like ISAW does not think that Norway was 70% athiest. Must be great to have something to hold onto like that!

what i think has nothing to do with it! Others claiming Norway is 70% atheist is what
others claimed:
2119 Which says "according to their latest census over 70% of Norway is atheist"
That just isn't true!

Still wonder if there is any proof one way or t'other in which case I'm not convinced as I might otherwise be. Censuses are quite unreliable as who can say what people enter on those inquisitive forms is a protest or a truth?

1. it isnt a case of balance it is a case of the person making the claim supporting that claim!

2. the 28% saying they believe in a god does not mean 68% or 70% do not believe in a God

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005 17% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force".

Approximately 9-10% are probably not members of any religious or philosophical communities, while 8.6 % of the population are members of other religious or philosophical communities outside the Church of Norway.
http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/07/02/10/trosamf_en/

Norways own statistics Religious and life stance communities, 1 January 2011

In 2005, a survey conducted by Gallup International in sixty-five countries indicated that Norway was the least religious country in Western Europe, with 29% counting themselves as believing in a church or deity, 26% as being atheists, and 45% not being entirely certain.

That's about a quarter atheist not a majority and not 70% and it is the most atheist country in Europe.
1.7% are Humanist 13% are nones.

tommy2bad wrote: »

marienbad, Morbert is saying that if people self describe as not believing in God then they are atheist.

NO he is NOT!
He is saying if 32% say they believe in a God then the rest are all atheist!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76817865&postcount=2123

Only 30% believe in God. The rest are atheist.

ISAW says "dosn't matter what they call themselves, the census says they are not atheists."
I'v met people like this before, a civil servant once told me it didn't matter if a school was there or not as long as it was on his map, it was the school we should send our children too.
With some people you cant win.

Nonsense!
I didnt bring up the claim or supply the definition of "everyone not in the group saying they believe in God is atheist"

Morbert wrote: »

If "I do not believe in a God or gods" is the definition of an atheist, then yes, I believe Norway is 70% atheist, according to the Euro-barometer statistics (not the cartoon).

the eurobarometer statistic says 17% in Norway said they did not believe in a God or gods souls spirits or lifeforce.
It is in agreement with other surceys which you have been shown. You cant twist the stats to suit your own personal belief.

Gallup 2005
26% as atheists,
29% counting themselves as believing in a church or deity
45% not being entirely certain

Do you define atheism as the lack of belief in a God or gods, or do you define atheism as materialism?

i define it as in page 11 of the nones survey When asked about the existiance" of god or gods the reply is "there is none"

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW, the oxford dictionary gives us the following definition for totalitarian

''relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state''

and that subservience applies to churches, political parties, trade unions, newspapers, sports organisations , everything and anything that could engender dissent.

One could use your arguments just as easily to make a separate case for the supression of political parties or unions etc . Particularly with political parties as such parties are usually eliminated first and in their entirety whereas religion is allowed to continue but under terrible difficulties.

Indeed in Germany the Nazi Party is banned and any Nazi symbols.
I don't think we should do that . nor should we suppress atheists. Atheists should be given the same rights as religious people to have their own ethos schools if they want them.

The key issue is the supression of dissent is it not ?

Yes and as an anti authoritarian i oppose suppression of dissent. People have a right to disagree.

Why privilege one organisation over another ?

It isn't a case of privileged. it is a case of satisfying needs and wants. If atheists want a school let them have one if they are prepared to support it. If disabled people need a ramp get them one even of non disabled wont use it.

In all those ''atheistic regimes'' ''there is no God regimes'' you are so fond of listing can you name one that tolerated political parties as we know them ? trade unions ? Newspapers ?

Yes the USSR . they has the Communist Party the Pravda newspaper and the workers state.

If your point is "they were not atheistic they were just totalitarian" I have addressed that already. Non atheistic totalitarian regimes didnt kill at the level of the atheist ones.
Why not?

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

(robbed from koths post on the funny side thread)

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Really?

Omniscience

God described as omniscient:

"I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come." Isaiah 46:10

"Before a word is on my tongue, you Lord, know it completely." Psalm 139:4

"Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." Psalm 139:16

"Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit." Psalm 147:5

“And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every desire and every thought." 1 Chronicles 28:9

Contradicted by:

"Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”" Genesis 18:20-21

“Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.” Genesis 22:12

"Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” Genesis 4:9

"The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are, and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt." Exodus 12:13

That's only one, admittedly, but it's a big one. In the meantime please feel free to refute these:

SAB contradictions

Bible Inconsistencies: Bible Contradictions?

I've brought these over from the A&A forum as I feel they are better discussed here.

I find going through a list of alleged contradictions that someone has found merely online disproportionate in effort. I could easily google Christian sites for these, what I will do, is go through a few of the ones that were quoted. So, no I'm not going to go through an entire link of alleged contradictions because you can simply google to find Christian explanations for these, but I will take a look at some of the ones that you have listed nonetheless.

Mark chapter 3 - On blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Interestingly, I read this a few months ago with my small group at church. Here's a little of what I thought at the time:

“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”—for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”
Blasphemes in this passage is written in the present tense rather than in the past tense. The passage as such isn’t saying whoever has ever blasphemed the Holy Spirit at any one point in their lives will be forgiven, but rather for as long as someone blasphemes they will not be able to come to forgiveness through Jesus Christ.

...

The broader question seems to be how can you be forgiven if you don’t want to be forgiven? The context of either side of this passage also gives us a little more perspective as to why this should be the case. In the previous section we have both Jesus’ family claim that He is mad (Mark 3:21), and the Pharisees claiming that Jesus was casting out demons in the name of Satan rather than in the name of God and Jesus’ response to that objection, essentially how could one plunder Satan’s house with his blessing, the simple paradox of Satan casting out Satan (Mark 3:21-27). In the following section of this passage we have Jesus at his house with His disciples and with His family, where He says “For whoever does the will of God, he is my mother, my brother, and my sister and my mother” (Mark 3:35). This is the radical conclusion that as important as family was in Jewish society that faith is more important in terms of the Kingdom of God that Jesus had come to proclaim (Mark 1:14-15).

The context in Mark's Gospel doesn't back up the conclusion that whoever has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit will be condemned. Rather it says that whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, simply put because if you blaspheme in the present against the Holy Spirit, insofar as you do that you can't be forgiven because you've rejected the means for forgiveness.

Exodus 12 - The idea that God uses human language to explain Himself is not remarkable. God is speaking to human kind in human terms. This passage doesn't even say that God isn't omniscient, but rather it backs up that He is intimately present with us as His people through Christ, or in this case as a result of being a part of the nation of Israel.

Genesis 4 - Again, the mere fact that God asks Cain where his brother is is irrelevant. The point isn't to demonstrate His lack of knowledge, but rather it is to make abundant to Cain what He has done. The idea that this passage must mean that God isn't omniscient is absurd.

Genesis 22 & Genesis 18: These passages can be easily explained also. Again, it's pretty easy to see that this can be reconciled with God's omnipotence. God engages with people on human terms. Before Abraham ever considered God's command, God knew that Abraham would obey Him. That's why Genesis makes clear that Abraham would be a father of many nations in Genesis 15 and 17 when He tells him of His covenant with His people. It's funny that you overlook God's omniscience in Genesis 15 and 17, and the very fact that His word comes true in Genesis 22. If God had said that Abraham would be a father of many nations and this promise didn't come true, I would certainly disagree with you. Until that point this is a really weak objection to God's word. God knew from the beginning that His promise would come true, and He knew that it would be fulfilled in Jesus Christ. God told us that Abraham would be a father of many nations. That came true by adoption by Jesus' death and resurrection (see Galatians).

Genesis 18 is a display of God's omnipotence. Has it ever crossed your mind that God has actually noted the outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah. Have you noticed that God in this passage is not bound by time and space. In much the same way, if one considers that God has a knowledge of past present and future, or even that God created time, this is also an extremely weak contradiction. God knew that He was going to punish Sodom and Gomorrah from the beginning of time.

lmaopml

What has Norway got to do with anything? Apart from the Vikings....sure they're all living here now, they decided to stay... :pac:

Maybe it has something to do with the climate up there, they keep swapping and changing so much. They started off as Pagans, where Christianised 1000 years AD, Reformed during the reformation, and now the Spiritual movement seems to have taken hold too, and it doesn't appear Buddhist in nature either, too much Oprah

- Interestingly Spain is 70% religious, now there's a good climate

marienbad

ISAW, the oxford dictionary gives us the following definition for totalitarian

''relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state''

and that subservience applies to churches, political parties, trade unions, newspapers, sports organisations , everything and anything that could engender dissent.

One could use your arguments just as easily to make a separate case for the supression of political parties or unions etc . Particularly with political parties as such parties are usually eliminated first and in their entirety whereas religion is allowed to continue but under terrible difficulties.

The key issue is the supression of dissent is it not ?

Why privilege one organisation over another ? In all those ''atheistic regimes'' ''there is no God regimes'' you are so fond of listing can you name one that tolerated political parties as we know them ? trade unions ? Newspapers ?

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

I believe you claimed Norway was 70% atheist! You have avoided admitting that you clai,ed it but you clearly did. You posted a cartoon with the claim in it and when pressed on the issue you supported the claim.

do you now admit Norway is not 70% atheist as you claimed?
Or do you just deny claiming it was 70% atheist?

If "I do not believe in a God or gods" is the definition of an atheist, then yes, I believe Norway is 70% atheist, according to the Euro-barometer statistics (not the cartoon).

That is odd since i have several times in this thread quoted the NONES survey which defines atheist

http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/
http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/publications/american-nones-the-profile-of-the-no-religion-population/

see figure 1.13 page 11

I told you that in a direct reply five days ago:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77096959&postcount=2280

Others made the same claim for denmark in this thread eight mnths ago and i supplied the same definition
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72527165&postcount=559

Almost two years ago I was using the same definition of atheist
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66269572&postcount=843

Indeed here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67006453&postcount=76

And you replied to my preceding message i;e; 75 four messages later
apparently either
1. you didnt read my references the
or
2. you forgot i had referred to the survey which defines atheist.

In any case it still does not make Norway 70% atheist as you claimed.

You have tendered conflicting definitions. That is odd indeed.

Do you define atheism as the lack of belief in a God or gods, or do you define atheism as materialism?

tommy2bad

marienbad, Morbert is saying that if people self describe as not believing in God then they are atheist.
ISAW says "dosn't matter what they call themselves, the census says they are not atheists."
I'v met people like this before, a civil servant once told me it didn't matter if a school was there or not as long as it was on his map, it was the school we should send our children too.
With some people you cant win.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

I believe you claimed Norway was 70% atheist! You have avoided admitting that you clai,ed it but you clearly did. You posted a cartoon with the claim in it and when pressed on the issue you supported the claim.

do you now admit Norway is not 70% atheist as you claimed?
Or do you just deny claiming it was 70% atheist?

I cannot comment on this, since I do not know your personal definition of "atheism".[/QUOTE]

That is odd since i have several times in this thread quoted the NONES survey which defines atheist

http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/
http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/publications/american-nones-the-profile-of-the-no-religion-population/

see figure 1.13 page 11

I told you that in a direct reply five days ago:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77096959&postcount=2280

Others made the same claim for denmark in this thread eight mnths ago and i supplied the same definition
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72527165&postcount=559

Almost two years ago I was using the same definition of atheist
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66269572&postcount=843

Indeed here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67006453&postcount=76

And you replied to my preceding message i;e; 75 four messages later
apparently either
1. you didnt read my references the
or
2. you forgot i had referred to the survey which defines atheist.

In any case it still does not make Norway 70% atheist as you claimed.[/QUOTE]

Dos'nt make it Christian either ISAW as you claim

Zorbas

Looks like ISAW does not think that Norway was 70% athiest. Must be great to have something to hold onto like that! Still wonder if there is any proof one way or t'other in which case I'm not convinced as I might otherwise be. Censuses are quite unreliable as who can say what people enter on those inquisitive forms is a protest or a truth?

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

70% said they didn't believe "a God existed", according to the Eurobarometer statistics. Do you believe any of these can be a Christian? Do you believe there is more criteria than not believing in God to be an atheist?

I believe you claimed Norway was 70% atheist! You have avoided admitting that you clai,ed it but you clearly did. You posted a cartoon with the claim in it and when pressed on the issue you supported the claim.

do you now admit Norway is not 70% atheist as you claimed?
Or do you just deny claiming it was 70% atheist?

[/quote]
I cannot comment on this, since I do not know your personal definition of "atheism".[/QUOTE]

That is odd since i have several times in this thread quoted the NONES survey which defines atheist

http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/
http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/publications/american-nones-the-profile-of-the-no-religion-population/

see figure 1.13 page 11

I told you that in a direct reply five days ago:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77096959&postcount=2280

Others made the same claim for denmark in this thread eight mnths ago and i supplied the same definition
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72527165&postcount=559

Almost two years ago I was using the same definition of atheist
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66269572&postcount=843

Indeed here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67006453&postcount=76

Is a thread wher i refer to See figure 1.13 on page 11.

1.5 per cent of US are atheist= "There is no such thing as God"

And you replied to my preceding message i;e; 75 four messages later
apparently either
1. you didnt read my references the
or
2. you forgot i had referred to the survey which defines atheist.

In any case it still does not make Norway 70% atheist as you claimed.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Dont waste our time! 30% saying they are church or England or Norway does not mean 70% is atheist and you know it!

70% said they didn't believe "a God existed", according to the Eurobarometer statistics. Do you believe any of these can be a Christian? Do you believe there is more criteria than not believing in God to be an atheist?

33% of he sample stated "no religion" about twice what i would expect. These NNES are not atheist. There is other evidence in tother surveys o back that up. Same for Norway.

I cannot comment on this, since I do not know your personal definition of "atheism".

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Do you believe a person can be a member of the church of England/Norway if they don't believe in God? Do you believe a person can be an atheist if they believe in the supernatural?

Dont waste our time! 30% saying they are church or England or Norway does not mean 70% is atheist and you know it!

And to avoid any confusion, I don't think the RDFRS survey shows that the UK is atheist. To do that, they would have to ask questions directly pertaining to atheism. Questions like "Do you believe there is a God?".

33% of he sample stated "no religion" about twice what i would expect. These NNES are not atheist. There is other evidence in tother surveys o back that up. Same for Norway.

Geology is still uniformitarian. The "catastrophism" that modified it is only the punctuated equilibrium variety, and no the Biblical creationist variety.

Yes i agree catastrophes of biblical proportions are an established causal factor in the narrative of evolution and speciation. This is not Biblical fundamentalism.

tommy2bad

Is there a youtube video, or even transcript, of the full interview? I would love to hear it.

Best I can do morbert.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9696000/9696135.stm

Morbert

From the "Richard Dawkins Crushed" thread:

Wow, the title of that thread is horribly misleading. The survey raises some very interesting issues.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644941-rdfrs-uk-ipsos-mori-poll-1-how-religious-are-uk-christians

Only about a third of what we shall call 'Census-Christians' cited religious beliefs as the reason they had ticked the Christian box in the 2011 Census

• 37% of them have never or almost never prayed outside a church service

• Asked where they seek most guidance in questions of right and wrong, only 10% of Census-Christians said it was from religious teachings or beliefs

• Just a third (32%) believe Jesus was physically resurrected; half (49%) do not think of him as the Son of God

• And when given 4 books of the Bible to select from and asked which was the first book of the New Testament, only 35% could identify Matthew as the correct answer.

The above is just a small sample of fascinating results, demonstrating that Christianity is only notional among many Christians. Of all the questions asked, the most uninteresting and irrelevant one is the NT author question. Far more interesting questions included ones about the resurrection and divinity of Jesus, the morality of sex outside of marriage, and the reasons given for calling themselves Christian. But the pastor "crushed" Dawkins by arguing that one question in the survey was not sufficient on its own to draw any interesting conclusions. Of course it wasn't.

Is there a youtube video, or even transcript, of the full interview? I would love to hear it.

ISAW wrote:

Morberts claim in relation to Norway was if people are not really church oif England / church of Norway and they only just put that down on the census form without believing it then somehow it means 70% of Norway is atheist!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...postcount=2119
look at the cartoon.

Do you believe a person can be a member of the church of England/Norway if they don't believe in God? Do you believe a person can be an atheist if they believe in the supernatural?

And to avoid any confusion, I don't think the RDFRS survey shows that the UK is atheist. To do that, they would have to ask questions directly pertaining to atheism. Questions like "Do you believe there is a God?".

And I would remind you that core belief in Darwinian "evolution" have been modified by catastrophic interpretations e.g the influence of events of Biblical proportions -pun intended on classical darwinism.

Geology is still uniformitarian. The "catastrophism" that modified it is only the punctuated equilibrium variety, and no the Biblical creationist variety.

ISAW

Zorbas wrote: »

Now do you think that kind of invective deserves a response?

Yup! You began with no difference. You were shown there was a difference. you then said the difference does not matter when you began by stating the difference isnt there. a clear contradiction!

It was you who stated you had not " searched the whole forum for the font of knowledge on this and other obscure facts that are barely hidden!!"

Zorbas

ISAW wrote: »

It appears to me you are living in cloud cuckoo land

You seem to make habit of contradicting yourself!

you came in and blurted out in ignorance. It isnt for me to forgive that.

Try actually doing some research before displaying your ignorance.

Now do you think that kind of invective deserves a response?

ISAW

Zorbas wrote: »

Appears to me that the reaction by those who would defend the cruelty inflicted by the religious

It appears to me you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think I defended any atrocities committed in the name of Christianity.

inspired is to claim that others did more killing.

You seem to make habit of contradicting yourself!

It was YOU who stated "Also cant see what difference it would make if a country declared itself either aethiest, Christian or Muslim.

and if a difference of more killing is pointed out you then accept the difference but somehow say this difference is pointless thereby ignoring your original questioning of it making no difference at all!

Forgive me if I have not searched the whole forum for the font of knowledge on this and other obscure facts that are barely hidden!!

You havent searched about the Spanish inquisition and other items which you could have found in less than a minute. Instead you came in and blurted out in ignorance. It isnt for me to forgive that.

Try actually doing some research before displaying your ignorance.

Zorbas

Appears to me that the reaction by those who would defend the cruelty inflicted by the religious inspired is to claim that others did more killing.
Would it not be inspiring if instead there was a more humble and contrite explanation offered. There is no problem with admitting that religion has not always worked for the better and that it has changed and adapted over the years- or is it that any admission of evil would weaken the whole trip?
Forgive me if I have not searched the whole forum for the font of knowledge on this and other obscure facts that are barely hidden!!

ISAW

Zorbas wrote: »

Problem is that those "with the battery operated belief system in God" have become so judgemental that anyone with an alternative view is seen as a threat to be extinguished.

No. your problem is you cant prove morality is predetermined by biology or Chemistry. Your opinion that belief can be logically proved based on you belief about the "laws of physics" which when subject to the same analysis you apply to religious belief may not be not so sound as you may think.

ISAW

Zorbas wrote: »

Agree ;
Also cant see what difference it would make if a country declared itself either aethiest, Christian or Muslim.

apart from the fact that all countries declaring themselves atheist were complete failures?

I wonder how modern day Christians explain away the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Slavery and Witch hunts that were for many years a test of Christianity.

If you bothered to search this forum on any of them you wouldnt have to wonder

Ill deal with them in reverse

Slavery Monarchy communist or Capitalism are not anything the church oppose. any problems with them arise not out of them per se but out of related issues such as monarchs claiming to represent god or greed getting involved in rampant capitalism otr atheism destroying the altruistic values in communism.

slavery was supported by a single Borgia Pope and his predecessors and antecedents opposed it!

witch hunts were q Us Protestant and Eastern European phenomenon. Irelqand for example under Protestant control at the time but mostly catholic had something like two witches executed in two centuries.

the Spanish Inquisition executes maybe 20,000 people over 450 years! the atheistic regimez in france killed more Catholics in one region -the Vendee- in a single year!
Not nice i agree but it works out at about seven a year. and I think half were jews so it comes across as anti Jew and not necessarily an element of christianity.

Crusades - maybe a million dead over two centuries. Most of the nasty ones were franks. In fact the Muslims allowed the Orthodox Christians in Jerusalem but kicked uot the Frankish element.

Is there a comparable history of conviction led atrocity with the followers of Mohammed I wonder?

i don,t. Is that a rhetorical question? Are you really claiming the Christians were the only people who killed others during the Crusades?

To know right from wrong for both Muslims and Christian is not a matter of judgement but of obedience whereas morality for most social mammals comes from having a prefrontal cortex which is what gives us our morality.

that is an unsupported opinion that morality is biologically determined.

We know this because Christians and Muslims work that way too. Few think it’s OK to stone children or people who work on the Sabbath or rape young girls providing you marry them afterwards even though the bible says it is.

You really are not pâying attention. This has been dealt with before. WHERE does the bible say it is okay to rape children? and you still have only opinion that biomogy predetermines morality.

Evolution armed humans with a sense of morality which overrides our primal instincts to induce right from wrong. A belief system may depend on a book but morality as affecting life and the way we organise ourselves does not.

Reifying "evolution" does NOT provide any support for the contention that biology recapitulates the development of morality.