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

PDN

long range shooter wrote: »

It is 70% Atheist and i am one of them;)

So are you one of those atheists that believes in no god or gods, or an agnostic atheist who doesn't know whether God exists or not, or one of the pantheist atheists, or one of the deist atheists, or a Hindu atheist who prays to Shiva, or an atheist who believes in ghosts and spirits?

tommy2bad

PDN wrote: »

So are you one of those atheists that believes in no god or gods, or an agnostic atheist who doesn't know whether God exists or not, or one of the pantheist atheists, or one of the deist atheists, or a Hindu atheist who prays to Shiva, or an atheist who believes in ghosts and spirits?

Whats interesting in that list is that while all of them would tic the box 'no religion' and probably self describe as atheist if at a dinner party. Actual believe in nothing but the material world atheists are a small minority of any population.
So in the end how do you prove an atheist society? Is such a thing even possible.
Indifferent secularism seems the best description for a society that eschews religion as the source of it morals and the foundation of it's legal system.

long range shooter

PDN wrote: »

So are you one of those atheists that believes in no god or gods, or an agnostic atheist who doesn't know whether God exists or not, or one of the pantheist atheists, or one of the deist atheists, or a Hindu atheist who prays to Shiva, or an atheist who believes in ghosts and spirits?

I am one of them who belive i am gonna end up in Valhalla when my time is up;)

Zorbas

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, like the claim that Norway is 70% atheist.

My point was an unbiased one - now we are back into the repetition game - is there any sense in such silly repitition - there you have me at it now!!

joseph brand

PDN wrote: »

So are you one of those atheists that believes in no god or gods, or an agnostic atheist who doesn't know whether God exists or not, or one of the pantheist atheists, or one of the deist atheists, or a Hindu atheist who prays to Shiva, or an atheist who believes in ghosts and spirits?

There is no god looking down on us.
There's no such thing as ghosts.
Astrology is a load of crap.
Psychics are frauds.
There's no such thing as 'magic beans'.

You'd think grown-ups would already know this.

"You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public" Scott Adams

Northclare

I could have sworn I seen a giant in the Burren today he jumped over Fr Ted's house and I heard he landed at the Perfumery Center

Then he had Tea and carrot cake and bought some calendula cream

philologos

joseph brand: anything other than useless ad-hominems to bring?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

I have yet to see any officially atheist countries which did anything good for society when they promoted atheism.

So (again!) your objection is to countries that declare atheism as the official stance on religion (ie they reject secularism) and use the state to promote atheism through anti-theism (e.g anti-theistic Communists countries).

You would, I assume, have no objection to a country made up of atheists that had a secular constitution that did not promote any religion but instead promoted secularism and freedom of/from religion in all state laws and institutions.

So (again!) your objection is not to atheism, it is to state enforced anti-theism.

Correct? Or are you just going to ignore this post like all the others ...:rolleyes:

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

Whats interesting in that list is that while all of them would tic the box 'no religion' and probably self describe as atheist if at a dinner party. Actual believe in nothing but the material world atheists are a small minority of any population.
So in the end how do you prove an atheist society? Is such a thing even possible.
Indifferent secularism seems the best description for a society that eschews religion as the source of it morals and the foundation of it's legal system.

Well that's just it - If pagans and spiritualists are considered Atheist for the sake of arguing that Norway is an overwhelmingly Atheist country and doesn't commit any atrocities as was inferred by somebody, not sure who many pages back...

- Then it should follow that when they were all overwhelmingly Pagan Vikings and pretty much plundered, robbed, killed and maimed and set up slave trades other than 'Atheist' too?

I think it's a bad example, but I don't really get what Norway has to do with a Atheist/Existence of God debates anyway

joseph brand

philologos wrote: »

joseph brand: anything other than useless ad-hominems to bring?

Ok.

Here's a video of James Randi explaining how he knows that psychics are frauds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Z7KeNCi7g

Take a look, it's both informative and entertaining. I'm going to guess, that you don't believe in John Edward's ability to talk to the dead. Or any other psychic's abilities.

I'm not trying to go OT.
It's just that, if you take his argument and substitute pastor/ preacher/ priest/ pope for psychic, the whole argument is the same.

The main defence of psychics is, 'It makes people feel better'. (Although it's a money-making racket). There is no other defence. It makes them (victims) feel better by telling them what they 'want to hear', not the truth. As an example, Sylvia Browne costs $700 for a 20 min phone call. That's $2,100 /hr. Good money if you can get it.

The main defence of religion is similar, 'It makes people feel better, gives them hope/ meaning in life'. There's plenty of religious merchandise out there for followers to purchase, from cd's and books to relics and bits of holy things. Then there's donations and collections. $$$$$$$

Anderson Cooper takes on Sylvia Browne 'psychic' and greedy leech. Lacking any morals or ethics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts_To4zmEdE&feature=related

lmaopml

joseph brand wrote: »

There is no god looking down on us.
There's no such thing as ghosts.
Astrology is a load of crap.
Psychics are frauds.
There's no such thing as 'magic beans'.

You'd think grown-ups would already know this.

"You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public" Scott Adams

What did Scott Adams ever do? Was he a member of the general public or did he presume himself a non stupid alien of the planet he lives on? I think he may be a cartoonist or somebody who is famous for a cartoon of some sort or another no?

Sounds to me like you are quoting somebody out of context and not a little with pomp think you are not part of the general population too? So what makes you particularly different? Other than being able to kiss your very own bum cheeks.

philologos

joseph brand: Bringing in psychics into this argument is irrelevant. There is a forum if you want to go and debate about that.

What I'm interested in, and what this thread should be interested in are arguments against God's existence. I don't believe any human has any more authority to teach about God than the other. What I do when I hear my pastor preach on a Sunday is that I listen to what he says, I compare it to what is in the Bible, and if it doesn't match up with what is in the Bible I'll ask him about it afterwards. This rarely happens because my church uses expository preaching, which means they go systematically through a particular passage section by section.

I don't argue that Christianity makes me feel better primarily. I argue that it makes sense, and that given what evidence we have in the world around us it is more likely true than false. I've been arguing that way on boards.ie for years. I think you're misunderstanding that I want you to refute Biblical Christianity rather than certain churches. I am more concerned with Jesus and defending Him than defending institutions.

joseph brand

philologos wrote: »

joseph brand: Bringing in psychics into this argument is irrelevant. There is a forum if you want to go and debate about that.

What I'm interested in, and what this thread should be interested in are arguments against God's existence. I don't believe any human has any more authority to teach about God than the other. What I do when I hear my pastor preach on a Sunday is that I listen to what he says, I compare it to what is in the Bible, and if it doesn't match up with what is in the Bible I'll ask him about it afterwards. This rarely happens because my church uses expository preaching, which means they go systematically through a particular passage section by section.

I don't argue that Christianity makes me feel better primarily. I argue that it makes sense, and that given what evidence we have in the world around us it is more likely true than false. I've been arguing that way on boards.ie for years. I think you're misunderstanding that I want you to refute Biblical Christianity rather than certain churches. I am more concerned with Jesus and defending Him than defending institutions.

I was quite clear on the relevance. Read my post again if you like.

A psychic's forum? I know what type of people believe in that stuff. There was a good episode of South Park which tore John Edwards a new one. (They get you when you are down)
BTW, you haven't stated whether you believe in it or not.

What are your thoughts then on the pope? Has he a higher authority than say, a priest? I've heard that he is god's representative here on Earth. And since you cross-check sermons with passages in the bible, would it be easier to just read the bible than go to mass? Perhaps you prefer the social gathering? I remember mass in Ballingarry, Tipperary was more about meeting friends and locals for gossip, for a lot of the parishioners.

Evidence suggests the unlikelihood or there being a 'creator'. Evidence tells us that the world is over 4,000 years old (billions of years old). Evidence and the beauty of maths has told us a lot about where we came from etc . . . (too long to go into here I'm sure you'll agree)

Have you seen the 'Nazareth Village' which has been built for christian tourists? It's gonna draw crowds and make a lot of money. The problem I have is that there is no 'evidence' that it was in any way special. A 'well' was all that archaeologists could find there, and they were digging there (Nazareth) for the last century. But somehow, some dudes managed to miraculously find artefacts recently, to prove there was a settlement there and the christian-theme-park got the green light. It looks like it's just a couple of sheds and donkeys. Although, it IS sunny.

James Randi on Nazareth Village
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSzQC1zKesU

One last point.
I see myself as being outside, looking in, in terms of religion. It's a good position due to the perspective. I see ALL the religions as being the same. They may have different flavours, but essentially they all work the same.
christians, jews and muslims and hindus all act so superior towards each other. "I'm right, you're wrong!". But how can they think all the other religions are so stupid? There are 20 major religions, (link below) and I'm sure there are many more smaller religions. Each one thinks IT is correct, all others are wrong. Does this seem a bit silly to you?

http://howmanyarethere.net/how-many-religions-are-there-in-the-world/

If this point can't open a person's eyes, then perhaps it's safe to assume, nothing will!

joseph brand

lmaopml wrote: »

What did Scott Adams ever do? Was he a member of the general public or did he presume himself a non stupid alien of the planet he lives on? I think he may be a cartoonist or somebody who is famous for a cartoon of some sort or another no?

Sounds to me like you are quoting somebody out of context and not a little with pomp think you are not part of the general population too? So what makes you particularly different? Other than being able to kiss your very own bum cheeks.

Have you a problem with Adams or his quote? I'm no fan of his but there's truth in the quote. I'll repeat:
"You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public" Scott Adams

Now think about 1) football hooligans, 2)those who believe in psychics and 3)those who watch X factor/ jungle celebs/ dancing on ice and actually spend money on votes. We must all agree that these people are suckers and need help. They need to read more. Can you see the relevance of the quote now?

Idiocracy is a great movie highlighting the 'dumbing down' in the media and society in general.

If you want to talk about my ability to kiss myself and whatever else, pm me. :rolleyes:

Also, my head hurt trying to read whatever you typed in the larger text.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

So (again!) your objection is to countries that declare atheism as the official stance on religion (ie they reject secularism)

well it is one of my objections yes. But i don,t object to them because they reject secularism! A christian country (or indeed a Hindu or Islamic one) might not be secular and might get along with the rest of the world just fine. i have yet to know an atheist country that did. In other words it isnt because they were NOT secular it is related to them being atheist. rejection of secularism isnt the problem Promotion of atheism is!

and use the state to promote atheism through anti-theism (e.g anti-theistic Communists countries).

Yes. but if they use the stqte to promote christianity nothing as bad happens -how come?

You would, I assume, have no objection to a country made up of atheists that had a secular constitution that did not promote any religion but instead promoted secularism and freedom of/from religion in all state laws and institutions.

I would have no objection to such atheists no. i have no idea of any such country. where is it? apparently when it suits Morbery or yourself the US is a Tweedledum atheist/secular country and when it suits you it is also a Twedledee/christian run country.

So (again!) your objection is not to atheism, it is to state enforced anti-theism.

No more than my objection is to the philosophy of Naziism so much as Nazis actually doing what they see as supporting such a philosophy. You cant run away from the philosophical implications or moral relativism or nihilism and say it is only about what people do.

You wont have state enforced atheism without atheism existing in the first place.

furthermore state enforced atheism always resulted in ruin about state enforced Christianity seldom did. how come?

joseph brand

ISAW wrote: »

You wont have state enforced atheism without atheism existing in the first place.

furthermore state enforced atheism always resulted in ruin about state enforced Christianity seldom did. how come?

Could you expand please on this point you are making?

If you are comparing state enforced Atheism with state enforced theism, they are both as bad as each other.

Zorbas

joseph brand wrote: »

.

I see myself as being outside, looking in, in terms of religion. It's a good position due to the perspective. I see ALL the religions as being the same. They may have different flavours, but essentially they all work the same.
christians, jews and muslims and hindus all act so superior towards each other. "I'm right, you're wrong!". But how can they think all the other religions are so stupid? There are 20 major religions, (link below) and I'm sure there are many more smaller religions. Each one thinks IT is correct, all others are wrong. Does this seem a bit silly to you?
!

A good perspective I would say.
Have spent the last couple of decades working in various countries in Africa and Asia and was able to experience the good and the bad from all sorts of beliefs and faiths. Was in Kaduna, N Nigeria once when Muslims and their neighbouring Christians turned on each other in inter-faith violence with burnings and killings. Both Christians and Muslims refused to help remove bodies from the street to the mortuary if they were of the contrary faith.
Still heard about some kindness across faiths here in NI in helping those caught up in violence from both sides.
Looking at some of the innane arguments on this thread about who has had the biggest kill count makes me wonder if there is much appreciation of the suffering involved behind the cold numbers.
I do not expect any less violence from those of faith from those who of no faith even though my experience would lead me to.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

well it is one of my objections yes. But i don,t object to them because they reject secularism! A christian country (or indeed a Hindu or Islamic one) might not be secular and might get along with the rest of the world just fine.

How do you think it would get along with the non-Christians in the country? Do you support a single religion being promoted by the State and a clamp down on non-official religions within that state?

ISAW wrote: »

In other words it isnt because they were NOT secular it is related to them being atheist. rejection of secularism isnt the problem Promotion of atheism is!

You agree though that an atheist country does not have to promote atheism. It simply has to be made up mostly of people who don't believe in the existence of God. The same way that a Christian country does not have to promote Christianity as the official religion of the government.

Or perhaps you disagree with that.

ISAW wrote: »

Yes. but if they use the stqte to promote christianity nothing as bad happens -how come?

Er, how are you defining "nothing as bad". The Protestant Catholic wars of Europe resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, constant political upheaval and wide spread persecution and oppression through out Europe.

That seems pretty bad. It seems some what academic to argue over whether it was "as bad" as other attrocities, like arguing it is as bad to kill 100,000 or 1,000,000 people.

ISAW wrote: »

I would have no objection to such atheists no. i have no idea of any such country. where is it?

There has never been an atheist country as far as I know based on this definition, since there has never been enough atheists in the world to make up such a country (we can argue over whether countries like Norway or Sweden are atheist until we are blue in the face).

The key point is that you have no objection to these atheists. So your issue is not with atheism, it is with atheists who pursue an State enforced anti-theistic stance.

Great, I think we all object to that.

ISAW wrote: »

apparently when it suits Morbery or yourself the US is a Tweedledum atheist/secular country and when it suits you it is also a Twedledee/christian run country.

I can't speak for Morbet but the USA is a Christian country, in that it is made up mostly of Christian people, with a secular government that has the principle of freedom of/from religion at its core value system.

If we define an atheist country as a country made up mostly of people who self identify as atheist (ie not Norway) then there has never been an atheist country. So it is some what difficult to know what it would be like and what government structure would be the most common in such countries.

ISAW wrote: »

No more than my objection is to the philosophy of Naziism so much as Nazis actually doing what they see as supporting such a philosophy. You cant run away from the philosophical implications or moral relativism or nihilism and say it is only about what people do.

Er, I didn't. I've no problem with you objecting to both the idea of state enforced atheism and anti-theism and the practical actions carrying that idea out.

But as we have established you don't object to mere atheism, ie you don't object to people simply not believing a god exists.

You would have no objection to an atheist who supported secular government and freedom of religion (which would be most of the atheists on the A&A forum for example).

Correct?

ISAW wrote: »

You wont have state enforced atheism without atheism existing in the first place.

The point seems a bit moot. You can't use violence to support any idea without the idea existing in the first place. You can't have Christian Inquisitions without Christianity existing in the first place either.

ISAW wrote: »

furthermore state enforced atheism always resulted in ruin about state enforced Christianity seldom did. how come?

Again I've no idea where you got that notion from. State enforced religion lead to oppression, political instability and often civil war in any country where it was introduced. It had to, by definition enforced religion will be violent.

By definition any government or state where an idea is violently enforced will lead to violence and oppression, since no civilisation in the history of the planet has ever universally agreed to anything. There will always be people who disagree with an enforced dogma or doctrine, and if the government is prepared to use violence to punish those who don't agree violence will ensure.

Execution of Catholics during the Reign of Elizabeth I

Execution-Of-Catholics-In-England-During-The-Reign-Of-Elizabeth-I-1533-1603.jpg

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

I never said it was atheistic. You however stuck them in with others as 3christian value" regimes

when in 2362 i stated christianity is around for 2000 years and coulda shoulda woulda but DIDNT do as you expect them to have done over the last 2000 years to any degree even approaching the godless atheistic regimes.

you in reply 2363 stated

Clearly you link the above four with Christianity doing what godless atheistic regimes did or you dont -which is it?

This has nothing to do with what I said. You have shifted your claim from "atheism causes atrocities" to "European societies adopting Christian values have only murdered thousands." I will continue to pull you up on your original claim until you retract it.

you link the above four with Christianity doing what godless atheistic regimes did or you dont -which is it? when you want tweedledum the Us is secular . When you want to have a go at christianity the Us becomes a Christian Tweedledee which is not secular enough.

how can you prove the level of death in the US is correlated with secularism? How many abortions in the US for example? Or dont they count?

This has nothing to do with what I have said.

I dont claim all the bad regimes ever were all atheistic. Only the worst murder and genocide were. Indeed some other non christian regimes were godless but didnt push atheism. others were pagan. But even christian ones did kill some people . Millions in fact. Over 2000 years that averages out at thousands per year. equivalent to say the number of road deaths in the UK per year. Nothing at all in the League of the hundreds of million killed by atheistic regimes over decades to a few centuries. And not done in the name of christianity for over 500 years. Atheistic regimes are still persecuting people. i wont get into Sharia law and whether Islam is a killer as that is not a Christianity discussion.

And I showed that this isn't true. Nazi Germany and Leopold's Congo, for example, were not atheist regimes, and they are among the worst genocides of all time. It is also true that non atheistic regimes are still persecuting people. So the common trend across the worst genocides in history,and persecution, is not atheism.

philologos

joseph brand wrote: »

I was quite clear on the relevance. Read my post again if you like.

A psychic's forum? I know what type of people believe in that stuff. There was a good episode of South Park which tore John Edwards a new one. (They get you when you are down)
BTW, you haven't stated whether you believe in it or not.

The paranormal has no relevance to the Christianity forum. I don't engage in occult practices. It is not compatible with Christianity. So why would it be relevant to this thread?

If you want to post about the paranormal, take it to that forum. I have no interest in it.

joseph brand wrote: »

What are your thoughts then on the pope? Has he a higher authority than say, a priest? I've heard that he is god's representative here on Earth. And since you cross-check sermons with passages in the bible, would it be easier to just read the bible than go to mass? Perhaps you prefer the social gathering? I remember mass in Ballingarry, Tipperary was more about meeting friends and locals for gossip, for a lot of the parishioners.

The Pope has no more authority than any other man that walks the earth to speak about God. I'm not a Roman Catholic, but an evangelical Christian. The only criteria that counts is whether or not the teaching is Biblical.

I don't go to mass either. I do go to church, and I go there so that I can hear God's word preached clearly, encourage my brothers and sisters in Christ.

joseph brand wrote: »

Evidence suggests the unlikelihood or there being a 'creator'. Evidence tells us that the world is over 4,000 years old (billions of years old). Evidence and the beauty of maths has told us a lot about where we came from etc . . . (too long to go into here I'm sure you'll agree)

The Bible does not teach that the earth is 4,000 years old.

joseph brand wrote: »

Have you seen the 'Nazareth Village' which has been built for christian tourists? It's gonna draw crowds and make a lot of money. The problem I have is that there is no 'evidence' that it was in any way special. A 'well' was all that archaeologists could find there, and they were digging there (Nazareth) for the last century. But somehow, some dudes managed to miraculously find artefacts recently, to prove there was a settlement there and the christian-theme-park got the green light. It looks like it's just a couple of sheds and donkeys. Although, it IS sunny.

James Randi on Nazareth Village
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSzQC1zKesU

This is false. In 2009 ruins from first century Nazareth were found. The Guardian which is far from a Christian paper reported this.

Article, and gallery.

Why do you believe what people tell you? Why don't you look into it for yourself?

joseph brand wrote: »

One last point.
I see myself as being outside, looking in, in terms of religion. It's a good position due to the perspective. I see ALL the religions as being the same. They may have different flavours, but essentially they all work the same.
christians, jews and muslims and hindus all act so superior towards each other. "I'm right, you're wrong!". But how can they think all the other religions are so stupid? There are 20 major religions, (link below) and I'm sure there are many more smaller religions. Each one thinks IT is correct, all others are wrong. Does this seem a bit silly to you?

http://howmanyarethere.net/how-many-religions-are-there-in-the-world/

If this point can't open a person's eyes, then perhaps it's safe to assume, nothing will!

Why is atheism any more right than any of the other worldviews?

Simply put, the simple answer is investigation of a number of different systems of thought brought me to this conclusion. I'm happy to go into these in more depth when I get a bit more time.

joseph brand

philologos wrote: »

The paranormal has no relevance to the Christianity forum. I don't engage in occult practices. It is not compatible with Christianity. So why would it be relevant to this thread?

If you want to post about the paranormal, take it to that forum. I have no interest in it.

I was only pointing out the similarities between both sets of 'believers'. What they get out of it. Their defence of it.
Also, I'm wondering if the only reason that you don't believe in psychics is because it isn't compatible with your faith. If it was, then you would?

philologos wrote: »

The Pope has no more authority than any other man that walks the earth to speak about God. I'm not a Roman Catholic, but an evangelical Christian. The only criteria that counts is whether or not the teaching is Biblical.

I don't go to mass either. I do go to church, and I go there so that I can hear God's word preached clearly, encourage my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Evangelicals have those soul-less megachurches right? They look like they were built for hosting massive business conference's.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Gateway_Church_114_Campus.jpg

philologos wrote: »

The Bible does not teach that the earth is 4,000 years old.

Ok then 6,000 years?

philologos wrote: »

This is false. In 2009 ruins from first century Nazareth were found. The Guardian which is far from a Christian paper reported this.

Article, and gallery.

Why do you believe what people tell you? Why don't you look into it for yourself?

Well, here's a link, for your perusal.

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/scandalfive

philologos wrote: »

Why is atheism any more right than any of the other worldviews?

Simply put, the simple answer is investigation of a number of different systems of thought brought me to this conclusion. I'm happy to go into these in more depth when I get a bit more time.

http://www.gotquestions.org/psychics-Christian.html

The Bible gives us no reason to believe that deceased loved ones can contact us. If they were believers, they are in heaven enjoying the most wonderful place imaginable in fellowship with a loving God. If they were not believers, they are in hell, suffering the un-ending torment for rejecting God’s love and rebelling against Him.

I think anything is 'more right' than that garbage (above quote), spewed by some christian. Threatening language. Nothing loving about it.

philologos

joseph brand wrote: »

I was only pointing out the similarities between both sets of 'believers'. What they get out of it. Their defence of it.
Also, I'm wondering if the only reason that you don't believe in psychics is because it isn't compatible with your faith. If it was, then you would?

This has nothing to do with this discussion, so I'm leaving it aside and carrying on with your Christianity related objections. Discuss the paranormal in that forum.

I don't believe in Christianity because of what I get out of it, I believe in Christianity simply because I'm convinced that it is the truth.

joseph brand wrote: »

Evangelicals have those soul-less megachurches right? They look like they were built for hosting massive business conference's.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Gateway_Church_114_Campus.jpg

I don't go to a megachurch, and neither do many evangelical Christians. I currently go here.

joseph brand wrote: »

Ok then 6,000 years?

Have you ever read the Bible? - It doesn't specify any age of the earth in its pages.

By the by, if you haven't read the Bible and have rejected it it's like doing a book review on something you've never read. It can't be based on substance if that is the case.

joseph brand wrote: »

Well, here's a link, for your perusal.

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/scandalfive

I have no reason to believe that this link is any more accurate than actual archaeology happening on the ground there. Did you even read my links? Or did you just ignore them to suit your own confirmation bias?

Your article makes no mention of the 2009 findings which show that Nazareth was a hamlet of about 50 houses where Jews with modest means lived. No mythology here.

joseph brand wrote: »

http://www.gotquestions.org/psychics-Christian.html

I think anything is 'more right' than that garbage (above quote), spewed by some christian. Threatening language. Nothing loving about it.

Firstly, how about you ask me what I believe before chucking out links?

Christians believe that anything which opposes the Gospel is of Satan. Anything that opposes God and His word is of Satan. The loving thing for a Christian to do is warn others so that they might come to know God before the end of time.

Also, the Bible clearly does say that Jesus is the only way to salvation. We've sinned against God and deserve His punishment. Jesus came into the world to take our sin away so that we might have a new relationship with God. If you reject Him, you will be condemned.

God's a righteous judge. The loving thing is to tell the truth, not to tell people lies simply to keep them happy. The loving thing is to ensure that people come to know Jesus so that they might spend eternity with Him rather than in condemnation.

PDN

joseph brand wrote: »

Evangelicals have those soul-less megachurches right? They look like they were built for hosting massive business conference's.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Gateway_Church_114_Campus.jpg

You really are coming across as someone who will scrape the bottom of the barrel to find any argument, no matter how specious, to pick a fight with philologos.

So now we have an atheist complaining that a building is, er, 'soul-less'? LOL!

The fact is that some churches (albeit a small minority of the overall number of churches) have thousands of people who wish to attend each Sunday. The most effective (in terms of both money and logistics) buildings to facilitate this tend to look like conference centres - although no doubt if they built something more ornate (with more soul) you would be on here cribbing about all the money they waste on fancy buildings.

If the best objection you can produce against philologos' version of Christianity is that some churches are popular then it's probably time to quit.

Zorbas

Lets face it: the vast majority of churches do not have a soul in them i.e. empty.
The reason is that there are a lot of people turning against either organised religion or religion altogether. Its a shame that so much money is spent on keeping such large edifices maintained and heated when some people cant afford to keep their homes going.

PDN

Zorbas wrote: »

Lets face it: the vast majority of churches do not have a soul in them i.e. empty.
The reason is that there are a lot of people turning against either organised religion or religion altogether. Its a shame that so much money is spent on keeping such large edifices maintained and heated when some people cant afford to keep their homes going.

So one atheist wants to criticise churches for being too popular and utilitarian, while another criticises them for being not popular or utilitarian enough. Honestly, you guys come across as a petty bunch of moaners.

Surveys have shown that people who attend church regularly actually give more money on average to non-religious charities than do non-churchgoers. If you really feel compassion for people who can't afford to keep their homes going then you would be better off digging into your pocket and helping them rather indulging in petty criticism of those who do the most to help them.

If Christians choose to pool their resources to build churches in which to worship then what business is that of yours? Do you indulge in similar criticism of fans who choose to contribute and pool resources to build GAA pitches and clubs? Or martial arts practioners who maintain a building for their activities? Or my local brass band who choose to spend their money on instruments and a nice rehearsal room?

ISAW

long range shooter wrote: »

It is 70% Atheist and i am one of them;)

and you evidence that 70% of the people of norway are atheist is?
hint: "I am one" isnt proof of the rest of the population.
and what do you personally mean by you are one. are you using the same definition?
do you believe in no god or gods or psychic abilities supernatural forces?
do you believe in laws of nature or laws of physics?

ISAW

joseph brand wrote: »

Could you expand please on this point you are making?

If you are comparing state enforced Atheism with state enforced theism, they are both as bad as each other.

According to what metric?

what measurable outcomes can you provide which show them as just as bad?

Number of people killed? -No
Number killed per year? -Nope
Buildings built? -Nope
Buildings destroyed? -Nope
Schools and universities supported?-Nope
Agricultural production? -Nope

Is there any actual cmparison you can make showing christianity as "just as bad" as atheistic regimes? Even the tiny percentage of enforced Christianity compared to the 100% enforced atheism record of atheistic countries? Can you tell me of any atheist countries that didnt have atheism enforced? And dont try the "tweedledee "secular countries" which are historically Christian and used by others here when they want to complain about the Tweedledum influence of Christianity. they cant be christian and atheist at the same time!

tommy2bad

PDN:
If Christians choose to pool their resources to build churches in which to worship then what business is that of yours? Do you indulge in similar criticism of fans who choose to contribute and pool resources to build GAA pitches and clubs? Or martial arts practioners who maintain a building for their activities? Or my local brass band who choose to spend their money on instruments and a nice rehearsal room?

Drawback with this defense is that it reduces religion to a pigeon fanciers club.
Mega churches are the worst example of christianity not because of their choice of architecture but because of their theology.
Lets face it religion in the western world has a big PR job to do and ornate cathedrals or mega church stadiums aren't the best way to do it. Small denominations have a tough job ahead of them, the RCC has a parish structure that could be used to build a real working example of faith but I fear that they have given up on the west.
Rejecting paranormal is sound thinking but not if its on the grounds of biblical injunction.
The stuff is rubbish peddled by charlatans. Giving it the credence of biblical opposition is just counter productive.

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

Drawback with this defense is that it reduces religion to a pigeon fanciers club.

Which, in the eyes of the law, is exactly where it belongs. And, since I was talking to an atheist, I wouldn't expect them to accord any more importance to religion than to fancying pigeons. Of course, if they were logical, they would spend as much time on pigeon forums arguing than they do here.

Mega churches are the worst example of christianity not because of their choice of architecture but because of their theology.

That's nonsense, because mega-churches are drawn from many different theological traditions - including RC.

Lets face it religion in the western world has a big PR job to do and ornate cathedrals or mega church stadiums aren't the best way to do it.

They aren't designed to be a PR tool. They are designed to hold the large numbers of people who wish to attend. Supply and demand etc.

Small denominations have a tough job ahead of them, the RCC has a parish structure that could be used to build a real working example of faith but I fear that they have given up on the west.

I would disagree. Most small denominations are growing. Their flexibility and adaptability make it much easier for them to respond to the challenges of doing church in western secular societies. It is the big denominations, with more monolthic policies, who are experiencing decline.

Zorbas

PDN wrote: »

Surveys have shown that people who attend church regularly actually give more money on average to non-religious charities than do non-churchgoers. If you really feel compassion for people who can't afford to keep their homes going then you would be better off digging into your pocket and helping them rather indulging in petty criticism of those who do the most to help them.

Ignoring your usual bile, I will respond to the only comment you made of substance:

The latest research on charitable giving which I know of does not support your assertion but I am open to correction. The following is the relevant extract for your information:

"It was expected that households who donate to their church would also donate to charity
In 1994/1995, church donors were also likely to donate larger amounts to charity but not in 1999/2000. This may be linked to the declining levels of church attendance over the 1990’s (Eurobarometer).
In both 1994/1995 and 1999/2000, the most likely donors were households with high income, older age, more children and higher than secondary education
From: THE DETERMINANTS OF CHARITABLE DONATIONS IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND