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

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

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.

This has nothing to do with what I have said.

It has everything to do with it!
i stated in message 2362 : christianity is around for 2000 years old 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 replied in 2363

*cough* Leopold of Belgium *cough*
*cough* Nazis *cough*
*cough* New World Colonisation *cough*
*cough* USA *cough*

you were making a direct comparison and listing the above regimes as related to Christianity!

far from being nothing to do with what you stated the listing of Leopold of Belgium, Nazis, New World Colonisation and USA were ALL suggesting them as countries people regimes or governments who did whet they did directly as result of Christianity as a comparison to others who expressedly did what they did as a result of their policy and stated interest of spreading atheism!

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.

and again you miss the point! I didnt claim

P: all regimes who killed people were atheistic

I pointed out All atheistic regimes were genocidal.
"I like what i get isnt" the same as "I get what I like" no matter how much you want to get what you like!

furthermore the above regimes witht he exception possibly of the Spanish conquest of early Carribean America (which is a point which has been detailed by you earlier I believe although it might have been someone else) none of the above are christian regimes or done for christianity by christianity or in the name of christianity.

So over 70% of the counter examples you propose are ironically not apt!

Pointing to non atheistic and also non christian regimes which were not genocidal isnt proving anything.

You need a population of christian and atheist run countries. You then take a random sample from each and see how many were genocidal. To my knowledge ALL atheistic ones were but a tiny percentage of christian ones were.

HOW COME?

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.

We are not discussing the common trend outside atheism and christianity!

We are comparing the atheistic ones with t(he christian ones. although I can suggest a continuum from 100% genosidal for atheistic to almost zero for christian. In between yo might have various amounts of slaughter depending how far you move from godlessness.

ISAW

Zorbas wrote: »

Ignoring your usual bile,

One can not make a comment that thezy are ignoring something by referring to it. Well one can but it is not logical.

ISAW

Zorbas wrote: »

"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

a Masters thesis in business 2005 looking at donations over the Celtic tiger years

I have no intention of doubting the source. If alan Matthews examined it and approved oit it has attained a level of credibility.

page 118 states the period is characterized with growth ion individualism materialism and consumerism. All of these would not be traditionally supported by the church

page 119 states "as households became wealthier they donated relatively less of their income to charity".

So your above contention can be explained by rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. the poor then cant donate at all but the rich can donate more but donate even less. the idea that rich people donate is not an argument that religious people are less charitable.

Page 120 says older people heading up a household donate more. i suggest older people are more likely to practice a religion.

Yes higher education is correlated with higher donation. but is this because they know more about needy causes or because they have more income that they can donate?

but the clincher is page 125 which says households which make voluntary contributions to their church are more likely to donate to charity. Not alone that but it says this is in agreement with earlier findings.

So PND was not wrong

http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=busmas&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ie%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dthe%2520determinants%2520of%2520charitable%2520donations%2520in%2520the%2520republic%2520of%2520ireland%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CCcQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Farrow.dit.ie%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1019%2526context%253Dbusmas%26ei%3DcY9LT5LgGcS2hAfQpcG0Dg%26usg%3DAFQjCNGJJPA7Aw8juXrRNBfNtuJ9L-frQA#search=%22determinants%20charitable%20donations%20republic%20ireland%22

PDN

Zorbas wrote: »

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

Disagreeing with you does not equate to bile. :rolleyes:

So you were referring to megachurches in the Republic of Ireland then? That's interesting. And how many such megachurches in this country do you think there are?

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

It has everything to do with it!
i stated in message 2362 : christianity is around for 2000 years old 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 replied in 2363

you were making a direct comparison and listing the above regimes as related to Christianity!

far from being nothing to do with what you stated the listing of Leopold of Belgium, Nazis, New World Colonisation and USA were ALL suggesting them as countries people regimes or governments who did whet they did directly as result of Christianity as a comparison to others who expressedly did what they did as a result of their policy and stated interest of spreading atheism!

This has nothing to do with what I said. The examples I provided were examples of great atrocities, where millions were killed, which were not in any way atheistic. They were, however, oppressive regimes with a strong disregard for human life. This is what causes atrocities.

and again you miss the point! I didnt claim

P: all regimes who killed people were atheistic

I pointed out All atheistic regimes were genocidal.
"I like what i get isnt" the same as "I get what I like" no matter how much you want to get what you like!

And hence you have no evidence that atheism causes atrocities.

<snip irrelevant stuff>

You need a population of christian and atheist run countries. You then take a random sample from each and see how many were genocidal. To my knowledge ALL atheistic ones were but a tiny percentage of christian ones were.

HOW COME?

Because the tiny handful of atheistic regimes were always intertwined with violent revolution, totalitarianism, and militant anti-clericalism. Those are what cause atrocities. Those are the causes common to Pol Pot, Leopold, Hitler, and Mao.

We are not discussing the common trend outside atheism and christianity!

So we're not talking about whether or not atheism causes atrocities? Have you retracted that statement?

We are comparing the atheistic ones with t(he christian ones. although I can suggest a continuum from 100% genosidal for atheistic to almost zero for christian. In between yo might have various amounts of slaughter depending how far you move from godlessness.

Norway is far more Godless than America, or Iran, or Saudi-Arabia, or Pakistan, or any number of other countries responsible for oppression and persecution.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

This has nothing to do with what I said. The examples I provided were examples of great atrocities, where millions were killed, which were not in any way atheistic.

No no! You made a specific issue of Leopold of Belgium before as an example of christian related atrocities
My words:
Christianity is around for 2000 years old but DIDNT do as you expect them to have done over the last 2000 years to any degree even approaching the godless atheistic regimes.

Note i am referring only to christianity and atheism not anything else!

and you brought Leopold and others up above as specific examples
of christian related atrocities because the very point you were replying to and replying immediately after and directly to the above point about christians seldom slaughtering and atheists always doing it stated

*cough* Leopold of Belgium *cough*
*cough* Nazis *cough*
*cough* New World Colonisation *cough*
*cough* USA *cough*

I specifically pointed out the Nazis and Leopold and USA were not christian and the New world is too vague and was only christian during the spanish Preponderance i.e you could attribute some of the deaths to the church or the Pope of that time.

They were, however, oppressive regimes with a strong disregard for human life. This is what causes atrocities.

Please pay attention!
Given the thread is about atheism and belief

leaving aside the non christian governments

In the 2000 years of atheism and christianoity

XXXchristian countries almost never committed atrocities and provided stable and prosperious regimes.

YYYAtheist countries always committed atrocities and did it at a scale far in excess of the Christians.

Others may have committed atrocities Im not making an issue of that.

Can you explain why XXX and YYY behaved in different ways with respect to the people in their society?

And hence you have no evidence that atheism causes atrocities.

You are not in touch with logic and reason.

Non Nazis caused atrocities as well
Can we therefore conclude that because non Nazis caused atrocities that therefore Naziism does not cause atrocities?

NO WE CANT!

The historic fact is ALL atheistic regimes caused atrocities. Few christian ones did!

Because the tiny handful of atheistic regimes were always intertwined with violent revolution, totalitarianism, and militant anti-clericalism. Those are what cause atrocities. Those are the causes common to Pol Pot, Leopold, Hitler, and Mao.

And we have been over this before.
Stalin had a moustache
Stalin was a communist
But other people with moustaches and who were communist didnt cause atrocities always!

similarly not all revolutionaries, etc. were slaughtering people. Only the atheistic bunch were ALWAYS at it.

Anti clericalism and atheism are hand in hand. although Ian Paisly is anti pope and anbti clerical but Im not aware of him proposing catholics be slaughtered even if some of his church did.

All of the excuses you use have exception but ATHEISTIC doesnt! why is that do you think?

[quoter]
So we're not talking about whether or not atheism causes atrocities? Have you retracted that statement?
[/quote]

1. No we are talking about you claiming Christian regimes which are not christian slaughtering people as opposed to atheistic ones who always slaughtered people.

2. As i stated i cant formally prove atheistic regimes will always do so in the future -just that they always did in the past.

Even totalism which IS a twentiets century phenomon according to some

Totalitarianism
By Gilbert Pleuger
new perspective Vol 9, No 1
Uniquely a twentieth-century phenomenon, students will encounter the concept of totalitarianism in many courses on the period
http://www.history-ontheweb.co.uk/concepts/totalitarianism.htm

But atheism is not unique to the twentieth century! i have given examples of the 19th and the french Terror and Middle age and ancient china.

Norway is far more Godless than America, or Iran, or Saudi-Arabia, or Pakistan, or any number of other countries responsible for oppression and persecution.

But not 70% atheist as you claimed?
And Norway has the Lutheran church legally linked to the State does it not?

Zorbas

ISAW wrote: »

I have no intention of doubting the source. If alan Matthews examined it and approved oit it has attained a level of credibility.

page 118 states the period is characterized with growth ion individualism materialism and consumerism. All of these would not be traditionally supported by the church

This does not contradict the finding that "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). "
Traditional support for anything is a doubtful argument especially in the new model Catholic Church.

[/Quote] page 119 states "as households became wealthier they donated relatively less of their income to charity".

So your above contention can be explained by rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. the poor then cant donate at all but the rich can donate more but donate even less. the idea that rich people donate is not an argument that religious people are less charitable. [/Quote]

The finding was that religious do not donate more which was contrary to PDNs statement.

[/Quote] Page 120 says older people heading up a household donate more. i suggest older people are more likely to practice a religion.[/Quote]

Where is the evidence that older people are more likely to practice a religion and even if they were the finding was that religious do not donate more.

[/Quote]
but the clincher is page 125 which says households which make voluntary contributions to their church are more likely to donate to charity. Not alone that but it says this is in agreement with earlier findings.[/Quote]

"more likely" does not alter the findings that church goers do not donate more than others.

[/Quote] So PND was not wrong [/Quote]

Nothing you have said helps your frinds postion which is wrong.

Zorbas

PDN wrote: »

Honestly, you guys come across as a petty bunch of moaners.

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?

The above are examples of how you can not engage normally in debate without trying to undermine.
Dismissing people who put forward contrary views to your own do not need to be told they are a petty bunch of moaners. No need to resource to name calling - its for the school yard.
You have no idea if I do or do not give generously to or help the homeless.
I never claimed that people should not build churches. I do object to people wasting money on keeping large under-used building going.

The only reason why I bother to comment on the silly comments above are because of your suggestion that they were perfectly normal in debate - not in my book.

joseph brand

PDN wrote: »

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!

How then, would you compare any of the architectural Gothic Cathedrals to one of these Megachurches, which do look like inflated boardrooms or conference halls? Some look like they could host the WWF! They cost a lot of $$$ to build and they bring in a lot of $$$$. All about the money.

PDN wrote: »

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.

I would have to agree with you. I'm not happy with either, to be honest. Less bible study, more open-minded education. What's so horrible about that?

PDN wrote: »

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.

All the more reason to NOT quit. Perhaps you believe that popular means good/ right? I could go down the Godwin path, but I won't. So I'll use X factor, or those mind numbing soaps on TV daily. THEY are popular. People should be encouraged to avoid this type of TV, but then, even though you could be acting in their best interests, you would be seen as a fiend.

Or to put it another way, Islam is popular in Saudi Arabia. Or, psychic Sally Morgan draws big crowds. (she should be in jail)

Zorbas

PDN wrote: »

Disagreeing with you does not equate to bile. :rolleyes:

So you were referring to megachurches in the Republic of Ireland then? That's interesting. And how many such megachurches in this country do you think there are?

You are confused - I never mentioned megachurches. I did note that your statement that religious were more charitable was incorrect.
Perhaps you wished to address that issue. No problem.

PDN

Zorbas wrote: »

Nothing you have said helps your frinds postion which is wrong.

While ISAW and I are not friends, googling to cherrypick data to suit your viewpoints is a dangerous game, particularly if you are unwilling or unable to read your sources properly.

The report states that, in both 1994/1995 and in 1999/2000 those who gave donations to churches were also more likely to give to non-religious charitiable causes.

It also states that, of those who gave donations, the size of donations given by church donors were larger in the earlier survey but not in the later survey.

The conclusion to be drawn from that is clear:

1. Church donors are more likely to give to non-religious charities than are non-church donors.
2. Both church donors and non-church donors give pretty much the same size of donations.
3. Therefore the average church donor gives more to non-religious charities each year than does the non-church donor.

So I was not wrong - you were simply misinterpreting the data in your eagerness to try to prove me wrong.

I would also point your attention to a survey in the US in 2000. The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (sccbs) was undertaken in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research.

(Their definition of 'religious' is those who attend a place of worship weekly, or 33% of the US population. Their definition of 'secular' is those who attend worship rarely or never).

It demonstrated that: "Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions."

"religious people are 33 percent of the population but make 52 percent of donations and 45 percent of times volunteered. Secular people are 26 percent of the population but contribute 13 percent of the dollars and 17 percent of the times volunteered."

"Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to nonreligious causes each year, religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer (60 percent to 39 percent). For example, religious people are 7 points more likely than secularists to volunteer for neighborhood and civic groups, 20 points more likely to volunteer to help the poor or elderly, and 26 points more likely to volunteer for school or youth programs. It seems fair to say that religion engenders charity in general — including nonreligious charity."

More details here: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577

joseph brand

philologos wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

Firstly, I haven't read the bible. Neither have I read any of Katie Price's autobiographies. I don't think my brain would allow me, nor my eyebrows, which would be raised for some time.

Secondly, your argument is almost always going to come from inside the bible. It's not a good source, see here:

http://blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/break-the-cycle.jpg

Never question the bible. In fact, why question anything? Just stagnate.

Well, some of us want to move forward, progress. Losing the shackles of religion is liberating.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

No no! You made a specific issue of Leopold of Belgium before as an example of christian related atrocities
My words:
Christianity is around for 2000 years old but DIDNT do as you expect them to have done over the last 2000 years to any degree even approaching the godless atheistic regimes.

Note i am referring only to christianity and atheism not anything else!

and you brought Leopold and others up above as specific examples
of christian related atrocities because the very point you were replying to and replying immediately after and directly to the above point about christians seldom slaughtering and atheists always doing it stated

*cough* Leopold of Belgium *cough*
*cough* Nazis *cough*
*cough* New World Colonisation *cough*
*cough* USA *cough*

I specifically pointed out the Nazis and Leopold and USA were not christian and the New world is too vague and was only christian during the spanish Preponderance i.e you could attribute some of the deaths to the church or the Pope of that time.

This has nothing to do with what I said. I have corrected you on this before. Christians have killed millions. If I were you, I would say something ridiculous and paper thin like "They killed people because they were Christian". Instead, I say the common trend across all atrocities is a complete and total disregard for human life, coupled with extremist government policies and socio-economic experimentation/ethnic cleansing. Please pay attention, given this thread is about atheism and belief.

Please pay attention!
Given the thread is about atheism and belief

leaving aside the non christian governments

In the 2000 years of atheism and christianoity

XXXchristian countries almost never committed atrocities and provided stable and prosperious regimes.

YYYAtheist countries always committed atrocities and did it at a scale far in excess of the Christians.

Do you think, if you ignore your earlier claim, I won't notice? You said atheism causes atrocities. Now you are saying non-Christianity causes atrocities?

Others may have committed atrocities Im not making an issue of that.

Yes you are, unless you have retracted your statement about atheism.

Can you explain why XXX and YYY behaved in different ways with respect to the people in their society?

You are not in touch with logic and reason.

Non Nazis caused atrocities as well
Can we therefore conclude that because non Nazis caused atrocities that therefore Naziism does not cause atrocities?

NO WE CANT!

This has nothing to do with what I said. What you think I said: "Theists caused atrocities, therefore atheism does not cause atrocities." What I actually said: The common trend across all atrocities is a total suppression of human rights coupled with willingness to eradicate a culture, class, race, or religion for socio-economic gains. This characteristic manifests in many ways. In Nazi Germany, it was the dolchstoss mentality in the wake of a destructive world war. In Pol Pot's Cambodia, it was the overthrow of the left-wing Pracheachon party, coupled with the fanatical enforcement of agrarian socialism and anti-clericalism. In Belgium, is was personal megalomania and ruthlessness. I also say it is not true that atheists committed the worst atrocities.

And we have been over this before.
Stalin had a moustache
Stalin was a communist
But other people with moustaches and who were communist didnt cause atrocities always!

similarly not all revolutionaries, etc. were slaughtering people. Only the atheistic bunch were ALWAYS at it.

This has nothing to do with what I said. Oppression, ruthlessness, socio-economic experimentation, and hatred for the Other are what tie all atrocities together. They are the ones who were always slaughtering people, not moustaches, communists, or atheists.

Anti clericalism and atheism are hand in hand. although Ian Paisly is anti pope and anbti clerical but Im not aware of him proposing catholics be slaughtered even if some of his church did.

They do not go hand in hand. Secular pluralist atheists have no issue with churches, provided they do not try to run the country.

All of the excuses you use have exception but ATHEISTIC doesnt! why is that do you think?

No they don't. What are the exceptions? What violent ruthless totalitarian megalomaniacs didn't kill people?

1. No we are talking about you claiming Christian regimes which are not christian slaughtering people as opposed to atheistic ones who always slaughtered people.

2. As i stated i cant formally prove atheistic regimes will always do so in the future -just that they always did in the past.

Yet any time I show you the absurdity of your inference, you claim "we are not talking about that"

Even totalism which IS a twentiets century phenomon according to some

But atheism is not unique to the twentieth century! i have given examples of the 19th and the french Terror and Middle age and ancient china.

This is strange. You declare Norway as not having an atheist majority because atheists cannot believe in spirits or impersonal life-forces, yet Mongolian Tengrism is atheistic?

But not 70% atheist as you claimed?
And Norway has the Lutheran church legally linked to the State does it not?

You're doing it again. You're hopping from subject to subject in order to avoid any sort of progression. I will happily defend the claim that Norway is largely an atheist country, with an atheist leader. But I don't have to even do that in order to refute your claim of a spectrum of immorality and godlessness. You said "I can suggest a continuum from 100% genosidal for atheistic to almost zero for christian. In between yo might have various amounts of slaughter depending how far you move from godlessness.". That is a naff claim, easily dismissed by comparing Norway to any variety of theist states.

PDN

joseph brand wrote: »

How then, would you compare any of the architectural Gothic Cathedrals to one of these Megachurches, which do look like inflated boardrooms or conference halls? Some look like they could host the WWF! They cost a lot of $$$ to build and they bring in a lot of $$$$. All about the money.

How would I compare them? They are both buildings built to house people so they can worship God. Ascetics vary, but in the end the building is just bricks and mortar.

I know a number of mega-church pastors and money tends to rate pretty low in their list of priorities. Most of them do what they do because they genuinely want to share the Gospel with as many people as possible. I fail to see that they deserve criticism simply for being successful at what they do.

I would have to agree with you. I'm not happy with either, to be honest. Less bible study, more open-minded education. What's so horrible about that?

It's not horrible at all. If you get bugged by the spread of Christianity then that is your own loss. But soapboxing your prejudices here is not what this Forum is for. I advise you to read the Charter.

All the more reason to NOT quit. Perhaps you believe that popular means good/ right?

No, wrong. That would be a dumb assumption for you to make about me. What I stated was that the popularity of a brand of Christianity is not a valid objection to it.

philologos

joseph brand wrote: »

Firstly, I haven't read the bible. Neither have I read any of Katie Price's autobiographies. I don't think my brain would allow me, nor my eyebrows, which would be raised for some time.

Then your position on Christianity is baseless. Your criticisms of Christianity will be forever inaccurate, because essentially you don't know what it is.

It's like doing a book review without having read the book. It's essentially refusing to even consider viewpoints which differ to your own.

This claim is baseless, and it is clear that you've not fully thought about Christianity.

joseph brand wrote: »

Secondly, your argument is almost always going to come from inside the bible. It's not a good source, see here:

http://blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/break-the-cycle.jpg

Never question the bible. In fact, why question anything? Just stagnate.

Actually, before I became a Christian, I was an agnostic. I came to believe in Jesus through discovering Him piece by piece. God essentially showed me who He was through His word.

As I was reading the Bible, I was constantly questioning its pages as I was trying to piece what this Christianity thing was about together. Needless to say I'm glad to God rescued me, and that He convicted me of the truth.

You can't know what the Bible is as a source at all. You've rejected it without having read it. Every claim that you make claiming that the Bible is a bad source can be safely put aside until you open your mind to consider it.

joseph brand wrote: »

Well, some of us want to move forward, progress. Losing the shackles of religion is liberating.

Funnily enough, I found the same to be true of when I started to follow Jesus.

Your claim about atheism being progress is meaningless when you've never even bothered to consider the alternatives. You claim that atheism is an intellectual approach to life, but you're not showing me it. Rather from your demonstration atheism is a display of cold, closed-mindedness. That's not something I want to partake in.

tommy2bad

Originally Posted by joseph brand
Less bible study, more open-minded education.

Hello neighbor

Are they mutually exclusive?
If the bible is not studied how are we to fully appreciate the whole of western art, law, literature, architecture and history
No other book has influenced so much.

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

Your claim about atheism being progress is meaningless when you've never even bothered to consider the alternatives. You claim that atheism is an intellectual approach to life, but you're not showing me it. Rather from your demonstration atheism is a display of cold, closed-mindedness. That's not something I want to partake in.

If you wish to consider the alternatives, one must put aside nearly a life time of reading. I assume you've read the Koran, the Vidas, the book of mormon, attended a Scientology seminar... the list of alternatives is as long as my arm.

philologos

RichieC: I've looked into quite a number of different systems of thought, and I'm quite happy to do it on any occasion should the opportunity arise. In fact generally when I see missionaries out on the street when I'm passing, I generally ask them why they are there, and what they believe, and chat it out with them. I get a lot of opportunities to do that here, and I'm thankful for it. They share a little about what they believe, I share a little about what I believe. I believe such interactions make society richer.

I've looked into Islam, Mormonism, and Hinduism to a certain degree. However, unlike joseph brand, I don't publically criticise Mormonism or Islam on fora. joseph brand criticises Christianity while being ignorant of it.

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

I've looked into Islam, Mormonism, and Hinduism to a certain degree. However, unlike joseph brand, I don't publically criticise Mormonism or Islam on fora. joseph brand criticises Christianity while being ignorant of it.

There /is/ much to criticise, though. I don't think Joe is ignorant of Christianity, he was raised, like me, by Christian parents as a Catholic.

philologos

RichieC wrote: »

There /is/ much to criticise, though. I don't think Joe is ignorant of Christianity, he was raised, like me, by Christian parents as a Catholic.

Every criticism of Christianity falls flat on examination. Again, I doubt how robust any criticism of Christianity could be insofar as the critics choose to be ignorant of the Bible.

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

Every criticism of Christianity falls flat on examination. Again, I doubt how robust any criticism of Christianity could be insofar as the critics choose to be ignorant of the Bible.

From your biased position, every criticism of Christianity will indeed fall flat. on that we agree.

joseph brand

philologos wrote: »

Then your position on Christianity is baseless. Your criticisms of Christianity will be forever inaccurate, because essentially you don't know what it is.
It's like doing a book review without having read the book. It's essentially refusing to even consider viewpoints which differ to your own.
This claim is baseless, and it is clear that you've not fully thought about Christianity.

You are right because you are christian.
You don't need to read: A) The Koran, because it's wrong. or

The Torah, it's also wrong.
I went one further and read neither.

philologos wrote: »

Actually, before I became a Christian, I was an agnostic. I came to believe in Jesus through discovering Him piece by piece. God essentially showed me who He was through His word.

As I was reading the Bible, I was constantly questioning its pages as I was trying to piece what this Christianity thing was about together. Needless to say I'm glad to God rescued me, and that He convicted me of the truth.

You can't know what the Bible is as a source at all. You've rejected it without having read it. Every claim that you make claiming that the Bible is a bad source can be safely put aside until you open your mind to consider it.

The parts in bold are a little vague. Wishy washy. I have to assume that you feel you really NEED god to exist. I suppose I'm lucky that I don't. There are many like yourself who go 'looking' for god. Others are forced to 'believe'. At least you weren't forced.

philologos wrote: »

Funnily enough, I found the same to be true of when I started to follow Jesus.

Your claim about atheism being progress is meaningless when you've never even bothered to consider the alternatives. You claim that atheism is an intellectual approach to life, but you're not showing me it. Rather from your demonstration atheism is a display of cold, closed-mindedness. That's not something I want to partake in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion#Suppression_of_scientific_progress

John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, authors of the conflict thesis, have argued that when a religion offers a complete set of answers to the problems of purpose, morality, origins, or science, it often discourages exploration of those areas by suppressing curiosity, denies its followers a broader perspective, and can prevent social, moral and scientific progress. Examples of scientific suppression by the Roman Catholic Church include the trial of Galileo for arguing that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and the execution of scientist and philosopher Giordano Bruno.

If there is anything about Atheism which you find regressive, please tell me.

Furthermore, just listening to the vitriol spewed from the mouths of christians, directed at homosexuals, is enough to sicken any pragmatic person. It is utterly childish and they should be embarrassed. It is 'hateful speech' and 'threats of hell' which will help turn many more away. (Aside from the other 'troubles' the church is dealing trying not to deal with.

RichieC

Suppressing curiosity:

Ecclesiastes 1:18 :For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

joseph brand

tommy2bad wrote: »

Hello neighbour

Off my lawn Flanders.

(fixed that US spelling for ya)

tommy2bad wrote: »

Are they mutually exclusive?

They shouldn't be. But with the language coming from some christians you'd think they were. Also, religion does better in poorer areas amongst the ignorant. Go figure eh?

tommy2bad wrote: »

If the bible is not studied how are we to fully appreciate the whole of western art, law, literature, architecture and history
No other book has influenced so much.

Aren't there History books for that? Or did you mean something else?

La Petite Fleur

tommy2bad wrote: »

Most successful people have been found to have psychopathic tendencies.

Define 'successful people' ? Successful at exactly what ? What is a 'sucessful' person ?

philologos

joseph brand wrote: »

You are right because you are christian.
You don't need to read: A) The Koran, because it's wrong. or
The Torah, it's also wrong.
I went one further and read neither.

I've read the Torah, and the Qur'an to a large extent. I've also read quite a few of the new-atheist critiques.

joseph brand wrote: »

The parts in bold are a little vague. Wishy washy. I have to assume that you feel you really NEED god to exist. I suppose I'm lucky that I don't. There are many like yourself who go 'looking' for god. Others are forced to 'believe'. At least you weren't forced.

You or I wouldn't exist without God. Existence is absurd in the absence of God ultimately. The very fact of existence right down to what purpose you and I

Ultimately, you can live and pretend that God doesn't exist, but everything around us screams out His existence as far as I can tell.

The point as far as Christianity is concerned is that you or I wouldn't exist without God.

joseph brand wrote: »

If there is anything about Atheism which you find regressive, please tell me.

Plenty of things. First and foremost, it's denying people the opportunity to know their Creator, and know why they are here, and what is the point of their lives.

joseph brand wrote: »

Furthermore, just listening to the vitriol spewed from the mouths of christians, directed at homosexuals, is enough to sicken any pragmatic person. It is utterly childish and they should be embarrassed. It is 'hateful speech' and 'threats of hell' which will help turn many more away. (Aside from the other 'troubles' the church is dealing trying not to deal with.

"The Church". Which church? -

If it is vitriolic to say that there is a God who created us, and cares for us firstly in so far as He gave us standards for how we should live and prosper in Creation. Secondly in so far as even when we rejected His standard, He brought His Son Jesus into the world to bring us back to Him, and save us from the punishment we deserve for rejecting Him.

The world is God's creation, and He is perfectly entitled to punish for our clear rejection of Him. Yet, He has forgiven us if we are willing to accept it and come into relationship with Him.

That's fantastic news as far as I can tell.

tommy2bad

joseph brand wrote: »

Off my lawn Flanders. (fixed that US spelling for ya)

Thank You, spell checking software is American

They shouldn't be. But with the language coming from some christians you'd think they were. Also, religion does better in poorer areas amongst the ignorant. Go figure eh?

Like America?

Aren't there History books for that? Or did you mean something else?

Of course I meant something else.
Context and the ability to understand where the people that created these things were coming from. The bible is the most important collection of books because of it's influence on the development of western thought. OK some Greek stuff was added to that. The Koran wouldn't exist without the bible nor the book of Mormon, The magna carter, the declaration of independences.
You cant appreciate Dante, Shakespeare, or Dickens. Understand the significance of the Sistine Chapel, the art of everyone from Michaelangelo to Dali.
Not actual reading the bible is a big omission in anyones life. Hell its the context for Narnia and LOTR.

You don't have to believe in God to understand the importance of the bible. Your dismissing it as religious propaganda just show how ill informed you are.
And a Ballingary man should know better

tommy2bad

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

Define 'successful people' ? Successful at exactly what ? What is a 'sucessful' person ?

Study I came across that showed a correlation of psychopathic traits in the personalities of CEO's and top achieving athletics and successful politicians.
In the case of politicians it probably means 'won elections'
As to what constitutes success? For the purposes of the study.. top of profession, winner? beyond that ? Your guess is as good as mine.

ISAW

Zorbas wrote: »

This does not contradict the finding that "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). "
Traditional support for anything is a doubtful argument especially in the new model Catholic Church.

I dont think you are getting the point.

If between 1995 and 2000 people went to church and then didnt go as often and if charities were outside the church gate then the people who might have donated werent there. It isnt necessarily a question of them not giving as much because they dont want to it might be a case of them not having the box rattled in their face outside church. the point is that the lower donations might actually be linked to them not practicing their faith as much as they used to. you are trying to make out that they just give less rather then less people being there to give.

[/Quote] page 119 states "as households became wealthier they donated relatively less of their income to charity".

So your above contention can be explained by rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. the poor then cant donate at all but the rich can donate more but donate even less. the idea that rich people donate is not an argument that religious people are less charitable.

The finding was that religious do not donate more which was contrary to PDNs statement.

the finding was : "as households became wealthier they donated relatively less of their income to charity". Not "as people became more religious" they donated less.
In fact above they found that as people became less religious they donated less .

Page 120 says older people heading up a household donate more. i suggest older people are more likely to practice a religion.

Where is the evidence that older people are more likely to practice a religion and even if they were the finding was that religious do not donate more.

where is you evidence on falling church attendence and Im sure if you look at it demographically you will find that the people who are still attending are older in profile.

but the clincher is page 125 which says households which make voluntary contributions to their church are more likely to donate to charity. Not alone that but it says this is in agreement with earlier findings.

"more likely" does not alter the findings that church goers do not donate more than others.

okay I know this is only comparing 1995 with 2000 but

Page 128 says families that made voluntary contributions to their church danate six per cent more then those who do not donate to church. the six per cent difference is not there in 2000. The reason that church donations overall are lower is clear as far as i can see. Less people are going to church. those that go contribute MORE than those that dont!

The thesis is imited in analysis . It certainly does not prove religious adherents donate less to charity or being religious causes less contributions. In fact just one church charity Vincent De Paul spends as much on poverty as the entire Irish State budget for the Third World.

They do not donate as much as they used to because some richer people donate less and because they dont go to church as much as they used to.

So PND was not wrong

Nothing you have said helps your frinds postion which is wrong.

how is he wrong? All your limited thesis says is that religious households contributed more then non religious ones in 1995 and then in 2000 when they practiced religion less still didnt contribute less than non religious households but did not contribute as much as in 1995.

Who said he is my friend?
i barely know the guy.
I do respêct his opinion and trust him however.

Edit: see double hurdle Probit and tobit statistical models in appendix A pages 140-145

Look at the variable HOLY -this is the one used to indicate the "holy" households

in all cases for 1995 and 2000 this variable shows (denoted by ***) a statistical significance at the 1% level. for sociological purposes even the 5% level is significant . what thisis saying is that the chances of this happening by accident are more than a hundred to one. chances oif WHAT? -chances of a "holy" household donating MORE than average just by accident!

PDN is shown not to be wrong by this thesis which though limited says the opposite of what you claim it does!

ISAW

RichieC wrote: »

If you wish to consider the alternatives, one must put aside nearly a life time of reading. I assume you've read the Koran, the Vidas, the book of mormon, attended a Scientology seminar... the list of alternatives is as long as my arm.

Yes on the Koran yes on the vidas Not all of the Book of Mormon. quite a lot on Scientology. Indeed quite a lot more on all sorts of other cults. Just around christmas i stsrted looking into Jehovas Witnessess (see the thread on that) I guess Im a quick reader and put together an analysis quite rapidly. I have read other stuff that grabbed my interest including gnostic writings and philosophers like Eric Fromm. But Ill bet you havent read the Post nicean Fathers or the ante nicean fathers. Ill bet you havent a clue about theology Christology the historicity of jesus , the history of the church or a myriad other related topics you ignorantly expound upon.

you come across as the typical (excusing the reasonable A&A people here) atheistic "all religion is nonsensical claptrap" philosophy 101 student who thinks they know it all but really knows very little about the subject. I could go on but wont save to say "a little learning is a dangerous thing" . guess where that came from?

Feel free to stay and learn something.

If you have a present for someone, and that person does not take it, to whom does the gift belong?