RichieC wrote: » From your biased position, every criticism of Christianity will indeed fall flat. on that we agree.
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.
joseph brand wrote: » Yhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion#Suppression_of_scientific_progress What nonsense. Developments in Science and Christianity are practically married since Thomas Aquinas. If there is anything about Atheism which you find regressive, please tell me. how about moral relativism and the fact that all atheistic societies in history were murder regimes that produced nothing but piles of skulls and economic decline as opposed to christian countries that developed science economics and civilization? 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. that is about as anti christian as the so called christian hate mongers who spêw such vitriol! i,m not surprised your philosophy 101 arguments have developed into "christians are anti science" or "christians hate homosexuals" Whatever next? Claims God in the Bible commands his people to rape? Claims the Bible demands the Earth is several thousand years old?* We have had all the smart ass student philosophy 101 stuff already. Try learning something and producing an actual plausible argument that hasent been demolished years ago eh?
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.
ISAW wrote: » i dont think you are getting it! He is saying from his experience of numerous points raised they all fall flat on their face when subjected to reason. His argument is based on logic reason and experience and not on blind faith. It is YOU who are saying you are ignorant of the actual field and who are arguing from ignorance.
RichieC wrote: » My argument starts and ends at the question of a supreme creator of everything. the topic of this thread, BTW. I do not need to read every religious text in the world to come to the conclusion that it is not all that likely. I do not accept a religious persons claims that they are arguing from logic. they are not. you are not. you are defending an ideology.
RichieC wrote: » Blind faith by very definition cannot be based on logic or reason. It's called a faith for a reason. Believing in it so so deep seated in the psyche that your brain will reject any argument against it.
PDN wrote: » Please let's not start the 'blind faith' nonsense again. Another poster, many pages back in this thread, made similar misrepresentations. Do we have to keep going round in circles? Christian faith is not blind faith. Christian faith means to trust and follow Christ based on our assessment of the evidence available to us, but lacking definitive 100% proof. It is the same kind of reasoning on which people make other major decisions such as who to marry etc.
One can walk away from a entering a marriage but to walk away from a call from God is not possible without dire consequences ( for a believer) or so I would have thought .
philologos; We've not been left without any scrape of a reason for believing in Jesus irrespective as to how much people would like to think so.
philologos wrote: » Anyone who has rejected God faces the consequences of rejecting Him. Everyone who rejects Him faces this. There will be a judgement for all humanity. Christians have already accepted Jesus as their Lord and as a result have been saved by His grace. PDN is saying essentially that through the world around us, and through looking at the Bible, we can see God's faithfulness around us, we can see how the world shows signs of God's work, in how we operate as human beings, and also in the mere idea of existence itself. We can also look very clearly to the history of Jesus, the early Christian church, archaeology amongst a lot of other things to see how Christianity conforms to reality. We've not been left without any scrape of a reason for believing in Jesus irrespective as to how much people would like to think so.
RichieC wrote: » I see no evidence of a creator looking around this planet. none at all. I see barley controlled Chaos. Selfish exploitation, starving humans and the threat of an all out war. I see some of the most guilty countries of the above also being some of the most religious. We have explained how we as a race and all other animals came about without requiring a creator. It's simply not needed as an explanation any more. Once we saw lighting, volcanoes, earthquakes and storms as gods wrath, now we know what they are. We have a fairly robust explanation for how the universe began, though, unlike religion, it's open to revision and correction. You see god everywhere, it's understandable as you have obviously invested a lot of time to your faith. It is not however some self evident fact that I just do not get. No amount of reading the bible will make me see the world differently. People who want, or need to find god will find god. I will not suffer for rejecting one of the religions that happens to be around while I'm on this earth. If I was to fear that wrath I would have to pray to every god currently praised and every god ever to be invented in human history. I like to enjoy myself so I do not dedicate time to pleasing other peoples imaginations. It's simply not an option.
philologos wrote: » I don't know if a leap is involved so much.
PDN wrote: » That's fine, so you reach a position (atheism) by faith. We all assess evidence differently.
RichieC wrote: » We are not born believing in god only to reject it later on. It is an idea, or meme which we are forced by coercion and propaganda into having to take seriously.
PDN wrote: » So I abandoned atheism (enforced on me as a child) and chose to become a Christian. And you, with some wonderful wishful thinking, ascribe that to coercion and propaganda? :rolleyes:
RichieC wrote: » Well the atheism was enforced on you. so evidently, yes.
RichieC wrote: » People who want, or need to find god will find god.
La Petite Fleur wrote: » I don't agree. I hear this myth and blanket assumption regarding 'need' from atheists a lot. To be totally honest, I didn't need belief in God in any shape or form, my life would have been so much simpler and less restrictive if I could have become a full blown Atheist, but once having examined all the arguments, I personally, for me, could not find, and have still yet to see presented, any convincing rational logical reason, never mind evidence to come to the conclusion that God cannot exist. (Quite the contrary for me in fact). Just in the exact same way you have come the the counter conclusion and counter belief for yourself. I'm sure you did'nt need to disbelieve in the possibity of God, or be an Atheist. You've arrived at that conclusion for yourself.
marienbad wrote: » That fact that atheism cannot prove God does not exist is irrelevant
La Petite Fleur wrote: » It is very relevant. Never mind proof, if Atheism could just offer me a single convincing argument to support it's beliefs (dis beliefs, or whatever term you prefer), never mind a shred of evidence, that an infinite spirit cannot exist, I would quite happily take a step, leap of faith etc. to become an Atheist instead. I am one very small biological being, and, never mind the metaphysical, there is at least one extremely large universe (where the law of physics has proved, energy cannot be created or destroyed) and perhaps multiverse / multi demension out there as well. Each of us have to be true to our own conscience when considering the laws of probability.
RichieC wrote: » It is you making the grand claim. As I said to Phil, the burden of proof is on you. Frankly, though, I really do not care if you're religious or not. I have nothing to prove, literally.
What I see a lot is Christians using the old argument of us Atheists being ignorant of Christianity. Very well, I don't claim to be a theology student.
My argument starts and ends at the question of a supreme creator of everything. the topic of this thread, BTW. I do not need to read every religious text in the world to come to the conclusion that it is not all that likely.
I do not accept a religious persons claims that they are arguing from logic. they are not. you are not. you are defending an ideology.
PDN wrote: » 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. "
ISAW wrote: » So what? you dont have to. while it is necessary for debate logic qnd reason is not sufficient for society. We need other things such as values or morals or judgement. The societies based on you "there is no god " philosophy all perished after causing genocide and economic collapse and contributing nothing to civilization. christianity thrived and grew and built things and is still around.
Zorbas wrote: » Let me try once more to cut and paste the relevant sections from the report which is highly regarded and refers to this country rather than the US which is not relevant to this thread:
Report Quote: "It was expected that households who donate to their church would also donate to charity. In both years households that give to their church are more likely to 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)". Page 13, Conclusion Report Quote from Page 14: "In 1994/1995 and 1999/2000, the donors who gave the most included those with higher income, age, education and social status. In 1994/1995, households that gave to their church also gave more to charity. This effect is not present in 1999/2000".Surely the report is clear that religious are not more likely to be charitable.
