Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

18081838586196

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,477 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    ISAW wrote: »
    suit yourself. It wont change the fact that you were wrong when you said the existence of race is undisputed.
    The existence of race is not something which is certain and is something which is scientifically doubted though as a social construct it survives.

    My point still stands it is not necessary for race to exist for racism to exist.
    Similarly iot is not necessary for you to believe tin Christ to be anti christian.
    Indeed more to the point, while you do not believe Christ ever existed you do believe the Pope and Catholic Church exist. You are also quite capable of being anti Catholic and at the same time believing Catholicism exists and Catholics exist whether or not you believe in Christ.

    and that is the issue I am persung; Posters who attack the historicity f Jesus and not attack other people from history wholly on the basis of Jesus being the founder of Christianity.

    I agree, being anti-Christian would be to oppose the Christian religion. It doesn't require a belief in Christ. Being anti-Christ however, does. I cannot oppose something that I do not believe exists. However, there is a difference between opposing the Christian religion (anti-catholic) and simply not following it (non-Christian)

    Are you an anti-Muslim?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Penn wrote: »
    I agree, being anti-Christian would be to oppose the Christian religion.

    Including those who believe in it on that basis. i.e. the basis for opposing them is because they believe in Christ. As mentioned by posters in this thread.
    QED
    It doesn't require a belief in Christ. Being anti-Christ however, does. I cannot oppose something that I do not believe exists. However, there is a difference between opposing the Christian religion (anti-catholic) and simply not following it (non-Christian)
    You can be anti Christian and not believe in Christ just as Nazis could be anti Jew and not believe in God or in Judaism.
    Are you an anti-Muslim?

    Unlike atheists i dont define my beliefs by what i dont believe.
    Ironically using logic you might be able to extract a definitive statement from that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,477 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    ISAW wrote: »
    Including those who believe in it on that basis. i.e. the basis for opposing them is because they believe in Christ. As mentioned by posters in this thread.
    QED

    Again, people can believe the religion exists without actually believing anything in the religion. I don't believe Christ existed (as depicted in the Bible), but I believe there is a religion based on him.

    ISAW wrote: »
    You can be anti Christian and not believe in Christ just as Nazis could be anti Jew and not believe in God or in Judaism.

    Agreed.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Unlike atheists i dont define my beliefs by what i dont believe.
    Ironically using logic you might be able to extract a definitive statement from that.

    And again, all I was trying to point out was that just because someone is a non-christian, doesn't mean they are anti-christian. Wouldn't you agree?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Penn wrote: »
    Again, people can believe the religion exists without actually believing anything in the religion. I don't believe Christ existed (as depicted in the Bible), but I believe there is a religion based on him.

    Yes and you can therefore oppose those people and be anti christian even if you don't believe in Christ.
    You can be anti Catholic and non Christian.

    the Bible depiction also contains historical references.
    so do you just disbelieve the "Jesus was God" bits and accept all the rest or what other bits do you not believe?
    And again, all I was trying to point out was that just because someone is a non-christian, doesn't mean they are anti-christian. Wouldn't you agree?

    Indeed. I never claimed all non Christians are anti christian. But i did claim that if someone is opposing a particular argument because the argument is made by people who are Christian and he also believes the numbers percentages and influence of Christians or say Catholics make them worth attacking as opposed to non Catholics then that person is anti Catholic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,477 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    ISAW wrote: »
    the Bible depiction also contains historical references.
    so do you just disbelieve the "Jesus was God" bits and accept all the rest or what other bits do you not believe?

    I believe there was probably a man named Jesus who was probably a preacher who travelled with some followers and may have made some claims about being the Son of God, but I don't believe that he performed any act which would be considered to be a 'miracle'. I don't believe he healed the sick, I believe he may have helped some sick people. I believe he was charitable, but I don't believe he 'miracled' loaves and fish out of thin air. I believe he died, but I don't believe he came back from the dead.

    Basically, I believe he did everything that you yourself would be capable of. If it seems impossible for a human to do, then I don't believe he could do it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    ISAW wrote: »
    I dont make accusations based on what others have said.
    I make them based on what posters have said.
    Just toddle over to the clerical abuse thread to view some of their posts. i.e others
    I dont intend to rehearse their vitriol here.
    What are you even trying to say here? You don't make accusations based on what others have said, but you can make accusations against me and the poster originally quoted based on comments in the Clerical Abuse thread, a thread in which neither of us have ever even posted?

    Seriously, what?
    Save the obvious one about denying historicity of Jesus and doing so on the basis that Christians believe in him as Christ.
    I certainly believe that Jesus existed. I believe he existed while rejecting the notion that he was the son of God or turned water into wine and walked on water. I believe Alexander existed, but I do not believe he was a deity. I believe Muhammed existed but I do not believe he was a divinely inspired prophet. I do not reject these claims because [I am anti-Christian or anti-Islam or anti-whatever-the-hell they called followers of Alexander, I reject them because I do not believe in any deities

    So how exactly do you figure that I'm singling out Christianity in this instance? What is so anti-Christian about someone who doesn't believe in any Gods rejecting the notion that a historical figure was the son of God.
    What "reasonable inference" did you make ?
    did you not denying historicity of Jesus on the basis that Christians believe in him as Christ?
    Well I don't deny the historicity of Jesus so it seems you're begging the question here. I reject claims of Jesus's divine nature because I'm not a believer in divinity.
    where did you say that?
    What you basically stated was essentially the same as sonic.
    Possibly. You misrepresented what they were saying to begin with so I'm giving you zero
    marks
    for this.
    that your interest in the issue was because people believe in Jesus as christ.
    Zero marks
    Otherwise you would not be interested in denying him. so your moitivation is based on other pêoples believ in him being christ.
    Zero marks
    You are against them.
    Zero marks
    You are against tham and believe they oppose the truth of how the universe is.
    Zero marks. Christians who oppose the truth of how the universe is are in the minority and tend to live in America these days, fortunately.
    Youare against them on the basis that they believe in christ
    Zero marks
    and you believe that the christian view is noit the true view of how the universe works. That is quite clear.
    1 mark! (Although people are entitled to have their own view on how the universe works provided it doesn't negatively impact on everyone else).

    1/7; very poor. Must try to respond to posters quoted rather than what someone else from 20 pages ago or the Clerical Abuse thread were saying.
    Which is only restating and strengthening the point of you being anti christian based on the fact that people believe in Christ and you not sharing in that but instead opposing their belief. Particularly that you consider a tiny minority believing something as relatively harmless (something I totally disagree with for example a tiny minority of atheists might set up an atheistic tyrrany) but your ire is sirred because so many people are Christian.
    I really threw a dog a bone by mentioning totalitarian anti-theist states, if only very briefly. Here come the gulags...3...2...
    that is also nonsense! anti christian posts are just as easily postred in the After hours or A&A forums so the forum doesnt matter. Also i would think in atheistic countries you would not find such fora anyway. Anti posters would have been sent to the gulags already.
    ...1 BOOM!
    I dont claim to be anything. dont bring my personal beliefs into this!
    Wait, so you can brand me as an anti-Christian for rejecting the notion of Jesus's divine status, but if I operate within your logical framework and label you as anti-Islam for rejecting claims that Muhammed was God's prophet, I'm overstepping the line?

    That's not very consistent, is it?
    And the point was not about rejecting a deity.
    That is exactly what my point was. I don't reject the existence of Jesus, I reject his status as a deity, as did the poster you originally quoted. If you actually read what other people were saying you may have realised this, but instead you've just barreled ahead and started arguing with what you expect someone who doesn't believe in God would say.
    The point was rejecting the historicity of Jesus as opposed to anyoine else in hiostory on the basis that people believe he was Christ i.e if there were no christians around the detractors would not care because their motivation is anti christian.
    That's all fantastic, really it is, except I do believe that Jesus existed. This discussion started because I called you up for
    Here is a fallacy argument from the particular being applied to the general
    You cant argue about "massive majority christian " country and then fall back on "most of the world not christian"
    so i take it you therefore abandon the relevance of Ireland being mostly Catholic as a basis for anti catholic posters?
    No, because you're talking about two completely different things here.

    My point re. Ireland's Catholic majority was simply that the bulk of religious discourse on an Irish forum, including criticism, would inevitably be about the country's largest religion.

    My point about the majority of the world's populace not being Christian was that by your unique definition of anti-Christianity (which seems to be interchangeable with non-Christian), the majority of the world is anti-Christian.

    The two points are not related.
    You stated
    "Yes, and everyone but their tiny set of followers denies their godlike status."
    They in this bcase being fringe cults
    they have tiny sets of followers and htis wasz significant because it was being presented as different to the Roman Catholic Church for example. different not because they believed in christ/God but because the RCC had a large number of followers.
    No, it was significant because it showed that everyone rejected the claims of these self-professed prophets/Gods/whatever. Christ is not being singled out for unfair treatment here. I explained this already but you already seem to have made up you mind about what I believe, based on what I didn't say in a handful of posts.
    Including militant anti Catholic atheists?
    If they were a secretive, organised group behaving in a suspicious way, sure. In reality, this militant anti-Catholic atheistic menace consists of a few mildly anti-theistic Labour members (who are certainly no worse than some of their conservative Christian counterparts in FG), a handful of journalists, and some guys on the internet mouthing off about religion.

    Though if you view me as a rabid anti-Christian for refusing to accept the notion that Jesus was the son of God, I can certainly see how you'd perceive this as a serious, pressing threat.

    Which is an admission that you are focusing on the fact that people today believe Jesus is christ. i.e. because they are Christians! You have a problem with them but not the others in history.
    I have no idea what you even think I'm admitting. I called you up for fabricating and attacking a position a poster had never professed, and in response you have completely fabricated a position for me, based on something some poster was saying in the Clerical Abuse thread or something, and proceeded to attack it with vim and vigour.

    Just to reiterate, because I have a strong suspicion you're primed to make another Rorschach blot of my post:

    I believe Jesus existed. I believe he existed while rejecting the idea that he was the son of God or that he performed feats that I consider impossible. I believe Alexander the Great existed but he is not and never was a deity, despite what his followers may have thought. I believe Muhammed existed but I do not think he was a mouthpiece for Allah. This is because I don't believe in any God nor people imbued with God-like abilities, not because I have any beef with the followers of any particular religion.

    Now you just made me waste more minutes than I should have when I'm supposed to be studying calculus and organic chemistry. You are anti Carbon-based structures and you are totally against the study of rates of change.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    What are you even trying to say here? You don't make accusations based on what others have said, but you can make accusations against me and the poster originally quoted based on comments in the Clerical Abuse thread, a thread in which neither of us have ever even posted?

    Seriously, what?

    I suggest you go and read the edits to the message you are quoting.
    I referred to people posting in this thread.
    I referred to a mindset of anti Catholics eleswhere and you can go elsewhere to look at their comments.
    i have made my case that posters here have stated things which show they subscribe to anti catholic beliefs.
    I certainly believe that Jesus existed. I believe he existed while rejecting the notion that he was the son of God or turned water into wine and walked on water. I believe Alexander existed, but I do not believe he was a deity. I believe Muhammed existed but I do not believe he was a divinely inspired prophet. I do not reject these claims because [I am anti-Christian or anti-Islam or anti-whatever-the-hell they called followers of Alexander, I reject them because I do not believe in any deities

    so your opposition is based on your atheism! it isnt based on any historical thing just on your personal belief that god does not exist. Or to put it in the chistianity forum on the belieef that Christ was not Christ and you oppose people who believe he was because those people believe he was God. You oppose their Catholic church and their belief based on your belief that it isnt true. You are anti Catholic.
    So how exactly do you figure that I'm singling out Christianity in this instance? What is so anti-Christian about someone who doesn't believe in any Gods rejecting the notion that a historical figure was the son of God.

    You have the free will to reject whatever you wish. but you are clearly stated that you oppose the arguments of Christianity and their church because you dont believe in God. If you oppose catholicism you are anti Catholic. You may be anti Jew and anti Muslim as well Im not arguing about that here where you oppose Christians.
    Well I don't deny the historicity of Jesus so it seems you're begging the question here. I reject claims of Jesus's divine nature because I'm not a believer in divinity.

    so you accept jesus existed as a historic figure?
    then why did you call the reference to it "this crap".
    Also you dont argue about others in history nd you have admitted yo dont based on the idea that they dont claim to be gods.
    Bt they did claim to be gods.
    You admit theat and you say "but if they did they dont have any followers today"
    You were shown sme do have followers.
    but then you say "but they dont have loads of followers"
    all these scotsmen!
    Let me guess are you arguing against Islam on the Islam forum and claiming Mohammad was not a prophet?
    Are you arguing against Jews?
    Are you arguing against anyone else who believes in god because they believe in god?

    No! you are arguing against Christianity. so let us deal with that alone.
    You already admitted you personally reject Christ. But let us see if it goes further.
    Do you or do you not oppose the catholic Church for example.
    Do you oppose their teachings or their actions?
    If you do you are anti catholic. Simple.
    Possibly. You misrepresented what they were saying to begin with so I'm giving you
    .

    what did i misrepresent?
    show me what you claim i misrepresented.
    Christians who oppose the truth of how the universe is are in the minority and tend to live in America these days, fortunately.

    Im sorry but who or what comprises "the truth of how the universe is"?

    Although people are entitled to have their own view on how the universe works provided it doesn't negatively impact on everyone else

    Until such a time as they attack other peoples beliefs.
    very poor. Must try to respond to posters quoted rather than what someone else from 20 pages ago or the Clerical Abuse thread were saying.

    where did i misquote anyone in this thread? hats twice now yo have accused me of doing this.
    where did i quote someone from a clerical abuse thread. All i did was say you can see ample examples of the anti catholic mindset there.
    I really threw a dog a bone by mentioning totalitarian anti-theist states, if only very briefly.

    Who is the "dog" you refer to here?
    Wait, so you can brand me as an anti-Christian for rejecting the notion of Jesus's divine status, but if I operate within your logical framework and label you as anti-Islam for rejecting claims that Muhammed was God's prophet, I'm overstepping the line?

    If and when i go to the Islamic forum and post that there yes you can. Personally i have some problems with Islamic philosophy and history which i have posted here and there. i have never had a clear response to some of it. For example if it is accepted that
    1. Mohammed led a perfect life
    2. Opposing Mohammad is anti Islam
    If it then turns out that Mohammad had sexual relations with children and I oppose that behavior I suppose you can call me anti Islam.
    this would be based on 1&2 and not on your personal views of Islam.
    But we are diuscussing your views not mine.
    That's not very consistent, is it?

    Asked and answered.
    That is exactly what my point was. I don't reject the existence of Jesus, I reject his status as a deity, as did the poster you originally quoted. If you actually read what other people were saying you may have realised this, but instead you've just barreled ahead and started arguing with what you expect someone who doesn't believe in God would say.

    Nope.

    In 4076 sonic2k clearly states that his problem with Jesus compared to others is that people believe Jesus is God.

    He was shown that people also believed others were god in history.

    His problem was expounded upon by "there is not a religion based around these men. "

    He was shown there was.
    His problem became 4084 that such like were not around TODAY.

    He was shown such type non christian religions exist today.

    Pace2008 took this up in 4090
    they believe Jesus, Alexander and Socrates all existed, but Jesus differs in that people in the present day believe he was a deity who performed supernatural feats.

    And it progressed to the point about the problems with opposing claims about people jike Jesus in history for such people is manifest in
    opposing LARGE religions who believe in God today e.g. the Catholic Church

    Ironically i don't witness them attacking Islam so much at all.
    My point re. Ireland's Catholic majority was simply that the bulk of religious discourse on an Irish forum, including criticism, would inevitably be about the country's largest religion.

    so the point about "large religions should be criticised becomes "the catholic church should be opposed" . How convenient.
    your unique definition of anti-Christianity (which seems to be interchangeable with non-Christian),

    anti Catholic = opposing the Catholic church and Catholic teachings in Ireland or anywhere else.
    Do you oppose them? QED
    No, it was significant because it showed that everyone rejected the claims of these self-professed prophets/Gods/whatever.

    No it was significant because the large numbers of followers.
    Penn in 4092
    Yes, and everyone but their tiny set of followers denies their godlike status. Nobody but pagans take pagans seriously.
    Christ is not being singled out for unfair treatment here. I explained this already but you already seem to have made up you mind about what I believe, based on what I didn't say in a handful of posts.

    Christians and Catholics are by some because they have large numbers of followers and not a tiny set. that is what was stated.
    If they were a secretive, organised group behaving in a suspicious way, sure. In reality, this militant anti-Catholic atheistic menace consists of a few mildly anti-theistic Labour members (who are certainly no worse than some of their conservative Christian counterparts in FG), a handful of journalists, and some guys on the internet mouthing off about religion.
    Eventually we agree on something! :)

    But groups of militants can get into power and whenever atheistic militants did in the past their heinous brume cast a terrible pall on others.

    At the very least the mindset mitigates against free speech by attacking and or censoring those who oppose them.
    Though if you view me as a rabid anti-Christian for refusing to accept the notion that Jesus was the son of God, I can certainly see how you'd perceive this as a serious, pressing threat.


    I dont but you may well but into their mindset and begin to believe some anti catholic notions propmted by the very "atheistic menace " to which you referred
    Might you believe such things as
    1. at their worst level anything more than 1% of pedophiles being priests and at present levels more than 0.01%
    2. the vatican or popes being involved historically in and or their continued existing a church wide cover up of abusers.
    3. the Vatican or popes supporting WWII Naziism or the Catholic Church in Germany or Poland and future popes from those countries supporting them

    Maybe you dont believe in the above i offer them only as examples of the type of misinformation peddled. they are a wider agenda but "there is no such thing as christ and anyone following such an orginasation is being misled" is a basic start although any attack on clergy church beliefs organisations will do. The basic idea it to attack belief and corrupt faith into despite. Im not saying you personbally orchestrate this . just that y may unwittingly subscribe to it.
    I have no idea what you even think I'm admitting. I called you up for fabricating and attacking a position a poster had never professed, and in response you have completely fabricated a position for me, based on something some poster was saying in the Clerical Abuse thread or something, and proceeded to attack it with vim and vigour.
    I believe Jesus existed. I believe he existed while rejecting the idea that he was the son of God or that he performed feats that I consider impossible. I believe Alexander the Great existed but he is not and never was a deity, despite what his followers may have thought. I believe Muhammed existed but I do not think he was a mouthpiece for Allah. This is because I don't believe in any God nor people imbued with God-like abilities, not because I have any beef with the followers of any particular religion.

    Fair enough; and based on that you don't oppose the Catholic church or the believers in Christ and what they do? you keep to yourself and don't preach anything against them?
    If so you are not anti catholic or anti christian.
    If you single out Catholics or Christians you are.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Really??


    Perhaps I posted in the wrong place, perhaps it should have been here. I direct your attention to this post.
    I call on you to defend his action/inaction against a reasonable charge.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Really??


    ISAW wrote: »
    Fair enough; and based on that you don't oppose the Catholic church or the believers in Christ and what they do? you keep to yourself and don't preach anything against them?
    If so you are not anti catholic or anti christian.
    If you single out Catholics or Christians you are.

    So what? You're anti-athiest, I don't see you apologise for it. I'm anti catholic, muslim, protestant.....any other religion you might care to mention. I don't see why anyone should apologise for being anti-religion. I don't discriminate, I think they're all equally idiotic.
    Why should I not preach against them? I think I owe it to humanity to preach as loudly as I can against them and hopefully convert as many as I can, just like the religious do. They are not ashamed of what I regard as the nonsense they peddle, why should I be ashamed of what they regard as the nonsense I peddle? I have as much right to preach as anyone! Do I not?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Really?? wrote: »
    Perhaps I posted in the wrong place, perhaps it should have been here. I direct your attention to this post.
    I call on you to defend his action/inaction against a reasonable charge.

    I suggest you search the forum on "problem of evil" "Leibniz"
    for some insight into "why doesnt God stop people falling over "?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    And I might have issues with the sentiments of some of the Christian posters here, but that does not give me the right to start tarring them all with the same brush and make accusations against them bsed on what others have said.

    I agree. which is why I referred to them posting elsewhere and quoted people from this thread.

    Can you show me where i attributed something to you and the quote i used and if i mis attributed it Im happy to correct it?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Really?? wrote: »
    So what? You're anti-athiest, I don't see you apologise for it. I'm anti catholic, muslim, protestant.....any other religion you might care to mention. I don't see why anyone should apologise for being anti-religion. I don't discriminate, I think they're all equally idiotic.

    and the true agenda is again exposed.
    Why should I not preach against them? I think I owe it to humanity to preach as loudly as I can against them and hopefully convert as many as I can, just like the religious do. They are not ashamed of what I regard as the nonsense they peddle, why should I be ashamed of what they regard as the nonsense I peddle? I have as much right to preach as anyone! Do I not?

    Yes. but you will not be allowed to here in a discussion forum in that way.

    Try usenet e.g. alt.atheism for unmoderated discussions where people like Fasgnadh will dismantle your arguments.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Really??


    ISAW wrote: »
    I suggest you search the forum on "problem of evil" "Leibniz"
    for some insight into "why doesnt God stop people falling over "?

    Where are you quoting from here? How dare you belittle what happened to that two year old child. You should be ashamed of yourself.
    I did search as you suggested/deflected. It's rather simpler to me than it is to others. If god was in the room then he chose to let the child fall from the window. It's no more complicated than that. Sometimes it just is what it is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Really??


    ISAW wrote: »
    and the true agenda is again exposed.

    That's right. It is what it is. You've not "exposed" anything genius. I'm perfectly honest about it. You don't have to like it any more than I have to like the stuff you come out with. It's not a conspiracy, it's reason. You too can find it if you only open your heart to it and accept it as your savior; or not, up to you. :)



    Yes. but you will not be allowed to here in a discussion forum in that way.

    Fair enough, I'll not lose sleep.

    Try usenet e.g. alt.atheism for unmoderated discussions where people like Fasgnadh will dismantle your arguments.

    No thanks, I'm not really that obsessed about it, I don't spend any more time on it than it actually merits.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Really?? wrote: »
    Where are you quoting from here?

    Just do a search on this forum under "problem f evil" and educate yurself before we proceed would you?
    I did search as you suggested/deflected. It's rather simpler to me than it is to others.

    so what do you have problems with where I and others discussed it here before?

    If god was in the room then he chose to let the child fall from the window. It's no more complicated than that. Sometimes it just is what it is.

    Indeed . And how does that make God responsible for bad things happening?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Really?? wrote: »
    Where are you quoting from here? How dare you belittle what happened to that two year old child. You should be ashamed of yourself.
    I did search as you suggested/deflected. It's rather simpler to me than it is to others. If god was in the room then he chose to let the child fall from the window. It's no more complicated than that. Sometimes it just is what it is.

    I think you need to pause and reflect whether you want to discuss this rationally, or whether you want to get all emotional.

    I personally would prefer it if people avoided exploiting or using the very recent tragic death of a small child to advance their religious views.

    However, if you are determined to discuss this particular case, then be prepared to receive rational responses. ISAW's point is valid, in that we ask where you want to draw the line where God should overrule or not overrule our free will. Should God intervene and stop you falling over if you are dumb enough not to tie your shoe laces? Should He intervene if you are a negligent parent and continually allow your child to play on the rail of a balcony? How many times should he catch your child for you? Once a year? Once a week? Every five minutes? If you are a scabby landlord who uses substandard materials and fits unsafe windows on your apartments, should God bail you out by making sure no-one ever gets hurt by your sinful negligence?

    (Please note, none of the above makes any assumptions about who or what caused the death of the particular child that is being used as a pawn in this discussion. I don't think any of us know enough about the circumstances to apportion blame or to discuss the reasons for that tragedy.)


  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Really??


    ISAW wrote: »
    Just do a search on this forum under "problem f evil" and educate yurself before we proceed would you?



    so what do you have problems with where I and others discussed it here before?




    Indeed . And how does that make God responsible for bad things happening?


    In fact it doesn't. There is no more point in blaming god than there is point in blaming anything else that doesn't exist. Bad **** just happens, it's not bad because god says so, it's bad because I think it's bad for all the reasons that I think it is.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Really?? wrote: »
    No thanks, I'm not really that obsessed about it, I don't spend any more time on it than it actually merits.

    Except to admonish others for not taking it seriously enough it seems? Ironic.
    I shoud point out that atheists say atheism isnt a religioon

    In the law about incitement to hatred “hatred” means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation;

    Being against Atheism isnt covered by it.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Really?? wrote: »
    In fact it doesn't. There is no more point in blaming god than there is point in blaming anything else that doesn't exist

    well this point had been dealt with also.

    even if race does not exist one can be racist
    Even if christ does not exist one can be anti christian.
    Claiming they dont believe in the Jewish religion wont get nazis off the hook.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Really??


    PDN wrote: »
    I think you need to pause and reflect whether you want to discuss this rationally, or whether you want to get all emotional.

    I personally would prefer it if people avoided exploiting or using the very recent tragic death of a small child to advance their religious views.

    However, if you are determined to discuss this particular case, then be prepared to receive rational responses. ISAW's point is valid, in that we ask where you want to draw the line where God should overrule or not overrule our free will. Should God intervene and stop you falling over if you are dumb enough not to tie your shoe laces? Should He intervene if you are a negligent parent and continually allow your child to play on the rail of a balcony? How many times should he catch your child for you? Once a year? Once a week? Every five minutes? If you are a scabby landlord who uses substandard materials and fits unsafe windows on your apartments, should God bail you out by making sure no-one ever gets hurt by your sinful negligence?

    (Please note, none of the above makes any assumptions about who or what caused the death of the particular child that is being used as a pawn in this discussion. I don't think any of us know enough about the circumstances to apportion blame or to discuss the reasons for that tragedy.)


    I see it as rather an emotive issue tbh. How can you not? How could anyone not?
    The point could however have been less adequately made with your shoelace example and be just as valid.

    Wow! I just noticed this assumption you say you do not make (emboldened). Yes he bloody well should if he's to be of any use to us at all. Otherwise he can pi** right off, he's not worth respect.
    (Caveat: he doesn't exist so it's irrelavent)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Really??


    ISAW wrote: »
    Except to admonish others for not taking it seriously enough it seems? Ironic.
    I shoud point out that atheists say atheism isnt a religioon

    In the law about incitement to hatred “hatred” means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation;

    Being against Atheism isnt covered by it.

    I don't hate you ISAW, relax. I just think your a fool in exactly the same way that you think I am one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Really??


    ISAW wrote: »
    well this point had been dealt with also.

    even if race does not exist one can be racist
    Even if christ does not exist one can be anti christian.
    Claiming they dont believe in the Jewish religion wont get nazis off the hook.

    Straight for the comparison with Nazis eh. Didn't take you long to fall on familiar ground did it? Should I regard that as an attack on my belief system and be outraged? Howl injustice and persecution?
    Perhaps I won't bother today. You feel free though.

    At least the point was dealt with to your satisfaction you mean. That's okay then. After all, that's all that really matters isn't it. It's not like anything I or anyone else might ever say could sway you in any way from your beliefs is it? I know there is absolutely no point to this conversation or forum. You'll still be here preaching your particular brand of nuts long after I've lost interest and moved away to more pressing matters in the real world where after you die you no more exist than you did before you were conceived.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Cossax


    ISAW wrote: »
    Except to admonish others for not taking it seriously enough it seems? Ironic.
    I shoud point out that atheists say atheism isnt a religioon

    In the law about incitement to hatred “hatred” means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation;

    Being against Atheism isnt covered by it.

    Who would argue it is a religion? :confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Really??


    Cossax wrote: »
    Who would argue it is a religion? :confused:

    Ah you've not been paying attention. ISAW would, in overly long posts that, after a while, no reasonable person would bother to read given that it's all just a restatement of what's come before. Instead you may find that after a while you will feel safe dismissing these ramblings in favour of getting on with the business of living your life over the business of preparing to die. :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,257 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    PDN wrote: »

    I personally would prefer it if people avoided exploiting or using the very recent tragic death of a small child to advance their religious views.

    Considering you allowed someone to post a picture of a dead baby (that was born) in a dumpster in a thread debating early term Abortion in Ireland, you should really re-think that comment PDN.

    Because that was using the "tragic death of a small child to advance their religious views."


  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Really??


    Lest anyone get the wrong idea; I don't have "religious views", I have views on religion and the religious in that I think of them as deluded fools to be pitied in exactly the same way that I imagine they think of me. That however is just my personal opinion.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Really?? wrote: »
    Lest anyone get the wrong idea; I don't have "religious views", I have views on religion and the religious in that I think of them as deluded fools to be pitied in exactly the same way that I imagine they think of me. That however is just my personal opinion.

    yu are entitled to an opinion.
    But when you start acting on that opinion for example by suggesting Christians or Catholics for example are deluded or stupid or foolish then it is more than an opinion. You encourage others of a similar mindset. and it builds up. son a number of them are involved in thanking each others posts and complaining about posters not of the mindset.

    Also if all you have is your opinion and no actual evidence references or scholarship to provide what is your purpose or consequence to a valid discussion other than hurling in the ditch?


  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Really??


    ISAW wrote: »
    yu are entitled to an opinion.
    But when you start acting on that opinion for example by suggesting Christians or Catholics for example are deluded or stupid or foolish then it is more than an opinion. You encourage others of a similar mindset. and it builds up. son a number of them are involved in thanking each others posts and complaining about posters not of the mindset.

    Also if all you have is your opinion and no actual evidence references or scholarship to provide what is your purpose or consequence to a valid discussion other than hurling in the ditch?

    That's right! I am!
    What others of a similar mindset choose to do is entirely up to them. I do not require thanks. I do not require anything of anyone and I certainly won't threaten eternal damnation for those who do not share my views. I am not trying to establish or consolidate a religion. I am an atheist. Of all the thousands of gods in recorded history, I believe in none. That's one three headed god less than you I imagine. However if such opinion does propagate I would not be displeased.
    What you and I will accept as factual evidence hold to two distinctly different, incompatible standards Sir! You are willing to accept things that I simply will not.
    I question in fact, the very validity to the dicussion to which you allude.
    There can be no valid conclusion to such a debate. No definitive proof can be offered. In the end, all that remains, is opinion is it not?
    Do you really believe you are doing any more than simply hurling in this ditch you speak of?
    What is your purpose for continuing? Is it perhaps that you wish to "encourage others of a similar mindset"?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 387 ✭✭Medicine333


    Really?? wrote: »
    Lest anyone get the wrong idea; I don't have "religious views", I have views on religion and the religious in that I think of them as deluded fools to be pitied in exactly the same way that I imagine they think of me. That however is just my personal opinion.

    Unlike you, very few good Christians would make such a judgement.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Really??


    Unlike you, very few good Christians would make such a judgement.

    Surely a good christian would pity me my ignorance? Think me a fool for believing as I do? Would they not try to bring the light into my life so that I could be saved? If not, why not?

    Apparently not though, I must say I am surprised!! Are you, as a "good Christian" not secretly angry and annoyed that I might question your beliefs? Maybe a little glad that I'll go to hell while you as a "good Christian" get to bask in the eternal happiness and love of the life you believe exists after this one? At least there'll be justice at the end of all days, isn't that it?

    Well that's definitely what I thought so I humbly apologise to you "good Christian".

    (Is that a title you gave yourself or was it given to you?)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 387 ✭✭Medicine333


    Really?? wrote: »
    Surely a good christian would pity me my ignorance? Think me a fool for believing as I do? Would they not try to bring the light into my life so that I could be saved? If not, why not?

    Apparently not though, I must say I am surprised!! Are you, as a "good Christian" not secretly angry and annoyed that I might question your beliefs? Maybe a little glad that I'll go to hell while you as a "good Christian" get to bask in the eternal happiness and love of the life you believe exists after this one? At least there'll be justice at the end of all days, isn't that it?

    Well that's definitely what I thought so I humbly apologise to you "good Christian".

    (Is that a title you gave yourself or was it given to you?)

    I never called myself a good Christian, it was you who assumed it. I don't know where you got that from, but reading the sarcasm in your post, I'm not surprised you come to such conclusions.

    I don't get annoyed with atheists, but I do pity them. Why wouldn't I? They believe in no afterlife, nothing after death. How can they even attempt to find meaning in life? That we're put on Earth for a reason? When things are bad, when all situations seem hopeless, I always wonder how atheists manage with their refusal to turn to God when he is there.

    I pray for people who don't believe in God, and I sincerely hope neither of us go to Hell.

    However, the tone of your post is one which is synonymous with atheists, unfortunately. It is one of condescension.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Really??


    I never called myself a good Christian, it was you who assumed it. I don't know where you got that from, but reading the sarcasm in your post, I'm not surprised you come to such conclusions.

    I don't get annoyed with atheists, but I do pity them. Why wouldn't I? They believe in no afterlife, nothing after death. How can they even attempt to find meaning in life? That we're put on Earth for a reason? When things are bad, when all situations seem hopeless, I always wonder how atheists manage with their refusal to turn to God when he is there.

    I pray for people who don't believe in God, and I sincerely hope neither of us go to Hell.

    However, the tone of your post is one which is synonymous with atheists, unfortunately. It is one of condescension.

    So you do pity me. That seems not to seem condescending to you though? "the tone of your post is one which is synonymous with" atheists religious, "unfortunately. It is one of condescension".

    Tell me, what is this reason that we are put here. It's nice to finally come across someone who has a definitive answer?

    You're right, athiests believe in nothing after death and so must find their meaning in this life rather than the next. It's more rewarding than you think.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,257 ✭✭✭Sonics2k



    I don't get annoyed with atheists, but I do pity them. Why wouldn't I? They believe in no afterlife, nothing after death. How can they even attempt to find meaning in life? That we're put on Earth for a reason? When things are bad, when all situations seem hopeless, I always wonder how atheists manage with their refusal to turn to God when he is there.

    Well, I'm not an Atheist but this is just bizarre to me.

    Why do need to believe in an afterlife to have a reason to live? Why turn to God to help you in times of need, instead of yourself and loved ones?

    Humans weren't put on Earth for a reason, at least not a singular sense. Let's face it, 99% never really achieve anything great that shapes the world around us?

    I faced some 14 years of severe depression, 6 years of alcohol and drug abuse. It wasn't God that helped me, it was my family, my children and my friends. They are the ones you should give credit to.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 387 ✭✭Medicine333


    Really?? wrote: »
    So you do pity me. That seems not to seem condescending to you though? "the tone of your post is one which is synonymous with" atheists religious, "unfortunately. It is one of condescension".

    Tell me, what is this reason that we are put here. It's nice to finally come across someone who has a definitive answer?

    You're right, athiests believe in nothing after death and so must find their meaning in this life rather than the next. It's more rewarding than you think.

    I'm not God, so I couldn't tell you:) All I know is that we are here to please God, to follow his Word, to do good things(being charitable to your neighbour etc.) and to spread his Word. What harm is there in doing good works-which is what God wants?

    I pity atheists. Maybe you view it as condescension, that is your choice. I view it as a natural human feeling. If you pity a homeless person on the street, is it condescension, or a natural reaction?

    Regardless of whether you believe or not, it has nothing to do with me. It is between you and God. It has no effect on me-I am happy to live God's ways and couldn't imagine having a life of even remote happiness or completion without him.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 387 ✭✭Medicine333


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Well, I'm not an Atheist but this is just bizarre to me.

    Why do need to believe in an afterlife to have a reason to live? Why turn to God to help you in times of need, instead of yourself and loved ones?

    Humans weren't put on Earth for a reason, at least not a singular sense. Let's face it, 99% never really achieve anything great that shapes the world around us?

    I faced some 14 years of severe depression, 6 years of alcohol and drug abuse. It wasn't God that helped me, it was my family, my children and my friends. They are the ones you should give credit to.


    If I was in your position I would of course give massive credit to my family AND God. That is your view. I respect it. I never said you need to believe in an afterlife to achieve meaning.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Really??


    . How can they even attempt to find meaning in life?

    You said exactly that!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,257 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    If I was in your position I would of course give massive credit to my family AND God. That is your view. I respect it. I never said you need to believe in an afterlife to achieve meaning.

    Why would I thank God? Under your belief, God makes us as we are, yes?

    Well then why did he give me horrific night terrors from the age of 4, for no apparent reason? And I don't mean the usual scary things, but actual gore. I dreamt of autopsies of my friends in primary school when I was 5 years old and so much worse.
    I still have them to this day.

    Why would I thank God for a chemical imbalance in my brain which has been the biological cause of my depression since the age of 12? How about the blood disorder I have? The one that almost killed me.

    Or is this Gods plan to show me he loves me really, even if he likes to be a bit of a douche at times?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 387 ✭✭Medicine333


    Really?? wrote: »
    You said exactly that!

    Yes, but I never said that believing in an afterlife is the meaning of life.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Really??


    I'm not God, so I couldn't tell you:) All I know is that we are here to please God, to follow his Word, to do good things(being charitable to your neighbour etc.) and to spread his Word. What harm is there in doing good works-which is what God wants?

    I pity atheists. Maybe you view it as condescension, that is your choice. I view it as a natural human feeling. If you pity a homeless person on the street, is it condescension, or a natural reaction?

    Regardless of whether you believe or not, it has nothing to do with me. It is between you and God. It has no effect on me-I am happy to live God's ways and couldn't imagine having a life of even remote happiness or completion without him.

    So for me it's condescension and for you a natural reaction. Seems a bit unfair of you.
    I am not here to please God! If you are, well then you are. Good for you! As I originally said, I pity you in the same way you pity me.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 387 ✭✭Medicine333


    Really?? wrote: »
    So for me it's condescension and for you a natural reaction. Seems a bit unfair of you.
    I am not here to please God! If you are, well then you are. Good for you! As I originally said, I pity you in the same way you pity me.

    I don't think so:) but I wish you all the best in life anyway-God bless:)


  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Really??


    Yes, but I never said that believing in an afterlife is the meaning of life.

    I never said you did.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Really??


    I don't think so:) but I wish you all the best in life anyway-God bless:)

    After all I've said? Really?? I find that highly insulting and condescending.:eek: That's what you were going for though wasn't it.
    Anyway, you're right, this is as usual going nowhere. Bathe in the delusion if you will. It's a pity none of you loons will ever realise the folly of your beliefs.
    You'll be just as dead and gone one day as I will. In the mean-time, try and find some meaning in this world, it's all you get!

    Buh-bye!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Why would I thank God? Under your belief, God makes us as we are, yes?
    Or is this Gods plan to show me he loves me really, even if he likes to be a bit of a douche at times?

    Here's some food for thought. Sometimes I find it better to point to God's word and letting Him speak:
    John 9:1-3 wrote:
    As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.
    So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
    When Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “It may be that Joseph will hate us and pay us back for all the evil that we did to him.” So they sent a message to Joseph, saying, “Your father gave this command before he died: ‘Say to Joseph, “Please forgive the transgression of your brothers and their sin, because they did evil to you.”’ And now, please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father.” Joseph wept when they spoke to him. His brothers also came and fell down before him and said, “Behold, we are your servants.” But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

    Let me know what you think of these.

    God doesn't promise us a perfect life in this world, even to those who believe and follow Him. In fact He tells Christians to expect trials and tribulations in the here and now before the age to come.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,944 ✭✭✭fedor.2.


    philologos wrote: »
    Here's some food for thought. Sometimes I find it better to point to God's word and letting Him speak:






    Let me know what you think of these.

    God doesn't promise us a perfect life in this world, even to those who believe and follow Him. In fact He tells Christians to expect trials and tribulations in the here and now before the age to come.



    Wow, you really are a lunatic, arent you


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,257 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    philologos wrote: »
    Here's some food for thought. Sometimes I find it better to point to God's word and letting Him speak:






    Let me know what you think of these.

    God doesn't promise us a perfect life in this world, even to those who believe and follow Him. In fact He tells Christians to expect trials and tribulations in the here and now before the age to come.

    I find that to be a cover for the old saying "Shít happens" really. Don't get me wrong here, it's just the Christian God that claims the same thing as yours does.

    I just find it to be a very "safe" answer. It's trying to claim that God makes life harder for some of us, to show us his love and make them a better person. Well that is frankly nonsense, because it doesn't make people better. People make people better. Not God.

    I suppose somewhat ironically, it was thanks to my lesbian mother who stuck by my side, and the birth of my daughter, born out of wedlock that made me a better person.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    ISAW wrote: »
    I suggest you go and read the edits to the message you are quoting.
    I referred to people posting in this thread.
    Great, now stop taking what they've said or what you think they've said and making out as if I was the one who said it.
    I referred to a mindset of anti Catholics elsewhere and you can go elsewhere to look at their comments.
    i have made my case that posters here have stated things which show they subscribe to anti catholic beliefs.
    Great, now stop assuming that this anti-Catholic mindset extends to every single atheist who so much as disagrees with any aspect of Church teaching..
    so your opposition is based on your atheism! it isnt based on any historical thing just on your personal belief that god does not exist. Or to put it in the chistianity forum on the belieef that Christ was not Christ and you oppose people who believe he was because those people believe he was God. You oppose their Catholic church and their belief based on your belief that it isnt true. You are anti Catholic.
    First off, I see you're making repeated attempts to make this look like a personal attack on Christians by saying I "oppose" the people themselves who believe Jesus was God. This is not true, disagreeing with Christians about Jesus's divinity is not opposing them, as I think they should be free to believe whatever they want provided it doesn't harm anyone else (and simply believing in Jesus does not harm anyone else). If i were actively trying to suppress them for believing in Jesus then you would have reasonable grounds to claim I was opposing them.

    Secondly. I will readily admit I am no history buff and my knowledge of it is patchy at best. From the debates I have read on the subject I have been unconvinced by attempts to portray Jesus's miracles as matters of historical accuracy. On the basis of the evidence I've encountered, I'm fairly convinced that there is no creator deity and I'm pretty damn cocksure that there is no personal God in the vein of the Judeo-Christian God of the bible. As I do not accept the evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible it follows that I do not believe that Jesus was his incarnation on earth.

    As I keep pointing out, I am not singling out Jesus here. There are hundreds, probably thousands and historical figures who were or are considered to be Gods. I do not have the time nor the wherewithal to investigate the veracity of the individual claims of their divinity, so I've adopted this heuristic: until I'm provided with sufficient evidence that there exists a supernatural creator entity, I'm going to assume that they were nothing more than historical figures of note.

    And the vast majority of Christians follow a similar approach. They reject every other purported god-like figure bar Jesus without ever examining the merits of the the evidence for their existence.
    You have the free will to reject whatever you wish. but you are clearly stated that you oppose the arguments of Christianity and their church because you dont believe in God. If you oppose catholicism you are anti Catholic.
    What do you mean, specifically, by the arguments of Christianity? If you are referring to the divinity of Jesus then of course I reject it due to my disbelief; I can hardly reject the existence of Yahweh but give some credence the notion that Jesus was his living incarnation. If you are referring to, say Church morality, I do not reject everything they say simply because I don't believe in God. I have my own moral standards. So if the Church say that you should treat others with respect or be charitable, I'd say "Yeah, that's a pretty good idea." But if the Church says that masturbation is a gravely disordered act then I'd say "Well that's a bit silly."
    so you accept jesus existed as a historic figure?
    Yes, I think I made that very clear.
    then why did you call the reference to it "this crap".
    ...I didn't, that was Sonic2k. Who also claimed that they believe it likely that Jesus existed. They weren't referring to the notion of the historical figure of Jesus as "crap." But of course if you actually read what people were saying (try it, you might even like it) rather than what you assumed they were saying based on this anti-theistic stereotype you have in your head, you'd already know this.
    Also you dont argue about others in history nd you have admitted yo dont based on the idea that they dont claim to be gods.
    Bt they did claim to be gods.
    You admit theat and you say "but if they did they dont have any followers today"
    You were shown sme do have followers.
    Again, you are taking what someone else said and quoting me on it. Of course there hundreds if not thousands of other people throughout history who claimed to be or were believed to be Gods. How thick do you actually think I am not to have realised that?
    but then you say "but they dont have loads of followers"
    all these scotsmen!
    Oh sweet Jesus. Would you please, please, please listen to what I'm saying, and not what you would like me to say so you can paint me as a anti-Catholic and feed this fantasy of a dangerous anti-Catholic agenda?

    My point in highlighting their small numbers was this: there is no need to call into question their claims because it is implicitly assumed by, in effect, everyone in the world that their claims are bogus. It goes without saying. When I go to a restaurant and ask for a glass of water I don't need to qualify that I don't want it brought to me boiling at 100 degrees. When people talk about David Koresh they don't need to say "I have serious doubts that that man was truly God's final prophet " because it is implicitly assumed by 99.99999999% of the world that the man was a ****ing wingnut. This goes for any modern-day self-professed prophet or cult leaders with Messianic delusions. We do not need lengthy discourse on the evidence for their Godliness because it is known, without needed to be said, that everyone you will ever encounter believes that these people are complete basket cases.
    Let me guess are you arguing against Islam on the Islam forum and claiming Mohammad was not a prophet?
    Are you arguing against Jews?
    Are you arguing against anyone else who believes in god because they believe in god?
    Well as my lack of belief in the Judeo-Christian God is part of the reason why I don't believe in Jesus's divinity, I suppose I'm an anti-semite as well.
    No! you are arguing against Christianity. so let us deal with that alone.
    You already admitted you personally reject Christ. But let us see if it goes further.

    Do you or do you not oppose the catholic Church for example.
    Do you oppose their teachings or their actions?
    If you do you are anti catholic. Simple.
    There are areas of Catholic doctrine with which I disagree, their views views on sexuality being the obvious example. It is not because they are Catholic teachings that I disagree with them. I just happens that I see nothing inherently wrong with homosexual relations or sex outside of wedlock*

    Nor can you claim that I am singling out Catholicism (I notice we've advanced from anti-Christianity to anti-Catholicism in this post. And you accuse others of having an agenda!), as Islam, many sects of Protestantism, and many organisations in largely atheistic countries like China and Russia also oppose homosexuality.

    Seriously, do you believe that disagreeing with, and perhaps even being so bold as to discuss, some of the Church's teachings renders you an anti-Catholic? In that case every Protestant who has posted on the Catholic/Protestant megathread is anti-Catholic, and you and all Catholics who have done likewise yourself are an anti-Protestant. You're free to self-identify as you will, but I'm not so sure some of your Christian brethren will be happy to be described in such derogatory terms.

    *Nor do a very large number of Ireland's younger demographic, many of whom at least identify as Catholic. This raises an interesting point: if these people, say, support the idea of female priests, or strongly disagree with the Church's stance on abortion, contraception, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage etc. and voice their opinions on, they are clearly anti-Catholic by your own standards. But they are also Catholic. Does this mean that they are...anti-Catholic Catholics?

    .
    what did i misrepresent?
    show me what you claim i misrepresented.
    ISAW wrote:
    you think that disproves the claim (the one YOU made _ that there is noone else in history like Jesus based on him being worshipped as a god)
    Here you go.

    The poster very clearly stated that of the three men listed, Jesus differs in that he is worshiped in the present as a deity (I have pointed this out already but this time I'm using the three-pronged attack of bold, underline and italics so you can't possibly claim to have missed it). That was crystal clear but of course you are not arguing with actual people here, you are arguing with what you imagine a stereotypical anti-theist would say.
    Im sorry but who or what comprises "the truth of how the universe is"?
    A Christian view of the universe would feature God as the creator of space and time. As I do not believe in any gods then it follows that I think their view of the universe is flawed in that respect. That should go without saying.
    where did i misquote anyone in this thread? hats twice now yo have accused me of doing this.
    Outright three times in this very post.
    where did i quote someone from a clerical abuse thread. All i did was say you can see ample examples of the anti catholic mindset there.
    I didn't say you did. Your experiences with anti-Catholics on the thread in question - who are, let's be honest, few in number - seem to have coloured you view of atheists to the extent that I am an anti-Christian in your eyes for daring to believe Jesus was just a normal man and failing to agree with all aspects of Catholic teaching.
    Who is the "dog" you refer to here?
    You. It's not an insult, I'm using it figuratively.
    If and when i go to the Islamic forum and post that there yes you can. Personally i have some problems with Islamic philosophy and history which i have posted here and there. i have never had a clear response to some of it. For example if it is accepted that
    1. Mohammed led a perfect life
    2. Opposing Mohammad is anti Islam
    If it then turns out that Mohammad had sexual relations with children and I oppose that behavior I suppose you can call me anti Islam.
    this would be based on 1&2 and not on your personal views of Islam.
    But we are diuscussing your views not mine.
    We'll keep your views in the discussion, I think. It's easy to label other with derogatory terms, but perhaps not so much when by your own standards you fall into the same category.

    So you agree that you are anti-Islam, under a specific definition outlined above. Your claims of anti-Catholicism against me go beyond that, to the point where where I am allegedly attacking the Catholic people themselves. Would this apply to you as well? That by opposing the tenets of Islam you are, by extension, attacking its followers as well?

    In 4076 sonic2k clearly states that his problem with Jesus compared to others is that people believe Jesus is God.
    Out of a set of 3. Two of whom are not considered Gods in the present day.
    He was shown that people also believed others were god in history.
    A fantastic riposte to a point that wasn't made.
    His problem was expounded upon by "there is not a religion based around these men. "

    He was shown there was.
    To the best of my knowledge, there is no modern religion based on Socrates or Alexander the Great. Which is what the poster you were

    I don't see why we would ever need to enter into discussion about Alexander's status as a God. As the number of people who believe he is a God totals zero, it would be something of a one-sided debate.

    I have addressed all of this already. In fact, it was my first post on the thread.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78303937&postcount=4090

    You genuinely do not seem to understand this, ISAW: people other than yourself can also read the posts on this thread. As a result, they can see you haven't a leg to stand on in this instance, and you are either arguing for the sake of argument or you simply point-blank refuse to read what others have said despite numerous attempts to correct you on your growing list of strawmen.
    His problem became 4084 that such like were not around TODAY.

    He was shown such type non christian religions exist today.
    He didn't say this at all

    And it progressed to the point about the problems with opposing claims about people jike Jesus in history for such people is manifest in
    opposing LARGE religions who believe in God today e.g. the Catholic Church

    Ironically i don't witness them attacking Islam so much at all.
    Islam is not going to be discussed to the same extent as Catholicism in Ireland because it is not really a visible force in Ireland. Volleyball is not going to be discussed to the same extent as soccer or rugby because feck all people play it. Fine Gael might be a hot topic with the Irish media but I doubt they're getting much airtime dedicated to the in Ukraine. It is to be expected that people will talk more about the things that are relevant to and prevalent in their particular country. This is not some anti-Catholic conspiracy any more than the Ukrainian media is making a concerted effort against Fine Gael by denying them coverage.

    Location, location, location.
    anti Catholic = opposing the Catholic church and Catholic teachings in Ireland or anywhere else.
    Do you oppose them? QED
    Why not just type "I win!" "I win!" in the largest and most garish font you can find, it would look a little more reserved and mature.

    Again I'd urge some caution in using this unique definition of anti-Catholicism, as an entire branch of Christianity and all its members come under the term.
    No it was significant because the large numbers of followers.
    Penn in 4092
    Yes, and everyone but their tiny set of followers denies their godlike status. Nobody but pagans take pagans seriously.
    That was me, this time. You're all over the gaff, man.
    Christians and Catholics are by some because they have large numbers of followers and not a tiny set. that is what was stated.
    my point was not that larger religions should necessarily be criticised but that

    1. People will naturally talk more about something the larger and more prominent it is in the society that they live in. The soccer forum is busier than the frisbee forum because soccer is a far more prominent sport in Ireland. Which is not to say that people have a specific problem with friebee. Catholicism will the topic of more discussion more than Taoism because the Catholic Church is a more prominent force in Irish society.
    2. Nobody needs to state that the leader of a cult with 200 members is making bogus claims about his messianic nature because it is implicitly assumed by everyone in the world bar those 200 people that he is a fruitcake.

    I know I've said all this already but now you really, really don't have an excuse for ignoring me.
    Eventually we agree on something! :)

    But groups of militants can get into power and whenever atheistic militants did in the past their heinous brume cast a terrible pall on others.

    At the very least the mindset mitigates against free speech by attacking and or censoring those who oppose them.
    I'm not giving you a platform to get up on your hobby horse. Everyone bar you thinks the notion of Ireland turning into Soviet Russia is absurd.
    I dont but you may well but into their mindset and begin to believe some anti catholic notions propmted by the very "atheistic menace " to which you referred
    Might you believe such things as
    1. at their worst level anything more than 1% of pedophiles being priests and at present levels more than 0.01%
    2. the vatican or popes being involved historically in and or their continued existing a church wide cover up of abusers.
    3. the Vatican or popes supporting WWII Naziism or the Catholic Church in Germany or Poland and future popes from those countries supporting them

    Maybe you dont believe in the above i offer them only as examples of the type of misinformation peddled. they are a wider agenda but "there is no such thing as christ and anyone following such an orginasation is being misled" is a basic start although any attack on clergy church beliefs organisations will do. The basic idea it to attack belief and corrupt faith into despite. Im not saying you personbally orchestrate this . just that y may unwittingly subscribe to it.
    I know this is another one of your favourite topics and I'm not going to get into it in any depth.

    Just to give you a vague idea of where I stand I agree there is something of an anti-Catholic sentiment in certain areas the media at the moment. * I hear people describe the Church as "the most evil institution in the world" or something to that effect, which in a world of Burmas and North Koreas is patently absurd. On the other hand, it seems some of the stricter adherents to Catholicism simply do not believe the Church has done or even can do any wrong. Which is pretty far from the truth.

    I'm somewhere in the middle.

    *Though by labelling people like me as anti-Catholic you debase genuine claims of anti-Catholicism. You have heard about the boy who cried wolf.
    Fair enough; and based on that you don't oppose the Catholic church or the believers in Christ and what they do? you keep to yourself and don't preach anything against them?
    If so you are not anti catholic or anti christian.
    If you single out Catholics or Christians you are.
    I think have made it very clear in previous posts as well as this one that I am not singling out Catholicism or Christianity. Nonetheless I will lay out the extent of my "opposition" and "preaching" and let you decide if I am and anti-Christian/anti-Catholic.

    - As I have said above , some of my views differ from those of the Catholic and/or Christian teaching (sexuality etc.) This is not a willful denial of Church teaching, I just have my own moral code and it is at odds with Catholic/Christian thought on certain issues

    - On occasion, I will also question why so-called lapsed or a-la-carte Catholics continue to use the title when they do not look to the Vatican, or their local priest, or the CC for moral guidance, and actually oppose the Catholic teaching on a large number of issues.

    But as they are anti-Catholic themselves, by your own definition, I don't think this should matter too much.

    This is getting a bit messy so I'll lay it down like this.

    If your reply to me fulfills the following conditions -

    1. It is ridiculously and unnecessarily long (I know this is a bit rich given the length of this one but it's not how I like to operate. Brevity is the essence of wit.)
    2. It's content includes positions you have constructed for me based on your idea of what a rabid anti-theist Marxist would say and quotes from other posters you see fit to ascribe to me
    3.You blithely ignore what I've said in our discourse so far and keep bringing up points to which I have replied already, sometimes on multiple occasions -

    I won't reply and hopefully this thing can get back on track before it's derailed completely, as it can be interesting to read at times.

    Just as a second opinion, would any Christians like to clarify what you would consider to be anti-Christian? Would my position appear to be anti-Catholic or anti-Christian?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Really?? wrote: »
    That's right! I am!
    What others of a similar mindset choose to do is entirely up to them.

    Yes but belitteling others who dont share your view is doing more than just having a different belief.
    Of all the thousands of gods in recorded history, I believe in none.

    The concept of nothing is problematic. A man walks into a bar the barman asks "what will you have" the man says "nothing" the barman gets angry. the man says "but I love Guiness and yesterday you told me nothing was better than a pint of Guiness"
    That's one three headed god less than you I imagine.

    Please dont bring my beliefs into this. i didnt.
    What you and I will accept as factual evidence hold to two distinctly different, incompatible standards Sir! You are willing to accept things that I simply will not.

    Again you attribute standards to me out of ignorance.
    And I would posit you have such faith in what you call "scientific" standards.
    I am happy to wait and agree to standards on which we both agree.
    i dont see how having agreed to a metre second coloumb kelvin and kilo you are going to derive ethical values from first principles but feel free to try.
    I question in fact, the very validity to the dicussion to which you allude.
    There can be no valid conclusion to such a debate. No definitive proof can be offered. In the end, all that remains, is opinion is it not?

    not necessarily "all" but similar can be said of the history and philosophy of science.
    Are those grounds to dismiss science also?
    Do you really believe you are doing any more than simply hurling in this ditch you speak of?
    What is your purpose for continuing? Is it perhaps that you wish to "encourage others of a similar mindset"?

    again we are not discussing my beliefs but your atheism and how it related to the atheistic mindset.
    If you don't want to discuss the" implications of that atheism which you raised you have to that option and can avoid the discussion.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    Great, now stop taking what they've said or what you think they've said and making out as if I was the one who said it.
    As I told you here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78330702&postcount=4112
    I made out you supported their position based on your own words.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78303937&postcount=4090
    So what the poster has clearly stated is that...

    That is what you stated. You attributed a position to them and in doing so stated it as yours.
    Great, now stop assuming that this anti-Catholic mindset extends to every single atheist who so much as disagrees with any aspect of Church teaching..

    I didnt claim it did. did I? however Im quite happy to have you clarify and you wont have to assume anything..
    Do you oppose the teachings of the Catholic church?
    First off, I see you're making repeated attempts to make this look like a personal attack on Christians by saying I "oppose" the people themselves who believe Jesus was God.

    Yo dont have to oppose individual believers or even people that exist. As i have already pointed out racism can exist in the absence of race. If you oppose the belief you oppose the religion.
    This is not true, disagreeing with Christians about Jesus's divinity is not opposing them, as I think they should be free to believe whatever they want provided it doesn't harm anyone else (and simply believing in Jesus does not harm anyone else). If i were actively trying to suppress them for believing in Jesus then you would have reasonable grounds to claim I was opposing them.

    Do you think saying the clergy are misleading people isnt going a bit further than just disbelieving in god?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73223635&postcount=45
    Secondly. I will readily admit I am no history buff and my knowledge of it is patchy at best. From the debates I have read on the subject I have been unconvinced by attempts to portray Jesus's miracles as matters of historical accuracy.

    You are aware part of the anti christian the atheistic element deny the historicity of Jesus the man? If such a person didnt exist in hiostory then the idea of him also being god is moot. they also use the "Bible made up 300 years later" argument.
    On the basis of the evidence I've encountered, I'm fairly convinced that there is no creator deity and I'm pretty damn cocksure that there is no personal God in the vein of the Judeo-Christian God of the bible.

    So you are prepared to accept evidence? what sort of evidence would you require?
    As I do not accept the evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible it follows that I do not believe that Jesus was his incarnation on earth.
    and in so doing adopt one of the above mindset arguments
    no historical Bible Jesus therefore no god;
    As I keep pointing out, I am not singling out Jesus here. There are hundreds, probably thousands and historical figures who were or are considered to be Gods. I do not have the time nor the wherewithal to investigate the veracity of the individual claims of their divinity, so I've adopted this heuristic: until I'm provided with sufficient evidence that there exists a supernatural creator entity, I'm going to assume that they were nothing more than historical figures of note.

    except in the case of Christians or the Catholic church where you have specific criticisms
    reserved.
    Note also by saying you are not singling out Jesus -you are doing exactly that.
    And the vast majority of Christians follow a similar approach. They reject every other purported god-like figure bar Jesus without ever examining the merits of the the evidence for their existence.

    that is debatable. Others will dispute how christians being called to witness means they consider and reject non christian beliefs. And again you are singling out Christians .

    if the Church say that you should treat others with respect or be charitable, I'd say "Yeah, that's a pretty good idea." But if the Church says that masturbation is a gravely disordered act then I'd say "Well that's a bit silly."

    If you pick out what suits you that means you reject some things. Im more interested in what you reject her than what you accept. And harder options. Abortion for example or
    whether you think the church conspired to hide abuse or whether you think clergy ar living like leeches off the people?
    ...I didn't, that was Sonic2k. Who also claimed that they believe it likely that Jesus existed. They weren't referring to the notion of the historical figure of Jesus as "crap." But of course if you actually read what people were saying (try it, you might even like it) rather than what you assumed they were saying based on this anti-theistic stereotype you have in your head, you'd already know this.

    It took some clarification by the OP to expound on what they stated. I reject your notion that the full meaning was in the OP or that I intentionally misinterpreted it. I can only go by what people post. "crap" i.e. excrement was the word used by them.
    Again, you are taking what someone else said and quoting me on it. Of course there hundreds if not thousands of other people throughout history who claimed to be or were believed to be Gods. How thick do you actually think I am not to have realised that?

    But we dont witness you posting about them! How come? do you think people are thick because theyjump t the conclusion that yuor posts are only about Christians and not about all these other religions? Are they therefore thick if they suppose you like other posters her have admitted have the same reasons for posting about Christianity as opposed to all these other religions on which you dont post?

    And then having posted only on christianity you add in "but Im not singling out christianity"?
    Give us a break!
    My point in highlighting their small numbers was this: there is no need to call into question their claims because it is implicitly assumed by, in effect, everyone in the world that their claims are bogus. It goes without saying. When I go to a restaurant and ask for a glass of water I don't need to qualify that I don't want it brought to me boiling at 100 degrees. When people talk about David Koresh they don't need to say "I have serious doubts that that man was truly God's final prophet " because it is implicitly assumed by 99.99999999% of the world that the man was a ****ing wingnut. This goes for any modern-day self-professed prophet or cult leaders with Messianic delusions. We do not need lengthy discourse on the evidence for their Godliness because it is known, without needed to be said, that everyone you will ever encounter believes that these people are complete basket cases.

    And you are saying the difference between them and christianity by implication
    is that christianity is not a wing nut basket case but a reasonable philosophy ?

    Based only on the number that expound it?

    you do realise atheistic regimes had huge numbers preaching their creed?
    There are areas of Catholic doctrine with which I disagree, their views views on sexuality being the obvious example. It is not because they are Catholic teachings that I disagree with them. I just happens that I see nothing inherently wrong with homosexual relations or sex outside of wedlock*

    So you also oppose Jewish and Islamic views on homosexual relations or sex outside of wedlock? You think the Jews and Muslims are wrong?
    You just dont bother telling them.
    Nor can you claim that I am singling out Catholicism (I notice we've advanced from anti-Christianity to anti-Catholicism in this post. And you accuse others of having an agenda!), as Islam, many sects of Protestantism, and many organisations in largely atheistic countries like China and Russia also oppose homosexuality.

    But you come to a christian group and mention it and not to any islamic or atheist ones?
    As regards Catholicism if you are going to say the Irish context isnt relevant then dont start about other countries which are mostly Islam or atheistic.
    Seriously, do you believe that disagreeing with, and perhaps even being so bold as to discuss, some of the Church's teachings renders you an anti-Catholic?

    not at all. Encouraging people to oppose catholics and unfairly painting them or their church in a bad light is.
    In that case every Protestant who has posted on the Catholic/Protestant megathread is anti-Catholic,

    some may well be yes.
    and you and all Catholics who have done likewise yourself are an anti-Protestant.

    where did i say i was a Catholic protestant or even if i believed in god?
    Please dont bring my personal beliefs or lack of them into this. We are not discussing what i believe.
    You're free to self-identify as you will, but I'm not so sure some of your Christian brethren will be happy to be described in such derogatory terms.

    I dont mention my personal beliefs or lack of them here.

    i dont have to be a Jew to debate holocaust deniers.
    I have quoted non Catholics who clearly point out the anti catholic prejudice.
    Philip Jenkins for one.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_literature_and_media#Media_coverage_of_abuse_cases
    "Philip Jenkins, an Episcopalian and Professor of History and Religious Studies at Penn State University, published the 1996 book Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis in which he claims that the Catholic Church is being unfairly singled out by a secular media which he claims fails to highlight similar sexual scandals in other religious groups, such as the Anglican Communion, various Protestant churches, and the Jewish and Islamic communities. He also claims that the Catholic Church may have a lower incidence of molesting priests than Churches that allow married clergy because statistically child molestation generally occurs within families but Latin-rite Catholic priests do not have families, and the Catholic Church only allows married priests in a few of its rites. He also claims that the term "pedophile priests" widely used in the media, implies a distinctly higher rate of child molesters within the Catholic priesthood when in reality the incidence is lower than most other segments of society"
    The poster very clearly stated that of the three men listed, Jesus differs in that he is worshiped in the present as a deity (I have pointed this out already but this time I'm using the three-pronged attack of bold, underline and italics so you can't possibly claim to have missed it). That was crystal clear but of course you are not arguing with actual people here, you are arguing with what you imagine a stereotypical anti-theist would say.

    Care to supply a reference to "the poster" and we will see
    Here is the Op 4076

    "These two men are not portrayed as God or the Son of God, or the way to enlightenment or any of that stuff.
    They existed, this is fact. The odds are quite good that the man Jesus also existed, but there is no direct evidence of his miracles outside of the Bible."


    Where does that say of the three men listed, Jesus differs in that he is worshiped in the present as a deity?

    It doesnt and It only became crystal clear after several subsequent posts. After which time I accepted that is what the poster originally meant. It was not clear in what he originally stated. But in stating he meant that being worshipped today was his issue raised other problems. Problems you also have. for example the fact that he was only interested in singling out jesus or christianity because it survived as a religion and is around today.
    Returning to your "what you imagine" point it seems quite clear that what irked hil was not the rationality or not of belief in some dead religion; what was more relevant was the existance of a living religion . His opposition was grounded in the fact (not imagination -fact) that a religion exists in which people believe.
    A Christian view of the universe would feature God as the creator of space and time. As I do not believe in any gods then it follows that I think their view of the universe is flawed in that respect. That should go without saying.

    Part of the reason i picked the roman Catholic church. Have you a problem with eh existence of Bishops or Priests or the Vatican? Or do you consider them upright and respectable people?
    I didn't say you did. Your experiences with anti-Catholics on the thread in question - who are, let's be honest, few in number - seem to have coloured you view of atheists to the extent that I am an anti-Christian in your eyes for daring to believe Jesus was just a normal man and failing to agree with all aspects of Catholic teaching.

    No ! i have no problem with that and I have met some atheists like that here.
    i have atheist/agnostic friends and they are not anti catholic or anti religion.
    So you agree that you are anti-Islam, under a specific definition outlined above. Your claims of anti-Catholicism against me go beyond that, to the point where where I am allegedly attacking the Catholic people themselves. Would this apply to you as well? That by opposing the tenets of Islam you are, by extension, attacking its followers as well?

    Yes if they follow something which a person oppose that person would be attacking them for that belief.
    MY beliefs are not the subject of discussion.
    Let us say "a person " if you want to discuss this pôint. Like your "speaking figuratively"
    To the best of my knowledge, there is no modern religion based on Socrates or Alexander the Great.

    Actually the rational part of Christianity is based on Aristotle who was instructed by Plato who was instructed by Socrates. Aristotle in turn instructed Alexander.

    Paganism survives today and the same gods to which Alexander was linked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellowship_of_Isis
    I don't see why we would ever need to enter into discussion about Alexander's status as a God. As the number of people who believe he is a God totals zero, it would be something of a one-sided debate.
    But you are back into the "number" being significant.
    By default you interest in debating Christianity is because of the number of Christians.

    Christianity was at one time tiny.


    I have addressed all of this already. In fact, it was my first post on the thread.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78303937&postcount=4090

    and i n my immediazte reply in 4091 i pointed out
    "no he didnt clearly state that since he clarified it later"

    where AFTER that post did i argue against what you claim he meant and claim he didnt mean that at all?
    You genuinely do not seem to understand this, ISAW: people other than yourself can also read the posts on this thread. As a result, they can see you haven't a leg to stand on in this instance,

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78304216&postcount=4091
    Pace2008 So what the poster has clearly stated is that they believe Jesus, Alexander and Socrates all existed, but Jesus differs in that people in the present day believe he was a deity who performed supernatural feats.
    no he didnt clearly state that since he clarified it later. In any case i dont think he needs you to tell him what he is saying.

    But as i have already stated, there ARE people today who claim to be god and that people believe are at least godlike e.g. Rael, David Koresh, Jim Jones. There are also neo pagans.


    He didn't say this at all
    His problem became 4084 that such like were not around TODAY.

    4076
    These two men are not portrayed as God or the Son of God, or the way to enlightenment or any of that stuff.
    They existed, this is fact. The odds are quite good that the man Jesus also existed, but there is no direct evidence of his miracles outside of the Bible.

    then in 4084
    Underlined it in the hopes you'll at least attempt to read it again.
    Again, I'm talking about the PRESENT tense.


    He underlined "two men are" in an attempt to emphasise the "are" but he emphasised the "two men" as well which is what i took him up on.

    As regards "are" i have replied above ther are such people.
    Are regards "are" in terms of something still around which was around in ancient times i suggested egyptian religions and neopaganism.Judiasm and zoroastriansm would also be examples.

    But if of course you are claiming Christianity is different because it is the only one still around that existed in ancient times then you are singling out Christianity are you not?
    Islam is not going to be discussed to the same extent as Catholicism in Ireland because it is not really a visible force in Ireland.

    Now you are in circles. Tweedledum you think foicusing on catholicism is changing the issue and christianity is referred to a a minority on world terms. Tweedledee you are back on Irish Catholics.


    1. People will naturally talk more about something the larger and more prominent it is in the society that they live in.

    So your motivation IS the Numbers of Catholics?
    2. Nobody needs to state that the leader of a cult with 200 members is making bogus claims about his messianic nature because it is implicitly assumed by everyone in the world bar those 200 people that he is a fruitcake.

    And Christianity began with how many followers?
    I'm not giving you a platform to get up on your hobby horse. Everyone bar you thinks the notion of Ireland turning into Soviet Russia is absurd.

    I didnt claim it was. Your continually attempt to compare me to "wingnuts" and pass me off as absurd. i propose a rational argument.
    I'm somewhere in the middle.

    So what do you think the church has or is doing wrong?
    I think have made it very clear in previous posts as well as this one that I am not singling out Catholicism or Christianity.

    And i have offered counter argument.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ISAW: Christianity was not based on Aristotle or Plato. Certain church traditions were. The reality was that a pagan ideology being added into a distinctly Judaic belief system was mistaken. The New Testament wasn't based on Aristotle or Plato, Jesus' teaching was not based on Aristotle or Plato.

    As much as I admire Augustine and Aquinas, I think they compromised Christianity by adding Platonism and Aristotelianism in to the mix.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭battle_hardend


    philologos wrote: »
    Here's some food for thought. Sometimes I find it better to point to God's word and letting Him speak:






    Let me know what you think of these.

    God doesn't promise us a perfect life in this world, even to those who believe and follow Him. In fact He tells Christians to expect trials and tribulations in the here and now before the age to come.


    trials and tribulations often mess people up beyond repair , ive heard my aunt say that god never gives someone a challenge they are not strong enough to face , i dont agree


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement