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)

1119120122124125196

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Park the attitude

    Apologies, it can get very frustrating on this forum where posters go out of their way to avoid addressing the point that is being made, but I should not assume that our misunderstandings was such a ploy.
    Then please explain it again because I don't understand your point. But this time dumb it right down. I get that you are accusing me of circular reasoning, but I can't see how this can be applied to my point.

    You are saying that surely the fact that miracles happen is evidence for an interventionist God. We can observe and witness miracles, and miracles cannot happen with God so surely the fact that they happen must be evidence for God.

    Note this accepts that miracles happen, and are caused by God. And thus it accepts that God exists, since you cannot have miracles without God.

    Even if there was some way to objective and empirically measure an event and conclude that it was an act of God, thus a miracle, that wouldn't matter to the point though. Once you have done that, once you have concluded it was an act of God, you cannot then use that conclusion as evidence for God, because you couldn't have reached that conclusion in the first place without already asserting, for what ever reason, that God exists and did something.

    You cannot say miracles happen unless you have already concluded that God has intervened at some point. As you said a miracle is itself by definition an act of God. Without that classification it is just an unexplained event with an unknown cause. You must conclude God has done something in order to say it is a miracle, at which point you cannot then use that conclusion as evidence that God has done something because that was already the conclusion you arrived at.

    A miracle is a conclusion, an end point. It is what you determine happened after you determined God exists and did something. It thus cannot be evidence for God or God's intervention.

    Using a non religious example. Say Billy has been arrested. By arrested we mean the police have come and formally put him under arrest, and taken him away. That is the conclusion, that Billy is arrested. We might reach that conclusion from observing the police doing something that looks like Billy has been put under arrest. But imagine now that some was to say that the fact that Billy was arrested is evidence the police arrested Billy. That is a non-runner, because you cannot say Billy was arrested in the first place without asserting that the men that turned up and took him away were police. If they weren't police then he wasn't arrested, he was kidnapped. So the fact that he was arrested is only a fact if those men were police, and thus this fact cannot be used in support of the idea that he was taken away by police.

    I missed a post of yours which, to save space, I'll add to the bottom
    I actually still don't see an answer to my question. And it is a question, not a "gotcha". So, again, and asked in honest curiosity, how do you demonstrate empirically that the only type of evidence is empirical evidence?

    You empirically study the times empirical evidence provided the correct, or logically satisfying answer, verse the times other non-empirical evidence did.

    Non-empirical evidence loses in this regard, by a large margin. How can non-emprical evidence be as good as empirical evidence if it fails so many times to either provide the right answer or provide an answer that can be distinguished from all the other possible answers?

    After all, is that the point, to provide evidence that can reliably support claims about nature (God exists, that bridge is going to stay up, electrons orbit nucli)
    I'm happy to rely on empirical measurement (why are we talking about measurement now?) when it comes to aeroplanes and bridges. I never said otherwise. But empirical measurement is not in the same ballpark as your claim that empirical evidence is the only type of evidence.
    I didn't actually make that claim (I'm not even sure I understand it), but I imagine what you mean is that I claimed that empirical evidence is the only type of evidence that consistently can be relied upon to give accurate results.
    For example, it is argued that logic and mathematical concepts are innate and rational intuitions.

    They are not though evidence used to support claims of nature (God exists, electrons exist, spacetime exists etc).
    I don't understand what you are saying.

    I'm saying that if you don't rely on empirical evidence and build a bridge most likely the bridge will fall over, because humans are very poor at judging reality based purely on personal assessment.

    Most people recognize this in relation to things like bridges and aeroplanes. Neither you nor me want the guy who designed the 747 I'm flying to have been figuring it out based on his best intuition and what felt right and made sense to him. That is because those notions often, if not always, have nothing to do with reality.

    But for some reason when it comes to particular questions about the accurate nature of reality, such as whether God exists or not, some people are perfectly happy to rely on these sort of things. God makes sense to me. It feels right that God exists. I can't imagine a world without God. I can't explain the world without God etc (insert what ever reason you believe in God here).

    Why are some perfectly happy with that type of thinking when it comes to God, but would be horrified if someone then when in the same mindset and build a bridge that children went over.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Morbert wrote: »
    Regarding the exchange between Fanny Cradock and Zombrex:

    On a fundamental level, it is possible for miracles to be empirical evidence (though not scientific insofar as they are not repeatable) for an interventionist God, provided we are willing to accept that, because it is empirical evidence, it is a tentative conclusion that could be refuted further down the line.

    On a more realistic level, atheists would have major issues with what are currently tendered as possible miracles. Mother Teresa, for example, supposedly cured an Indian woman of a tumour. It later emerged that the woman was receiving conventional medical treatment, and that her doctor identified the tumour as a tuberculosis induced cyst. Thomas Aquinas had some sardines turn into herring. Those who travel to Lourdes to be healed show the same frequency of recovery as those who don't.

    It is often said atheists contrive alternative explanations to miracles. I think it is perfectly reasonable to remain unconvinced by the current evidence. Even by theological standards they are incredibly dubious. Like aliens who travel millions of light years to vandalise crops and abduct lonely truckers, it would be strange for God to give up His only begotten son for our salvation, and then be content to alter the flavour of sardines, or administer statistically negligible cures.

    All very true. But I would hope that no Christians is saying that all miraculous claims are equally valid just because the word "miracle" is mentioned. Equally I would hope that no sceptic dismisses miracles for the same reason. Some claims are highly dubious (I remember hearing something bizarre about God apparently making gold fillings appear in people's mouths a while back) and I think it is fair to say, "Nahhhhh!". Others deserve a little more investigation because they have, at least on the face of it, more reliable attestation and might be though of as the type of thing God would do. Gold fillings appearing in your gob - not so much! It's the latter, seemingly more robust claim, that Keener, who I've mentioned a number of times now, spends the best part of two volumes investigating. (On a side issue, I think that Hume's "Of Miracles" has been found to be a thoroughly unsound attack on the very notion of miracles.)

    I realise that a firm philosophical naturalist isn't likely to be swayed by miraculous accounts, even the good ones! It was no different in the time of Jesus. But in my defence it was never my intention to engage with such folks.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Apologies, it can get very frustrating on this forum where posters go out of their way to avoid addressing the point that is being made, but I should not assume that our misunderstandings was such a ploy.

    OK, thanks. I'll respond to your post another time if you don't mind.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    philologos wrote: »
    What God has declared, if it has been declared in any way at all is evident in reality. Psalm 19 amongst other Scriptures advocate and encourage us to see God's word at work in the world.

    So you believe the bible is the word of god because the bible says it is the word of god?

    Do you understand circular logic, and why it should never be used when trying to convince others? You cannot go around using a book to convince us of the truth of the details contained within it. You have to show external evidence, and regarding god there is exactly none.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Sometimes it's all we have to go on till we find the proof, Higgs boson for example!


    And the Higg's boson example shows exactly what religion does wrong wrt evidence. You see, the scientists didn't just propose the Higgs' boson and leave it at that because it explained the gap of mass, they investigated, they tried to destroy the assumptions upon which the boson was thought up, they tried to figure out alternatives which would solve the problem as neatly without recourse to inventing a new sub-atomic particle. And even when they ended up finding the Higg's boson, this investigation did not stop, they are still testing their models for flaws and improvments.

    In theistic theology you've the idea of an omnipotent god, and there is no deviation from that idea no matter what the evidence says.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    I'm very open to others. I just become frustrated when people mock and deride the church.

    Kick out the bishops, cardinals, popes and a signifcant number of priests, nuns and monks then.

    It is they who mock and deride the church, not us.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Probably not, but by the same token, I imagine Hitler, born and raised in Dublin in a catholic family, would not be a sadistic cold blooded mass murderer.

    Hitler was born into a catholic family in Salzburg, Austria, and was in communion with the catholic church his whole life. He was never censured, never refused communion, never excommunicated.

    Whether he would have had the means to carry out his anti-semitic holocaust in suburban Dublin is a different matter.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15 evangelist



    Who would like for me to really convince you that God exists,
    and through believing in His Messiah-Redeemer-Savior (Jesus Christ)
    it is possible to spend eternity with God in Heaven when you die?

    If there are any takers, I will post my personal spiritual testimony ... amazing!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    And the Higg's boson example shows exactly what religion does wrong wrt evidence. ...
    In theistic theology you've the idea of an omnipotent god, and there is no deviation from that idea no matter what the evidence says.

    Brian,
    In a few other threads you have offered up some quasi sounding scientific arguments, but points I find totally lacking itself science, and have specifically challenged. In particular, refer to post #533, here.

    Now you're on to the Higg's Boson? :rolleyes:

    Just one question for you. What is your scientific test to demonstrate that your memory works properly.

    Concisely, science fails to offer a test by which we may prove that our memory works properly.

    If science fails to offer us a test by which we may prove our memory works properly, why then do you believe it is an appropriate tool for proving or disproving the existence of God?

    If you disagree and believe that science does offer us a test by which we may prove our memory works properly, please outline, and post.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    FISMA wrote: »
    Just one question for you. What is your scientific test to demonstrate that your memory works properly.

    Concisely, science fails to offer a test by which we may prove that our memory works properly.

    If science fails to offer us a test by which we may prove our memory works properly, why then do you believe it is an appropriate tool for proving or disproving the existence of God?
    Maybe I missed where Brian posted it, but I haven't seen him post anything to suggest the veracity of memory at all, let alone on the point of it as a tool to disprove the existence of a deity. I may very well be wrong, and if so would welcome being shown so, but from how I see it, it looks like your own invention.

    I went back to the post you link here, too and I see you bring up the point that science isn't going to examine/is unable to examine supernaturalism. It came across that you have a respect for the scientific method, but think it isn't going to work here. Fine. What, then, do you use as a substitute? Presumably faith, but would be interesting if it were something else.


  • Moderators Posts: 51,893 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    FISMA wrote: »

    Brian,
    In a few other threads you have offered up some quasi sounding scientific arguments, but points I find totally lacking itself science, and have specifically challenged. In particular, refer to post #533, here.

    Now you're on to the Higg's Boson? :rolleyes:

    Just one question for you. What is your scientific test to demonstrate that your memory works properly.

    Concisely, science fails to offer a test by which we may prove that our memory works properly.

    If science fails to offer us a test by which we may prove our memory works properly, why then do you believe it is an appropriate tool for proving or disproving the existence of God?

    If you disagree and believe that science does offer us a test by which we may prove our memory works properly, please outline, and post.
    maybe I'm missing something but doctors frequently determine if patients have memory problems.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    evangelist wrote: »

    Who would like for me to really convince you that God exists,
    and through believing in His Messiah-Redeemer-Savior (Jesus Christ)
    it is possible to spend eternity with God in Heaven when you die?

    If there are any takers, I will post my personal spiritual testimony ... amazing!

    Umm, blue text ... this probably isn't going to end well


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    FISMA wrote: »
    Brian,
    In a few other threads you have offered up some quasi sounding scientific arguments, but points I find totally lacking itself science, and have specifically challenged. In particular, refer to post #533, here.

    Now you're on to the Higg's Boson? :rolleyes:

    Just one question for you. What is your scientific test to demonstrate that your memory works properly.

    Concisely, science fails to offer a test by which we may prove that our memory works properly.

    If science fails to offer us a test by which we may prove our memory works properly, why then do you believe it is an appropriate tool for proving or disproving the existence of God?

    If you disagree and believe that science does offer us a test by which we may prove our memory works properly, please outline, and post.

    Where did you get the notion that our memory worked properly? Relatively speaking (compared to say a harddisk), humans have very poor memory.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,432 ✭✭✭hju6


    evangelist wrote: »

    Who would like for me to really convince you that God exists,
    and through believing in His Messiah-Redeemer-Savior (Jesus Christ)
    it is possible to spend eternity with God in Heaven when you die?

    If there are any takers, I will post my personal spiritual testimony ... amazing!

    For you maybe, but my creator who created my reality, may not allow your creators reality into mine,

    So, I'm out.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    hju6 wrote: »
    For you maybe, but my creator who created my reality, may not allow your creators reality into mine,

    So, I'm out.

    Oooh, god fight ... awesome.

    Round one, Zeus vs Jehovah

    32945.jpg?v=1


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 47 EmmettInc


    What purpose does a god serve? Why does there need to be a god? What added value does the existence of god add to life or existence? Why do we assume we are important enough to deserve an all seeing all knowing all influencing god? And of course, the burden of proof lies with the individual making the assertive claim, so I don't need anyone saying - why not? or Prove god doesn't exist? That's the same as saying prove there is no flying spaghetti monster...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,267 ✭✭✭Dublin Red Devil


    If there really was a God. He's getting his ass kicked by Satan. This world is a sick, evil demonic fcked up society.


  • Registered Users Posts: 47 EmmettInc


    FISMA wrote: »
    Brian,
    In a few other threads you have offered up some quasi sounding scientific arguments, but points I find totally lacking itself science, and have specifically challenged. In particular, refer to post #533, here.

    Now you're on to the Higg's Boson? :rolleyes:

    Just one question for you. What is your scientific test to demonstrate that your memory works properly.

    Concisely, science fails to offer a test by which we may prove that our memory works properly.

    If science fails to offer us a test by which we may prove our memory works properly, why then do you believe it is an appropriate tool for proving or disproving the existence of God?

    If you disagree and believe that science does offer us a test by which we may prove our memory works properly, please outline, and post.

    Do you know what circular reasoning is? Or more aptly, do you know what a test is? If so, you're memory is probably working fine... If not, you're memory is probably not working fine... Did I just do a "quasi" scientific "test"? No seriously, I can't remember...

    Also, you cannot prove a negative assertion, if you say something exists, then prove it, if I say something does not exist, there is no possible test known to exist that can prove that... It's just not possible, whereas if you assert something does exist, you should be able prove same...

    I can't offer proof, as any proof with suggest the existence of the very thing I claim not to exist...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    Because I happen to think you are missing my intention. Rereading my original post I can see how this has arisen so let me rephrase it. My original statement went as follows -

    Why would we say that there is no empirical evidence for God? For example, if one is of the opinion that the evidence for a particular miracle claim is reliable then that surely qualifies as evidence for an interventionist God.

    My slightly amended statement is -

    Why would we say that there is no empirical evidence for God? For example, if one is of the opinion that the evidence for a particular miracle claim is reliable - perhaps through observation - then that surely qualifies as evidence that God has intervened.

    I was suggesting that there is evidence for God. And I gave the example that if one is inclined to believe that a particular miraculous account is reliable (and here is a discussion between Craig Keener and an atheist about the reliability of modern day accounts) then this would qualify as evidence for God and for a God that intervenes.

    I believe that this is a valid statement. If you don't then I'm afraid you are stuck invoking Dawkin's beard.

    You present a false dichotomy here - either you believe me or you are a brain-washed idiot.

    We may say that an account of a miracle is evidence of something but that could mean a lot of things, couldn't it?

    Have you ever asked youself, 'Does Satan perform miracles?'

    Why would Satan perform miracles? I hear you ask. Why would Satan act like God's PR man?

    Well, I'm glad you asked.

    It was a miracle when Father Brendan Smyth avoided capture at a checkpoint between the north and south of Ireland even though the police were looking for a priest in flight. He hid his ID and the cops waved him through.

    What about Hitler's 'miraculous rise to power'? He attested to being 'touched by God'. Are Hitler's accounts empirical evidence of God?

    Why would God choose to make blood run out of statues rather than rescue 6,000,000 Jews?

    Now that would have been a miracle.

    How do you assess what is reliable and what isn't if you can't subject it to a test which yields the same results time after time?

    Why would Satan perform miracles?

    To breed resentment.

    If God is non-interventionist, i.e., totally even handed, then miracles would necssarily be empirical evidence of something other than the existence of God, right?

    But, by performing evil miracles, Satan can elicit the question of why do bad things happen if God is good and faith in God can be weakened.

    By performing good miracles, Satan sets neighbour against neighbour because one woman can say, 'I devoted myself to God and my child died but the child of the Philistine lives. God has forsaken me.'

    I mean, given that Satan could use the miracle thing as a tool for his own ends, why do you think he wouldn't?

    And if Hebrew God of war is an interventionist God of war then what kind of miracles could we expect?

    Bleeding statues.

    Cheers God, they'll bring about world peace in a jiffy.

    You are right in that if there is a God and He is interventionist and He performs miracles then the evidence is that the Hebrew God of war is doing even less on this planet to promote goodness than Hitler did.

    Empirically.

    Now, you might want to argue that whether it is God or Satan who performs miracles, one is evidence of the other but this would be a false assumption. The existence of Satan does not prove the existence of God since Satan himself may be the highest power of existence.

    Think about it. Satan might even be the one who inspired the bible. Look at Revelations and tell me that Satan could not possibly want such an end to mankind.

    An interventionist God would be unjust and un-merciful. To perform a miracle is to provide evidence to a few. Where does that leave free-will?

    If God wants us to express free-will then when should He tinker with people through miracles?

    And did anyone ever stop to think that since God is more concerned about how He is worshipped than people murdering each other, that 'bleeding statues' might be His way of objecting to the idolatry characteristic of the Catholic church.

    Maybe He's trying to say, 'Carry on killing each other by all means but for the love of Me, stop praying to Mary!'

    I find it quite obscene that God would turn water into wine rather than stop an earthquake, or a meteor, or a plague.

    He made us to suffer these things and He can shove His bleeding statues up His divine path as far as I'm concerned.

    I want to avoid the fate outlined in Revelations. I want God to be thwarted.

    Now that would be the greatest miracle of all.


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


    If there really was a God. He's getting his ass kicked by Satan. This world is a sick, evil demonic fcked up society.

    Ask yourself why it is a sick, evil, demonic, f-ed up society? You might find that when you know the reason why this came about, that it also explains why we need a Saviour.

    If you have 30 minutes, listen to this talk as to why only Jesus makes sense of suffering.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    FISMA wrote: »
    Brian,
    In a few other threads you have offered up some quasi sounding scientific arguments, but points I find totally lacking itself science, and have specifically challenged. In particular, refer to post #533, here.

    FISMA, just because you, personally, hate and can't understand science doesn't mean that the whole world is in the same boat as you.

    I'm going to give the rest of your post the treatment it deserves, I'm going to ignore it for the baseless hogwash it is.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    philologos wrote: »
    Ask yourself why it is a sick, evil, demonic, f-ed up society?

    Because those in control need some way to keep the rest of us down and in fear, so they invented god and the other (in all their various forms) to keep us cowering in the corner.

    This is the first age in which the lies are being systematically exposed for what they are.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15 evangelist


    If there really was a God. He's getting his ass kicked by Satan. This world is a sick, evil demonic fcked up society.
    By deceiving Adam & Eve, Satan won the right to have the influence he has over their descendants.

    Man is unable to choose spiritual life (salvation) on his own
    because he is …


    -- born with an inherited sin nature … many verses
    -- spiritually dead in his sins … Ephesians 2:1-5, Colossians 2:13
    -- a captive to the law of sin and death … Romans 8:2
    -- a slave to sin, forced to obey evil … John 8:34, Romans 6:17-21, Titus 3:3
    -- an enemy of God, hostile to God, opposed to God … Romans 8:7

    -- spiritually blind and deaf … Matthew 13:13-15, John 9:39, John 12:39-40, Ephesians 4:18
    -- unable to understand the things of God (they are foolishness) … 1 Corinthians 2:14
    -- seeing the gospel as utter foolishness … 1 Corinthians 1:18
    -- unable to believe the truth of the gospel because it is veiled … 2 Corinthians 4:3

    -- blinded by Satan … Acts 26:18, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4
    -- controlled (ruled) by Satan … John 12:31, 1 John 5:19, Acts 26:18, 2 Cor 10:4-5, Ephesians 2:2
    -- deceived by Satan … Revelation 12:9, John 8:44, 2 Corinthians 11:14
    -- a captive of Satan unto death … Hebrews 2:14-15, Luke 4:18

    -- unable to be righteous by doing good works … Isaiah 64:6, Galatians 2:16, Titus 3:5
    -- unable to be saved by his own desire or works … Romans 9:16, Ephesians 2:8-9
    -- able to be saved only by the grace and mercy of God … Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:4-7
    -- NOT allowed to choose ... God chooses only whomever He pleases … Romans 9:9-24

    The Truth (as revealed in God's Scriptures) remains forever ... whether anyone believes it or not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 198 ✭✭johnny-grunge


    evangelist wrote: »
    By deceiving Adam & Eve, Satan won the right to have the influence he has over their descendants.

    Man is unable to choose spiritual life (salvation) on his own
    because he is …


    -- born with an inherited sin nature … many verses
    -- spiritually dead in his sins … Ephesians 2:1-5, Colossians 2:13
    -- a captive to the law of sin and death … Romans 8:2
    -- a slave to sin, forced to obey evil … John 8:34, Romans 6:17-21, Titus 3:3
    -- an enemy of God, hostile to God, opposed to God … Romans 8:7

    -- spiritually blind and deaf … Matthew 13:13-15, John 9:39, John 12:39-40, Ephesians 4:18
    -- unable to understand the things of God (they are foolishness) … 1 Corinthians 2:14
    -- seeing the gospel as utter foolishness … 1 Corinthians 1:18
    -- unable to believe the truth of the gospel because it is veiled … 2 Corinthians 4:3

    -- blinded by Satan … Acts 26:18, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4
    -- controlled (ruled) by Satan … John 12:31, 1 John 5:19, Acts 26:18, 2 Cor 10:4-5, Ephesians 2:2
    -- deceived by Satan … Revelation 12:9, John 8:44, 2 Corinthians 11:14
    -- a captive of Satan unto death … Hebrews 2:14-15, Luke 4:18

    -- unable to be righteous by doing good works … Isaiah 64:6, Galatians 2:16, Titus 3:5
    -- unable to be saved by his own desire or works … Romans 9:16, Ephesians 2:8-9
    -- able to be saved only by the grace and mercy of God … Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:4-7
    -- NOT allowed to choose ... God chooses only whomever He pleases … Romans 9:9-24

    The Truth (as revealed in God's Scriptures) remains forever ... whether anyone believes it or not.

    This is in no way convincing!


  • Registered Users Posts: 47 EmmettInc


    evangelist wrote: »
    By deceiving Adam & Eve, Satan won the right to have the influence he has over their descendants.

    Man is unable to choose spiritual life (salvation) on his own
    because he is …


    -- born with an inherited sin nature … many verses
    -- spiritually dead in his sins … Ephesians 2:1-5, Colossians 2:13
    -- a captive to the law of sin and death … Romans 8:2
    -- a slave to sin, forced to obey evil … John 8:34, Romans 6:17-21, Titus 3:3
    -- an enemy of God, hostile to God, opposed to God … Romans 8:7

    -- spiritually blind and deaf … Matthew 13:13-15, John 9:39, John 12:39-40, Ephesians 4:18
    -- unable to understand the things of God (they are foolishness) … 1 Corinthians 2:14
    -- seeing the gospel as utter foolishness … 1 Corinthians 1:18
    -- unable to believe the truth of the gospel because it is veiled … 2 Corinthians 4:3

    -- blinded by Satan … Acts 26:18, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4
    -- controlled (ruled) by Satan … John 12:31, 1 John 5:19, Acts 26:18, 2 Cor 10:4-5, Ephesians 2:2
    -- deceived by Satan … Revelation 12:9, John 8:44, 2 Corinthians 11:14
    -- a captive of Satan unto death … Hebrews 2:14-15, Luke 4:18

    -- unable to be righteous by doing good works … Isaiah 64:6, Galatians 2:16, Titus 3:5
    -- unable to be saved by his own desire or works … Romans 9:16, Ephesians 2:8-9
    -- able to be saved only by the grace and mercy of God … Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:4-7
    -- NOT allowed to choose ... God chooses only whomever He pleases … Romans 9:9-24

    The Truth (as revealed in God's Scriptures) remains forever ... whether anyone believes it or not.


    No, you this is the thing, the truth is the truth whether people believe it or not, this hogwash is only true when people believe it, if someone chooses not to anymore then it no longer remains true...

    Scriptures are also evidence after the fact, in order for them to have any bearing on the material facts of a god existing, first you must prove god exists, then you can use them to support your argument... Until then however, they really are about as much evidence of gods existence, as spider-man comics are of spider-mans existence...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    evangelist wrote: »
    By deceiving Adam & Eve, Satan won the right to have the influence he has over their descendants.

    Man is unable to choose spiritual life (salvation) on his own
    because he is …

    -- born with an inherited sin nature … many verses
    -- spiritually dead in his sins … Ephesians 2:1-5, Colossians 2:13
    -- a captive to the law of sin and death … Romans 8:2
    -- a slave to sin, forced to obey evil … John 8:34, Romans 6:17-21, Titus 3:3
    -- an enemy of God, hostile to God, opposed to God … Romans 8:7

    -- spiritually blind and deaf … Matthew 13:13-15, John 9:39, John 12:39-40, Ephesians 4:18
    -- unable to understand the things of God (they are foolishness) … 1 Corinthians 2:14
    -- seeing the gospel as utter foolishness … 1 Corinthians 1:18
    -- unable to believe the truth of the gospel because it is veiled … 2 Corinthians 4:3

    -- blinded by Satan … Acts 26:18, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4
    -- controlled (ruled) by Satan … John 12:31, 1 John 5:19, Acts 26:18, 2 Cor 10:4-5, Ephesians 2:2
    -- deceived by Satan … Revelation 12:9, John 8:44, 2 Corinthians 11:14
    -- a captive of Satan unto death … Hebrews 2:14-15, Luke 4:18

    -- unable to be righteous by doing good works … Isaiah 64:6, Galatians 2:16, Titus 3:5
    -- unable to be saved by his own desire or works … Romans 9:16, Ephesians 2:8-9
    -- able to be saved only by the grace and mercy of God … Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:4-7
    -- NOT allowed to choose ... God chooses only whomever He pleases … Romans 9:9-24

    The Truth (as revealed in God's Scriptures) remains forever ... whether anyone believes it or not.

    You paint a very bleak picture with words neither of God nor Jesus.

    Paul was an evil murderous drunk who became the head of an institution that refused to eject Hitler from its numbers.

    Nice.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Masteroid wrote: »
    You paint a very bleak picture with words neither of God nor Jesus.

    Paul was an evil murderous drunk who became the head of an institution that refused to eject Hitler from its numbers.

    Nice.

    So what do you really think, no point sitting on the fence!:p

    A bit harsh don't you think? He did give up his murderous ways before leading the institute and was hardly in a position to make any difference to Hitlers standing. They do condemn the things Adolf did, the sin not the sinner and all that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15 evangelist


    I do truly understand where you guys are coming from.
    Theories are just that ... theories.
    And ditto for opinions.
    I get it.

    What turns things around drastically is revelation. In this case, spiritual revelation.

    I've been very fortunate in that I'm not relying on family tradition or any type of blind faith.
    To me that is totally ludicrous.

    MANY millions of Jews, Christians, Muslims, cults, sects, etc.
    have been born into their religion ... and are just satisfied to stay in it.
    Totally ludicrous ... there MUST be some sort of real PROOF.

    The next level up is when a person becomes "born again",
    which is when God's Spirit actually comes inside and remains in a person.
    This can cause some quite drastic changes in the person.

    And a further level up is when a person becomes baptized with the Holy Spirit.
    This definitely causes a heightened spiritual awareness, such as spiritual discernment.

    So, BELIEVING is all about receiving spiritual revelation.
    Any other believing is ridiculous ... and UNBELIEF is totally understandable.

    THE KEY HERE ... is to just be OPEN to receiving some spiritual Truth.
    Just be OPEN.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    This is in no way convincing!

    If posting quotes from the Bible doesn't convince you of the absolutely infallibility of the Bible, then nothing will ... :P

    You really do think you would instantly turn 80% of theists into atheists if you just mandated a critical thinking and logic course in Primary school.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Masteroid wrote: »
    You paint a very bleak picture with words neither of God nor Jesus.

    Paul was an evil murderous drunk who became the head of an institution that refused to eject Hitler from its numbers.

    Nice.

    Can you show me where you are getting the murderous and drunk bit from?

    Do you understand the significance between the names Saul and Paul? Saul persecuted the early followers of Christ, Paul spent most of his time being beaten up, stoned, chased out of town and imprisoned because he was a follower of Christ.

    Also, Roman Catholics don't think that Paul was the head of their Church. They believe that Peter was the first pope. You should at least do RCs the good service of representing their beliefs correctly.

    Also what has Hitler got to do with it?


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


    Because those in control need some way to keep the rest of us down and in fear, so they invented god and the other (in all their various forms) to keep us cowering in the corner.

    This is the first age in which the lies are being systematically exposed for what they are.

    What am I afraid of? Just curious? :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    philologos wrote: »
    What am I afraid of? Just curious? :)
    At a guess, dying and there being nothing afterwards. Am I wrong?


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


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    At a guess, dying and there being nothing afterwards. Am I wrong?

    Yes, and not just because I don't subscribe to your atheistic world view.

    I could think of nothing worse than being in this temporal creation and not dying.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    philologos wrote: »
    Yes, and not just because I don't subscribe to your atheistic world view.

    I could think of nothing worse than being in this temporal creation and not dying.
    What I meant more specifically is, if you knew that on death there was no afterlife, if you just found that out at a snap of the fingers, I am figuring that would be a source of fear to you.


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


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    What I meant more specifically is, if you knew that on death there was no afterlife, if you just found that out at a snap of the fingers, I am figuring that would be a source of fear to you.

    This seems to be just evidence that atheists assume a heck of a lot of stuff about Christians.

    Genuinely, if this was it, and if death comes, what of it? I'd hold the this life is utterly meaningless mantra that you do.

    Essentially you're saying is do the logical consequences of an atheistic materialist worldview cause me to fear? Absolutely not, I just think that it is completely and utterly wrong on the basis of evaluating who Jesus Christ actually was.

    Things don't magically become true because I feel some way. Feelings are irrelevant. If it was true that I am going to become wormfood when I die then that's true irrespective. If it is true that Jesus is Lord and that by His death and resurrection He brought forgiveness of sins and eternal life in His name, that's true no matter what I feel.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    philologos wrote: »
    This seems to be just evidence that atheists assume a heck of a lot of stuff about Christians.
    That's the thing about people. They can make assumptions. These assumptions drive people to generally ask questions, to test these assumptions against reality. It's great.
    Genuinely, if this was it, and if death comes, what of it? I'd hold the this life is utterly meaningless mantra that you do.
    Seems my assumption wasn't far off the mark, so...
    Things don't magically become true because I feel some way.
    True, and I can't argue the point as evidence against your position. I would say, though, that what you have posted shows your happiness is tied into what you believe, which at the very least could make critically examining contradictory evidence undesirable.
    Feelings are irrelevant.
    Nope. That isn't true. People, generally, don't just shut off their feelings and go with evidence or entirely on reason. I would go as far as to say most, if not all people don't do so. I can't say even for myself that I'm not cognitively biased in certain ways based on feelings. I can't think of exact examples because people have blind spots on these things. It is easier to see in another than ourselves.


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


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    That's the thing about people. They can make assumptions. These assumptions drive people to generally ask questions, to test these assumptions against reality. It's great.

    Seems my assumption wasn't far off the mark, so...

    In what way? - If I assume atheism is correct and I die. What of it?

    How does that validate your assumption that Christians are afraid of death?

    Rather it shows the assumption to be wrong that many if not all Christians don't find the concept of death in and of itself all that troubling even when we assume your atheistic presuppositions.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    True, and I can't argue the point as evidence against your position. I would say, though, that what you have posted shows your happiness is tied into what you believe, which at the very least could make critically examining contradictory evidence undesirable.

    Christianity isn't about happiness. Again, I don't know where you're pulling this nonsense out of that my happiness is hinged on Christianity :confused:

    No, rather I'm convinced of the truth of the gospel because it holds up on examination.

    If the atheistic materialist worldviews philosophy of death was true, what odds? I rot. That doesn't trouble me a jot. I'd rather rot and be dead than live and perpetually decay in this creation.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Nope. That isn't true. People, generally, don't just shut off their feelings and go with evidence or entirely on reason. I would go as far as to say most, if not all people don't do so. I can't say even for myself that I'm not cognitively biased in certain ways based on feelings. I can't think of exact examples because people have blind spots on these things. It is easier to see in another than ourselves.

    What isn't true?

    What I said was that it doesn't matter a damn what I "feel". What matters a damn is what is true. Hence in the grand scheme of things feelings are irrelevant.

    I think you're misinterpreting my post.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    philologos wrote: »
    In what way? - If I assume atheism is correct and I die. What of it?

    How does that validate your assumption that Christians are afraid of death?
    There certainly are at least some Christians who are scared of death, and admit as such readily. Let's go with such people. They are scared of death. What does this mean? Their happiness is contingent on their belief. What might this cause? A lesser ability to go with an unbiased look at evidence. This is all elementary stuff, really. Again, as I say, it doesn't disprove religion, but it means that a religious person like I'm describing is less likely to evaluate evidence on its merits.

    An interesting thing I'd love to know the results of would be something like how religious people would react were they to find out their religion were true, except the bit about an afterlife. I wonder how their feelings towards their religion would change. Would they behave the same way? Is it a love of their deity, etc or is it a fear of death? Would be very interesting. This is the type of question that isn't likely to be critically (looked at in an unbiased way) by religionists.
    What isn't true?
    I quoted a very small bit. 3 words.
    What I said was that it doesn't matter a damn what I "feel". What matters a damn is what is true. Hence in the grand scheme of things feelings are irrelevant.
    What matters is what is true, and to get to what is true is to look and weigh up the evidence in an unbiased way.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    What I meant more specifically is, if you knew that on death there was no afterlife, if you just found that out at a snap of the fingers, I am figuring that would be a source of fear to you.

    For me, not a source of fear, it would be a source of despair. My natural inclination would tend towards nihilism of some sort or another. It's possibly why Ecclesiastics is one of my favourite books of the Bible.

    However, I imagine that I would muddle through life as best I could. But that's just me. No doubt there are many contented atheists out there.


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


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    There certainly are at least some Christians who are scared of death, and admit as such readily. Let's go with such people. They are scared of death. What does this mean? Their happiness is contingent on their belief. What might this cause? A lesser ability to go with an unbiased look at evidence. This is all elementary stuff, really. Again, as I say, it doesn't disprove religion, but it means that a religious person like I'm describing is less likely to evaluate evidence on its merits.

    There are some I suspect, just as there are some atheists, some Buddhists, some Jews, some Muslims, some Hindus, and some Sikhs who fear death.

    What I'm trying to see is what is your point.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    An interesting thing I'd love to know the results of would be something like how religious people would react were they to find out their religion were true, except the bit about an afterlife. I wonder how their feelings towards their religion would change. Would they behave the same way? Is it a love of their deity, etc or is it a fear of death? Would be very interesting. This is the type of question that isn't likely to be critically (looked at in an unbiased way) by religionists.

    If that were true (and the gospel itself precludes it being true) I think it makes a lot more sense still nonetheless to believe that there is a creator God than not.

    I'm not a huge fan of "religious people" and "religionists". I remember when I was asked in a survey from a sociology student who came to our Christian Union "How religious are you?". I put down something like a 2 out of 10 and proceeded to explain the Christian gospel is something quite different to how most people regard "religious" :)

    Christians aren't self-righteous, they are Christ-righteous, but that's an aside and perhaps a pedantic one :)
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    I quoted a very small bit. 3 words.

    What matters is what is true, and to get to what is true is to look and weigh up the evidence in an unbiased way.

    I agree. I would argue that that is as pertinent to you as an atheist materialist as it is to me as a Bible believing Christian :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    For me, not a source of fear, it would be a source of despair. My natural inclination would tend towards nihilism of some sort or another. It's possibly why Ecclesiastics is one of my favourite books of the Bible.
    I wish I had some numbers on how popular nihilism is among atheists. I don't have any factual basis for saying this, so take it with a grain of salt, but in my estimation, it seems a minority. I don't think it is a very common thing for atheists. If this is the case, is it something you find unusual or bizarre?
    However, I imagine that I would muddle through life as best I could. But that's just me. No doubt there are many contented atheists out there.
    Lots of people who leave religion find new meaning, new purpose and to enjoy this life as (at least as we see it) this is the one life. Many people who leave religion tend to value this life so much more afterwards as time is suddenly finite.


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


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    I wish I had some numbers on how popular nihilism is among atheists. I don't have any factual basis for saying this, so take it with a grain of salt, but in my estimation, it seems a minority. I don't think it is a very common thing for atheists. If this is the case, is it something you find unusual or bizarre?

    Isn't nihilism not the logical consequence of atheism in the absence of any objective source of meaning. That of some shade of existentialism. As an agnostic at least that's what it seemed like to me.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Lots of people who leave religion find new meaning, new purpose and to enjoy this life as (at least as we see it) this is the one life. Many people who leave religion tend to value this life so much more afterwards as time is suddenly finite.

    How can one find meaning if there is no objective meaning to be found? Rather it seems they conjure one up, and that is entirely meaningless when one reduces it right down to its first principles.

    I also think it's pure nonsense to say that atheists value life more than those who believe in God. But let's discuss this :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    A lesser ability to go with an unbiased look at evidence.

    Again, as I say, it doesn't disprove religion, but it means that a religious person like I'm describing is less likely to evaluate evidence on its merits.

    This is the type of question that isn't likely to be critically (looked at in an unbiased way) by religionists.

    What matters is what is true, and to get to what is true is to look and weigh up the evidence in an unbiased way.

    Why do you think that non-religious people, or even anti-religious people are unbiased?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    philologos wrote: »
    There are some I suspect, just as there are some atheists, some Buddhists, some Jews, some Muslims, some Hindus, and some Sikhs who fear death.
    The fear of death is going to direct people in a certain direction. Generally not so much in the way that we only have one life.
    I'm not a huge fan of "religious people" and "religionists".
    It's descriptive, and I'd have assumed non-offensive.
    I remember when I was asked in a survey from a sociology student who came to our Christian Union "How religious are you?". I put down something like a 2 out of 10 and proceeded to explain the Christian gospel is something quite different to how most people regard "religious" :)
    I'd be interested if you could expand on precisely what you mean in this distinction.
    I agree. I would argue that that is as pertinent to you as an atheist materialist as it is to me as a Bible believing Christian :)
    The applicability doesn't start or end with theistic claims. Biases are something that have to be overcome in any types of questions really. Emotional biases especially. Seeing as I've made my point, feel free to elaborate on the types of biases an atheist might have that would be pertinent here.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    If this is the case, is it something you find unusual or bizarre?

    No, I don't think it's bizarre.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Originally Posted by Pushtrak;
    An interesting thing I'd love to know the results of would be something like how religious people would react were they to find out their religion were true, except the bit about an afterlife. I wonder how their feelings towards their religion would change. Would they behave the same way? Is it a love of their deity, etc or is it a fear of death? Would be very interesting. This is the type of question that isn't likely to be critically (looked at in an unbiased way) by religionists.
    For a lot of Jews their was no afterlife, can't remember if it was the Pharisees or the Sadducees , think it was the later but anyway it didn't make a lot of difference to their religious views.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    For a lot of Jews their was no afterlife, can't remember if it was the Pharisees or the Sadducees , think it was the later but anyway it didn't make a lot of difference to their religious views.

    'Twas the latter. If you read Acts Paul starts a row amongst a would be lynch-mob by addressing the belief in the resurrection of the dead. Not sure what you mean by "it didn't make a lot of difference to their religious views". This was the religious view of the Sadducees.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    Can you show me where you are getting the murderous and drunk bit from?

    From Acts 9:1 - Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, etc.

    Paul confesses in Galatians 1:13 - For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it.

    And what does Jesus mean by 'persecuting' in Acts 9:5 whe He says,

    "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting."

    Yup, 'murderous' is the right word.
    Do you understand the significance between the names Saul and Paul? Saul persecuted the early followers of Christ, Paul spent most of his time being beaten up, stoned, chased out of town and imprisoned because he was a follower of Christ.

    Well obviously you don't. Paul would have been know as Saul to the Jews and Paul to the Romans simultaneously.

    He didn't change his name at all.

    It is noteworthy though that almost every time he was beaten up, stoned, chased out of town and imprisoned, he was carrying the wealth of the poor with him.

    And if Myra Hindley had changed her name to Kyra, would you have endorsed her being put in the position of Minister for Children?
    Also, Roman Catholics don't think that Paul was the head of their Church. They believe that Peter was the first pope. You should at least do RCs the good service of representing their beliefs correctly.

    Roman Catholics also believed that unbaptised children went into limbo after death.

    Turns out they don't.

    Millions of Americans thought that Bush was one time head of the American administration.

    Turns out he wasn't, he was working for his dad.

    Belief does not make truth.

    Of the 27 books in the New Testament, 13 are attributed to having been written by Paul.

    How many books did Peter write?

    Whatever you or Catholics believe, you cannot deny the fact the Paul/Saul was almost solely responsible for the shape of Christianity.

    Jesus may well have intended for Peter to be the 'rock' but it was Saul/Paul who laid down the foundations of God's kingdom on earth. And not in accordance with the teachings of Jesus.

    Anyway, how could Peter have been a pope when Roman Catholicism didn't exist?
    Also what has Hitler got to do with it?

    Did you ever hear of 'Occam's Razor'?

    I'm happy to discuss this article but there is a far more likely explanation for the appearance of these documents.

    And the timing is impeccable. The Pope resigns and at the same time the Vatican tries to distance itself from Nazism.

    Henry VIII was excommunicated for seeking divorce, apparently a much worse crime than genocide in the sight of God.

    That's what Hitler has to do with it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Masteroid wrote: »
    From Acts 9:1 - Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, etc.

    Paul confesses in Galatians 1:13 - For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it.

    And what does Jesus mean by 'persecuting' in Acts 9:5 whe He says,

    "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting."

    Yup, 'murderous' is the right word.

    None of which says Paul was a murderer. But even if Paul was a murder of the early followers of Christ so all the more incredible his conversion on the road to Damascus. What about drunkard? Have you forgotten that one?
    Masteroid wrote: »
    He didn't change his name at all.

    And I never said he did. I was using it as a rough divide between Paul the persecutor of the followers of Christ and PAul the persecuted follower of Christ.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    It is noteworthy though that almost every time he was beaten up, stoned, chased out of town and imprisoned, he was carrying the wealth of the poor with him.

    Two questions - 1) why is this significant? 2) how do you know?
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Roman Catholics also believed that unbaptised children went into limbo after death...
    Hitler, limbo, George Bush. I don't see the connection.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Whatever you or Catholics believe, you cannot deny the fact the Paul/Saul was almost solely responsible for the shape of Christianity.
    HE certainly was one of the main players. Someone had to be.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Did you ever hear of 'Occam's Razor'?

    I'm happy to discuss this article but there is a far more likely explanation for the appearance of these documents.

    And the timing is impeccable. The Pope resigns and at the same time the Vatican tries to distance itself from Nazism.

    Right! So dismissing evidence that you've never read fits in Occam's Razor how? Pushtrak, would this qualify as unbiased or not?

    Tell you what Masteroid, why don't we both read the book? Then we can talk about it later.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    It's actually quite logical (and to be expected) that a God who Created Mankind would give them instructions on how they might best live their lives.
    It would actually be irresponsible of Him to not do so.

    It is not logical to create beings endowed with free-will and then to set down laws for those beings.

    It is not logical to create a system that by design operates autonomously and provide it with protocols.

    It is no more logical than creating a washing machine and supplying it with instructions on how to operate itself.

    Law is not an endorsement of free-will and God's law does not encourage it.

    By bestowing free-will on mankind, God gave all His children a box of matches to play with and a book that tell them not to play with matches.

    That is not logical and is entirely irresponsible.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement