nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

nozzferrahhtoo

Festus wrote: »

If you use Google you can even find atheist scientists, many working in the field of evolutionary biology, who are coming to the conclusion that the theory of evolution may not be the answer to the origin of life

Then they are entirely correct and they are only catching up with the reality now. Because no one has ever claimed the Theory Of Evolution says anything about the origin of life in the first place. That is an entirely different subject. IF they ever actually thought it had something to do with the origin of life, they were wrong from the outset.

Festus wrote: »

Some gave up being atheists because of this, skipped agnosticism and went straight to Christianity.

Which would appear to be little more than a non-sequitur error. Just because X is not true, that does not magically make Y true.

Festus wrote: »

I have also said, and reiterated, that the best way to learn is to do your own research. It would seem that for some atheists Google is their enemy as there is a risk you may discover something that might actually get you thinking.

Which, alas, is just your cop out mantra for substantiating anything you say. You therefore get to claim whatever you like, and never have to back it up, because you just have to tell people to do their own research indefinitely, even if they HAVE done so and have not found anything that supports your claims in even the smallest ways.

Festus wrote: »

That's some claim. Can you back it up with evidence?

Oh so other people have to do their own research if you make a claim, but if THEY make a claim to YOU... they have to back it up?`

I am unclear as to why it is one rule for you, and one for everyone else.

The idea there is a god is some claim, and is the topic of this thread. Can you back it up with evidence? Bring on the evidence!

Festus wrote: »

understandable given the etymology of the term atheist - from the Greek atheos - no god.

Your etymology is willfully incomplete. The A- part does indeed mean without. The theos part is where we get "god". The ISM part however refers to belief, which you are simply leaving out of your etymology in a contrived fashion. A-theos-ism: Without a belief in god.

nozzferrahhtoo

tommy2bad wrote: »

The element of choice! I can not choose my race.

And I can not "choose" to believe in god. It is not a choice I can make. I can not "choose" to believe anything. I can only believe what is substantiated. You can not give me a box which is empty and expect me to "choose" to believe it full of money. I simply could not do it.

Perhaps your own credulity is particularly labile and you can choose belief. But it is not an option afforded to me.

[Deleted User]

Festus wrote: »

depends on what you mean by "evidence" and "a god"

I do have to ask because I was under the impression that an atheist was someone who believed in the doctrine that there is no god - understandable given the etymology of the term atheist - from the Greek atheos - no god.

Now I'm given to understand that an atheist is a person who simply lacks of belief in the existence of God.

As there is no longer a cohort making the claim that God does not exist the implication is that the existence of God accepted and the issue for atheists is one of personal faith, or the lack thereof. This also allows for the probably that all atheists are actually agnostic with the implication that true atheists do not exist as the term atheist is now nothing more than a label that ultimately means nothing.

That being the case why would anyone want evidence?

I am, as you say agnostic - yet to be convinced of the existence of any god.

I'm interested because from within this minority position I can see that a lot of the rest of the world seems to be convinced by it, and I'm trying to find what I'm "missing".

So am looking for evidence. Is that not okay? I thought this thread (see title) might be a good place for it?

marienbad

ABC101 wrote: »

Your hatred of anything religious is your undoing.

From Wikipedia...

Types of school[edit]
Primary education is generally completed at a national school, a multidenominational school, a gaelscoil or a preparatory school.

National schools date back to the introduction of state primary education in 1831. They are usually controlled by a board of management under diocesan patronage and often include a local clergyman.[11][12] The term "national school" has of late become partly synonymous with primary school in some parts. Recently, there have been calls from many sides for fresh thinking in the areas of funding and governance for such schools, with some wanting them to be fully secularised.[13]

As of 2010 mainstream primary schools numbered as follows:[14]

Type of school Number (total: 3165) Percentage of total (to 1d.p.)(citation needed)

Roman Catholic 2,884 91.1%
Church of Ireland (Anglican) 180 5.7%
Multi-denominational 73 2.3%
Presbyterian 14 0.4%
Inter-Denominational 8 0.3%
Muslim 2 0.1%
Methodist 1 <0.1%
Jewish 1 <0.1%
Quaker 4 <0.1%
Other/Unknown 1 <0.1%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

As over 91% of PRIMARY schools are R.C.

YOU DENY the positive role they have played in the development of Ireland as it is today.

Your hatred of Religious orders makes you blind to the facts.

Give one example where I have shown this hatred you speak of ???

Your reading of history is just incorrect . It is the same type of reasoning that the defenders of Empire use when they point out all the railways and viaducts etc they built in India etc as if they would never have been built without them . Its a wonder Japan managed so well without them.

Yours is just a variation on 'the white man's burden' theme with Empire swapped out and Religion swapped in.

As an aside,I notice you descend to ad hominem and invective very quickly with anyone not on the same hymn sheet as you.

Festus

lazygal wrote: »

Why would revelation from God result in difference? Did God tell different people different things? What's the point of having different accounts of the birth of the son of God?

I take it you cannot be more specific then, or can find only differences and no contradictions.

Why is there more than one history book for any given historical event? Surely one would suffice?
When more than one record exists for a historical even how do we discern which records aretrue and which are false?

Stealthfins

I seen an interview a while back, where a Muslim cleric is open to the possibility that God may come to people in different ways.
There's endless amount of different forms of religion and spirituality. ....
Who has the answer, there's definitely a lot of brain washing going on.
Didn't Jesus say that God has many rooms in his house.
That can be interpreted from all different directions, depends on your world view really.

lazygal

Festus wrote: »

Each Gospel has a different author so some differences are to be expected however the gospel records of the birth of Christ contain more similarities that differences.

Can you be more specific

Why would revelation from God result in difference? Did God tell different people different things? What's the point of having different accounts of the birth of the son of God?

Festus

lazygal wrote: »

He said he did. He wrote the book of Mormon, there's the proof, a gospel.like those in the bible. Mormons believe in living prophets who also receive revelation. Are they wrong?.

How many men are living on the moon according to Smith?

Festus

lazygal wrote: »

Why? Have you not read the different accounts of the birth of Jesus in the bible? The ones that refer to Jesus being born in different circumstances?

Each Gospel has a different author so some differences are to be expected however the gospel records of the birth of Christ contain more similarities that differences.

Can you be more specific

lazygal

Festus wrote: »

You'll need to be more specific

Why? Have you not read the different accounts of the birth of Jesus in the bible? The ones that refer to Jesus being born in different circumstances?

lazygal

Festus wrote: »

Can you prove that?

He said he did. He wrote the book of Mormon, there's the proof, a gospel.like those in the bible. Mormons believe in living prophets who also receive revelation. Are they wrong?.

Festus

lazygal wrote: »

But nothing in the bible is wrong? Like the contradictions in the accounts of the birth of Jesus?

You'll need to be more specific

Festus

lazygal wrote: »

And.....? He received revelation from god, as do the living prophets of the Mormon church.

Can you prove that?

lazygal

Festus wrote: »

It was written by Joseph Smith.

And.....? He received revelation from god, as do the living prophets of the Mormon church.

lazygal

Festus wrote: »

I am sticking with Joseph Smith. I was paraphrasing what he said in "The Young Woman's Journal", Vol. 3, pages 263-264.

I would suggest that he is wrong about the moon and hence any other testimony of his carries a risk.

But nothing in the bible is wrong? Like the contradictions in the accounts of the birth of Jesus?

Festus

lazygal wrote: »

I have and both are equally unbelievable in their claims. What in.your view makes the book of Mormon a false gospel?

It was written by Joseph Smith.

Festus

lazygal wrote: »

Maybe stick to Joseph Smith. He wrote the restored gospel after an angel revealed gold plates to him. He was by his account a prophet who received a revelation from God. Why is his testimony false.but that written about Jesus true?

I am sticking with Joseph Smith. I was paraphrasing what he said in "The Young Woman's Journal", Vol. 3, pages 263-264.

I would suggest that he is wrong about the moon and hence any other testimony of his carries a risk.

lazygal

Festus wrote: »

I suggest you read both the Book of Mormon and The Bible and compare them.

I have and both are equally unbelievable in their claims. What in.your view makes the book of Mormon a false gospel?

Festus

lazygal wrote: »

So you know for certain that the book of Mormon is false? How come it is false but other gospels are the word of God?

I suggest you read both the Book of Mormon and The Bible and compare them.

lazygal

Festus wrote: »

What if there really are men living on the moon who dress like Quakers and live to be nearly 1000 years old only we can't find them because they live on the other side of the moon, does that not mean lazygal is right and you are wrong?

Maybe stick to Joseph Smith. He wrote the restored gospel after an angel revealed gold plates to him. He was by his account a prophet who received a revelation from God. Why is his testimony false.but that written about Jesus true?

Festus

RikuoAmero wrote: »

...which is what we're supposed to do. I'm pretty sure someone earlier this week complained about me supposedly not even speculating or entertaining the possibility of christianity being true (that person was wrong).
I speculate on the issue "is christianity true" and think about the myriads of evidence in favour of and against, and make a probability judgement based on what evidence I have.
Same with mormonism. In that case, I consider the fact that Joseph Smith was a known con-artist, I consider the fact that only he saw the golden plates (if I'm remembering it correctly) (thus meaning they're un-examinable, if they existed). I consider the claim that the Jews were in North America, and the complete lack of archaeological evidence that would support this claim (just like I consider the claim of Moses and the Hebrews in Egypt, and the complete lack of archaeological evidence in support of that claim).

What if there really are men living on the moon who dress like Quakers and live to be nearly 1000 years old only we can't find them because they live on the other side of the moon, does that not mean lazygal is right and you are wrong?

lazygal

Festus wrote: »

Correct. The state supports the schools but the state system cannot dictate everything that the schools teach and hence not a state service.

Should it be a state service? What makes education different from other state funded services? Should Catholic hospitals treat Catholics first and discriminate in admissions policy based on.the faith of patients?

lazygal

Festus wrote: »

because you said "what if he was right" which implies you believe he was wrong.

your argument is purely speculative.

So you know for certain that the book of Mormon is false? How come it is false but other gospels are the word of God?

RikuoAmero

Festus wrote: »

because you said "what if he was right" which implies you believe he was wrong.

you argument is purely speculative.

...which is what we're supposed to do. I'm pretty sure someone earlier this week complained about me supposedly not even speculating or entertaining the possibility of christianity being true (that person was wrong).
I speculate on the issue "is christianity true" and think about the myriads of evidence in favour of and against, and make a probability judgement based on what evidence I have.
Same with mormonism. In that case, I consider the fact that Joseph Smith was a known con-artist, I consider the fact that only he saw the golden plates (if I'm remembering it correctly) (thus meaning they're un-examinable, if they existed). I consider the claim that the Jews were in North America, and the complete lack of archaeological evidence that would support this claim (just like I consider the claim of Moses and the Hebrews in Egypt, and the complete lack of archaeological evidence in support of that claim).

Festus

lazygal wrote: »

How do you know?

because you said "what if he was right" which implies you believe he was wrong.

your argument is purely speculative.

Festus

RikuoAmero wrote: »

...pretty sure there's a department of education, overseen by a government minister, funded by taxes, and all children are required by law to undergo an education.

Correct. The state supports the schools but the state system cannot dictate everything that the schools teach and hence not a state service.

lazygal

Festus wrote: »

He was wrong. But, what if he was right does not change the fact that he was wrong.

How do you know? God revealed himself, the angel moroni showed him the plates, the book of Mormon was written and people worship in Mormon temples. They have a gospel, is that wrong? How come that gospel is wrong?

Festus

lazygal wrote: »

What if he was right? What if he has the restored gospel after the great apostasy and God just gets angry when you worship him differently from Mormonism?

He was wrong. But, what if he was right does not change the fact that he was wrong.

lazygal

RikuoAmero wrote: »

...pretty sure there's a department of education, overseen by a government minister, funded by taxes, and all children are required by law to undergo an education.

I think he or she is arguing that because religious orders decades ago set up schools after deciding the state wasn't going to indoctrinate children we owe them. Or something. Even though we pay for the system these days.

RikuoAmero

Festus wrote: »

education is not a state service in ireland.

...pretty sure there's a department of education, overseen by a government minister, funded by taxes, and all children are required by law to undergo an education.