Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

marienbad · 10-05-2015 09:11PM

katydid wrote: »

That is YOUR belief. And a simplistic one. I believe what I believe because I have given it a lot of thought, and chose to believe. I don't need to be patronised.

But why should your beliefs be treated any differently that someone that believes in Fianna Fail , or The Chicago School, or creationism etc

katydid · 10-05-2015 09:14PM

marienbad wrote: »

But why should your beliefs be treated any differently that someone that believes in Fianna Fail , or The Chicago School, or creationism etc

Did I say they should be?

marienbad · 10-05-2015 09:17PM

katydid wrote: »

Did I say they should be?

Yes - just a few posts back , you said we can't ridicule them and say they are wrong .

katydid · 10-05-2015 09:22PM

marienbad wrote: »

Yes - just a few posts back , you said we can't ridicule them and say they are wrong .

That doesn't mean you can't question them. But you can't say they are wrong, because you can't prove they are.

marienbad · 10-05-2015 09:27PM

katydid wrote: »

That doesn't mean you can't question them. But you can't say they are wrong, because you can't prove they are.

I don't know what that even means ! Of course I can say they are wrong just like I can to Fianna Fail etc .

indioblack · 10-05-2015 09:27PM

marienbad wrote: »

But why should your beliefs be treated any differently that someone that believes in Fianna Fail , or The Chicago School, or creationism etc

It might be because of what religious belief offers. Fianna Fail aren't offering the possibility of eternal life, (or are they!).
Seriously, though, this is surely a key point.
For all our doubts and disbelief, the general notion of faith and what it claims is a strong card.

katydid · 10-05-2015 09:31PM

marienbad wrote: »

I don't know what that even means ! Of course I can say they are wrong just like I can to Fianna Fail etc .

You can't prove God doesn't exist so you can't dismiss belief in God. What I've been saying all along...

marienbad · 10-05-2015 09:31PM

indioblack wrote: »

It might be because of what religious belief offers. Fianna Fail aren't offering the possibility of eternal life, (or are they!).
Seriously, though, this is surely a key point.
For all our doubts and disbelief, the general notion of faith and what it claims is a strong card.

That in my mind is irrelevant , any belief as far as I am concerned is open to ridicule , including any I might hold.

marienbad · 10-05-2015 09:38PM

katydid wrote: »

You can't prove God doesn't exist so you can't dismiss belief in God. What I've been saying all along...

You can't prove lots of things don't exist so that sentence has no meaning for me .

I can, in the absence of any evidence , dismiss belief in God . What I can't dismiss is that you and others believe in God .

And I can ridicule and mock it all I wish (if I so wished )

katydid · 10-05-2015 09:40PM

marienbad wrote: »

You can't prove lots of things don't exist so that sentence has no meaning for me .

I can, in the absence of any evidence , dismiss belief in God . What I can't dismiss is that you and others believe in God .

And I can ridicule and mock it all I wish (if I so wished )

The meaning is that if you can't prove something doesn't exist, you can't say someone is wrong to believe it. It's that simple.

What you believe is what you believe. You are free to ridicule and mock but if you do, you do so with no basis.

marienbad · 10-05-2015 09:47PM

katydid wrote: »

The meaning is that if you can't prove something doesn't exist, you can't say someone is wrong to believe it. It's that simple.

What you believe is what you believe. You are free to ridicule and mock but if you do, you do so with no basis.

No you have it **** about face , we don't go about proving things don't exist .

How many religions, beliefs etc are there in the world right now ? 10 k, 20 ,40 ? . Do we work our way through the lot of them before making a decision ? Of course not. Without evidence I dismiss the lot of them , you dismiss the lot of them bar one, the is the only difference between us .

So what basis are you using to dismiss all the others ?

tommy2bad · 10-05-2015 09:52PM

shaymus27 wrote: »

What you chose to believe was completely influenced by the environment you grew up in, which means the environment you grew up in has decided your beliefs, not you.

What you chose to believe was dictated by what knowledge you had which was dictated by your environment. If you grew up in utah in a mormon family you would be a morman.

You didn't choose at all. Your environment chose for you.

Ahem, so you grew up in an environment that led you one way and KKati grew up in the same environment and went the other way. Something tells me individual choice played a far bigger part than environment.

katydid · 10-05-2015 09:57PM

marienbad wrote: »

No you have it **** about face , we don't go about proving things don't exist .

How many religions, beliefs etc are there in the world right now ? 10 k, 20 ,40 ? . Do we work our way through the lot of them before making a decision ? Of course not. Without evidence I dismiss the lot of them , you dismiss the lot of them bar one, the is the only difference between us .

So what basis are you using to dismiss all the others ?

No one is asking anyone to prove that God exists or doesn't. It's only non-believers who seem obsessed with the matter.

I'm not dismissing anyone. I believe in the divine, and I respect others who believe in it in a different way than mine. I happen to believe mine is right, because I have thought long and hard about it, but I have no interest in challenging anyone else's belief. All belief is a manifestation of human's belief in something beyond themselves.

marienbad · 10-05-2015 10:06PM

katydid wrote: »

No one is asking anyone to prove that God exists or doesn't. It's only non-believers who seem obsessed with the matter.

I'm not dismissing anyone. I believe in the divine, and I respect others who believe in it in a different way than mine. I happen to believe mine is right, because I have thought long and hard about it, but I have no interest in challenging anyone else's belief. All belief is a manifestation of human's belief in something beyond themselves.

Believers constantly strive to prove their God exists !! And they try to have their beliefs enshrined in the law of the land , this happens right across the world . Some places it can cost you your life , here it might just be your job .

That is the only reason the majority of non believers are as you say ''obsesssed'' with the matter . If religion was content to demand religious freedom and practice leave it at that we could all live happily ever after .

Even now we are fighting a referendum on a secular issue and 95% of the opposition is religious lobby groups .

katydid · 10-05-2015 10:08PM

marienbad wrote: »

Believers constantly strive to prove their God exists !! And they try to have their beliefs enshrined in the law of the land , this happens right across the world . Some places it can cost you your life , here it might just be your job .

That is the only reason the majority of non believers are as you say ''obsesssed'' with the matter . If religion was content to demand religious freedom and practice leave it at that we could all live happily ever after .

Even now we are fighting a referendum on a secular issue and 95% of the opposition is religious lobby groups .

How can anyone prove God exists, when it can't be proved. Can you give me an example of how believers "strive to prove their God exists"?

Trying to have one's religious beliefs enshrined in the law of the land is something SOME believers try to do. It doesn't mean it's an integral part of religious belief. Many believers have no truck with it.

marienbad · 10-05-2015 10:21PM

katydid wrote: »

How can anyone prove God exists, when it can't be proved. Can you give me an example of how believers "strive to prove their God exists"?

Trying to have one's religious beliefs enshrined in the law of the land is something SOME believers try to do. It doesn't mean it's an integral part of religious belief. Many believers have no truck with it.

Ah come on Katy there are books and websites ad nauseam dedicated to this type of stuff , even now trying to get creationism and such taught in science class . Even Aquinas had a bit of a crack at it .

As for having belief enshrined in law , it is irrelevant if it is not an integral part of religious belief or if many believers have no truck with it. This very Sunday we have every bishop exhorting their congregation to vote no on a secular issue. Religious patrons still control 90 % of our schools . A religious ethos is still having a deleterious effect of our hospitals .

It is not the non believers you need to convince these things are not integral to their Faith I think .

shaymus27 · 10-05-2015 11:33PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Ahem, so you grew up in an environment that led you one way and KKati grew up in the same environment and went the other way. Something tells me individual choice played a far bigger part than environment.

Yes it was down to individual choice.

I chose not to believe whatever I was told by religious people and religious people chose to believe whatever they were told.

This proves I am more intelligent as I can think for myself and not just swallow whatever I am fed.

Take confirmations. Why believe that a holy spirit goes in to kids just because the bishop says so? Where's the proof? I made my confirmation and don't believe in God so this holy spirit that's supposed to have gone in me isn't doing his job very well, is he????

Turtwig · 11-05-2015 01:42AM

shaymus27 wrote: »

This proves I am more intelligent as I can think for myself and not just swallow whatever I am fed.

Mod:

Implying that Christians i.e the people whom this forum is dedicated to, are gullible and less intelligent than you is, putting it politely, not very wise.

This will be your only verbal warning.
Please read the charter.
Any further remarks of this nature and you may find your time on this forum to be a short one.

pauldla · 11-05-2015 01:43AM

shaymus27 wrote: »

Yes it was down to individual choice.

I chose not to believe whatever I was told by religious people and religious people chose to believe whatever they were told.

This proves I am more intelligent as I can think for myself and not just swallow whatever I am fed.

Take confirmations. Why believe that a holy spirit goes in to kids just because the bishop says so? Where's the proof? I made my confirmation and don't believe in God so this holy spirit that's supposed to have gone in me isn't doing his job very well, is he????

No, it doesn't.

And you ain't gonna Win Friends And Influence People by coming on to a religious forum and telling believers that you're smarter than they are.

shaymus27 · 11-05-2015 02:05AM

Apologies for my remark.

MaxWig · 11-05-2015 07:21AM

marienbad wrote: »

Ah come on Katy there are books and websites ad nauseam dedicated to this type of stuff , even now trying to get creationism and such taught in science class . Even Aquinas had a bit of a crack at it .

As for having belief enshrined in law , it is irrelevant if it is not an integral part of religious belief or if many believers have no truck with it. This very Sunday we have every bishop exhorting their congregation to vote no on a secular issue. Religious patrons still control 90 % of our schools . A religious ethos is still having a deleterious effect of our hospitals .

It is not the non believers you need to convince these things are not integral to their Faith I think .

So vote for the politicians you think will abolish such nonsense.

I said it before, but what you are complaining about is a political issue, not a religious one.

(I agree with your points btw)

katydid · 11-05-2015 09:13AM

marienbad wrote: »

Ah come on Katy there are books and websites ad nauseam dedicated to this type of stuff , even now trying to get creationism and such taught in science class . Even Aquinas had a bit of a crack at it .

As for having belief enshrined in law , it is irrelevant if it is not an integral part of religious belief or if many believers have no truck with it. This very Sunday we have every bishop exhorting their congregation to vote no on a secular issue. Religious patrons still control 90 % of our schools . A religious ethos is still having a deleterious effect of our hospitals .

It is not the non believers you need to convince these things are not integral to their Faith I think .

So? How does that mean that ALL BELIEVERS hold that opinion?

There are books and websites ad nauseam dedicated to all sorts of nutty theories and ideas.

This Sunday, we have every Roman Catholic bishop pontificating. Roman Catholic bishops are not the only bishops... So what if they are pontificating? Let them, they are individuals who are entitled to make what statements they want.

Nobody denies that the RC church has too much influence. That's a different matter - at the risk of sounding boring, I can only repeat that it doesn't mean that all religious believers wish their beliefs to be reflected in state law.

katydid · 11-05-2015 09:16AM

shaymus27 wrote: »

Yes it was down to individual choice.

I chose not to believe whatever I was told by religious people and religious people chose to believe whatever they were told.

This proves I am more intelligent as I can think for myself and not just swallow whatever I am fed.

?

I didn't chose to believe whatever I was told by religious people either. I chose to believe what I do after a lot of thought and reading.

Your insistence that you're more intelligent rings hollow when you take such a simplistic view of things....

tommy2bad · 11-05-2015 09:19AM

MaxWig wrote: »

So vote for the politicians you think will abolish such nonsense.

I said it before, but what you are complaining about is a political issue, not a religious one.

(I agree with your points btw)

The thing is the idea that their could be a political issue that wasn't a religious issue is a new one. We haven't yet fully separated church and state in legislation let alone in the consciousness of most people.
Religion was politics for so long, especially here in Ireland and if you consider the development of social structures it's still a relatively new idea world wide. The first time we see an attempt to create a state that was not purely religious was not that long ago.

hinault · 11-05-2015 09:28AM

indioblack wrote: »

Are you sure you meant to say that? I hope not.
If you did it's an awful indictment of religious belief.
The implication is that you might be wrong.
Not a lot of faith in that statement.
"If I'm right and your wrong, you'll have an awfully long time to live with that!"
Which could be construed as "I'm alright, Jack" - and an obvious relish at the fate of the person you're addressing.

Presumption of God's mercy, and specifically a soul presuming that he/she will be saved, is a very grave error.

As for my taking relish at the fate of any soul which chooses to consign itself to Hell, this is simply untrue.

marienbad · 11-05-2015 11:21AM

katydid wrote: »

So? How does that mean that ALL BELIEVERS hold that opinion?

There are books and websites ad nauseam dedicated to all sorts of nutty theories and ideas.

This Sunday, we have every Roman Catholic bishop pontificating. Roman Catholic bishops are not the only bishops... So what if they are pontificating? Let them, they are individuals who are entitled to make what statements they want.

Nobody denies that the RC church has too much influence. That's a different matter - at the risk of sounding boring, I can only repeat that it doesn't mean that all religious believers wish their beliefs to be reflected in state law.

Ah stop , we are not talking about all religious believers , but we are talking about the majority of the power brokers in religion .

Nick Park · 11-05-2015 11:41AM

marienbad wrote: »

Ah stop , we are not talking about all religious believers , but we are talking about the majority of the power brokers in religion .

And that very phrase, "power brokers in religion", demonstrates the dangers of making sweeping stereotypes.

My own view, one I suspect is shared by a number of other Christian posters here, is that religion has no business broking power in the first place.

marienbad · 11-05-2015 11:46AM

Nick Park wrote: »

And that very phrase, "power brokers in religion", demonstrates the dangers of making sweeping stereotypes.

My own view, one I suspect is shared by a number of other Christian posters here, is that religion has no business broking power in the first place.

What would you call all those bishops and cardinals that have wielded enormous power in this state since its foundation ? The very definition of the term , at most 200 or 300 exclusively older men pulling strings behind the scenes and when needed not so much behind the scenes .

Nick Park · 11-05-2015 11:56AM

marienbad wrote: »

What would you call all those bishops and cardinals that have wielded enormous power in this state since its foundation ? The very definition of the term , at most 200 or 300 exclusively older men pulling strings behind the scenes and when needed not so much behind the scenes .

And I'm saying that I, like many other posters here, believe that such a wielding of power by religious figures is totally incompatible with our religious beliefs and how we choose to practise our faith.

To use the 'religious power brokers' as an excuse for lambasting religion in general makes no more sense than if someone were to lambast atheists in general because of the actions of atheist power brokers in China or North Korea.

marienbad · 11-05-2015 11:59AM

Nick Park wrote: »

And I'm saying that I, like many other posters here, believe that such a wielding of power by religious figures is totally incompatible with our religious beliefs and how we choose to practise our faith.

To use the 'religious power brokers' as an excuse for lambasting religion in general makes no more sense than if someone were to lambast atheists in general because of the actions of atheist power brokers in China or North Korea.

''by their fruits shall ye know them'' - so do something about it . You are beginning to sound like David Quinn

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments