Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

ScumLord · 11-05-2015 12:05PM

katydid wrote: »

Not a valid comparison. No one can prove or disprove the existence of God. One can certainly question a person's beliefs in things which are provably wrong, such as the age of the earth, but you can't prove there's no God, so how can you question their choice to believe?

You can't prove god doesn't exist, that's true. If he doesn't exist then there's no evidence to use as prove. But religions always say god influences the world and if that's true there should be a way of measuring that influence, we've measured so much of the universe and have plotted out natural phenomena so if there is another force of nature out there it should become apparent because things will happen without a natural explanation.

Even if we say, we can't prove god does exist because he's too good at hiding from us. What we can do is show that Christianity is as unlikely to have the correct answers or any element of truth when it comes to links to the creator of the universe as any other religion. The bible is a book written by ancient peoples, what makes them a dependable source? We know ancient peoples would attribute rain to spirits out to punish a person for something they did. Why are they such a dependable source on the origins of life and the universe? Why should anyone believe the bible? And it's not up to the non believers to try and prove it's nonsense, it's up to the people promoting the idea to prove it's not.

If you truly believe in a god the creator of the universe then the only way to understand that god is through science. Science is the study of the natural world and the natural world is the only actual evidence left behind by god. The only way you can even begin to comprehend the creation of the universe is through science, the very thing religious institutions attack on a regular basis.

Science has also rewarded humanity with longer lifespans, better health, easier lifes, pain relief. If god exists and wants to talk to us, the path is clear by its rewards.

Delirium · 11-05-2015 12:08PM

marienbad wrote: »

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

MOD NOTE

Please avoid the personal comments.

Discuss the content of a post rather than the poster.

Thanks for your attention.

Nick Park · 11-05-2015 12:12PM

marienbad wrote: »

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

My "fruits" in this matter are over twenty years of arguing for Christians to adopt a secular approach where the Church relinquishes any attempt to wield political power. I have consistently, both verbally and in print, argued that religious groups should have the exact same rights as any other voluntary association in society - no special privileges and no special restrictions.

Now, do you want to address the point I made, or is it to be more personal and snide comments?

marienbad · 11-05-2015 01:42PM

Nick Park wrote: »

My "fruits" in this matter are over twenty years of arguing for Christians to adopt a secular approach where the Church relinquishes any attempt to wield political power. I have consistently, both verbally and in print, argued that religious groups should have the exact same rights as any other voluntary association in society - no special privileges and no special restrictions.

Now, do you want to address the point I made, or is it to be more personal and snide comments?

Fair play to you for advocating the right path , welcome to the club . I am not aware of any other points you made .

katydid · 11-05-2015 04:27PM

ScumLord wrote: »

You can't prove god doesn't exist, that's true. If he doesn't exist then there's no evidence to use as prove. But religions always say god influences the world and if that's true there should be a way of measuring that influence, we've measured so much of the universe and have plotted out natural phenomena so if there is another force of nature out there it should become apparent because things will happen without a natural explanation.

Even if we say, we can't prove god does exist because he's too good at hiding from us. What we can do is show that Christianity is as unlikely to have the correct answers or any element of truth when it comes to links to the creator of the universe as any other religion. The bible is a book written by ancient peoples, what makes them a dependable source? We know ancient peoples would attribute rain to spirits out to punish a person for something they did. Why are they such a dependable source on the origins of life and the universe? Why should anyone believe the bible? And it's not up to the non believers to try and prove it's nonsense, it's up to the people promoting the idea to prove it's not.

If you truly believe in a god the creator of the universe then the only way to understand that god is through science. Science is the study of the natural world and the natural world is the only actual evidence left behind by god. The only way you can even begin to comprehend the creation of the universe is through science, the very thing religious institutions attack on a regular basis.

Science has also rewarded humanity with longer lifespans, better health, easier lifes, pain relief. If god exists and wants to talk to us, the path is clear by its rewards.

Look, there's no point in going round the houses on this one. I've said it again and again; we can't prove God exists, science can't prove it, nobody can prove it. It's simply a matter of faith on the part of believers.

That the long and the short of it.

katydid · 11-05-2015 04:31PM

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 .

Actually the core of this discussion is the dismissal of the beliefs of millions of people because of the actions and words of a very small minority. True, a minority with, in some cases, disproportionate influence, but a few nevertheless.

Yet the idea of religious belief per se is being challenged as if most believers wish to impose their beliefs on others, which is simply not true.

katydid · 11-05-2015 04:32PM

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 .

Compared to how many MILLION Roman Catholics?

ScumLord · 11-05-2015 04:48PM

katydid wrote: »

Look, there's no point in going round the houses on this one. I've said it again and again; we can't prove God exists, science can't prove it, nobody can prove it. It's simply a matter of faith on the part of believers.

That the long and the short of it.

That shouldn't be the case, you've basically taken the, you can't prove a negative logic rule and try and apply it to your argument. You've given no reason as to why we can't prove god exists.

Saying it's simply a matter of faith, is a cop out that could be applied to anything as a false logic.

You may have drawn that line in the sand as a quick fix but no one will accept it as a valid answer.

Do you not see that just having faith means you never question the people in charge, or whether you're even worshipping god in the correct way? As far as I can see religions stopped the search for god by giving people a narrow explanation and telling them not to accept any debate on the issue. The only way you can continue your faith is to effectively put your head in the sand and ignore any problems.

Nick Park · 11-05-2015 05:02PM

marienbad wrote: »

Fair play to you for advocating the right path , welcome to the club . I am not aware of any other points you made .

A 'welcome' that's 20 years too late.

I was advocating a secular society, and doing so on the basis of my religious convictions, when most of the atheists round here were still reciting their prayers and collecting their money for First Communion.

The point that I made was that huge numbers of religious believers have zero interest in wielding political power, so it is pointless issuing sweeping condemnations of religion that are so inaccurate and stereotypical.

marienbad · 11-05-2015 05:35PM

Nick Park wrote: »

A 'welcome' that's 20 years too late.

I was advocating a secular society, and doing so on the basis of my religious convictions, when most of the atheists round here were still reciting their prayers and collecting their money for First Communion.

The point that I made was that huge numbers of religious believers have zero interest in wielding political power, so it is pointless issuing sweeping condemnations of religion that are so inaccurate and stereotypical.

20 years too late ! What ! you need to be thanked for doing the right thing .

And let that majority of those believers do the same by bringing about a truly secular society and they have a good chance to start Friday week .

I see you also have no problem issuing sweeping generalisations !

marienbad · 11-05-2015 05:38PM

katydid wrote: »

Compared to how many MILLION Roman Catholics?

If you have someone else doing the heavy lifting for you what difference does that make ?

The fact that we are now into our fifth decade of trying to throw off the influence of the RCC show answer that for you .

Nick Park · 11-05-2015 05:48PM

marienbad wrote: »

20 years too late ! What ! you need to be thanked for doing the right thing .

No, never asked for thanks for anyone. Just less of the lazy stereotypes.

And let that majority of those believers do the same by bringing about a truly secular society and they have a good chance to start Friday week .

Now you're conflating two different issues. 'Secular' does not necessarily equate to voting one particular way when it comes to defining marriage.

marienbad · 11-05-2015 05:49PM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, never asked for thanks for anyone. Just less of the lazy stereotypes.

Now you're conflating two different issues. 'Secular' does not necessarily equate to voting one particular way when it comes to defining marriage.

You mean your lazy sterotypes are ok though ?

Civil marriage - different issue .

Nick Park · 11-05-2015 05:52PM

marienbad wrote: »

You mean your lazy sterotypes are ok though ?

And which lazy stereotypes would they be?

Civil marriage - different issue .

Sorry, could you express what you are saying as a sentence? That's a bit cryptic.

marienbad · 11-05-2015 05:59PM

Nick Park wrote: »

And which lazy stereotypes would they be?

Sorry, could you express what you are saying as a sentence? That's a bit cryptic.

insert 'is a' instead of -

katydid · 11-05-2015 07:19PM

marienbad wrote: »

If you have someone else doing the heavy lifting for you what difference does that make ?

The fact that we are now into our fifth decade of trying to throw off the influence of the RCC show answer that for you .

We see in our own country how the vast majority of Roman Catholics don't take a blind bit of notice of what the hierarchy says. There are 1.2 BILLION Roman Catholics in the world, so no matter how strong the 300 or so heavy lifters might be, they won't make much progress...

Things that are deeply ingrained rarely change overnight. Things in Ireland have changed inordinately in the past thirty years, and are still changing.

And all this has nothing to do with religious belief as a concept.

marienbad · 11-05-2015 08:21PM

katydid wrote: »

We see in our own country how the vast majority of Roman Catholics don't take a blind bit of notice of what the hierarchy says. There are 1.2 BILLION Roman Catholics in the world, so no matter how strong the 300 or so heavy lifters might be, they won't make much progress...

Things that are deeply ingrained rarely change overnight. Things in Ireland have changed inordinately in the past thirty years, and are still changing.

And all this has nothing to do with religious belief as a concept.

I meant 300 heavy lifters in Ireland Katy !

It is just addressing your point about atheists being obsessed with religion , it is hard not to be when it is so deeply intertwined with the law of the land .

katydid · 11-05-2015 09:09PM

marienbad wrote: »

I meant 300 heavy lifters in Ireland Katy !

It is just addressing your point about atheists being obsessed with religion , it is hard not to be when it is so deeply intertwined with the law of the land .

300 RC bishops in Ireland? Really?

I will point out AGAIN that religion being intertwined with the law of the land doesn't mean that every religious believer thinks their religious beliefs should be intertwined with the law of the land.

obplayer · 11-05-2015 09:13PM

katydid wrote: »

300 RC bishops in Ireland? Really?

I will point out AGAIN that religion being intertwined with the law of the land doesn't mean that every religious believer thinks their religious beliefs should be intertwined with the law of the land.

And I will point out again that if every religious person accepted that the laws of the land should not be intertwined with their religious beliefs and that those beliefs should not be used to determine non-believers' behaviour then atheists would have absolutely no quarrel with them.

katydid · 11-05-2015 09:17PM

obplayer wrote: »

And I will point out again that if every religious person accepted that the laws of the land should not be intertwined with their religious beliefs and that those beliefs should not be used to determine non-believers' behaviour then atheists would have absolutely no quarrel with them.

Most do. In this country anyway.

obplayer · 11-05-2015 09:20PM

katydid wrote: »

Most do. In this country anyway.

I'll wait for the result of the marriage referendum before commenting on that.

katydid · 11-05-2015 09:22PM

obplayer wrote: »

I'll wait for the result of the marriage referendum before commenting on that.

Why? What has that got to do with anything?

obplayer · 11-05-2015 09:25PM

katydid wrote: »

Why? What has that got to do with anything?

Did you seriously ask that? The biggest proponents of a no vote are religious groups. Ever heard of the Iona Institute?

marienbad · 11-05-2015 09:26PM

katydid wrote: »

300 RC bishops in Ireland? Really?

I will point out AGAIN that religion being intertwined with the law of the land doesn't mean that every religious believer thinks their religious beliefs should be intertwined with the law of the land.

No, 300 heavylifters katy , lets not be so literal .

And I will point out AGAIN that I never said it did . But so long as the heavy gang prevent any change until that majority speak out it really doesn't matter what they think on this issue .

Need I remind you that a young women died recently in one of our hospitals, a gay person can be dismissed from our schools and a baptismal cert is required for entry to the majority of our state funded schools . For a majority that doesn't want religion intertwined with the state they sure have a strange way of showing it.

tommy2bad · 11-05-2015 09:29PM

obplayer wrote: »

And I will point out again that if every religious person accepted that the laws of the land should not be intertwined with their religious beliefs and that those beliefs should not be used to determine non-believers' behaviour then atheists would have absolutely no quarrel with them.

I think at this point in time most people hold this opinion, you only have to look at the positive reaction Enda's speech got. The problem is not just the resistance of the iona, oopus idea and the rest who will stir up a media controversy at every inch of the change. I suspect the real reason is the financial cost of unwinding the two.
I can recall not so long ago the notion of separation was unthinkable, now it how not if that is being discussed and discussed by the hierarchy of the RCC no less.

marienbad · 11-05-2015 09:34PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

I think at this point in time most people hold this opinion, you only have to look at the positive reaction Enda's speech got. The problem is not just the resistance of the iona, oopus idea and the rest who will stir up a media controversy at every inch of the change. I suspect the real reason is the financial cost of unwinding the two.
I can recall not so long ago the notion of separation was unthinkable, now it how not if that is being discussed and discussed by the hierarchy of the RCC no less.

Not too sure about that tommy, if it was just up to the Archbishop of Dublin I just might agree with you . But behind the scenes I'd say it is a completely different story .

Opus Dei ,Iona etc are a completely different story, what we have we hold seems to be the operative phrase.

katydid · 11-05-2015 09:53PM

marienbad wrote: »

No, 300 heavylifters katy , lets not be so literal .

And I will point out AGAIN that I never said it did . But so long as the heavy gang prevent any change until that majority speak out it really doesn't matter what they think on this issue .

Need I remind you that a young women died recently in one of our hospitals, a gay person can be dismissed from our schools and a baptismal cert is required for entry to the majority of our state funded schools . For a majority that doesn't want religion intertwined with the state they sure have a strange way of showing it.

So who are these "300 heavy lifters"?

You're right that the majority don't speak out, and they should. But they vote with their feet, and the only area where the influence of the church is really prevalent still is in education - and that only prevails out of laziness and self interest; they don't want to do the work of religious education themselves, but want to go through the social occasions of communion and confirmation. That will change, given time.

marienbad · 11-05-2015 10:04PM

katydid wrote: »

So who are these "300 heavy lifters"?

You're right that the majority don't speak out, and they should. But they vote with their feet, and the only area where the influence of the church is really prevalent still is in education - and that only prevails out of laziness and self interest; they don't want to do the work of religious education themselves, but want to go through the social occasions of communion and confirmation. That will change, given time.

Don't forget health , a huge amount of hospitals have a catholic ethos and a lot of the top private ones even more so .

As for the 300 hundred , The bishops cardinals , most older priests , conservative theologians , Opus Dei , Iona ,Legatus Ireland and other groups and quite a few extremely wealthy lay people .

Lots of them gave Archbishop Martin a hard time at a recent Iona function for not being aggressive enough .

katydid · 11-05-2015 10:21PM

marienbad wrote: »

Don't forget health , a huge amount of hospitals have a catholic ethos and a lot of the top private ones even more so .

As for the 300 hundred , The bishops cardinals , most older priests , conservative theologians , Opus Dei , Iona ,Legatus Ireland and other groups and quite a few extremely wealthy lay people .

Lots of them gave Archbishop Martin a hard time at a recent Iona function for not being aggressive enough .

Health is definitely on the move. Education will take longer.

You seriously think that ANYONE takes notice of the people you list? Do you actually live in Ireland?

obplayer · 11-05-2015 10:24PM

katydid wrote: »

Health is definitely on the move. Education will take longer.

You seriously think that ANYONE takes notice of the people you list? Do you actually live in Ireland?

Yes many people do take them seriously, some of my in-laws for instance. Country areas and the west coast still listen to the church in depressingly large numbers.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments