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 all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
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

Is the possibility of a God not a scary thought...?

1…468910

Comments

  • #252
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    smacl wrote: »
    I suspect while that is true insofar as it goes, it is an oversimplification to the extent it is not useful in answering many more complex questions relating to the human mind. For example, from an evolutionary perspective, why would someone choose to commit suicide? I think once you look at many more complex aspects to human behaviour, trying to reduce to a simple physiological or neurological response simply isn't going to work. It is a bit like trying to explain a complex piece of computer software in terms of electrons moving around a circuit. When dealing with complexity we need to work on the basis of much higher levels of abstraction.

    Well I would argue that there are many neurological reasons as to why we commit suicide. But a simple, child-like explanation would be that the brain simply solve problems, and suicide solves a problem by ending pain. Another way to look at it is that depression, which leads to suicide, is an illness of the brain. If the brain is ill, it cannot know what is best for it from an evolutionary perspective.


  • #253
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I don't believe that at all. I believe that some religions have far less contradictions than others, and I have stated that many times.
    But you have said that you are an atheist, and you posts would imply that you do not believe in objective truths or values.

    So you must believe religions are false, otherwise you would be looking to give Christianity, or another religion, a go.
    Really? That doesn't seem to be true for text that I know of. We haven't found new meaning in work written by Shakespeare, nor of work work written in a different language at that time.
    The Bible was probably first directly translated into English in the 15th century. Do you not think that mistakes could have been made with the translation, or that it was translated into English using words which are now archaic or whose meaning, or emphasis of meaning, has shifted over time?

    Have you never read a bad translation of a novel?
    Why is that exactly? That seems very counter-intuitive and convenient. We should interpret the word of God in a way that suits our current society, rather than try to understand what God actually meant?
    A significant portion of the Bible is metaphorical, where the real meaning of Gods word is the meaning behind the metaphor, and not in the literal language of the metaphor itself. It would seem only logical, in trying to discern this meaning, what the metaphor would have meant to its audience at the time.

    Take any of the parables of Jesus, it seems clear that we will get more meaning out of them if we view and interpret them in the same frame of reference that the people He spoke them to had.

    So what we are doing is seeking the true meaning of the words, and not doing, as you say, merely changing the meaning to suit us today. In fact we are doing the exact opposite!
    But of the infinite number of religions that exist, very few require the need to interpret scripture in different ways as they see fit so as to come to a religion that seems nice and acceptable to them. So why choose this one over ones where there is less doubt and more certainty, and that is equally as pleasing?
    GK Chesterton has a good quote that runs something like "Christianity has never been tried and found wanting, it has been tried and found hard". If we wanted to make things nice and easy and pleasing for us a lot would be different, but would be far worse ultimately.

    Again we come back to objective truth. You might say to me that there is a protestant denomination that teaches something more "comfortable" for everyday life (say contraception) but this does not mean it is true.
    Yes, but that it is not necessary. God can still exist without him allowing evil to happen. There may be an equal tussle between a God that created good and a devil that can be created evil, there may be a God that created good and evil but does not observe or judge how we deal with it etc. You are so absorbed in Christianity that any religion which doesn't simply have a single, all-powerful God that looks over us is strange and weird to you.
    If God and the Devil are equal, then God is not God. If God "created evil" then by definition he allows it to happen. I agree that the answer to the problem or evil does not necessarily prove or disprove the existence of God, but this is because there are "answers" to this problem, it cannot just be ignored.
    We do? Do tell us why we have these mysteries. We used to believe that it was mysterious that then Sun would go away at night and assumed that God was behind it (or even that God was the Sun), but we now have a perfectly reasonable explanation. Which mysteries are you referring in which we know why they are mysteries?
    Here is a definition:
    A divinely revealed truth whose very possibility cannot be rationally conceived before it is revealed and, after revelation, whose inner essence cannot be fully understood by the finite mind. The incomprehensibility of revealed mysteries derives from the fact that they are manifestations of God, who is infinite and therefore beyond the complete grasp of a created intellect. Nevertheless, though incomprehensible, mysteries are intelligible. One of the primary duties of a believer is, through prayer, study, and experience, to grow in faith, i.e., to develop an understanding of what God has revealed. (Etym. Greek mysterion, something closed, a secret.)
    Yes, and the reason it has exists over 2000 years is because it meets the two important criteria for any religion to last over a long period of time:
    1) Indoctrinating the young into the religion before they even understand what the word religion is. This will ensure that those who do not actively research other possibilities will continue to indoctrinate their young etc. and will keep the cycle going.
    2) Have a level of fear associated with that religion, such that if they do not believe and follow this religion, they will suffer the consequences in e.g. the afterlife, thereby making it difficult and scary for people to leave.
    Is anything that is taught to a child by their parents or society incorrect be default? Many religions, cults, or even Christian schisms or heresies have been very popular at certain times, but have faded away.

    Hope is a fact with religion. Christianity is ultimately a hopeful message, there's a reason its called the good news.

    If indoctrination is necessary why has it failed so badly in Ireland? And why, when society was weighed against Catholicism so much to the extent that priests were hunted and killed like wolves, did Catholicism persist?

    Is it only this generation that can think for itself and come to conclusions?
    It's not a bundle of contradictions to the majority of Christian as the overwhelming majority of Christians have not even read the Bible in full. And, of those that have, there are still many that accept that there are contradictions. Adding that to those in the world that are not Christian, those that do not believe that Bible is bundle of contradictions is a sever minority.
    Perhaps it will be helpful to define what you mean by contradiction. Generally, I think most would define a contradiction as two mutually exclusive statements in conflict with one another. Do you accept this definition?
    Side note: In my opinion, the next important human evolutionary trait will be the following: when the average human has evolved to a level of intelligence to say to themselves, "you know, I don't understand how or why God doesn't exist, but vast majority of "intellects" seem to think that way, or at least that my religion is false. So maybe I should consider that that is in fact the most likely possibility, even though I can't fully grasp it". That will results in a massive change in our way of life. You can already see shades of it happening in places like Scandanavia, but it unfortunately seems unlikely that it will happen on a global scale in my lifetime.
    Personally, I think that we are beginning the plunge the depths of late stage capitalism and people are seeing how shallow and empty it is. Far from ceasing to look for spiritual answers, if anything this has increased. Look at the spirituality section in any bookshop. I don't think you will see the end of religion anytime soon.

    Also, I do not think it is correct, or polite, to basically say that religious people are not as intelligent as those who are not.


  • #254
    Kaybaykwah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,262 ✭✭✭Kaybaykwah


    smacl wrote: »
    I suspect while that is true insofar as it goes, it is an oversimplification to the extent it is not useful in answering many more complex questions relating to the human mind. For example, from an evolutionary perspective, why would someone choose to commit suicide? I think once you look at many more complex aspects to human behaviour, trying to reduce to a simple physiological or neurological response simply isn't going to work. It is a bit like trying to explain a complex piece of computer software in terms of electrons moving around a circuit. When dealing with complexity we need to work on the basis of much higher levels of abstraction.

    I think that looking at the probable cause for a suicide in a brain disorder and taking it from there is not an oversimplification but the beginning of an inquiry into complexity.

    On the other hand, if a Christian like "one world order" emits the view that "the moment mankind chose Satan over God, the world has been a mess" is a severe impediment to understanding anything.


  • #255
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    John Hutton wrote: »
    But you have said that you are an atheist, and you posts would imply that you do not believe in objective truths or values.

    So you must believe religions are false, otherwise you would be looking to give Christianity, or another religion, a go.

    Yes, I am atheist. If, however, I once again changed my mind and started to believe that there is a necessity for God to exist (and also believed that it mattered if such a God existed), then I would research the various major religions (by an equal amount) and see if any make sense to me, as I explained in my steps before.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    The Bible was probably first directly translated into English in the 15th century. Do you not think that mistakes could have been made with the translation, or that it was translated into English using words which are now archaic or whose meaning, or emphasis of meaning, has shifted over time?

    Yes, there were mistakes made in the translations. But have these currently accepted translations not been chosen in a way so as to make Christianity seem more appealing to the masses? And how can you prove that that isn't the case?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Have you never read a bad translation of a novel?

    Not personally, no.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    A significant portion of the Bible is metaphorical, where the real meaning of Gods word is the meaning behind the metaphor, and not in the literal language of the metaphor itself. It would seem only logical, in trying to discern this meaning, what the metaphor would have meant to its audience at the time.

    Take any of the parables of Jesus, it seems clear that we will get more meaning out of them if we view and interpret them in the same frame of reference that the people He spoke them to had.

    So what we are doing is seeking the true meaning of the words, and not doing, as you say, merely changing the meaning to suit us today. In fact we are doing the exact opposite!

    Yes, but even within one society a metaphor is subjective . An impartial observer from the audience of that time would and should understand that metaphor differently than another observer from that same audience.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    GK Chesterton has a good quote that runs something like "Christianity has never been tried and found wanting, it has been tried and found hard". If we wanted to make things nice and easy and pleasing for us a lot would be different, but would be far worse ultimately. .

    In what ways would a world in which a simpler religion was the correct one make things far worse?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    If God and the Devil are equal, then God is not God.

    According to your interpretation, that is not God. According to many religions, God is simply that which created the universe, and to others, that which create the universe and life etc. Only a small portion of all potential religions, including Christianity, is it necessary for God to be more powerful than the devil. As I said previously, statements like "If God and the Devil are equal, then God is not God" demonstrate that you are of a Christian mindset and are not unbiased in choosing your preferred religion.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Here is a definition:
    A divinely revealed truth whose very possibility cannot be rationally conceived before it is revealed and, after revelation, whose inner essence cannot be fully understood by the finite mind. The incomprehensibility of revealed mysteries derives from the fact that they are manifestations of God, who is infinite and therefore beyond the complete grasp of a created intellect. Nevertheless, though incomprehensible, mysteries are intelligible. One of the primary duties of a believer is, through prayer, study, and experience, to grow in faith, i.e., to develop an understanding of what God has revealed. (Etym. Greek mysterion, something closed, a secret.)

    Oh you've provided a definition! Interesting, let me have a re-:

    "A divinely revealed truth..."

    Ah, not a definition, just a quote.

    So which mysteries are you referring to? Perhaps mention one or two?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Is anything that is taught to a child by their parents or society incorrect be default? Many religions, cults, or even Christian schisms or heresies have been very popular at certain times, but have faded away.

    Yes, usually because they don't invoke both of my previously mentioned criteria, they can't conveniently change the interpretation of their scripture, their claims can be directly tested and demonstrated to be incorrect etc.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    If indoctrination is necessary why has it failed so badly in Ireland?

    It only started to fail as access to unbiased information became more readily available (and I mean through all media, not just recently through the internet) and when people stopped being heavily punished for suggested Christianity was wrong. Indoctrination was doing just fine until then. Many adults also find it difficult or even embarrassing to admit to themselves that what they believed to be true for many decades is incorrect, so they will continue to teach such beliefs to the next generation even if that belief is no longer strong with them.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    And why, when society was weighed against Catholicism so much to the extent that priests were hunted and killed like wolves, did Catholicism persist?

    Because of the two criteria I previously mentioned.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Is it only this generation that can think for itself and come to conclusions?

    No, but it is certainly the case that the level of independent thinking increases as a society becomes industrialised and modernised.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Perhaps it will be helpful to define what you mean by contradiction. Generally, I think most would define a contradiction as two mutually exclusive statements in conflict with one another. Do you accept this definition?

    Yes, it is two things that cannot be true at the same time.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Personally, I think that we are beginning the plunge the depths of late stage capitalism and people are seeing how shallow and empty it is. Far from ceasing to look for spiritual answers, if anything this has increased. Look at the spirituality section in any bookshop. I don't think you will see the end of religion anytime soon.

    Are you suggesting that religion in the West is increasing?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Also, I do not think it is correct, or polite, to basically say that religious people are not as intelligent as those who are not.

    I am simply stating what the evidence shows. Any peer reviewed meta study that has been done demonstrates that there is a negative relation between intelligence and religiosity, e.g. (1) and (2). To anyone who is capable of reading and understanding such studies, I have simply stated a fact rather than giving an opinion.


  • #256
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Yes, I am atheist. If, however, I once again changed my mind and started to believe that there is a necessity for God to exist (and also believed that it mattered if such a God existed), then I would research the various major religions (by an equal amount) and see if any make sense to me, as I explained in my steps before.
    Why only the major religions? religion is a lived experience, how would you decide just by reading and not practicing?
    Yes, there were mistakes made in the translations. But have these currently accepted translations not been chosen in a way so as to make Christianity seem more appealing to the masses? And how can you prove that that isn't the case?
    Can you prove that it is?
    Not personally, no.
    Lucky you.
    Yes, but even within one society a metaphor is subjective . An impartial observer from the audience of that time would and should understand that metaphor differently than another observer from that same audience.
    When Jesus preached his parables he was talking to Jews mostly, it makes sense to try and understand his meaning within that frame of reference to establish the universal truth.

    If I gave you an analogy using football, would you not need to understand football to some degree to get the meaning of what I was saying?
    In what ways would a world in which a simpler religion was the correct one make things far worse?
    Lets look at what I said: "If we wanted to make things nice and easy and pleasing for us a lot would be different, but would be far worse ultimately." If that "easy" religion were correct than that would be handy, but the point is that it wouldn't be, which is why we don't just deal with it subjectively and jettison everything we don't like or find easy.
    According to your interpretation, that is not God. According to many religions, God is simply that which created the universe, and to others, that which create the universe and life etc. Only a small portion of all potential religions, including Christianity, is it necessary for God to be more powerful than the devil. As I said previously, statements like "If God and the Devil are equal, then God is not God" demonstrate that you are of a Christian mindset and are not unbiased in choosing your preferred religion.
    Is it possible for me to give you an answer that would satisfy you as to why I believe my religion to be true?
    Oh you've provided a definition! Interesting, let me have a re-:

    "A divinely revealed truth..."

    Ah, not a definition, just a quote.

    So which mysteries are you referring to? Perhaps mention one or two?
    It is a definition of a sacred mystery. Here are some: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p3.htm
    Yes, usually because they don't invoke both of my previously mentioned criteria, they can't conveniently change the interpretation of their scripture, their claims can be directly tested and demonstrated to be incorrect etc.
    How do you directly test something like morality?
    It only started to fail as access to unbiased information became more readily available (and I mean through all media, not just recently through the internet) and when people stopped being heavily punished for suggested Christianity was wrong. Indoctrination was doing just fine until then. Many adults also find it difficult or even embarrassing to admit to themselves that what they believed to be true for many decades is incorrect, so they will continue to teach such beliefs to the next generation even if that belief is no longer strong with them.
    But, people in Ireland were heavily punished for being Catholic. Hard to imagine how they could be punished more. Yet it didn't work.

    It is amazing that you can't accept that people can and do decide that a religion is true off their own bat, and through the use of their own mind.
    No, but it is certainly the case that the level of independent thinking increases as a society becomes industrialised and modernised.
    Are you saying that independent thinking can never lead to religion?
    Yes, it is two things that cannot be true at the same time.
    In that instance it is perfectly legitimate to point out ways in which the statements are not mutually exclusive, and are thus not contradictions.
    Are you suggesting that religion in the West is increasing?
    No, I am saying that interest and exploration of the spiritual side of things remains, even if it has shifted into "new age" arenas. Nevertheless, religion on a worldwide basis is increasing.
    I am simply stating what the evidence shows. Any peer reviewed meta study that has been done demonstrates that there is a negative relation between intelligence and religiosity, e.g. (1) and (2). To anyone who is capable of reading and understanding such studies, I have simply stated a fact rather than giving an opinion.
    I do not have access to those papers. But as you know, correlation doesn't imply causation.

    If basic average human intelligence has consistently increased over the centuries, - you said an evolutionary trait - then there was a period of time where, in line with the increase and spread of religion, there was a correlation between intelligence and religiosity. Now you might argue that people today use their brains differently, rather than it being a case that they are "more intelligent". (Or where our great grandparents, by today's definition in terms of IQ mentally disabled?)

    During your periods of not being an atheist, are you more stupid? (I think it is bad form to call those you are debating with "less intelligent")


  • #257
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    John Hutton wrote: »
    Why only the major religions? religion is a lived experience, how would you decide just by reading and not practicing?

    Not sure if you are just choosing to ignore what I said before or not, but like I said in my steps, I would start with major religions and, if none makes sense to me, I would move on to other religions.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Can you prove that it is?

    No, which is why I would choose a different religion that has more concrete certainty in the message that it is trying to portray.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    When Jesus preached his parables he was talking to Jews mostly, it makes sense to try and understand his meaning within that frame of reference to establish the universal truth.

    It does indeed, but metaphors are still subjective in any frame of reference.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    If I gave you an analogy using football, would you not need to understand football to some degree to get the meaning of what I was saying?

    Yes, but if a metaphor about football was made 500 years ago, I would not need to think in the frame of the society at that time to understand that metaphor.

    John Hutton wrote: »
    Lets look at what I said: "If we wanted to make things nice and easy and pleasing for us a lot would be different, but would be far worse ultimately." If that "easy" religion were correct than that would be handy, but the point is that it wouldn't be, which is why we don't just deal with it subjectively and jettison everything we don't like or find easy.

    If anything is "handy", it's the belief that God did the things that we cannot explain. Ruling out something because it's "handy" isn't something that I would associate with Christians.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    It is a definition of a sacred mystery. Here are some: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p3.htm

    Ah, by mysteries you primarily mean things in the Bible that are miraculous. Certainly not what I thought you were referring to.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    How do you directly test something like morality?

    Test? In what way? How moral a person is? Are you saying only God can determine that? Or is it that the only reason you think that you are not murdering someone right now is because you don't think God would want you to?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    But, people in Ireland were heavily punished for being Catholic. Hard to imagine how they could be punished more. Yet it didn't work.

    It didn't work primarily because of the second of my two criteria. If that didn't exist, it would have worked. A small amount of punishment on Earth is worth it for eternal salvation yada yada.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    It is amazing that you can't accept that people can and do decide that a religion is true off their own bat, and through the use of their own mind.

    Because I've never seen it happen. And even if I were to see it happen tomorrow, that would be one instance versus the many instances where there was always a separate reason. I would have to be a statistical anomaly for the trend that I have seen to be untrue.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Are you saying that independent thinking can never lead to religion?

    Religion? It can. Christian? Debatable.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    In that instance it is perfectly legitimate to point out ways in which the statements are not mutually exclusive, and are thus not contradictions.

    What is the point you are trying to make here? I picked a contradiction for you to discuss. Have you decided to ignore that after you spent so much time trying to get me to pick one?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    No, I am saying that interest and exploration of the spiritual side of things remains, even if it has shifted into "new age" arenas. Nevertheless, religion on a worldwide basis is increasing.

    There's only one thing that I can see that's increasing in a modernised society. Religiosity is indeed increasing in certain parts of the world, and has been for a very long time, particularly in countries that are only now industrialising, but the rate of that increase has steadily decreased overall in modern times.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    I do not have access to those papers. But as you know, correlation doesn't imply causation.

    Well, you'll be glad to know that that's not how that conclusion was drawn in either paper, or indeed in any paper which has done a meta analysis. I will gladly pay for and send you one of the two articles if you are truly interested in reading it. Or you can take the Christian approach and just ignore evidence that I have presented to you before fairly trying to fully understand it because it makes you uncomfortable.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    If basic average human intelligence has consistently increased over the centuries

    You are suggesting that it hasn't?

    John Hutton wrote: »
    then there was a period of time where, in line with the increase and spread of religion, there was a correlation between intelligence and religiosity.

    Yes. Unfortunately, that was also during a time when people were persecuted for blasphemy, thereby allowing for religiosity to continue to grow rather than allowing such intellects to freely change their beliefs.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    During your periods of not being an atheist, are you more stupid?

    No, because I am an individual of statistical insignificance, and that is not how statistics works.


  • #258
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Kaybaykwah wrote: »
    I think that looking at the probable cause for a suicide in a brain disorder and taking it from there is not an oversimplification but the beginning of an inquiry into complexity.

    Don't think I agree with you here in that depression is the cause of much suicide and the root causes of depression are varied and very often have nothing to do with a brain disorder, e.g. financial worries. That said, I reckon we've veered a fair bit off topic here.
    On the other hand, if a Christian like "one world order" emits the view that "the moment mankind chose Satan over God, the world has been a mess" is a severe impediment to understanding anything.

    Total non-sequitur this.


  • #259
    Kaybaykwah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,262 ✭✭✭Kaybaykwah


    smacl wrote: »
    Don't think I agree with you here in that depression is the cause of much suicide and the root causes of depression are varied and very often have nothing to do with a brain disorder, e.g. financial worries. That said, I reckon we've veered a fair bit off topic here.



    Total non-sequitur this.



    I did say "probable cause leading to further inquiry". You did bring the subject up, didn't you?

    I still hold to my opinion, respectfully, that a Demon vs Good Lord view of the universe is severely limiting to understanding said universe. If you start from a doggedly faith based premise, and counter empirical knowledge with that kind of argument, there is very little space for understanding.


  • #260
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I am simply stating what the evidence shows. Any peer reviewed meta study that has been done demonstrates that there is a negative relation between intelligence and religiosity, e.g. (1) and (2). To anyone who is capable of reading and understanding such studies, I have simply stated a fact rather than giving an opinion.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    During your periods of not being an atheist, are you more stupid? (I think it is bad form to call those you are debating with "less intelligent")

    Not sure that the studies reflect on anyone here. From the wikipedia article on the meta-analysis;
    In a 2013 meta-analysis of 63 studies, led by professor Miron Zuckerman, a correlation of -.20 to -.25 between religiosity and IQ was particularly strong when assessing beliefs (which in their view reflects intrinsic religiosity), but the negative effects were less defined when behavioral aspects of religion (such as church-going) were examined. They note limitations on this since viewing intrinsic religiosity as being about religious beliefs represents American Protestantism more than Judaism or Catholicism, both of which see behavior as just as important as religious beliefs. They also noted that the available data did not allow adequate consideration of the role of religion type and of culture in assessing the relationship between religion and intelligence. Most of the studies reviewed were American and 87% of participants in those studies were from the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

    Is it bold of me to that the first thing that comes to mind reading the above is Trump supporters? :p


  • #261
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Kaybaykwah wrote: »
    I did say "probable cause leading to further inquiry". You did bring the subject up, didn't you?

    No even in agreement with probable cause to be honest, possible cause maybe.
    I still hold to my opinion, respectfully, that a Demon vs Good Lord view of the universe is severely limiting to understanding said universe. If you start from a doggedly faith based premise, and counter empirical knowledge with that kind of argument, there is very little space for understanding.

    That would also be my opinion, but many Christians that I've encountered aren't dogged in this regard and many more reject biblical literalism, particularly when in comes into direct conflict with scientific evidence. For example, being Christian doesn't automatically make you a creationist.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    smacl wrote: »
    Is it bold of me to that the first thing that comes to mind reading the above is Trump supporters? :p

    Well that's simply the case of joining the dots! :pac:


  • #263
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not sure if you are just choosing to ignore what I said before or not, but like I said in my steps, I would start with major religions and, if none makes sense to me, I would move on to other religions.
    Why would you start with major religions, and would you "live" these religions or merely read about them?
    Yes, but if a metaphor about football was made 500 years ago, I would not need to think in the frame of the society at that time to understand that metaphor.
    You would, as the game is different now then even just a couple of decades ago. Can't pass back to the keeper now :)
    If anything is "handy", it's the belief that God did the things that we cannot explain. Ruling out something because it's "handy" isn't something that I would associate with Christians.

    Ah, by mysteries you primarily mean things in the Bible that are miraculous. Certainly not what I thought you were referring to.

    Test? In what way? How moral a person is? Are you saying only God can determine that? Or is it that the only reason you think that you are not murdering someone right now is because you don't think God would want you to?
    Yet again, you move the goalposts. I asked if anything taught by parents to their children is necessarily untrue, you said no, because it can be tested. So I ask, how can you test something like morality, if something is truly moral or good?
    Because I've never seen it happen. And even if I were to see it happen tomorrow, that would be one instance versus the many instances where there was always a separate reason. I would have to be a statistical anomaly for the trend that I have seen to be untrue.



    Religion? It can. Christian? Debatable.



    What is the point you are trying to make here? I picked a contradiction for you to discuss. Have you decided to ignore that after you spent so much time trying to get me to pick one?
    The point is that it is legitimate when asked to reconcile a contradiction to point out that it is not a contradiction. You, seemingly, will not accept that apparent contradictions are a matter of interpretation and translation. Rather, you have decided that the translation you picked, and the meaning you have placed on it, are absolute - hence your very tenuous points about dealing with analogies and metaphors in ancient texts.

    There's only one thing that I can see that's increasing in a modernised society. Religiosity is indeed increasing in certain parts of the world, and has been for a very long time, particularly in countries that are only now industrialising, but the rate of that increase has steadily decreased overall in modern times.
    As the western world suffers declines in fertility and populations increase in other areas of the world migration may become a necessity which will certainly affect religiosity in western countries. I do not believe that the entire world can function at the same level of late stage capitalism, with each country on a par - in other words, it is way too early to tell. Think Mao's quote about the French revolution.
    Well, you'll be glad to know that that's how that conclusion was drawn in either paper, or indeed in any paper which has done a meta analysis. I will gladly pay for and send you one of the two articles if you are truly interested in reading it. Or you can take the Christian approach and just ignore evidence that I have presented to you before fairly trying to fully understand it because it makes you uncomfortable.
    You are getting a bit testy here, not agreeing with you doesn't mean I am ignoring anything because of being made feel uncomfortable. I would ask you to reevaluate and be charitable here, you don't agree with me, I don't think this is because you are ignoring points or are being made uncomfortable. It is possible for people to engage on a topic and disagree. As for paying for the article, this is kind of you but I'm not sure spending 30 quid for the purposes of our discussion is particularly prudent on your part. However, if your conclusion to my statement about buying the article is that I have decided to just ignore it and not try to understand it (again you are testy here saying that this is the "Christian approach") then by all means do go ahead and purchase it.



    You are suggesting that it hasn't?
    How do you define intelligence?


    You have skipped over a point a number of times now, so I will ask again. Is there any answer that I could possibly give you that would be satisfactory to you? Or is this a game of bowling to you?


    I think this conversation has become something of a battle of attrition.


  • #264
    Kaybaykwah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,262 ✭✭✭Kaybaykwah


    smacl wrote: »
    No even in agreement with probable cause to be honest, possible cause maybe.



    That would also be my opinion, but many Christians that I've encountered aren't dogged in this regard and many more reject biblical literalism, particularly when in comes into direct conflict with scientific evidence. For example, being Christian doesn't automatically make you a creationist.



    Oh, I know, and again, the various schisms and viewpoints right down to individual interpretations of the scriptures, and given the directives of Christian churches, there is no possible agreement among Christians.

    From Catholicism, to Orthodox churches, the Protestant ones right down to the American offshoots of Mormonism, Jehovah's witnesses, the individual is confronted with a myriad interpretations, and dictates.

    Therein lies the difference with scientific inquiry. Scientists welcome dissent, and yet, the collegiality that leads to building the Large Hadron Collider means that there is partial consensus on the laws governing the universe as we advance toward more discovery. Modern scientists are pretty much on the same page within theoretical and experimental physics.

    The wonder of physics is that the laws of modern physics are just as impenetrable to the unwashed, as the more obscure "sacred texts" expounding on the advent of the universe.

    I am rather more partial to take my cues from scientific researchers, and refer to these interpretations than the volatile, disjointed ones of Christian or other "spiritual" orders. This does not mean that one should disrespect the poetic expression and essence of scriptural passages.
    I look at them in terms of folkloric and literary interest. I embrace the whole of our Christian history in spite of my misgivings about the salubrious outcome of the message. I would gladly throw out a bunch of modern architecture to save one lonely medieval monastery in the Irish hinterland.


  • #265
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    John Hutton wrote: »
    Why would you start with major religions,

    Because it's easier to study and thereby rule out ones that have a lot of easily accessible information.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    and would you "live" these religions or merely read about them?

    No, because that may inadvertently influence me. I may choose to accept a religion purely because I enjoy that way of life and unintentionally ignore contradictions within it, rather than realising that I can simply live that way of life without needing to believe that religion at all.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    You would, as the game is different now then even just a couple of decades ago. Can't pass back to the keeper now :)

    Yes, but that wasn't my point. There are many sports/games whose rules have changed for millennia.

    Besides, according to VR, you can do whatever you want in football these days and they'll just change the rules on the day. :pac:
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Yet again, you move the goalposts. I asked if anything taught by parents to their children is necessarily untrue, you said no, because it can be tested.

    No, I never actually answered that question. I only ever answered the second part of this statement.
    Is anything that is taught to a child by their parents or society incorrect be default? Many religions, cults, or even Christian schisms or heresies have been very popular at certain times, but have faded away.

    but you chose to read what you wanted to read.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    So I ask, how can you test something like morality, if something is truly moral or good?

    Morality is subjective. Things that have been considered moral in the past are no longer considered moral now, and vice versa.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    The point is that it is legitimate when asked to reconcile a contradiction to point out that it is not a contradiction. You, seemingly, will not accept that apparent contradictions are a matter of interpretation and translation. Rather, you have decided that the translation you picked, and the meaning you have placed on it, are absolute - hence your very tenuous points about dealing with analogies and metaphors in ancient texts.

    If only I had picked out an example for you to use in your argument so that I could fully grasp the point you are trying to make here. One can dream eh?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    As the western world suffers declines in fertility and populations increase in other areas of the world migration may become a necessity which will certainly affect religiosity in western countries. I do not believe that the entire world can function at the same level of late stage capitalism, with each country on a par - in other words, it is way too early to tell. Think Mao's quote about the French revolution.

    Not sure if you expect to me to respond to this or if you are just letting us know how you feel.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    You are getting a bit testy here, not agreeing with you doesn't mean I am ignoring anything because of being made feel uncomfortable. I would ask you to reevaluate and be charitable here, you don't agree with me, I don't think this is because you are ignoring points or are being made uncomfortable. It is possible for people to engage on a topic and disagree.

    And I would counter by saying that is incredibly insulting to dismiss a total of 63 peer-reviewed studies performed by experts in statistics by stating "but correlation doesn't imply causation lol". You asked what I meant by evidence, I've provided you with an example of what I mean by said evidence, and you have chosen to dismiss it with an outlandish, nonsensical statement.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    if your conclusion to my statement about buying the article is that I have decided to just ignore it and not try to understand it (again you are testy here saying that this is the "Christian approach") then by all means do go ahead and purchase it.

    I would gladly do this. But before I do, I want to be sure I am not wasting my money. Will you actually understand the paper? Do you have a science background?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    How do you define intelligence?

    I actually physically rolled my eyes when I read that, it's been a while. :pac:

    In my opinion, the definition of intelligence, as with love, morality etc., is subjective. However, under any of the accepted definitions, I would say that it has increased. Are you suggesting that you have a definition in which you would conclude that intelligence hasn't consistently increased over the centuries?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    You have skipped over a point a number of times now, so I will ask again. Is there any answer that I could possibly give you that would be satisfactory to you? Or is this a game of bowling to you?

    Satisfactory? In what sense? And what is your own answer to that question?


  • #266
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Because it's easier to study and thereby rule out ones that have a lot of easily accessible information.

    No, because that may inadvertently influence me. I may choose to accept a religion purely because I enjoy that way of life and unintentionally ignore contradictions within it, rather than realising that I can simply live that way of life without needing to believe that religion at all.
    This is like deciding it is good to play a sport, but can only pick one at a time. You are unsure what one. So, instead of giving a sport a go you will just read about them and never play, because that might influence you. Right.

    Yes, but that wasn't my point. There are many sports/games whose rules have changed for millennia.

    Besides, according to VR, you can do whatever you want in football these days and they'll just change the rules on the day. :pac:
    So what is your point? Metaphors and analogies, including "old" ones are solely to be viewed subjectively and the important meaning is what it means to you, divorced from the context and frame of reference in which it was originally given?
    No, I never actually answered that question. I only ever answered the second part of this statement.

    but you chose to read what you wanted to read.
    Heh, and you accuse me of ignoring things?
    Morality is subjective. Things that have been considered moral in the past are no longer considered moral now, and vice versa.
    Ok, so nothing is objectively wrong or evil. Including the murder of innocent people, or to go back to your example, giving children cancer. This is a neat "solution" to the problem of evil - objective evil does not exist. Your opinion that a religion with a God need not address the problem of evil makes sense now.

    If only I had picked out an example for you to use in your argument so that I could fully grasp the point you are trying to make here. One can dream eh?
    Remind me. You gave a number of decontextualized reference to scripture, maybe I missed one. But if I gave a scriptural interpretation which explained how it was not a contradiction wouldn't you just discount this anyway?
    Not sure if you expect to me to respond to this or if you are just letting us know how you feel.
    You gave a "prediction" or analysis of how you felt things would go, I gave mine.
    And I would counter by saying that is incredibly insulting to dismiss a total of 63 peer-reviewed studies performed by experts in statistics by stating "but correlation doesn't imply causation lol". You asked what I meant by evidence, I've provided you with an example of what I mean by said evidence, and you have chosen to dismiss it with an outlandish, nonsensical statement.
    Correlation does not imply causation. I was at pains to point out that I do not have access to the paper. Why would you expect me to have a response to something that I don't have access to?
    I would gladly do this. But before I do, I want to be sure I am not wasting my money. Will you actually understand the paper? Do you have a science background?
    Right, so now you are afraid I might not understand it, if you thought it incomprehensible to me, why would you post it? And who appointed you gatekeeper? My background is in the humanities, mainly law early on which was my undergrad and my professional arena for a number of years.
    I actually physically rolled my eyes when I read that, it's been a while. :pac:

    In my opinion, the definition of intelligence, as with love, morality etc., is subjective. However, under any of the accepted definitions, I would say that it has increased. Are you suggesting that you have a definition in which you would conclude that intelligence hasn't consistently increased over the centuries?
    If we use IQ as an indicator, and project backwards, it would lead us to believe that, by IQ points, that our ancestors (from not that long ago) were intellectually disabled by today's definitions, in terms of IQ.

    Personally, I believe that humanity, certainly section of it, has had similar capacity for intelligence for much of its history, but that the way that minds have been used, has been different at different times making the use of metrics like IQ a poor tool for comparison. And we also need to differentiate between knowledge and intelligence.
    Satisfactory? In what sense? And what is your own answer to that question?
    My answer is that no, I don't think that any answer that I, or anyone else, could give would satisfy you, given the terms you have dictated for an answer, i.e. I don't see how it is possible to answer what is ultimately a theological or philosophical question without using philosophy or theology in response.

    Are we wasting our time? Have we reached the bottom, to where our irreconcilably different viewpoints can only lead to other formulations of what we have basically already said?

    If you don't believe in objective truth, or that a religion can be objectively true then no answer as to how or why I believe a religion can be true can possibly satisfy you - hence why you suggest I might find another religion "equally true". You decry contradiction on the one hand, yet pursue this avenue.


  • #267
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Yes but you have option of not accepting Christianity just because you learned about it. Do I have the option of not falling when I jump off a cliff?

    I learned as much about Christianity as I did about Irish. Equally ignorant about both. Disliking both equally: the droning priests, the violence, the rules and regs God, the way the Eucharist would stick to the roof of your mouth. About the only thing I vaguely liked was the smell of the incense when they swung that yoke on a chain. But even that was faintly off putting. That was Christianity as I learned it.

    The Christianity I fell into I knew nothing about. It was only after I was saved, after the lights went on, that I started to understand Chrisitianity.

    It started out with peace, joy, delight, forgivenness. Then progressed intellectually as to why peace, joy, delight, forgiveness*


    * I had no sense of needing to be forgiven until I was. Like the time I carried a kid on my shoulders during a long hike and got used to the weight and forgot he was there, it was only when the weight was lifted that I realised I was carrying it.


    But would you be Christian now if the Christian Empire did not exist?

    Like I say, the product of the Christian Empire didn't exactly float my boat. Christianity happens whether there is Christian Empire around or not.

    "Abraham believed God and it (his having believed God) was credited (or parlayed) as righteousness (i.e. he was saved, his eyes were opened, Christs atoning work was applied to him)".

    Abrahams case is given as the way of salvation in Romans (the first half of which is blueprint for how God's salvation is wrought). No Christian Empire (or indeed Christianity) around then.

    Example. If you do something wrong, feel guilt and rather than suppressing that guilt ("they deserved it, it was their fault, etc") you are driven to make amends then you are, an atheist I gather, believing God. God is the one who put your moral voice in, you listen and act in this case means you believe what he says. Does God have to speak to you in a way that you know its God speaking in order that you've believed God on this occasion. Well, obviously not. Nevertheless you've believed God.

    Now your faith in this instance isn't in all likelyhood saving faith. Your believing God unto salvation involves a more fundamental issue. But it serves to illustrate: the Christian Empire is not at work in you. God's moral direction is.

    Interestingly, this sidesteps the objection "what about those that never heard of Jesus Christ? They all condemned?". Many Christians would say yes. But Abrahams case indicates otherwise. God operates direct with the individual. Culture, time of living, education, Christian Empire or no, what religion or philosophy you follow .. it makes no differnece to his reach.

    Which would make sense. Imagine God bamboozled by what the Christian Empire (worldly men oft times) has wrought in his name.

    Later


  • #268
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    John Hutton wrote: »
    This is like deciding it is good to play a sport, but can only pick one at a time. You are unsure what one. So, instead of giving a sport a go you will just read about them and never play, because that might influence you. Right.

    That's not what that's like at all , that's a terrible analogy, almost at the same level of your maths one. Religion is about God, about how and why we are here etc. "Living" that life as you say is not important, finding out the truth is. And figuring out the truth is best done as an external observer.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    So what is your point? Metaphors and analogies, including "old" ones are solely to be viewed subjectively and the important meaning is what it means to you, divorced from the context and frame of reference in which it was originally given?

    My point is that a religion full of metaphors can naturally become very large because people can interpret those metaphors however they feel and so can feel a connection to that religion but without any proper basis for doing do.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Heh, and you accuse me of ignoring things?

    Thank you for apologising for incorrectly suggesting that I moved the goalposts again, I appreciate it.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Ok, so nothing is objectively wrong or evil. Including the murder of innocent people, or to go back to your example, giving children cancer. This is a neat "solution" to the problem of evil - objective evil does not exist. Your opinion that a religion with a God need not address the problem of evil makes sense now.

    Again, you are completely taking what I said out of context and choosing to read it in a way that suits you. Morality can be subjective and some things can also be objectively evil. They are not mutually exclusive and I have never suggested they were.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Remind me. You gave a number of decontextualized reference to scripture, maybe I missed one. But if I gave a scriptural interpretation which explained how it was not a contradiction wouldn't you just discount this anyway?

    Only one way to find out! Perhaps stop trying to find reasons to not put some effort into this conversation and give it a shot.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Correlation does not imply causation. I was at pains to point out that I do not have access to the paper. Why would you expect me to have a response to something that I don't have access to?

    But you did give your response didn't you? Correlation does not imply causation. How is that not your response? And you've just stated it a second time? To many people that response would seem very hypocritical. You know that I have taken the time to read the Bible for my own curiosity, but when I ask you to read a passage from my "Bible", you dismiss it without a moment's notice? You assume that you understand the topic of statistics so well that you give your conclusion before you read it?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Right, so now you are afraid I might not understand it, if you thought it incomprehensible to me, why would you post it?

    Again, deciding to read my words as you see fit. I only asked if you would or would not understand it as I will be paying money for it. I posted a link to the abstract as, since I did not know your background, it was possible that you could understand it, and it was free for me to post such a link. Not quite sure why it's so difficult for you to comprehend me checking if it's worthwhile that I buy the paper or not. Seems like you're trying to be angry for some reason.

    John Hutton wrote: »
    If we use IQ as an indicator, and project backwards, it would lead us to believe that, by IQ points, that our ancestors (from not that long ago) were intellectually disabled by today's definitions, in terms of IQ.

    If you told a statistician to extrapolate data like that and then come to a conclusion, they would laugh at you.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    My answer is that no, I don't think that any answer that I, or anyone else, could give would satisfy you, given the terms you have dictated for an answer, i.e. I don't see how it is possible to answer what is ultimately a theological or philosophical question without using philosophy or theology in response.

    No. What I meant was, is there any answer that I could possibly give you that would be satisfactory to you?


  • #269
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    [Deleted User] wrote: »


    But that's a bit different isn't it? There's is still more to learn with science because we are still making gradual progress in understanding different areas of scientific research. Progress with Christianity in the 21st century is simply changing the interpretation of scripture in different ways so as to fit in with modern society.

    Some may take that tack. The way I see it Christianity is as much a journey into known but still unknown as scientific endeavor is.

    Societal moves will force a reconsideration of the Christianity of before which itself was influenced by the times it lived it. No matter. Its just a search. Ones own personal one.

    God has children. Not grandchildren. Its me and him that means. Its not whether I get it fully right. It'll be as right as I, with his help, make it. And then the curtain comes down.




    Yes, but how do they know what a real banknote is? Because they already have examples of such a real banknote. If they never saw a real banknote nor knew what it looked like, they would analyse as many banknotes as they could before settling on the one(s) that feels the most authentic.

    You know fake when something comes along that convinces you its fake. In the banktellers case its the conviction that its a real bank that's training. In my case its a real God. Or should I say, his explanation for whats going on in me and the world around me. Compared to the alternative explanations.

    At the end of the day its what rings true for both bank teller and me as to what is true or not. There's no proving it as such...


  • #270
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    Deleted User wrote: »
    That's not what that's like at all , that's a terrible analogy, almost at the same level of your maths one. Religion is about God, about how and why we are here etc. "Living" that life as you say is not important, finding out the truth is. And figuring out the truth is best done as an external observer.
    Right, so if you came to the conclusion that God existed, and worship is necessary, you would spend all your time reading about different religions until you found one satisfactory and would not practice any religion until you did so?

    My point is that a religion full of metaphors can naturally become very large because people can interpret those metaphors however they feel and so can feel a connection to that religion but without any proper basis for doing do.
    Good thing we have the Catholic Church then.
    Again, you are completely taking what I said out of context and choosing to read it in a way that suits you. Morality can be subjective and some things can also be objectively evil. They are not mutually exclusive and I have never suggested they were.
    Please explain, conceptually, how you can hold, given your position, that something is objectively evil. This is important. How can you prove that something is objectively evil?
    But you did give your response didn't you? Correlation does not imply causation. How is that not your response? And you've just stated it a second time? To many people that response would seem very hypocritical. You know that I have taken the time to read the Bible for my own curiosity, but when I ask you to read a passage from my "Bible", you dismiss it without a moment's notice? You assume that you understand the topic of statistics so well that you give your conclusion before you read it?
    My links were not paywalled. But you did dismiss, out of hand, what I gave because you have dismissed theology and philosophy wholesale.
    Again, deciding to read my words as you see fit. I only asked if you would or would not understand it as I will be paying money for it. I posted a link to the abstract as, since I did not know your background, it was possible that you could understand it, and it was free for me to post such a link. Not quite sure why it's so difficult for you to comprehend me checking if it's worthwhile that I buy the paper or not. Seems like you're trying to be angry for some reason.
    So are you going to buy it or not?
    If you told a statistician to extrapolate data like that and then come to a conclusion, they would laugh at you.
    Look up the Flynn effect re increase in IQ. It is perfectly possible to extrapolate this backwards (this has been done) and this highlights one of the main issues and problems with using IQ as a measure of intelligence, that several generations ago we would be looking at a lot of people having an IQ under 70 - i.e. mentally disabled. Rather it is more accurate to say that they way people used their brains is different, rather than that people in the past were necessarily less intelligent. Or do you think that our brains have dramatically evolved in the space of 100 years?
    No. What I meant was, is there any answer that I could possibly give you that would be satisfactory to you?
    If you, through logical argument, demonstrated that it is impossible for God to exist.

    But I have not asked you to prove that God doesn't exist, in the course of this thread it has rather been you asking questions, in this regard.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    8kczg9v0swrydm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 119 ✭✭8kczg9v0swrydm


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    You say we owe him obedience and compare it to parents but he committed genocide in Sodom and Gomorrah and I can tell you if I found out my parents killed my obedience would be gone.

    Again god only created the good but his reaction to the bad is atrocious as above he wiped Sodom and Gomorrah off the map and damns people to eternal torture for being bad and that is on him and no one else

    Yes, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness:

    "In like manner, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, who indulged in sexual immorality and pursued strange flesh, are on display as an example of those who sustain the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7).

    The people in these towns must have been rabid on a different level and I suspect that their destruction was also meant to prevent their evil spreading throughout the land. In Genesis, these inhabitants are trying to gang rape a group of travelers who came into the city. Imagine how low these people must have sunk if this was their first reaction to visitors coming in!

    Moreover, to discover something of the mercy of God, we have to ponder this dialogue which took place between God and Abraham before the cities were destroyed (Genesis 18:20-33):
    Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

    The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord. Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

    The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

    Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”
    “If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

    Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”
    He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”
    Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”
    He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

    Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”
    He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

    Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”
    He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

    When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home."


    The truth is that God wants all to be saved. He is merciful and "slow to anger" (Psalm 108:3). It is up to each and every one of us to avail of this salvation by accepting His mercy.

    I think that often the toughest thing to do is to admit that He is right and we are wrong.


  • #272
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    John Hutton wrote: »
    Right, so if you came to the conclusion that God existed, and worship is necessary, you would spend all your time reading about different religions until you found one satisfactory and would not practice any religion until you did so?

    Of course! Why would I spend time practicing a religion that I've concluded is untrue when I could be searching for the correct religion?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Good thing we have the Catholic Church then.

    Go on.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Please explain, conceptually, how you can hold, given your position, that something is objectively evil. This is important. How can you prove that something is objectively evil?

    Statistical analysis. Within a limit of three sigma, if a survey demonstrates that the human race as a whole has agreed that something is evil, then it is by definition evil. If not, then it is only subjectively evil.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    My links were not paywalled. But you did dismiss, out of hand, what I gave because you have dismissed theology and philosophy wholesale.

    Again, you are ignoring the effort that I have put in because you are in a bubble where you think you are instead the one doing the effort. Do you think I knew Samuel 18:10 and the others off the top of my head? Or did I have to do some research to find them? Why don't you try getting off the top of your mountain and try putting in a similar amount of effort and detailing the contradiction that I requested?

    Also, that was another nice deflection. Would you like to try responding to this again rather than ignoring it?
    But you did give your response didn't you? Correlation does not imply causation. How is that not your response? And you've just stated it a second time? To many people that response would seem very hypocritical. You know that I have taken the time to read the Bible for my own curiosity, but when I ask you to read a passage from my "Bible", you dismiss it without a moment's notice? You assume that you understand the topic of statistics so well that you give your conclusion before you read it, regardless of whether you can or cannot access the document?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    So are you going to buy it or not?.

    Well you tell me, is it worth it? Perhaps pick a random meta analysis paper and see if you can understand it, and get back to me?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Look up the Flynn effect re increase in IQ. It is perfectly possible to extrapolate this backwards (this has been done) and this highlights one of the main issues and problems with using IQ as a measure of intelligence, that several generations ago we would be looking at a lot of people having an IQ under 70 - i.e. mentally disabled. Rather it is more accurate to say that they way people used their brains is different, rather than that people in the past were necessarily less intelligent. Or do you think that our brains have dramatically evolved in the space of 100 years?

    I'm fully aware of the Flynn effect, I learned about it in a statistic module, and it was brought up as a good example as to how easy it is to come to a wrong conclusion based on data extrapolation. No statistician would infer from the Flynn effect that either people had a very low IQ a long time ago nor that the IQ system is flawed because of the effect (they would however say the IQ system is flawed for other reasons, but not that). But I'm guessing that since you didn't mention the Flynn effect in your previous reply, you only learned about it today and are trying to act like you know all about it? To a scientist?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    If you, through logical argument, demonstrated that it is impossible for God to exist.

    But I have not asked you to prove that God doesn't exist, in the course of this thread it has rather been you asking questions, in this regard.

    And I have not requested anything from you either. In fact, I suggested and recommended to you long ago that there was no point in you continuing to reply and yet you are doing so anyway. But if you are still looking discussion, you seem to have forgotten to fully reply to this. I'll quote it below so that you can reply at your convenience.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Pick your best, if you want we can go on to your second best, and so on. I'm not going to spend ages compiling answers to a rapid fire 10 minute video, you are being unreasonable here. And again you are assuming that I have not given my faith serious thought and consideration. As I said before, I wallowed as an agnostic/atheist for many years, reason and logic opened my mind and heart to God, and has propelled me since.

    I gave you a round to do, not the whole video. But if your faith is not as important to you to do that, start with the first one in the numbers round and continue from there.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    And again you are assuming that I have not given my faith serious thought and consideration. As I said before, I wallowed as an agnostic/atheist for many years, reason and logic opened my mind and heart to God, and has propelled me since.

    But, in my opinion, you haven't. I've mentioned several times that you are Christian because it is the religion you know most about, and if that wasn't the case you would have stated it at some point by now. When you decided to no longer be atheist/agnostic and let God into your life, you defaulted to Christianity without giving the other religions much due care and attention. Is my presumption true or is it not?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    But you have dismissed the use of scriptures or theology wholesale. "Does this make sense, answers without any reference to scripture or theology please".

    Me personally? I haven't. Like I've said previously (in this thread or the feedback thread, can't remember), I've read the Bible, the Koran and the the Tipitaka. That's not much scripture, but it's more than 99.9% of people, and I would presume more than you? Why did I do this you might ask? Like I said, my answer to 1) isn't always no. I read them all due to curiosity, and dismissed them all after some thought. And because of that, I don't consider quoting anything from those three as evidence for anything. If you quoted something from a different scripture, then I might have to come up with a more constructive response.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    But this isn't a debate - you are refusing wholesale to engage in discussion of theology or scripture to explain the truth of a religion, it seems you are only happy to use scripture to try and trip one up, and then when a scriptural explanation and context is given, you say it "means nothing". How can this type of "debate" get us anywhere?

    It is a debate, but not a very constructive one. You are correct, I have dismissed it because I find it contradictory, unpleasing, unlikely and unnecessary. And I would not state "it means nothing" if you had quoted scripture that provided evidence that Christianity is correct.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    But this wasn't your original point, whenever you get pinned down on something you just moved the goalposts. The point is that it is decidedly counter cultural in Ireland today to be a Christian, yet you maintain that being a Christian in modern Ireland is just following trends in society. Do you not think, that for someone to go from my position to a Catholic, would necessarily have to involve a great deal of thinking, agonizing, discussion, research, reading et al? Or did I just wake up one morning, remember Grandad was a catholic and unthinkingly change my life in many difficult ways?

    Actually, this was my original point, I just had to make the example as clear as possible for you so you wouldn't try to deflect the question, but you did so anyway. My point was that social influence is a key factor in deciding the religion of the majority of people, and your continuous deflections of this point makes me think that you know that that is right.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Do you not think, that for someone to go from my position to a Catholic, would necessarily have to involve a great deal of thinking, agonizing, discussion, research, reading et al? Or did I just wake up one morning, remember Grandad was a catholic and unthinkingly change my life in many difficult ways?

    Yes it is of course possible, but from my own experience, unlikely. From those in my social circle, I have noticed that there is always a reason, and that reason is never because "it suddenly makes sense now". Instead, it's because e.g. a close relative has died and they don't want to accept they they'll never see them again, they are getting older themselves and don't want to accept that there's nothing after life etc. Don't know of anyone (personally) who became Christian because they just read the Bible and went "oh! you know, this didn't make much sense to me when I was younger, but it sure does now!"
    John Hutton wrote: »
    "Could well be" is an honest answer - one could not be sure.

    You honestly aren't sure about that? Why is that? Because you don't believe that the average person in the world is the religion they are primarily because of where they grew up? Why then is the dominant religion in the majority of countries the same as it was the generation before? How does that not suggest that the religion a baby ends up choosing as an adult is strongly dependent on its geographic location when growing up?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Basically it means that the wicked will get their comeuppance in the end. Not that God made evil etc.

    And I have misunderstood that? Or you have chosen to interpret it that way because the other way makes you feel uncomfortable?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    This is a good example. Why don't you play this one out a bit further, did ultimate good or evil come from this? ?

    This is your area of expertise, not mine. You tell me.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Again, you dismissed out of hand any theological, philosophical or scriptural responses to questions which are theological, philosophical or scriptural.

    And I explained why many posts ago, and that I would continue to do just that many posts ago. And yet you continue to reply? Obviously winning an argument is important to you.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    It is not I that have dismissed arguments offhand. It is important to note at this stage that you have not raised a single original point that has not been made many times before, so please don't be under the impression that I have not considered the things you have mentioned.

    Are you suggesting that you have raised original thoughts in this thread? Really?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    My goodness, do you apply this standard to everything? How do you "prove" the truth of mathematics? What evidence do you ask for here?

    Yes I do, I am astrophysicist. In my undergrad Intro to Analysis class for example it took us three weeks to prove that 1+1=2. I know perfectly well how to prove things in mathematics, thank you for asking.


  • #273
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Of course! Why would I spend time practicing a religion that I've concluded is untrue when I could be searching for the correct religion?

    Go on.
    I have provided links already to the Catholic Catechism, which is free.
    Statistical analysis. Within a limit of three sigma, if a survey demonstrates that the human race as a whole has agreed that something is evil, then it is by definition evil. If not, then it is only subjectively evil.
    It could be evil yes, but it would not be objectively evil. After all, our opinions could change, couldn't they? Or do you actually not believe that there is such a thing as objective evil?

    Again, you are ignoring the effort that I have put in because you are in a bubble where you think you are instead the one doing the effort. Do you think I knew Samuel 18:10 and the others off the top of my head? Or did I have to do some research to find them? Why don't you try getting off the top of your mountain and try putting in a similar amount of effort and detailing the contradiction that I requested?
    I presumed you did actually, they are all quite famous examples of supposed contradictions.

    Also, that was another nice deflection. Would you like to try responding to this again rather than ignoring it?
    But you won't accept, by default, any philosophical or theological explanations, dispite asking what is essentially a theological question.
    Well you tell me, is it worth it? Perhaps pick a random meta analysis paper and see if you can understand it, and get back to me?
    Or maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't post something that is paywalled and expect a detailed response. Yeah, go ahead and buy it, wouldn't mind reading it.

    I'm fully aware of the Flynn effect, I learned about it in a statistic module, and it was brought up as a good example as to how easy it is to come to a wrong conclusion based on data extrapolation. No statistician would infer from the Flynn effect that either people had a very low IQ a long time ago nor that the IQ system is flawed because of the effect (they would however say the IQ system is flawed for other reasons, but not that). But I'm guessing that since you didn't mention the Flynn effect in your previous reply, you only learned about it today and are trying to act like you know all about it? To a scientist?
    No I read his book a while ago, beyond the flynn effect - was recommended to me during my archaeology studies oddly enough. Hope the air isn't too thin up there on your mountain.

    And I have not requested anything from you either. In fact, I suggested and recommended to you long ago that there was no point in you continuing to reply and yet you are doing so anyway. But if you are still looking discussion, you seem to have forgotten to reply to this. I'll quote it below so that you can reply at your convenience.
    Well, it simply wouldn't do for me to appear rude by ignoring your response to me. By all means, do not bother replying to this post, and we can leave it at that.



    I gave you a round to do, not the whole video. But if your faith is not as important to you to do that, start with the first one in the numbers round and continue from there.
    Why would I go to the trouble of formulating responses that must be theological, or certainly philosophical, when you have said that will not accept these type of explinations?
    But, in my opinion, you haven't. I've mentioned several times that you are Christian because it is the religion you know most about, and if that wasn't the case you would have stated it at some point by now. When you decided to no longer be atheist/agnostic and let God into your life, you defaulted to Christianity without giving the other religions much due care and attention. Is my presumption true or is it not?
    Your presumption is incorrect I am a Catholic because I have found it to be true. Should I not have found it to be true, I would have moved on. (I actually knew far more about Scientology, truth be told for both academic and professional reasons. With regards to Catholicism, I knew a lot about clerical sex abuse scandals, again for professional and academic reasons, but theologically, very little)
    Me personally? I haven't. Like I've said previously (in this thread or the feedback thread, can't remember), I've read the Bible, the Koran and the the Tipitaka. That's not much scripture, but it's more than 99.9% of people, and I would presume more than you? Why did I do this you might ask? Like I said, my answer to 1) isn't always no. I read them all due to curiosity, and dismissed them all after some thought. And because of that, I don't consider quoting anything from those three as evidence for anything. If you quoted something from a different scripture, then I might have to come up with a more constructive response.
    If you have just read scripture, and not commentary around it explaining it, then you have not given due regard to the faith.


  • #274
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    John Hutton wrote: »

    If you have just read scripture, and not commentary around it explaining it, then you have not given due regard to the faith.

    Somehow I doubt scripture was written with the intention that one had to read a commentary in order to profit from it.

    Besides, who but you figures what commentary ought to be read? And how would you gain qualification to decide whether this or that was a worthwhile commentary.

    Is there not a gulf? A protestant commentary vs a catholic one for instance? Cut the guy some slack


  • #275
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Somehow I doubt scripture was written with the intention that one had to read a commentary in order to profit from it.
    I didn't say it wouldn't be worthwhile!


  • #276
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton




    The conversion story for Fr Luuk, of how he came to Christianity, would be a relatively common one, and has commonalities to my own. Rational discussion and logic leading to an openness to religion, leading to prayer - and truth.


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    John Hutton wrote: »
    I have provided links already to the Catholic Catechism, which is free.

    And in what way does that answer the below?
    Of course! Why would I spend time practicing a religion that I've concluded is untrue when I could be searching for the correct religion?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    It could be evil yes, but it would not be objectively evil. After all, our opinions could change, couldn't they? Or do you actually not believe that there is such a thing as objective evil?

    No. The question posed to the sample could be, do you believe this is objectively evil? And do you believe it has always been objectively evil? And if the analysis done on this study shows that the majority of the world (within three sigma) agrees that is objectively evil, then it is by definition objectively evil.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    I presumed you did actually, they are all quite famous examples of supposed contradictions.

    Well, you assumed incorrectly. Not even the average Christian would know which passages such "famous" quotes are from. Let's not be saying silly things now. :rolleyes:
    John Hutton wrote: »
    But you won't accept, by default, any philosophical or theological explanations, dispite asking what is essentially a theological question.

    And again, another MASSIVE deflection. Why bother asking me to point out a contradiction in this video for you to describe, only to then not do it? Why don't you do it, as you said you would, and stop backtracking due to laziness or whatever it may be?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Or maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't post something that is paywalled and expect a detailed response. Yeah, go ahead and buy it, wouldn't mind reading it.

    And I wouldn't expect you to dismiss something behind a paywall in one sentence without reading it, but you didn't have a problem doing that now did you? But yes, I will send you the paper by PM now for you to look through. As you just said, you will provide a detailed response upon doing so, so I expect one. Otherwise, you know, thou shalt not lie and all?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    No I read his book a while ago, beyond the flynn effect - was recommended to me during my archaeology studies oddly enough. Hope the air isn't too thin up there on your mountain.

    Wow, that's even worse! So you read this book by a psychologist about a statistics topic, and then after you were done you didn't spend a few minutes afterwards researching to see what statisticians thought about it? I can see now why you are Christian with that mindset.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Well, it simply wouldn't do for me to appear rude by ignoring your response to me. By all means, do not bother replying to this post, and we can leave it at that.

    Me? No, like I said, I enjoy debates and discussions. Let me tell you though, I would not find it rude if you stopped replying. There, you are off the hook. Will you stop replying? Doubtful.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Why would I go to the trouble of formulating responses that must be theological, or certainly philosophical, when you have said that will not accept these type of explinations?

    And that's why I picked out just one for you to do afterward so that you can determine if describing such a contradiction does in fact result in a fruitful discussion. But you have still chosen to not do that for whatever reason.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Your presumption is incorrect I am a Catholic because I have found it to be true. Should I not have found it to be true, I would have moved on. (I actually knew far more about Scientology, truth be told for both academic and professional reasons. With regards to Catholicism, I knew a lot about clerical sex abuse scandals, again for professional and academic reasons, but theologically, very little)

    How have you determined that Catholicism is "true" if you know theologically very little about it? And how can you be so dismissive about the contradictions in that video when you admit to knowing very little about it theologically?
    John Hutton wrote: »
    If you have just read scripture, and not commentary around it explaining it, then you have not given due regard to the faith.

    When did I state that I did not read the commentary about it? Or is reading the commentary what you mean by someone practicing a religion? :pac:



    So, I have given you two options:

    1) Read the paper and give a detailed reply, describe why that example I chose from the video is not contradictory, and respond to my above comments
    2) Stop replying, and I won't consider you rude for doing so

    There is no rush, we have eternity after all. But please, do not reply to this message before completing 1) if indeed you are not choosing option 2). It would just amplify what is inherently obvious to any external observer: that you are not interested in seeking the truth but instead just enjoy arguing for the sake of it.


  • #278
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Aristotle wrote:
    No. The question posed to the sample could be, do you believe this is objectively evil? And do you believe it has always been objectively evil? And if the analysis done on this study shows that the majority of the world (within three sigma) agrees that is objectively evil, then it is by definition objectively evil.

    Run that one by me again?

    The definition of objectivity is whether a certain percentage of people hold something to be the case. Like, "the world is flat" (whenever the bulk of folk thought the world was flat) means the world was objectively flat? But now isn't objectively flat?

    I only hopped in so doubtlessly have missed something..


  • #279
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    John Hutton wrote: »
    I didn't say it wouldn't be worthwhile!

    Reading scripture without commentary?

    Or reading a commentary?


    On the former, no issue. What with it being God breathe an' all

    On the latter? On the pro side you have the possibilty of random mutations being shovelled into your way of thinking and (perhaps) steering it for the better.

    On the other hand, you could enter an echo chamber. I mean, what likelyhood a Protestant reading a Catholic commentary or vice versa?


  • #280
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Reading scripture without commentary?

    Or reading a commentary?


    On the former, no issue. What with it being God breathe an' all

    On the latter? On the pro side you have the possibilty of random mutations being shovelled into your way of thinking and (perhaps) steering it for the better.

    On the other hand, you could enter an echo chamber. I mean, what likelyhood a Protestant reading a Catholic commentary or vice versa?
    It's obviously good to read the scriptures, but I think it is worthwhile to read commentaries too, especially when you are struggling to understand certain passages. I've found it helpful anyway.


  • #281
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    John Hutton wrote: »
    It's obviously good to read the scriptures, but I think it is worthwhile to read commentaries too, especially when you are struggling to understand certain passages. I've found it helpful anyway.

    I'd just doubt the value of someone who doesn't believe adding to things by reading commentaries. Commentaries go deeper but if the person can't swim for want of water wings??


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,497 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    John Hutton wrote: »
    The point is, very badly made no doubt, is that when one discovers truth, you may stop looking. And the truth of a faith can only be discovered through practicing it.

    If you were brought up in any other religion, chances are you'd be saying exactly the same thing about that other religion. Does that not give you pause, at all?

    Scrap the cap!



  • #283
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    If you were brought up in any other religion, chances are you'd be saying exactly the same thing about that other religion. Does that not give you pause, at all?

    If he wasn't brought up in the prevailing religion you'd still say exactly the same things: brainwashing, crutch*, ignorance.

    Pause? Hell no!

    * ironically, Christianity posits itself as a crutch. A crutch for those who come to realise their own righteousness** "are as filthy rags"

    ** i.e. the self-calibrated moral compass, by which someone decides that, though not perfect, they aren't all that bad. It's the paedos, rapists, (or in NT times: prostitutes and lepers) who are the bad ones.


  • #284
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,497 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    But I didn't say any of those things, you are putting words into my mouth which is a disingenuous debating tactic to say the least.

    How about engaging with what people say, rather than building a strawman with what you'd rather they said and knocking it over?

    Scrap the cap!



  • #285
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    But I didn't say any of those things, you are putting words into my mouth which is a disingenuous debating tactic to say the least.

    How about engaging with what people say, rather than building a strawman with what you'd rather they said and knocking it over?

    So: Mohammed Hutton is a Christian in a country with no established Christian church (head chopper off-er country).

    He has been brought up a [edit] Muslim, indeed Islam was taught in school and he went to the mosque.

    Why is he a Christian, do you think?


  • #286
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,754 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    So: Mohammed Hutton is a Christian in a country with no established Christian church (head chopper off-er country).

    He has been brought up a Christian, indeed Islam was taught in school and went to the mosque.

    Why does he believe, do you think?

    His parents.


  • #287
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    His parents.


    Apols. I meant to say raised a Muslim. See edit in the post


  • #288
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    So: Mohammed Hutton is a Christian in a country with no established Christian church (head chopper off-er country).

    He has been brought up a [edit] Muslim, indeed Islam was taught in school and he went to the mosque.

    Why is he a Christian, do you think?

    Is there a reason why a post describing countries with Muslim as the primary religion as "head chopper off-er" countries is allowed stay without issue on here?


  • #289
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    Is there a reason why a post describing countries with Muslim as the primary religion as "head chopper off-er" countries is allowed stay without issue on here?

    Mod: Firstly, any feedback of this nature to the feedback thread only please. Any further in thread comments on moderation will be carded for back-seat moderation.

    While crassly worded, I let this post remain as it is a fact that some Muslim majority countries still carry out public executions through beheading. I did not read this as a criticism of Islam so much as of the barbaric nature of the death penalty, which also still features in Christian majority countries. I'm open to debate on this (on the feedback thread only please) but I don't see any good reason to censor this type of comment on this forum.


  • #290
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    smacl wrote: »
    Mod: Firstly, any feedback of this nature to the feedback thread only please. Any further in thread comments on moderation will be carded for back-seat moderation.

    While crassly worded, I let this post remain as it is a fact that some Muslim majority countries still carry out public executions through beheading. I did not read this as a criticism of Islam so much as of the barbaric nature of the death penalty, which also still features in Christian majority countries. I'm open to debate on this (on the feedback thread only please) but I don't see any good reason to censor this type of comment on this forum.

    Incredible. No interest in posting in your little feedback thread on this, thanks. I've heard enough.

    Card me away.


  • #291
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    Incredible. No interest in posting in your little feedback thread on this, thanks. I've heard enough.

    Card me away.

    Mod: Carded for ignoring mod instruction. Please do not post here again until such time as you've read and understood the charter.


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    smacl wrote: »
    Mod: Carded for ignoring mod instruction. Please do not post here again until such time as you've read and understood the charter.

    Make sure you understand it too before continuing your "modding".

    I won't be back to this forum, don't worry.


  • #293
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    Make sure you understand it too before continuing your "modding".

    I won't be back to this forum, don't worry.

    Mode note: Bubbaclaus banned for 1 month for ignoring mod instruction.


  • #294
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Anyway, the question stands. We know the solution for places like Ireland. We might as well hear the reasoning for other placed. What are they: people need a crutch / he must have watched send us your money TV on the web / some evangelist with balls (given the risks) brainwashed and love bombed him.

    Point is: when you have an a priori lack of belief in Gods, you'll find any reason to support and sustain it. Robindch's "prayer has empirically been shown to be ineffective" on the 'other side' is just another example. It matters not how ludicrous the reasoning, folk actually believe they are safe and sound in their plumping for unbelief. And will leave no stone unturned, even stones as ludicrous as that 'experiment', to support the a priori view.



    So: Mohammed Hutton is a Christian in a country with no established Christian church (head chopper off-er country).

    He has been brought up a [edit] Muslim, indeed Islam was taught in school and he went to the mosque.

    Why is he a Christian, do you think


  • #295
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Mod warning:
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Point is: when you have an a priori lack of belief in Gods, you'll find any reason to support and sustain it. Robindch's "prayer has empirically been shown to be ineffective" on the 'other side' is just another example. It matters not how ludicrous the reasoning, folk actually believe they are safe and sound in their plumping for unbelief. And will leave no stone unturned, even stones as ludicrous as that 'experiment', to support the a priori view.

    Continuing a discussion that has been restricted following sanctions in the A&A forum here is not acceptable. Please do not do so.
    So: Mohammed Hutton is a Christian in a country with no established Christian church (head chopper off-er country).

    He has been brought up a [edit] Muslim, indeed Islam was taught in school and he went to the mosque.

    Why is he a Christian, do you think

    Firstly, this is a direct repetition your previous post and constitutes soap boxing. Secondly, references to "Mohammed Hutton" and "head chopper off-er country" seem worded to be intentionally inflammatory, particularly when emphasised via repetition. I let this slide the first time the sake of continuity of debate which on reflection was the wrong decision. You are being carded for breach of rule 6 of the charter. Please raise the standard of your posts with consideration for other posters here. Do not respond in thread but feel free to use the feedback thread or PM. Thanks for your attention.


  • #296
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I told John Hutton by PM a few weeks ago when I sent him the paper that I would avoid the Christianity forum until November 1st to both give him time to think and come up with replies to the following and because I think we were both getting a bit testy in the the heat of the moment.

    1) Read the paper and give a comprehensive reply to its findings
    2) Describe why that example I chose from the video is not contradictory
    3) Respond to the comments from my last post

    I look forward to now reading your detailed responses to these which you stated that you would work on over this period. :)


  • #297
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I told John Hutton by PM a few weeks ago ...

    Mod note:Just as a matter of etiquette, referring to PMs in the open discussion is something to be avoided where possible. PMs are considered private on boards and as a rule off-topic for discussion. If John Hutton is happy to continue the discussion on this basis that's fine but not something that can reasonably expected of him. PMs also leave the thread incomplete from the perspective of other posters who may want to join in the debate.


  • #298
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    smacl wrote: »
    Mod note:Just as a matter of etiquette, referring to PMs in the open discussion is something to be avoided where possible. PMs are considered private on boards and as a rule off-topic for discussion. If John Hutton is happy to continue the discussion on this basis that's fine but not something that can reasonably expected of him. PMs also leave the thread incomplete from the perspective of other posters who may want to join in the debate.

    Oh yes of course, which is why I summarised the contents of the PM above, and of which nothing was something that we have not already openly discussed in this thread. :)


  • #299
    john123470
    Registered Users Posts: 422 ✭✭john123470


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I've read the Bible, the Koran and the the Tipitaka. That's not much scripture, but it's more than 99.9% of people, and I would presume more than you?

    Yes I do, I am astrophysicist. In my undergrad Intro to Analysis class for example it took us three weeks to prove that 1+1=2. I know perfectly well how to prove things in mathematics, thank you for asking.

    Im asking myself what is this Tipitaka ? .. ah yes, Tripitaka.

    Well OP, you got lucky to have your question - Is the possibility of a God not a scary thought - tackled by such learned company. Astrophysics no less - ye Gods !

    I think its a good question if answered as a matter of fact by folk rather than trying to argue for / against existence of god
    Eg .. if Irish, we generally grew up within reach of a church if you wished to attend. A lot of us are collapsed catholics.

    I tend to side with science but - in a bind - my instinct is to pray.
    I was thinking about this lately ..

    I live out my life as an agnostic
    My cousin is a fervent believer. I think he gets an easier ride on life's carousel. He has an inherent emotional (spiritual?) support system in his belief group that I can't access. Without joining

    Its not fair so it isn't


  • #300
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    john123470 wrote: »

    I tend to side with science

    So do quite a lot of believers. Some rather distinguished amongst them. Its not an either or.

    Although you can use science to advance a particular unbelieving viewpoint.

    Experiments into the effect of prayer appears in peer reviewed journals but they are pseudo science .. or at the very least very poorly thought out experiments. They don't ask whether God would be interested in being demonstrated empirically. But appear to presume he would be interested (if he exists) and doesn't answer prayer.

    For example.


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,497 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    It is asserted frequently that prayer has physical effects, e.g. healing. It is entirely possible to measure the presence or absence of those physical effects. If there was an experiment demonstrating a positive correlation between prayer and healing I strongly suspect we'd never hear the end of it. But because the results are negative, you take the stance that your god seems to only allow prayer to work while nobody's watching... the claim that the promised physical effects of prayer are not measurable is odd to say the least.

    Scrap the cap!



Advertisement