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
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
Do you believe in God?
Comments
-
Those people are probably the ones who believe it has symbolism,to others it's just an interruption in the news. i don't really take much noice because I would rarely have RTE on but I do think that it's pushing one side of religion onto everybody which is not the function of the national broadcaster.
A minute a day to comfort senior citizens who worked and made this country isnt that bad.0 -
donkeykong5 wrote: »A minute a day to comfort senior citizens who worked and made this country isnt that bad.
But just the Catholic senior citizens.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »But just the Catholic senior citizens.
Does it matter? Really? You don't have to say a prayer to any God. Use it to pause and reflect.0 -
Professor Moriarty wrote: »Does it matter? Really? You don't have to say a prayer to any God. Use it to pause and reflect.
You'd be cool if we replaced it with a Muslim call to prayer, then?0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »You'd be cool if we replaced it with a Muslim call to prayer, then?
Why would we do that? Is there a history of that? Do you not see any difference between a bell ringing for 1 minute and man calling loudly via a loudspeaker about Allah for five minutes and five times a day?0 -
Advertisement
-
Enforced mindfulness then?Professor Moriarty wrote: »Does it matter? Really? You don't have to say a prayer to any God. Use it to pause and reflect.
People don't have a problem with the minute in itself. It's the fact that it's a catholic minute on the taxpayer-funded state broadcaster. It's a relic of the 1970s and in essence it's a big two fingers to anyone of any other (or no other) faith. A reminder that they're less important than catholicism.
If you want a "pause and reflect" minute, surely rotating it through various different types of meditation seems more appropriate? One week you do Catholicism, the next you do Islam, the next Judaism, then onto a minute of Yoga, Buddhism, Sikhism.
The possibilities are endless.
It's very telling that people will defend it as "a minute of reflection" and not a catholic symbol, but when you suggest removing the symbolism, suddenly it needs to be left alone.0 -
Enforced mindfulness then?
People don't have a problem with the minute in itself. It's the fact that it's a catholic minute on the taxpayer-funded state broadcaster. It's a relic of the 1970s and in essence it's a big two fingers to anyone of any other (or no other) faith. A reminder that they're less important than catholicism.
If you want a "pause and reflect" minute, surely rotating it through various different types of meditation seems more appropriate? One week you do Catholicism, the next you do Islam, the next Judaism, then onto a minute of Yoga, Buddhism, Sikhism.
The possibilities are endless.
It's very telling that people will defend it as "a minute of reflection" and not a catholic symbol, but when you suggest removing the symbolism, suddenly it needs to be left alone.
I'd struggle to name a country where all religions are given equal prominence, most here are Catholic, hence why midnight mass gets shown christmas eve instead of a service from the clonskeagh mosque0 -
realitykeeper wrote: »If one does not know the mysteries of this world, one will not fathom the mind of God. Childhood cancer brings on death in this life but even if one lives a thousand years, this life is still very very short in comparison to the next.
0 -
Professor Moriarty wrote: »Does it matter? Really? You don't have to say a prayer to any God. Use it to pause and reflect.
That's what Pat Kenny called the Angelus0 -
Enforced mindfulness then?
People don't have a problem with the minute in itself. It's the fact that it's a catholic minute on the taxpayer-funded state broadcaster. It's a relic of the 1970s and in essence it's a big two fingers to anyone of any other (or no other) faith. A reminder that they're less important than catholicism.
If you want a "pause and reflect" minute, surely rotating it through various different types of meditation seems more appropriate? One week you do Catholicism, the next you do Islam, the next Judaism, then onto a minute of Yoga, Buddhism, Sikhism.
The possibilities are endless.
It's very telling that people will defend it as "a minute of reflection" and not a catholic symbol, but when you suggest removing the symbolism, suddenly it needs to be left alone.
In fact RTE has been broadcasting the Angelus since 1950. I've no problem with it being designated a contemplative minute twice a day without any religious connotations. I don't watch it but anytime I did, I didn't see any religious symbolism in it. If Catholics continue to see it as a call to prayer then so what if it isn't? Pause and reflect isn't a bad thing for people to do. If people are getting their knickers in a twist because a bell rings for 1 minute twice a day, then they have little to worry them.0 -
Advertisement
-
Christianity civilised the world? Christianity was responsible for the most barbarous acts of colonisation the world has ever seen. The Inquisition, which incidentally still exists today,was the perpetrator of mass murder both in Europe and Latin America. Christian colonisation was responsible for the near extinction of native people in all regions of the world it touche. The Nazis were at least nominally, Christian, the Russian Pogroms were carried out by Christians.
There are people of all faiths and none, all over the world who are every bit as civilised as Christians and usually only become less so when their country, tradition and very lives, are threatened by the "civilised" and overwhelmingly Christian, West
Only a poor student of history would apportion blame to Christianity for these things. It was actually diseases that wiped out the native peoples and while the explorers of the world were Christians, they mostly explored for economic reasons. More gold than god. Now perhaps you believe that man should have remained practicing the hunter gatherer way of life and remained in balance with nature and perhaps that is exactly what Adam and Eve renounced. But that is another story.
However to suggest that the great mass murdering ideologies of the 20th century namely Fascism and Communism were in any way Christian is just plain wrong. If anything they were perversely anti Christian and anti Jewish and demanded subservience to a technocratic and controlling state and not to a divine God.
It was the western peoples of the US and Britain that were devoutly Christian albeit secular. Both President Roosevelt and General Eisenhower wrote famous prayers during world war 2 and attended mass daily. Stalin by contrast actually launched a 5 year atheist plan to eliminate the church in Russia (it failed and drive it underground) and Hitler was a well known atheist. What’s more the inner circle of nazism like Goebbels, Goring and Himmler hated Christianity in particular and are widely quoted as saying so.0 -
However to suggest that the great mass murdering ideologies of the 20th century namely Fascism and Communism were in any way Christian is just plain wrong.
They were essentially state religions. They still had a godhead but it was very much terrestrial in nature. Dogma, political or religious, is the issue there. Not the freedoms and skepticism and open inquiry generally espoused by actual atheists and humanists.Hitler was a well known atheist.
Not in the autobiography I read he wasn't anyway, where he espoused the idea that many of his positions and actions were divinely mandated.
Maybe you know different atheists to me, but I have not yet met one who would openly write the line "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." or "I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time." or hopes that "people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator."
Perhaps atheistic standards differed back then?0 -
not sure if i do , but i say a few prayers [my own that i made up] for my family +friends to be safe and well, and for those who have passed.0
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »They were essentially state religions. They still had a godhead but it was very much terrestrial in nature. Dogma, political or religious, is the issue there. Not the freedoms and skepticism and open inquiry generally espoused by actual atheists and humanists.
Not in the autobiography I read he wasn't anyway, where he espoused the idea that many of his positions and actions were divinely mandated.
Maybe you know different atheists to me, but I have not yet met one who would openly write the line "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." or "I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time." or hopes that "people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator."
Perhaps atheistic standards differed back then?
They were not religious in any sense. They were technocracies and atheist in their very fiber seeing people as numbers and machines with no souls this enabling their extermination in pursuit of the state. In fact both ideologies can be traced to their origins in the bleak 19th century philosophy of Germany and such atheist thinkers like Hegel and most infamously Marx and Lenin.
As for Hitler to describe him as Christian in the sense that Roosevelt was is just false. He was an atheist and against the church in everything he did. Christianity has given us more or less constant progress in human affairs since Jesus died. Atheism was the creed of the 20th century and it gave us murder on an unimaginable scale. And of course it would since it considers humans to be mere animals in an uncaring and entirely mechanical universe. A universe with no purpose.
Of course anyone who has watched the sun rise alone and listened to the chorus of the birds or indeed held a new born child brought screaming into the world knows in their heart that this is false.0 -
They were not religious in any sense. They were technocracies and atheist in their very fiber seeing people as numbers and machines with no souls
That is not atheism you are describing however. Seeing people as numbers? Nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief that there is a god. Thats it. The rest of the strawman is coming from you and you alone.
Again however, state dogma, state religions.... these have nothing to do with atheism. At all. It was every bit a religion, replete with claims of miracles and their own versions of the inquisition, and a godhead. A terrestrial based religion, but a religion none the less.As for Hitler to describe him as Christian
I didn't. He did. What I did say, digging your straw out of the way again.... was that his proclamations of being divinely mandated are not the kind of thing I have ever heard any ATHEIST say.He was an atheist and against the church in everything he did.
Again, the text above in his own words from his own book has MULTIPLE proclamations of his having a belief in a god. I have no idea what definition of the word "atheist" you are using, but its markedly different from any I have heard before. No atheist I am aware of goes around saying they believe in a creator, or wish to fulfil gods will.Christianity has given us more or less constant progress in human affairs since Jesus died.
Individuals who happened to be Christian often did certainly. So did many individuals who were atheist as it happens. But claims that Christianity in and of itself is doing this.... not so well substantiated outside your mere assertions to the factAtheism was the creed of the 20th century and it gave us murder on an unimaginable scale.
No. It did not. Anywhere. You are making stuff up basically.And of course it would since it considers humans to be mere animals in an uncaring and entirely mechanical universe. A universe with no purpose.
We are animals. The word "mere" is yours though. It has never come from any atheist I have sat with. Nothing about acknowledging we are animals however suggests we need to go to war, or exterminate people of other religions. The theists do that stuff.Of course anyone who has watched the sun rise alone and listened to the chorus of the birds or indeed held a new born child brought screaming into the world knows in their heart that this is false.
I do all of those things, and feel all the requisite awe and love and spirituality it entails. I just do not need to imagine there is a god to validate or replicate or appreciate those emotions. If you do, so be it. But your personal inability to separate the numinous from the divine, is not evidence there is a god or the universe is anything more than it appears to be.0 -
Nope. That insane belief that praying will somehow change things sounds mad.
I wonder how may prayers were said in the gas chambers?0 -
donkeykong5 wrote: »A minute a day to comfort senior citizens who worked and made this country isnt that bad.
I'm one of those senior citizens, all it is to me is noise.0 -
That is not atheism you are describing...
Again however, state dogma, state religions.... these have nothing to do with atheism. At all. It was every bit a religion, replete with claims of miracles and their own versions of the inquisition, and a godhead. A terrestrial based religion, but a religion none the less
This is stretching credulity. All of these murderous ideologies arose from the rejection of God and Christianity among the intellectual class in Europe. God is dead as they neatly put it. One followed from the other. There weren’t really any atheists in the West until they emerged from the shadows during the French Revolution. So they were fallen Christians basically and certainly looking at their personal lives, they were no saints either.We are animals. The word "mere" is yours though. It has never come from any atheist I have sat with. Nothing about acknowledging we are animals however suggests we need to go to war, or exterminate people of other religions. The theists do that stuff.
People who are religious and truly fear an accounting for their life’s decisions would never exterminate other people. You seem to be confusing practicing Christians with people who claim they are but are clearly not. By their fruit you shall know them.I do all of those things, and feel all the requisite awe and love and spirituality it entails. I just do not need to imagine there is a god to validate or replicate or appreciate those emotions. If you do, so be it. But your personal inability to separate the numinous from the divine, is not evidence there is a god or the universe is anything more than it appears to be.
The evidence is the creation itself. To me both the existence of life and of Homo sapiens are clearly miracles. You may believe in a universe that has no meaning. You may believe in a universe with no purpose and a life lived free of any accountability to your actions. That’s fair enough and surely nothing I can say or indeed anything save a spiritual awakening can convince you otherwise. But I would say again, look at the world we live in and try and say that the difference between good and evil is an arbitrary construct that exists only in our minds. Jesus said Be wary as serpents for the devil is the ruler of the world. At the end of the day, faith is a personal journey.0 -
People who believe that the universe, including human consciousness and our objective individual perspectives of reality are just the results of random particles colliding over billions of years are the most gullible fools of all. It’s amazing how the modern ‘atheist’ will swallow anything except the truth.
A fool says in his heart ’there is no God’.
“For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 18-31
Christ is Risen!0 -
This is stretching credulity. All of these murderous ideologies arose from the rejection of God and Christianity among the intellectual class in Europe. God is dead as they neatly put it. One followed from the other. There weren’t really any atheists in the West until they emerged from the shadows during the French Revolution. So they were fallen Christians basically and certainly looking at their personal lives, they were no saints either.
People who are religious and truly fear an accounting for their life’s decisions would never exterminate other people. You seem to be confusing practicing Christians with people who claim they are but are clearly not. By their fruit you shall know them.
The evidence is the creation itself. To me both the existence of life and of Homo sapiens are clearly miracles. You may believe in a universe that has no meaning. You may believe in a universe with no purpose and a life lived free of any accountability to your actions. That’s fair enough and surely nothing I can say or indeed anything save a spiritual awakening can convince you otherwise. But I would say again, look at the world we live in and try and say that the difference between good and evil is an arbitrary construct that exists only in our minds. Jesus said Be wary as serpents for the devil is the ruler of the world. At the end of the day, faith is a personal journey.
How do I decide between God and Allah?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Professor Moriarty wrote: »How do I decide between God and Allah?
Allah is God in Arabic ‘professor’.0 -
0
-
Sagats_knee wrote: »Allah is God in Arabic ‘professor’.
Oh right. Thanks. So God and Allah are interchangeable?0 -
This is stretching credulity. All of these murderous ideologies arose from the rejection of God and Christianity among the intellectual class in Europe.
So nice of you to start your paragraph with such an accurate description of the content it contained. Your nonsense does indeed stretch credulity. These were STATE dogmas, nothing to do with atheism. Aside from asserting a link, or foundation, in atheism..... you have not offered anything BUT that assertion. You have shown no causal link, no causal chain. The best you can do is invent the claim that one bad person was an atheist despite him in sentence after sentence, and speech after speech, claiming a belief not only in god, but in his own actions being divinely mandated by that god.
You are flinging out assertion after assertions, but not backing a single one up. I give you quotes, direct quotes, proving an assertion wrong and you merely repeat the assertion again. Again with no citation or substantiation. Just repeated by fiat as it was the first time. That is quite telling.
It is YOU asserting they arose from a rejection of god. By all means back up that assertion with something if you can. But merely saying it does not make it true. By all means tell me how the sentence "I do not think there is a god" leads to an idea like "Therefore I must go murder many people" specifically "people of that particular religion there". Let alone as directly as you specifically, blatantly, claim.People who are religious and truly fear an accounting for their life’s decisions would never exterminate other people.
They would if they believed themselves to be doing gods work. Which the THEIST Hitler did for example. Here are his direct words quoted directly from the man himself for example: "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work."
You presume too much to declare what theists would, or would not do. Especially given the book they claim to worship has their own god committing genocides on a whim too. Or mandating men to do it in his name. You are taking YOUR brand of theism, seeing what it does and does not lead YOU to do.... and then simply projecting that on to every other theist as not just a standard of behaviour, but a standard of their very definition. Which is beyond hubris.You seem to be confusing practicing Christians with people who claim they are but are clearly not. By their fruit you shall know them.
Oh how convenient for you. When a theist does not behave like YOU want them to, or does not fit YOUR concept of Christianity, you merely wash your hands of them and pretend they are not really Christian at all. Even when they themselves profess a belief in a god, you still call them atheist.
They claim again and again they think there is a god, and you still call them atheist because I guess psychic you knows their mind better than they know their own huh? Where did you get this omniscient wisdom and knowledge I wonder. Perhaps by simply making it up as you go along. Seemingly.The evidence is the creation itself.
That is circular nonsense from you alas. Declaring the question to be evidence of the answer. What is the evidence a god exists and created the universe? The universe itself? You are re-framing the question AS the evidence for the answer. Circular. Abject. Baseless. Illogical. Nonsense from you. That is as abject nonsense as walking into a court of law and when asked what evidence there is that the defendant is the murderer..... you say that a murder occurred.
Offering the thing being queried as evidence for the thing being queried. You can not get more circular than that.To me both the existence of life and of Homo sapiens are clearly miracles.
The most important words in that sentence being "To me". Because that is essentially what you are offering here. The evidence of your conclusions is.... that you hold those conclusions. Nice. As I said above: circular nonsense from you.You may believe in a universe that has no meaning.
Oh may I? Thank you for your completely unsolicited permissions. However my opinion is that whether the universe has, or does not have, meaning we currently have absolutely no evidence that it does. Does that mean it does not? No. It just means we have absolutely no reason to think it does. Just like we have absolutely no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest that a god exists and created this universe. Least of all on this thread. That does not mean there is no god. It just means there is no basis whatsoever to think there is one. See the difference yet? Between what I believe and what I think, and what you presume to tell me I may?
But I wonder what interests you more. Listing the things I "may" believe, or actually stopping to ask me what I actually do believe on any given subject like god, meaning, accountability for my actions, or purpose.But I would say again, look at the world we live in and try and say that the difference between good and evil is an arbitrary construct that exists only in our minds.
I see no where else for it to exist. If mankind were to die tomorrow there is no where else it appears to exist. It does not appear to be in the rocks. In the rivers. In the stars. The only place we currently have ANY evidence that meaning exists, purpose exists, morality exists, right and wrong and good and evil exist.... is in the human mind. I have no basis whatsoever to presume anything other than the idea of good and evil would die with us.0 -
Sagats_knee wrote: »A fool says in his heart ’there is no God’.
Isn't that nice though? When it becomes apparent that you have no arguments, no evidence, no data, and no reasoning to offer that a particular claim is true..... the remaining recourse is simply to insult those who do not swallow it anyway.
That says more about the people making the unsubstantiated claims, and their character and worth, than it does about the people who do not buy the bull.Sagats_knee wrote: »For it is written
So? Many things are written. That does not make them true does it? There are books about alien abductions. Do you believe those "for it is written"? Or should we practice a modicum of scepticism about believing things solely because someone put them into text?
I will take "For it is substantiated through evidence and reason" before "for it is written" any day. YMMV.0 -
Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »
So "no" is your answer then? Because that link..... the problems that most people know with Josephus aside and the historical authenticity of that testimony..... is not evidence or citations for what I asked.
You can evidence all you want that a MAN was crucified at some point. I have no issue with that. Your specific claim that a GOD was however.... is what I want a citation for and you offered none.
By all means evidence that some guy was killed. But if you want to claim that guy was anything more than entirely and wholly human like the rest of us..... then that is not the evidence you have offered.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Isn't that nice though? When it becomes apparent that you have no arguments, no evidence, no data, and no reasoning to offer that a particular claim is true..... the remaining recourse is simply to insult those who do not swallow it anyway.
That says more about the people making the unsubstantiated claims, and their character and worth, than it does about the people who do not buy the bull.
So? Many things are written. That does not make them true does it? There are books about alien abductions. Do you believe those "for it is written"? Or should we practice a modicum of scepticism about believing things solely because someone put them into text?
I will take "For it is substantiated through evidence and reason" before "for it is written" any day. YMMV.
I’m quoting from the Bible. When it says it is written, it’s usually referring back to an earlier prophesy. I’m surprised you take umbrage with this element, which if you were in any way educated on what you are so quick to rubbish, you would be aware of this historically common literary device.
Also, when I say ‘a fool says in his heart there is no God’ I’m quoting King David. He was a prophet and the second King of Israel, chosen by God.0 -
So nice of you to start your paragraph with such an accurate description of the content it contained. Your nonsense does indeed stretch credulity. These were STATE dogmas, nothing to do with atheism. Aside from asserting a link, or foundation, in atheism..... you have not offered anything BUT that assertion. You have shown no causal link, no causal chain. The best you can do is invent the claim that one bad person was an atheist despite him in sentence after sentence, and speech after speech, claiming a belief not only in god, but in his own actions being divinely mandated by that god.
The links you seek are in 19th and 20th century history. Stalin follows from Lenin and Lenin follows from Marx. Marx was a bum and an egomaniac. His father was irreligious taking his philosophy from the murderous atheists of the French Revolution. Just like the liberals of today he lived an immoral life. Hitler was irreligious just like the inner circle of Nazis. These are facts not in dispute. What they say is irrelevant. You judge a man on his actions. By his fruit you will know him.
Perhaps you think because Osama bin Laden said he was performing Gods word, that in fact he was.
He clearly wasn’t.You are flinging out assertion after assertions, but not backing a single one up. I give you quotes, direct quotes, proving an assertion wrong and you merely repeat the assertion again. Again with no citation or substantiation. Just repeated by fiat as it was the first time. That is quite telling.
The only thing that is telling is your aggression and arrogance.They would if they believed themselves to be doing gods work. Which the THEIST Hitler did for example. Here are his direct words quoted directly from the man himself for example: "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work."
You presume too much to declare what theists would, or would not do. Especially given the book they claim to worship has their own god committing genocides on a whim too. Or mandating men to do it in his name. You are taking YOUR brand of theism, seeing what it does and does not lead YOU to do.... and then simply projecting that on to every other theist as not just a standard of behaviour, but a standard of their very definition. Which is beyond hubris.
Actions speak louder than words. Hitler was a master at lying and deceiving just like Satan. Perhaps his most famous quote is “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
It seems you have fallen for his lies. Hook line and sinker.Oh how convenient for you. When a theist does not behave like YOU want them to, or does not fit YOUR concept of Christianity, you merely wash your hands of them
I won’t wash my hands of a true Christian but Hitler was a liar and a deceiver. He never attended mass but actually bastardized the sacred mass in his Nazi ceremonies. He was very proud of his occult rituals designed by his inner circle chief among them Goebbels. Goebbels himself was raised Catholic but fell away from it after studying the communists Marx and Engels and other socialists. There is compelling evidence that Himmler was a satanist he certainly took perverse pleasure in practicing the occult and was involved in it from an early age. This is all well documented. Himmler was the chief architect of the Holocaust and he was a Theist alright. He worshipped Satan. In fact many of the Nazi symbols such as the sig rune and the black sun are synonymous with Satan.
Hitler’s loathing of the Church is well documented. During negotiations preceding the Concordat of 1933 between the Holy See and Germany, he arrested 92 priests and closed down nine Catholic publications. He knew the Church’s teachings stood in implacable opposition to the Nazi ideology.That is circular nonsense from you alas. Declaring the question to be evidence of the answer. What is the evidence a god exists and created the universe? The universe itself? You are re-framing the question AS the evidence for the answer. Circular. Abject. Baseless. Illogical. Nonsense from you. That is as abject nonsense as walking into a court of law and when asked what evidence there is that the defendant is the murderer..... you say that a murder occurred.
Offering the thing being queried as evidence for the thing being queried. You can not get more circular than that.
You can choose to believe the universe invented itself and the existence of man is a mere cosmological accident. Or one can choose to believe that man and indeed each of us is here for a purpose. Make your choice.Oh may I? Thank you for your completely unsolicited permissions. However my opinion is that whether the universe has, or does not have, meaning we currently have absolutely no evidence that it does. Does that mean it does not? No. It just means we have absolutely no reason to think it does. Just like we have absolutely no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest that a god exists and created this universe. Least of all on this thread. That does not mean there is no god. It just means there is no basis whatsoever to think there is one. See the difference yet? Between what I believe and what I think, and what you presume to tell me I may?
You talk loftily about data and reasoning and the scientific method. None of which would have actually existed without Christians who kept western civilization alive after the fall of the Roman Empire. Perhaps you don’t realize that the foundation on which you stand was built by devout Christians like Isaac Newton and Carl Gauss in an unbroken line stretching all the way back to Saint Columba. But that means nothing to you.
In fact, Newton himself predicted that the end of the world would occur in 2060 and his study is quite compelling for those who would seek it out. This of course dovetails nicely with the re formation of Israel 70 years ago, after Gods chosen people had spent two millennia in the wilderness being persecuted. Even now, those with wisdom can see the chess pieces moving into position in the Middle East. But there are none so blind as those who will not see.
You remind me of a passage from the 3rd chapter of the 2nd epistle to Timothy about the end of days where he states men would be;
“Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.“I see no where else for it to exist. If mankind were to die tomorrow there is no where else it appears to exist. It does not appear to be in the rocks. In the rivers. In the stars. The only place we currently have ANY evidence that meaning exists, purpose exists, morality exists, right and wrong and good and evil exist.... is in the human mind. I have no basis whatsoever to presume anything other than the idea of good and evil would die with us.
So you hold up the scientific method as the basis for your arguments but don’t appear to recognize that this method was conjured into existence by human minds...and yet what invented the human mind if not God? “God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
The only place we have evidence of anything existing is in the human mind. Perhaps you need to think on what you have written again and study the mind body problem eloquently elucidated by the great philosopher René Descartes. It may not surprise you at this stage to hear that Descartes was a devout Catholic and actually had divine visions. He practiced his Catholicism even in protestant Sweden during the 30 years war so that says it all.
His famous quote “I think therefore I am” is most assuredly divinely inspired.
But my all time favorite quote from the Bible is from the book which describes the end of all mankind. For although the wage of sin is death, Jesus offers us freely the gift of eternal life.
Revelation 21:6, "He said to me: 'It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life."0 -
Advertisement
-
The links you seek are in 19th and 20th century history. Stalin follows from Lenin and Lenin follows from Marx. Marx was a bum and an egomaniac.
Name dropping is not establishing the link I asked for. You are naming people here, nothing to do with atheism. You are contriving wilfully to make a correlation causation error by merely showing that some bad people, who may have happened to be atheist (you have proved yourself unclear on who is or is not atheist, or what it even means to be one), and acting like atheism was therefore to blame. Many such people also happened to have beards. That does not mean beards were to blame either.
To establish a causal chain from atheism to mass murder, you have to show that some tenet or attribute of atheism led directly to those actions and events. This you have failed, rather spectacularly at this point, to do in any way.Hitler was irreligious just like the inner circle of Nazis.
Reality really is not your friend here, which is why you keep repeating assertions about the man without once citing anything from him. EVERYTHING I have cited from him rubbishes your claims however. And only one of us.... clue:me..... is offering citations, quotes and evidence here which is telling.
The man himself claimed a belief in a god. The man himself claimed he was doing that gods work. The man himself said his actions were the will of god and divinely mandated. That you so desperately want to attribute words like "atheist" and "irreligious" to him without a shred of citation or evidence speaks absolute volumes about your desperation to polish the turd of theism by merely washing your hands of anyone inconvenient to that agenda.
What I have not done however, in contrast to how desperate you have been, is outright blame his actions ON his theism. I do not say that because he was a theist, his actions were because of his theism. Yet your desperation has you doing just that.... blaming atheism for things solely because you can cherry pick and name drop a few people who happened to ALSO be atheist.These are facts not in dispute. What they say is irrelevant. You judge a man on his actions. By his fruit you will know him. Perhaps you think because Osama bin Laden said he was performing Gods word, that in fact he was.
What I believe is that he was a theist and saw himself as a theist because he professed a religion and a belief in a god. What I do not believe was that he was an atheist. He had and professed a belief in a god, and a belief he was doing gods will. If a person says they believe in a god, multiple times, in multiple sources..... then I will take them at their word and not consider them to be an atheist merely because it suits me to do so. Just like if someone says over and over again they have no belief at all in a god, I would not call them a theist merely because it fuels my agenda.The only thing that is telling is your aggression and arrogance.
Insults demean only the source, never the target. Please raise your game here and discuss the topic, and drop the personal attacks.He never attended mass
That is not a requirement to be a theist. Nor would attending mass make an atheist not an atheist. Atheism and Theism are about what a person believes, or does not believe. Actions are nothing to do with it. MANY atheists go to masses and churches. MANY theists do not go to mass or church. Many theists, many Christians, have never owned, held or read a Bible either. They are still Christians.
The issue here as I see it is that you are making up your own definition and criteria for what constitutes being a Christian or a Theist, and applying them as suits your agenda. But you are not the arbiter of the meaning of words. You do not get to dictate who is or is not a Christian. There are 33,000 separate branches and sects and divisions in Christianity alone. That was by a count a decade ago, there is likely more now. These each have beliefs of their own, many of them irreconcilable with each other. You do not get to declare by fiat which are "Real" Christians and which are not.
But what you certainly do not get to pretend is that someone who says time and time and time again they think there is a god.... that they are actually an atheist.You can choose to believe
Speak for yourself. You certainly do not speak for me. I am not someone who can "choose" what to believe. I have never had that capability and am in awe of anyone who can. I am compelled to belief in any and every claim by evidence, I am denied belief in any and every claim by lack of it. If there is no reason to believe a claim I can not "choose" to believe it. If there is plenty of compelling evidence to believe a claim I can not "choose" to withhold belief.
In my experience the pretence that one chooses belief and disbelief comes only and solely from people who have made a claim, and offered not just little but ABSOLUTELY NO evidence to support that claim. And in their frustration that I do not buy their claims despite this, they simply pretend it is because I choose not to.
The simple fact is, the claim there is a god is not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated by you. I am not choosing to disbelieve that claim therefore. I am simply incapable of believing it. And that is not my failing, but yours.You talk loftily about data and reasoning and the scientific method. None of which would have actually existed without Christians
That is a "counter factual history" claim which you will find difficult to substantiate for a start. Counter factuals are fun thought experiments of course. To ask "If X did not happen would Y have happened the way it did?". Nothing wrong with thought experiments. But when you declare outright that "Y would not have happened without X" you are placing a massive burden of proof on yourself. One you have not even begun to meet, let alone achieved.
It also does not track with reality or history either by the way. The leaders of scientific progress once included the Muslim world for example. No Christianity required. But theism stepped in and hampered and even reversed much of their progress. Especially when parts of their religion decreed the manipulation of numbers to be the devils work. The history of religion, including Christianity, working well with science is not a good one. And often a bloody and murderous one of suppression of anything that did not support mother church.
Again however the separation has to be made between people BEING Christians and whether their actions had anything to do WITH that Christianity. The majority of chickens plucked in Ireland over the last millennium were likely also plucked by Christians. That does not mean we have Christianity to thanks for chicken plucking. You are once again falling for the correlation-causation divide.
You see I, unlike you, seem to recognise that a person being theist, or a person being atheist, does not automatically mean their actions, words, deeds and crimes have anything to do with their theism or atheism. I have to find, or be shown, a causal chain of links FROM their atheist or theism TO their actions. In the US for example the prison population is disproportionately, compared with the rest of US society, religious. Not one shred of my being wants to make the dishonest move you make however, by suggesting that their murders and rapes and other crimes were because they were theist.
But we CAN show crimes causally linked to theism too. For example some parents have been sent to prison for wilfully watching their children die, often painfully, of easily treatable illnesses. Solely because their religion teaches them the medical intervention required was an affront to their god. Here we are not merely saying "That person was a theist, that person did a bad thing, therefore theism leads to bad things". Rather we are seeing an ACTUAL CAUSAL CHAIN between their theism and their actions.
See the difference? IF so, then perhaps try and apply it before you jump once again on your "X was an atheist, X did a bad thing, therefore atheism leads to that bad thing" mantra.built by devout Christians like Isaac Newton
And it is MASSIVELY telling that Newton only invoked god in the face of his own ignorance. The moment his science failed him, he invoked the divine hand. He did his science, without recourse to a god, right up until he hit the wall of his own limits and ignorance and failings. The moment he did that.... rather than acknowledge his own limitations and ignorance..... he turned to "god dunnit".
Which is massively telling so I am glad you brought him up. It shows how much of religious thought is couched in human hubris. The moment he was faced with his own human limitations..... rather than acknowledge that perhaps he was not just up to the task of explaining something..... it was easier to simply say "Ah that must simply be because a magical god hand is reaching in and tweaking the system!!!!".
So contrary to your narrative, his Christianity had nothing to do with his science. His Christianity in fact only appeared to come on line when his science capabilities failed him. Rather than having Christianity to thank for his genius and discoveries therefore...... we have Christianity to blame for giving him an excuse to give up on that wondrous progress and achievement we so rightly credit to him.So you hold up the scientific method as the basis for your arguments but don’t appear to recognize that this method was conjured into existence by human minds...and yet what invented the human mind if not God?
Says you, but you are maintaining a steady MO of providing absolutely no evidence this god exists, or did any of the things you claim it did. Least of all creating humans, their minds, or our universe. You are back to arguing circular arguments now.But my all time favorite quote from the Bible is from the book which describes the end of all mankind.
Well quelle suprise I guess. Amazing how often I meet theists who tell me their favourite parts of their theism are the ones that fetisihize death, destruction, doom, and end times. One attribute I see time and time and time again in theism and theists..... is that many of them simply can not wait for death and destruction to be rolled out.
Whereas in contrast the most common attribute I see in most atheists I meet is a celebration of life, the protection of people and their well being, and the agenda and goal to make our existence as a species last as long as possible. Rather than enjoy texts describing the "end of mankind" they revel in texts that describe it's continuation and survival.
By fruits you will know them indeed. Given the choice between a cult of death, and a celebration of life, I know which group I am happy to find myself having landed in.0 -
Sagats_knee wrote: »I’m quoting from the Bible. When it says it is written, it’s usually referring back to an earlier prophesy. I’m surprised you take umbrage with this element, which if you were in any way educated on what you are so quick to rubbish, you would be aware of this historically common literary device.
I am well aware of the device in question, I am explaining why it is a rubbish and contrived one. So my education is not in question here, the efficacy of rhetorical devices of delusion are.Sagats_knee wrote: »Also, when I say ‘a fool says in his heart there is no God’ I’m quoting King David.
Again.... I know this. That does not change my point at all. The point being that when one knows their position has no substantiation, or one knows they are peddling nonsense, then one knows a recourse open to them is to start insulting people who do not buy into it.
It is, and has been, a 101 device for charlatans for centuries. Sure we even do it in our advertising today. "our low low prices.... you would be mad to miss it!".
When your product or argument does not stand on it's own two feet, the common move is to place the failing on the mark rather than the source. Don't buy our product... YOU must be mad. Don't believe our nonsense unsubstantiated claims? YOU must be a fool.Sagats_knee wrote: »He was a prophet and the second King of Israel, chosen by God.
You have not evidenced, even a tiny bit, the claim there even is a god. So second tier claims about what that god did, said, or chose are fantasy and nothing more.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I am well aware of the device in question, I am explaining why it is a rubbish and contrived one. So my education is not in question here, the efficacy of rhetorical devices of delusion are.
Again.... I know this. That does not change my point at all. The point being that when one knows their position has no substantiation, or one knows they are peddling nonsense, then one knows a recourse open to them is to start insulting people who do not buy into it.
It is, and has been, a 101 device for charlatans for centuries. Sure we even do it in our advertising today. "our low low prices.... you would be mad to miss it!".
When your product or argument does not stand on it's own two feet, the common move is to place the failing on the mark rather than the source. Don't buy our product... YOU must be mad. Don't believe our nonsense unsubstantiated claims? YOU must be a fool.
You have not evidenced, even a tiny bit, the claim there even is a god. So second tier claims about what that god did, said, or chose are fantasy and nothing more.
The evidence is all around you in every thing that exists and has ever existed. It’s staring you in the face.
If some previously unknown ancient culture was discovered today, and a library’s worth of original books, letters, poems, folklore, genealogies, testimonials and histories was found from different points in a wide gambit of history in the sort of abundance we have in Christianity, including original documents predicting things that then occurred and were accounted for 600 years later, atheists here would be all over it saying its true because we have proof. There is literal tonnes of documentary evidence from dozens of sources over thousands of years, some of which has been compiled into the book we call the Bible. There is also tonnes of architectural and archeological evidence that the events of the Bible occurred. Christianity is woven into the fabric of Mankind’s history.0 -
Sagats_knee wrote: »The evidence is all around you in every thing that exists and has ever existed. It’s staring you in the face.
That is circular. What is the evidence that god created all of everything? The evidence is all of everything?
That is like walking into a court and when asked "What is the evidence the accused committed the murder" you answer "The murder!"
You are re-framing the question as evidence for your answer to the question in other words. A standard circular argument error. As fallacious as it is common alas.Sagats_knee wrote: »There is literal tonnes of documentary evidence
Now you have moved on to telling me there is loads of evidence without actually citing one shred of it. How is that helpful?
If you want to work through the evidence with me, cite some of it and we will evaluate it. I am all ears, I am here for you, my time is your time.
If you are going to take the "There is loads go find it yourself" approach however, you are on your own here. I am not doing your job for you.Sagats_knee wrote: »There is also tonnes of architectural and archeological evidence that the events of the Bible occurred. Christianity is woven into the fabric of Mankind’s history.
None of which is evidence that the claims are true though. For example if someone 2000 years from now were to dig up the books about Jason Bourne..... they will turn to architectural and archaeological and historical evidence and find that much of the text is validated.
Will that mean Jason Bourne actually existed, or the events related to him are true? No. It will not.
You see MUCH if not MOST fiction is set against a background of real events, real people, real politics, real buildings, real locations and real history. It remains fiction none the less.
I have no doubt that much of the events and locations referenced in the Bible are historical realities therefore. But that does not mean Jesus existed or.... if he existed..... that he was anything more than human or that he had magical powers.
To evidence THOSE claims you need more than the Bible affords you. Just like someone 2000 years from now claiming Jason Borne existed, would need more than the novels.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »To evidence THOSE claims you need more than the Bible affords you. Just like someone 2000 years from now claiming Jason Borne existed, would need more than the novels.
Not sure if we're currently arguing whether God exists or whether Jesus existed.
Jesus probably existed. Two separate gospel traditions attest to it and Josephus does too. We take it that other historical figures probably existed on less evidence than that. Him being God is an altogether different issue, of course.
As for God, there is clearly evidence that such a being exists. Literally, millions of people have described direct experience with him or her. Now, you might not rate that evidence very highly but evidence it is. If a city had a spate of murders and millions of people said they saw Mr. X commit those murders, you can bet the police would take those claims as evidence and investigate. Even if they found no further evidence, they might even take Mr. X to trial based on it alone. Of course, they may not get a conviction. After all they have no proof, which is what I think you're actually looking for even though you keep saying 'evidence'. Looking for proof in an issue that is quintessentially about belief is a fool's errand.0 -
Not sure if we're currently arguing whether God exists or whether Jesus existed.
Jesus probably existed. Two separate gospel traditions attest to it and Josephus does too. We take it that other historical figures probably existed on less evidence than that. Him being God is an altogether different issue, of course.
As for God, there is clearly evidence that such a being exists. Literally, millions of people have described direct experience with him or her. Now, you might not rate that evidence very highly but evidence it is. If a city had a spate of murders and millions of people said they saw Mr. X commit those murders, you can bet the police would take those claims as evidence and investigate. Even if they found no further evidence, they might even take Mr. X to trial based on it alone. Of course, they may not get a conviction. After all they have no proof, which is what I think you're actually looking for even though you keep saying 'evidence'. Looking for proof in an issue that is quintessentially about belief is a fool's errand.
There were literally hundreds of people named Jesus at that time, Jesus is a variant of Joshua who was a great Jewish hero. There were also multiple messiahs, faith healers, magicians, call it what you will, because the Messiah was due any day. As for Josephus, it is considered by many Biblical scholars and antiquarians that his account of Jesus is interpolation.
If a spate of murders was witnessed by millions of people there would be a common thread, there would be bodies. There is no tangible evidence that God exists so all you have left is the imagination of man.0 -
Advertisement
-
I believe in myself0
-
Not sure if we're currently arguing whether God exists or whether Jesus existed.
Seems a few people are switching between the two. I am not entirely convinced he did exist. But I am not against the idea either. I quite suspect someone existed to whom the text is referring..... but his story has been amalgamated with other stories and legends of the time.
As a user above me noted, the names were common. The occupation of preacher was also not uncommon at the time either. While worse, distribution of information was more often word of mouth and not written and certainly not electronic. Which means many stories passing from mouth to mouth would get amalgamated or misapplied.
Many things ascribed to him have been previously ascribed to others, were ideas and legends common at the time, or were requirements (due to prophecy) which could likely have been fitted to the narrative to validate it.
I reckon it was a mash up of all of the above. But given the specific title and topic of this thread.... to answer your question..... it is the claim Jesus, if he existed, was anything more than entirely and completely human that I was taking up with the two users above.Josephus does too.
Many issues with him though, which I could link to if you want a read through. Or if you look for the posts from oldrnwisr right here on boards.ie who details those issues far more eloquently and completely than I ever have.As for God, there is clearly evidence that such a being exists. Literally, millions of people have described direct experience with him or her. Now, you might not rate that evidence very highly but evidence it is.
Anecdote is not really evidence no. At least not directly of any specific claim. Anecdote in large numbers is evidence that there is SOMETHING worth studying there to explain. But it is not evidence of any one conclusion that you might invent to explain that anecdote. You just happen to explain those anecdotes with "god". I could just as easily invent the claim that those experiences are directly sent to our brain by our lizard overlords.
It is an error and a fallacy.... but alas an all too common and human one.... to leap to a conclusion first, then fit the anecdote to it later and believe the anecdote evidences the conclusion. It does not. Anecdote shows SOMETHING is worth explaining there, but it does not explain it.
The same is true of anything, lest you think I am just biased against a god here. Take UFOs for example. People will cite the wealth of anecdote experiencing UFOs as evidence for their conclusion it is alien space craft. This is the same error. The wealth of anecdote tells us SOMETHING is going on, and it is likely worth investigating. But it is not evidence for a conclusion someone, or some group, have simply leapt to.
All that said however, where are these "literal millions" of people exactly? Not only do I not find anecdote to be evidence, I am not finding the anecdotes. Certainly SOME people have claimed direct experience of a god, but at most I have seen this in the 100s not the 1,000,000s. Or are you conflating ANY faith in a god as "direct experience"? What data source are you drawing on here?If a city had a spate of murders and millions of people said they saw Mr. X commit those murders, you can bet the police would take those claims as evidence and investigate.
Exactly my point above! The would take the wealth of personal testimony as a trigger to investigate. That is as it should be.
Having investigated and found no evidence of any kind for the claim this "millions of people" are making however, should they be pursuing a conviction? You said yourself you doubt they could get one.
Anecdote and personal testimony IS evidence but not of the conclusion. It is evidence of something worthy of investigation.
Your analogy fails on one point however. At least in your analogy you can verify there actually was a murder. You have at least god the dead bodies right? So when you follow up on the testimony of this fantastical "millions" of people.... at least you are following up on murders you know happened.
With the testimony you are attempting to make this analogous with, you have not even got the bodies. You have millions of people saying they saw a murder..... but the police are showing up and are not only failing to find evidence X committed the murders, but failing to find evidence the murders even happened at all! NOW the analogy tracks.After all they have no proof, which is what I think you're actually looking for even though you keep saying 'evidence'. Looking for proof in an issue that is quintessentially about belief is a fool's errand.
I long ago dropped the word "proof" from my demands and discussions with theists. The sentence I usually use these days is "Have you any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that lends even a modicum of credence to your claim a non-human intelligent and intentional agent is responsible for the creation of and/or ongoing maintenance of our universe?".
The answer, quite consistently, has so far been no. They don't.0 -
Only a poor student of history would apportion blame to Christianity for these things. It was actually diseases that wiped out the native peoples and while the explorers of the world were Christians, they mostly explored for economic reasons. More gold than god. Now perhaps you believe that man should have remained practicing the hunter gatherer way of life and remained in balance with nature and perhaps that is exactly what Adam and Eve renounced. But that is another story.
However to suggest that the great mass murdering ideologies of the 20th century namely Fascism and Communism were in any way Christian is just plain wrong. If anything they were perversely anti Christian and anti Jewish and demanded subservience to a technocratic and controlling state and not to a divine God.
It was the western peoples of the US and Britain that were devoutly Christian albeit secular. Both President Roosevelt and General Eisenhower wrote famous prayers during world war 2 and attended mass daily. Stalin by contrast actually launched a 5 year atheist plan to eliminate the church in Russia (it failed and drive it underground) and Hitler was a well known atheist. What’s more the inner circle of nazism like Goebbels, Goring and Himmler hated Christianity in particular and are widely quoted as saying so.
The suggestion was that Christianity was the great civilising influence in history, I dispute this. Great barbarity was practised by those professing to hold the Christian faith, often indeed with the active participation of the Church.
The colonisation of Latin America where the native peoples were given the choice to convert or suffer death either at the stake or by drowning , strangulation or other ghoulish means was , in all but name a Crusade.
Even Nazi Germany was a Christian country, but committed mass genocide on a scale never previously witnessed in human history excluding perhaps those committed by God himself.
North America and the forced removal of the native peoples from their homeland and sources of food and shelter, the long forced marches through frozen wildernesses without adequate food and water, these were all perpetrated by "Christians".
So while there may have been good individuals within Christianity, Christianity in itself, was not the great civilising influence it's made out to be. Other faiths and none have had equally good individuals.
Finally, I find it hard to believe that either Eisenhower or Roosevelt attended daily Mass as neither was RC.0 -
I don't know if god exists, nobody has managed to prove it either way so far, when I say god I'm referring to the conventional image of a personal god. How would we prove it anyway?, it\he\she would have to make itself known to us somehow.
On an intuitive level the interpretation of god described below from the esoteric form of Buddhism makes more sense to me.
https://blavatskytheosophy.com/what-does-theosophy-say-about-god/
I have atheist and agnostic friends who are still open-minded to the possibility of consciousness beyond death even though they have no time for a personal god. Just because something hasn't been proven and established in mainstream science doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't true.
In the case of NDE’s, while they don't prove the existence of an afterlife (at least not yet), those who have experienced them claim that the experience of the separation of body and spirit is firsthand proof to them of an afterlife.
These claims are further supported by the fact that in many documented cases the subject could hear conversations or see things in other rooms and other places, which are later confirmed and verified to be remarkably accurate.0 -
There was more evils perpetrated by the Christians than anyone else.
Think about it, the highest order's throughout history in the Christian churches were evil personified.
Their minions were kept quiet and subdued with fear and damnation told if they do what's right they'll get to heaven and then the leader's raping pillaging and slaughtering through civilisations...
Ethnic cleansing, torturing and starving people to submitting.
It's all a crock of ****e, there's nothing good about it, nothing.
It's just all part of the pyramid of power,and hopefully some day we'll live in a just society.
Unfortunately not in my lifetime.0 -
Advertisement
-
The bit about him being the one true Christ is certainly an interpolation. The previous bit, mentioning his crucifixion is not generally dismissed. Could you dismiss it? Yes, but you can dismiss most history from this time like this. History was constantly being recorded with some political or religious slant. Historians see that and on balance, it generally the view that someone named Jesus, around whom a following grew and was cast in the role of Messiah as many were, probably, on balance existed.As for Josephus, it is considered by many Biblical scholars and antiquarians that his account of Jesus is interpolation.
Well the effects would be the world and existence itself, according to the believers. But that's off the point. Testimony is and always has been considered evidence.If a spate of murders was witnessed by millions of people there would be a common thread, there would be bodies. There is no tangible evidence that God exists so all you have left is the imagination of man.0 -
In the case of NDE’s, while they don't prove the existence of an afterlife (at least not yet), those who have experienced them claim that the experience of the separation of body and spirit is firsthand proof to them of an afterlife.
And in fairness to them you can understand why. When you feel you have left your body, or even just part of your body, it is massively off putting. It is really hard to process it.
Mild examples of this are easy enough to produce too. With nothing more than a piece of cardboard, a fake hand, and a feather you can have the experience that the fake hand is your real hand. And when the "switch" happens in your brain it is difficult to explain just how weird it is.
And that is when you are in full control of your faculties. Many of these experiences happen in medical settings, or drug settings, or going in or out of sleep, and so forth. When people are not really in their most critically clear. So this makes it even harder to process.These claims are further supported by the fact that in many documented cases the subject could hear conversations or see things in other rooms and other places, which are later confirmed and verified to be remarkably accurate.
Unfortunately the method of verification is often very poor indeed. Which renders many such anecdotes suspect. When actual controlled studies are done to ensure verification is sound.... suddenly the patients in question are not seeing things in other rooms and places any more. Wonder why
That said though, our brain filters out a lot much of the time. It does not present to you everything coming into your senses. If those filters get compromised or knocked off line for any reasons, it is no surprise you might suddenly start hearing or seeing things you normally would miss.
A rabbi on the "god exists" side of a a god debate I watched once was talking about this. He has an autistic son who can recount the contents of conversations that happened several rooms away. I suspect his son may have not got filters you and I do, rather than him having super human hearing per se.0 -
Testimony is and always has been considered evidence.
And I repeat, lest the point get lost in my longer post above, that it IS evidence. It is just not evidence for the conclusions that are parcelled with the testimony. At all.
When many people recount a similar experience, that is evidence there is SOMETHING worth investigating. That is valid and logical.
What happens though is people pick a conclusion and declare the testimony is evidence of that conclusion specifically. That is invalid and fallacious.
Testimony is evidence, just not how, why and in the way many people seem to think.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And I repeat, lest the point get lost in my longer post above, that it IS evidence. It is just not evidence for the conclusions that are parcelled with the testimony. At all.
When many people recount a similar experience, that is evidence there is SOMETHING worth investigating. That is valid and logical.
What happens though is people pick a conclusion and declare the testimony is evidence of that conclusion specifically. That is invalid and fallacious.
Testimony is evidence, just not how, why and in the way many people seem to think.
Can you summarize this in layman's terms please.0 -
The suggestion was that Christianity was the great civilising influence in history, I dispute this. Great barbarity was practised by those professing to hold the Christian faith, often indeed with the active participation of the Church.
The colonisation of Latin America where the native peoples were given the choice to convert or suffer death either at the stake or by drowning , strangulation or other ghoulish means was , in all but name a Crusade.
Even Nazi Germany was a Christian country, but committed mass genocide on a scale never previously witnessed in human history excluding perhaps those committed by God himself.
North America and the forced removal of the native peoples from their homeland and sources of food and shelter, the long forced marches through frozen wildernesses without adequate food and water, these were all perpetrated by "Christians".
So while there may have been good individuals within Christianity, Christianity in itself, was not the great civilising influence it's made out to be. Other faiths and none have had equally good individuals.
Finally, I find it hard to believe that either Eisenhower or Roosevelt attended daily Mass as neither was RC.
I don't think people really grasp how devastating Christianity was to their pagan ancestors, there's also a false perception that the pagan civilisations were technically and socially unsophisticated savages before the xtians came along.
The inner circle of the Nazi regime subscribed to occultist beliefs which were often subverted forms of esoteric Buddhism and elements of Western occultism.0 -
Can you summarize this in layman's terms please.
I thought that is what I just did.
But take NDE as an example. Many people testify that when they are unconscious on a hospital bed that they get unusual experiences, and these are similar experiences across much of the testimony.
So the testimony is evidence SOMETHING is happening there, worth studying.
People claiming they it is evidence of an after life however are parcelling a pre-decided conclusions WITH the testimony. Declaring that the testimony validates THEIR explanation for that testimony. Which is fallacious.
"10,000 people saw a UFO, so evidence shows something is going on, lets find out what!" --> Valid.
"UFOs are alien space craft, and the evidence for this is 10,000 people testify to seeing a UFO!" --> Not so much.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Jesus stuff
I answered this in another post. I studied all these texts many moons ago in uni. Again, the reference to someone called Jesus matching the description from the gospels is generally not dismissed. Like all history of the time it is not considered certain but it is not dismissed.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Anecdote is not really evidence no. At least not directly of any specific claim. Anecdote in large numbers is evidence that there is SOMETHING worth studying there to explain. But it is not evidence of any one conclusion that you might invent to explain that anecdote. You just happen to explain those anecdotes with "god". I could just as easily invent the claim that those experiences are directly sent to our brain by our lizard overlords.
It is an error and a fallacy.... but alas an all too common and human one.... to leap to a conclusion first, then fit the anecdote to it later and believe the anecdote evidences the conclusion. It does not. Anecdote shows SOMETHING is worth explaining there, but it does not explain it.
These people are not describing Lizards. They are describing a personal, human like entity. They are not describing an experience but an actual interaction. And you cant just use the word anecdote because it makes it seem flimsier. This people are describing seeing or hearing a deity. It is not an anecdote, no more than a witness saying they saw a man in a particular area on a night of a crime would be said to be telling an anecdote.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The same is true of anything, lest you think I am just biased against a god here. Take UFOs for example. People will cite the wealth of anecdote experiencing UFOs as evidence for their conclusion it is alien space craft. This is the same error. The wealth of anecdote tells us SOMETHING is going on, and it is likely worth investigating. But it is not evidence for a conclusion someone, or some group, have simply leapt to.
People who saw they saw a flying saucer is evidence that flying saucers exist. People who say they saw aliens is evidence that aliens exist. Again, you might not rate it as strong evidence but evidence it is. You analogy only works if someone sees "something" in the sky and concludes it is an alien spacecraft which is not what we are talking about. We're talking about people claiming to see and interact with aliens/God.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »All that said however, where are these "literal millions" of people exactly? Not only do I not find anecdote to be evidence, I am not finding the anecdotes. Certainly SOME people have claimed direct experience of a god, but at most I have seen this in the 100s not the 1,000,000s. Or are you conflating ANY faith in a god as "direct experience"? What data source are you drawing on here?
Have I exaggerated? Perhaps. I can think of dozens of people myself who claim direct interaction with God. There are also ample accounts of such interactions in history including apparitions. I extrapolated that to millions. Perhaps thousands is better? Either way, there are a lot of such people.
No, the witness says they saw Mr X and the corpses are his product. Likewise, the theist witness says they saw God and world and everything in it is a product of that God. Again, I'm not asking you to except this as proof but the analogy holds.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Your analogy fails on one point however. At least in your analogy you can verify there actually was a murder. You have at least god the dead bodies right? So when you follow up on the testimony of this fantastical "millions" of people.... at least you are following up on murders you know happened.
Again, testimony is evidence. You can't just call it anecdotes and dismiss it. Either these people are delusional or mistaken or mentally unwell or maybe something exists to match their experiences.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
I long ago dropped the word "proof" from my demands and discussions with theists. The sentence I usually use these days is "Have you any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that lends even a modicum of credence to your claim a non-human intelligent and intentional agent is responsible for the creation of and/or ongoing maintenance of our universe?".
The answer, quite consistently, has so far been no. They don't.0 -
I find it fascinating that Nazis could be both atheists and worshipers of satan .
All I've learned here is that many people don't understand what evolution is, nor atheism.0 -
As for God, there is clearly evidence that such a being exists. Literally, millions of people have described direct experience with him or her.
Yes, contradictory and conflicting direct experience of God, Allah, various Hindu gods, etc. etc.
Logically, most of these people are wrong about what they experienced, since these various gods cannot all exist. If Jewish God exists, then Jesus, Mary and the Holy Spirit do not. If Shiva exists, Allah does not.
So we know for a fact that billions of people believe false religions and millions have direct personal experiences of those false religions.
Now someone needs to show that one of the many thousands of religions is true using some other kind of evidence.0 -
Christian God and Jewish God are the same God - they'll just argue over the divinity of Jesus as the son of god. Anyway, they hardly contradict each other.Zubeneschamali wrote: »Yes, contradictory and conflicting direct experience of God, Allah, various Hindu gods, etc. etc.
Logically, most of these people are wrong about what they experienced, since these various gods cannot all exist. If Jewish God exists, then Jesus, Mary and the Holy Spirit do not. If Shiva exists, Allah does not.
So we know for a fact that billions of people believe false religions and millions have direct personal experiences of those false religions.
Now someone needs to show that one of the many thousands of religions is true using some other kind of evidence.
Anyway, the argument here would merely be that all these religions are describing the same God and just calling him different names and ascribing different parts of their own culture to him. God is a Plato Form basically and all these religions interpretations of him shadows on the cave wall.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement