According to the 2016 Census statistics.Must say I am pleasantly surprised.This bodes well and must be a huge sickener for the miniscule number of anti Catholics on this board and elsewhere
Quote from: T Fearon on April 06, 2017, 09:19:15 PM
According to the 2016 Census statistics.Must say I am pleasantly surprised.This bodes well and must be a huge sickener for the miniscule number of anti Catholics on this board and elsewhere
Where is this"free state" mentioned on your post heading?
As a subject of Her Majesty you seem to lacking in education particularly political history
Orange Free State I imagine
Assuming in his ignorance he's referring to this state, I cannot fathom why he's gloating about a 132,200 (3.4%) reduction in the number of Catholics in five years.
Quote from: Hardy on April 06, 2017, 09:44:43 PM
Assuming in his ignorance he's referring to this state, I cannot fathom why he's gloating about a 132,200 (3.4%) reduction in the number of Catholics in five years.
Does that mean that in 30 years ago there'll be minus catholics? Like less than zero ones. I don't work that out.
There has been a corresponding reduction of "Catholics" in the North as young people re designate as non religious.Still it is good news that nevertheless 78% of the population of the 26 counties,in spite of relentless negative publicity and outrageous propaganda,still declare themselves as Catholic.
Do they all practise? I thought you didn't like "the free state" anyway so why would you care?
There may be a significant number who are non practising and misguidedly endorse obscenities like gay marriage (in the pervertec name of equality or compassion) but the mere fact they designate as catholic shows a flicker of faith still resides within.The Church should take encouragement from this and bring that flicker to a flame.
As Tony often says... Yawn.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 06, 2017, 10:10:06 PM
There may be a significant number who are non practising and misguidedly endorse obscenities like gay marriage (in the pervertec name of equality or compassion) but the mere fact they designate as catholic shows a flicker of faith still resides within.The Church should take encouragement from this and bring that flicker to a flame.
There is nothing to suggest that the Catholic Church in Ireland has any clue on how to turn around its continuing decline in terms of practising/actual members of its congregation. The demographics of those currently making up the numbers practising their Catholic religion shows that within 20 to 30 years there will barely be anyone regularly attending Church services.
The Church is in chaos, it is now unable to respond the regular scandals which show that it is crumbling at its core. Its leadership is unable to make the decisions required and it has no strategy for renewal that it can bring to its membership for consultation and believes that a top down organisation can sustain itself in the 21st century. The leadership of bishops have an average age well into their 70s, the priesthood has an average age of those working in parishes in its late 60s and only 7 priests will be ordained in 2017.
Most of the 78% of the population in RoI are nominal Catholics, i.e. they have received the sacraments of baptism, communion, confession, confirmation and possibly matrimony and will probably wish to avail of extreme unction but they are no longer regular attenders at Church services. In the RoI, they will still present their children for baptism because the Church still controls the education system and makes baptism a condition of admittance.
The turmoil within the Catholic Church in Ireland is seen in the political events in appointments to being a bishop, parish priests, deployment of priests to parishes and the failure to deal efficiently and effectively with those priests accused of wrongdoing while leaving them in effective limbo. The papal nuncio has become a casualty of politicking by Rome as he is moved from a handy number in Dublin to be sent to a post in Albania.
How Tony can be happy for the Catholic Church in its current state of chaos and spiralling decline?
The imminent papal visit is a potential game changer and could well be a catalyst for renewal.As I said there is at least a Flicker in everyone who freely designated as Catholic,and this is highly encouraging given all the recent negative publicity.
The non-religious are now bigger than all minority religions combined. That's up 76.3% since 2011. The proportion of Catholics has gone as follows:
86.83% in 2006
84.16% in 2011
78% in 2016
That's a drop of 132,220 since 2011.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 06, 2017, 11:15:12 PM
The imminent papal visit is a potential game changer and could well be a catalyst for renewal.As I said there is at least a Flicker in everyone who freely designated as Catholic,and this is highly encouraging given all the recent negative publicity.
The last papal visit didn't seem to work out so well in the long run, did it?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 06, 2017, 11:15:12 PM
The imminent papal visit is a potential game changer and could well be a catalyst for renewal.As I said there is at least a Flicker in everyone who freely designated as Catholic,and this is highly encouraging given all the recent negative publicity.
The Argentinian coming will absolutely have no effect on me or mine, I am done with the Catholic Church.
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 06, 2017, 10:53:35 PM
Most of the 78% of the population in RoI are nominal Catholics, i.e. they have received the sacraments of baptism, communion, confession, confirmation and possibly matrimony and will probably wish to avail of extreme unction but they are no longer regular attenders at Church services. In the RoI, they will still present their children for baptism because the Church still controls the education system and makes baptism a condition of admittance.
Yup. I'd say access to the state-funded education system is probably a bigger motivator for people going through the baptism nonsense.
Peer pressure and tradition is probably the driving force behind the industry selling those creepy wedding dresses for small girls at communion and confirmation time.
The figures for catholics is probably overstated, while the figures for non-believers is probably understated since a fair few people put in the likes of "Hare-Krishna" and "Jedi" for the crack.
Tony wins again. Ye never learn lads.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 06, 2017, 09:19:15 PM
According to the 2016 Census statistics.Must say I am pleasantly surprised.This bodes well and must be a huge sickener for the miniscule number of anti Catholics on this board and elsewhere
I don't have time to worry about a celestial dictator
From RTÉ:
Today's preliminary Census data on religion has huge pertinence for the long-running school patronage debate.
The picture it reveals fits with what campaigners for change have long argued; that there is a steadily growing demand for non-religious or multi-denominational schooling here, writes Education Correspondent Emma O Kelly.
The data published today by the Central Statistics Office does not give any great detail but it shows a significant increase in the number of people stating that they have no religion, up by 73.6% on four years ago from 269,800 to 468,400.
On top of that, a further 125,000 chose not to tick any religion box when they filled out their Census form last year. This is a 78% increase on those ticking no religion box in 2011.
The Census data also shows a rise in numbers practising non-traditional minority religions here, such as Islam or Hinduism, although those numbers still remain quite small overall.
But in terms of the school patronage debate the most interesting figure contained in today's preliminary data is the fact that 45% of those who say they have no religion are in the 20 to 39 age bracket. This, even though this bracket represents just 28% of the general population.
This is the age group that is having babies, and sending young children off to school, and it's significant that it's here that the highest proportion of people stating they have no religion is found.
The Roman Catholic religion continues of course to dominate, but its dominance has fallen sharply, according to the CSO.
78% of people here identify as Catholic, compared to 84% five years earlier. That's a fall of 6%. Yet the Catholic church still runs 92% of Irish primary schools.
While 16% of the population is now not Catholic, that percentage is probably significantly higher when it comes to children.
Yet very many of those children have no option but to attend Catholic schools, where the Catholic faith is taught as an integral part of the school day.
Today's CSO summary provides one other piece of relevant data. Examining the percentage of non-Catholics by county it finds that in three large urban areas, Dublin City, Dún Laoghaire, and Galway city more than one in three of the population is non-Catholic.
Yet the overwhelming majority of publicly-funded schools in all three of these areas, at both primary and second level, continue to be controlled by the Catholic church.
The CSO data begs one further question; how many of the 84% who ticked the Roman Catholic box were baptised into that faith simply in order to secure a school place? Unfortunately the Census data won't provide any answer to that question.
For all those who are interested in a more comprehensive breakdown of this data, there's a six-month wait. The CSO plans to publish its detailed figures on religion in October.
I'm 78% catholic.
The comprehensive breakdown of these figures will be interesting. For example what effect (if any)has immigration/emigration had on that overall figure since the previous cencus?
78% of the Irish population is Catholic?
They are on me arse! ;D
People who attend church at times likes funerals, weddings and christenings will most likely regard themselves as Catholics without giving the matter much thought but they are Catholics by convenience only. In terms of active participation, the actual percentage is probably in single digits.
One of the largest churches in the Dublin diocese is going to be demolished to make was for social housing and a much smaller church to cater for the congregation. It is a huge building with over an acre of floor space. It was built to accommodate 3,500 worshippers but is being downscales to 10% of that number. That's the reality in Finglas West and I doubt that it is markedly different to any other parish in the land.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/one-of-dublin-s-largest-catholic-churches-to-be-demolished-1.2961481
If they feel bothered to designate then they retain at least some degree of Catholicism.It is encouraging,and many will return more actively to the fold when they see the meaninglessness of a life spent pursuing pleasures of this world only
Quote from: T Fearon on April 07, 2017, 05:09:08 PM
If they feel bothered to designate then they retain at least some degree of Catholicism.It is encouraging,and many will return more actively to the fold when they see the meaninglessness of a life spent pursuing pleasures of this world only
So the decline is going to be reversed, eh? How much do you wanna bet, Tony? $40 says the next census will show yet another decline in the catholic proportion of the population.
I suspect many of them are Catholic in the same way as Dara O'Briain is Catholic
"I'm staunchly atheist, I simply don't believe in God, even if he believes in me. But I'm still Catholic, of course. Catholicism has a much broader reach than just the religion. I'm technically Catholic, it's the box you have to tick on the census form: 'Don't believe in God, but I do still hate Rangers.'"
If a political party canvas showed 78% of the population intended to vote for them the party top brass would be ecstatic.
It is a fantastic and pleasantly surprising result in the face of scandal and propaganda
Quote from: T Fearon on April 07, 2017, 06:26:15 PM
If a political party canvas showed 78% of the population intended to vote for them the party top brass would be ecstatic.
It is a fantastic and pleasantly surprising result in the face of scandal and propaganda
The church isn't a political party. Though it oftrn acted like one unfortunately.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 07, 2017, 06:26:15 PM
If a political party canvas showed 78% of the population intended to vote for them the party top brass would be ecstatic.
It is a fantastic and pleasantly surprising result in the face of scandal and propaganda
If a political party had direct control of 90% of the country's schools and brainwashed children into voting for them when they grow up, it'd be a bit horrifying.
I put down non practising Catholic.
Why would you do that.It would be like me describing myself as a non practicing atheist
Quote from: T Fearon on April 07, 2017, 09:36:19 PM
Why would you do that.It would be like me describing myself as a non practicing atheist
Simple. I was born a Catholic but I don't go to mass. Christianity where we're meant to believe two penguins walked to the Middle East for a boat ride. Story book nonsense.
With 2,000,000,000 believers around the globe.
Why do the non believers always have to throw in the gratuitous insult.
Why not simply say I don't believe in God, Bible, Koran, Buddha whatever...
Quote from: Rossfan on April 07, 2017, 10:33:54 PM
With 2,000,000,000 believers around the globe.
Why do the non believers always have to throw in the gratuitous insult.
Why not simply say I don't believe in God, Bible, Koran, Buddha whatever...
[/quote/]
They do, it's called being an atheist
Quote from: T Fearon on April 07, 2017, 05:09:08 PM
If they feel bothered to designate then they retain at least some degree of Catholicism.It is encouraging,and many will return more actively to the fold when they see the meaninglessness of a life spent pursuing pleasures of this world only
Tony, I was in a pub with Dessie Ellis and a few of his SF supporters just before a GE some time ago. Some of the younger heads were ecstatic at the reception they had been getting on the doorstep. Dessie was going to top the poll without a doubt. They were too young to realise that SF got a tremendous reception all over Finglas West but most of their supporters wouldn't get out of bed to go and cast a vote. All talk on the doorstep, no show at the polling booths.
One veteran canvasser asked for silence and then pronounced, "Look lads,if everyone who promised a vote to all who came looking for it, did vote then 275% of the f**king population will have voted!
Quote from: T Fearon on April 07, 2017, 09:36:19 PM
Why would you do that.It would be like me describing myself as a non practicing atheist
Ugh. There's no such thing as a "non-practicing atheist." Atheism is a religion in the same way that "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. With atheism there's nothing to "practice."
Practising or non practising,78% of the population still actively designated as catholic,thus endorsing Catholicism as the official state religion.That is stunning given all the controversy.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on April 07, 2017, 11:34:55 PM
Tony, I was in a pub with Dessie Ellis and a few of his SF supporters just before a GE some time ago. Some of the younger heads were ecstatic at the reception they had been getting on the doorstep. Dessie was going to top the poll without a doubt. They were too young to realise that SF got a tremendous reception all over Finglas West but most of their supporters wouldn't get out of bed to go and cast a vote. All talk on the doorstep, no show at the polling booths.
One veteran canvasser asked for silence and then pronounced, "Look lads,if everyone who promised a vote to all who came looking for it, did vote then 275% of the f**king population will have voted!
That's some blueshirt thinking right there.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 06, 2017, 10:03:06 PM
There has been a corresponding reduction of "Catholics" in the North as young people re designate as non religious.Still it is good news that nevertheless 78% of the population of the 26 counties,in spite of relentless negative publicity and outrageous propaganda,still declare themselves as Catholic.
Why?
Quote from: vallankumous on April 08, 2017, 07:45:34 AM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on April 07, 2017, 11:34:55 PM
Tony, I was in a pub with Dessie Ellis and a few of his SF supporters just before a GE some time ago. Some of the younger heads were ecstatic at the reception they had been getting on the doorstep. Dessie was going to top the poll without a doubt. They were too young to realise that SF got a tremendous reception all over Finglas West but most of their supporters wouldn't get out of bed to go and cast a vote. All talk on the doorstep, no show at the polling booths.
One veteran canvasser asked for silence and then pronounced, "Look lads,if everyone who promised a vote to all who came looking for it, did vote then 275% of the f**king population will have voted!
That's some blueshirt thinking right there.
That doesn't mean he isnt telling the truth.
Check the electoral register against the percentages of voters from individual boxes will tell you who did or did not vote.
Quote from: Avondhu star on April 08, 2017, 08:39:18 AM
That doesn't mean he isnt telling the truth.
Check the electoral register against the percentages of voters from individual boxes will tell you who did or did not vote.
I'm aware of that. I'm pretty sure SF in Finglas West are aware of that too.
To suggest the people of Finglas West would not get out of bed to vote is demeaning to the good people in Finglas West who get out of bed to go to work or feed their children or the many other daily reasons someone would get out of bed. This is what I mean by blueshirt thinking. The reason there is a low turnout is nothing to do with the implied laziness. It's the education, disengagement, constant disappointment and the utter failure of politics (or success if you're so inclined) to attract many in Finglas West to the voting booth.
I do not think he is not telling what he believes to be the truth. I've no doubt he believes it. I'm am saying he is wrong.
Fair play to anyone that works and promotes voting in any low turnout area.
Quote from: vallankumous on April 08, 2017, 08:47:00 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on April 08, 2017, 08:39:18 AM
That doesn't mean he isnt telling the truth.
Check the electoral register against the percentages of voters from individual boxes will tell you who did or did not vote.
To suggest the people of Finglas West would not get out of bed to vote is demeaning to the good people in Finglas West who get out of bed to go to work or feed their children or the many other daily reasons someone would get out of bed. This is what I mean by blueshirt thinking. The reason there is a low turnout is nothing to do with the implied laziness. It's the education, disengagement, constant disappointment and the utter failure of politics (or success if you're so inclined) to attract many in Finglas West to the voting booth.
I do not think he is not telling what he believes to be the truth. I've no doubt he believes it. I'm am saying he is wrong.
Fair play to anyone that works and promotes voting in any low turnout area.
I think you're being annoyed on behalf of the wrong people. Lar wasn't talking about the people of Finglas West. He was talki
ng about the people of Finglas West who promised to vote for Sinn Féin.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 08, 2017, 06:49:59 AM
Practising or non practising,78% of the population still actively designated as catholic,thus endorsing Catholicism as the official state religion.That is stunning given all the controversy.
This is the sort of stuff you hear from KAT loyalists. I'd say you're being brainwashed by your compadres on the imaginary march to an independent NI. If I thought there was a brain to wash.
Unlike the UK, or your Northern Ireland nirvana, there is no state religion here.
Quote from: Hardy on April 08, 2017, 10:32:38 AM
Quote from: vallankumous on April 08, 2017, 08:47:00 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on April 08, 2017, 08:39:18 AM
That doesn't mean he isnt telling the truth.
Check the electoral register against the percentages of voters from individual boxes will tell you who did or did not vote.
To suggest the people of Finglas West would not get out of bed to vote is demeaning to the good people in Finglas West who get out of bed to go to work or feed their children or the many other daily reasons someone would get out of bed. This is what I mean by blueshirt thinking. The reason there is a low turnout is nothing to do with the implied laziness. It's the education, disengagement, constant disappointment and the utter failure of politics (or success if you're so inclined) to attract many in Finglas West to the voting booth.
I do not think he is not telling what he believes to be the truth. I've no doubt he believes it. I'm am saying he is wrong.
Fair play to anyone that works and promotes voting in any low turnout area.
I think you're being annoyed on behalf of the wrong people. Lar wasn't talking about the people of Finglas West. He was talking about the people of Finglas West who promised to vote for Sinn Féin.
You are dead right, I'd have thought that that was so obvious that I needn't stress it.
Of course I wasn't referring to the people of Finglas West as a body. "They were too young to realise that SF got a tremendous reception all over Finglas West but most of
their supporters wouldn't get out of bed to go and cast a vote," is what I said and iis what I meant to say. I worked iin Finglas for over three decades and I think I don't need a lecture from anyone on the moral attributes of the people who live there. During most of that tie, the Shinners worked really hard try to promote their cause. At election times, the party always had more door to door canvassers, poster hangers and God knows what else than the combined total of all the opposition but everyone knew that those who promised to vote SF were the ones least likely to turn out to vote.
Like Avondhu said, a check of the electoral register is all it takes to find out if I am right or wrong - no rocket science involved.
The problem for SF is even more pronounced in Finglas South as the social problems are more acute.
You can't blame education for the fact that bin collectors won't enter certain streets after 11 am as they would be attacked by some of the local heads who would be waking up around that time. Tat's from a bin man who worked there. For many years, FF was able to get two seats in that constituency by superb vote management where SF, despite the promises of support, fell short every time until FF imploded.
That's also on the record.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on April 08, 2017, 11:20:06 AM
You are dead right, I'd have thought that that was so obvious that I needn't stress it.
Of course I wasn't referring to the people of Finglas West as a body. "They were too young to realise that SF got a tremendous reception all over Finglas West but most of their supporters wouldn't get out of bed to go and cast a vote," is what I said and iis what I meant to say. I worked iin Finglas for over three decades and I think I don't need a lecture from anyone on the moral attributes of the people who live there. During most of that tie, the Shinners worked really hard try to promote their cause. At election times, the party always had more door to door canvassers, poster hangers and God knows what else than the combined total of all the opposition but everyone knew that those who promised to vote SF were the ones least likely to turn out to vote.
Like Avondhu said, a check of the electoral register is all it takes to find out if I am right or wrong - no rocket science involved.
The problem for SF is even more pronounced in Finglas South as the social problems are more acute.
You can't blame education for the fact that bin collectors won't enter certain streets after 11 am as they would be attacked by some of the local heads who would be waking up around that time. Tat's from a bin man who worked there. For many years, FF was able to get two seats in that constituency by superb vote management where SF, despite the promises of support, fell short every time until FF imploded.
That's also on the record.
It was not obvious but I accept I should have taken it for granted you were isolating certain people.
I do take issue with the reason for not voting being laziness. It's too big an issue and too common a phenomenon to be that simple.
If you ask all the non voters outside of an election environment the majority by far will say 'It'll make no difference'. However, if you canvass and ask the same people at the door they will tell you they will vote for you. THis is a tactic to avoid confrontation, or to avoid a discussion of no interest in the topic.
In a working class area I live in in north Dublin FF usually get the biggest return for the least effort. This is about politics, campaign style, experience and familiarity. Not about the amount of people on the ground.
Brian Lenihan told me I was wasting my time canvassing a particular area. His approach was to go into the local every 6 months and buy a few pints. He was a massive figure in politics at the time. This approach worked. That is down to voter education only. In other areas there would be political condition to winning a vote.
WTF is with that binman story?
Post 11am leaves plenty of time to vote.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 07, 2017, 06:26:15 PM
If a political party canvas showed 78% of the population intended to vote for them the party top brass would be ecstatic.
It is a fantastic and pleasantly surprising result in the face of scandal and propaganda
There wouldn't be much ecstasy if the 78% was a point on a downward trend from a former plateau of 94% or whatever it used to be.
Its death by a thousand cuts. Won't happen overnight, but the trend is self-evident.
Is Ireland not recognised as a Christian Country? If so the denominaton of 78% of its population is therefore the state religion.This should be accorded official consitutional recognition once again as was previously the case.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 08, 2017, 12:30:36 PM
Is Ireland not recognised as a Christian Country? If so the denominaton of 78% of its population is therefore the state religion.This should be accorded official consitutional recognition once again as was previously the case.
So beneath all your boasting you're that worried that you feel it needs constitutional protection before the decline gets out of hand? ;D
No at all.Its been going for over 2000 years,decline is temporary.The constitution should reflect the overwhelming will of the people,that's all
Quote from: vallankumous on April 08, 2017, 11:44:38 AM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on April 08, 2017, 11:20:06 AM
You are dead right, I'd have thought that that was so obvious that I needn't stress it.
Of course I wasn't referring to the people of Finglas West as a body. "They were too young to realise that SF got a tremendous reception all over Finglas West but most of their supporters wouldn't get out of bed to go and cast a vote," is what I said and iis what I meant to say. I worked iin Finglas for over three decades and I think I don't need a lecture from anyone on the moral attributes of the people who live there. During most of that tie, the Shinners worked really hard try to promote their cause. At election times, the party always had more door to door canvassers, poster hangers and God knows what else than the combined total of all the opposition but everyone knew that those who promised to vote SF were the ones least likely to turn out to vote.
Like Avondhu said, a check of the electoral register is all it takes to find out if I am right or wrong - no rocket science involved.
The problem for SF is even more pronounced in Finglas South as the social problems are more acute.
You can't blame education for the fact that bin collectors won't enter certain streets after 11 am as they would be attacked by some of the local heads who would be waking up around that time. Tat's from a bin man who worked there. For many years, FF was able to get two seats in that constituency by superb vote management where SF, despite the promises of support, fell short every time until FF imploded.
That's also on the record.
It was not obvious but I accept I should have taken it for granted you were isolating certain people.
I do take issue with the reason for not voting being laziness. It's too big an issue and too common a phenomenon to be that simple.
If you ask all the non voters outside of an election environment the majority by far will say 'It'll make no difference'. However, if you canvass and ask the same people at the door they will tell you they will vote for you. THis is a tactic to avoid confrontation, or to avoid a discussion of no interest in the topic.
In a working class area I live in in north Dublin FF usually get the biggest return for the least effort. This is about politics, campaign style, experience and familiarity. Not about the amount of people on the ground.
Brian Lenihan told me I was wasting my time canvassing a particular area. His approach was to go into the local every 6 months and buy a few pints. He was a massive figure in politics at the time. This approach worked. That is down to voter education only. In other areas there would be political condition to winning a vote.
WTF is with that binman story?
Post 11am leaves plenty of time to vote.
I think that was the advice the Shinner veteran was giving his young (17+ or so ) fellow canvassers. People on the doorstep would promise to vote for anyone who knocked on their door. Some would promise their vote to four or five different candidates and the likelihood was that they wouldn't bother their posteriors to to get out and vote for anyone.
That's been the way for generations and not only in Finglas South or West but Pat Carey and Noel Ahern knew their supporters and knew who to target and each had his own part of the constituency to work on. You are right that the number of people on the ground mattered little if they went about looking for support in an indiscriminate fashion.
But I can't accept that voter apathy can be put down to a lack of voter education only. There are complex reasons for this and academic education wouldn't cure the problem. Just as the educational system can't be blamed for the low numbers from working class areas going on to third level education. If the prevailing mindset in an area is to have teenagers being put to work and bringing home a pay packet as early as possible, then all the efforts of schools to change that will count for little. Lots have no interest in current or political affairs because their parents hadn't either.
I would bet that in your own area, there is at least one teacher managing a Gaelic team in any primary school you know. Yet, soccer is the most popular sport in working class Dublin by a long distance. If the school's philosophy will have little effect unless it has the backing of the local community.
BTW, the 11 am deadline has nothing to do with elections. I am referring to what would happen every week!
One man, as inoffensive as you'd meet, used to drive a little council truck emptying rubbish containers on the streets and lampposts. He got out one day on one of the streets I'm talking about to cross the road to pick up a bag of rubbish thrown on the street. When he got out of his cab, a guy came out of a nearby house, hopped into his truck and drove straight at a bus stop pole. He wrecked both bus stop and truck and then went back into his gaff again. No word of any sort or threatening gesture or anything like that. Odds were that he was high on something or other but the fact remains that it wasn't a lack of education that caused him to do what he did.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 07, 2017, 10:33:54 PM
With 2,000,000,000 believers around the globe.
Why do the non believers always have to throw in the gratuitous insult.
Why not simply say I don't believe in God, Bible, Koran, Buddha whatever...
I would imagine it's because Tony insists on starting nonsensical threads, knowing damn well that many will fall for it and get annoyed so he can sit back and enjoy watching others losing their cool and falling for his ruse over and over again.
If you had no trolling and goading, you'd have no outbursts of anti-Catholic feeling.
Anybody who could look at a group of Jewish children in a concentration and say there weren't in such a camp because they were smiling. The picture was probably taken at a football match back in the '50s.
Not even in the arse end of civilisation or wherever Tony comes from, you wouldn't find children hemmed in by barbed wire fences in the 50s or any other time.
If you want gratuitous insults, look in the direction of Poyntz Pass first.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on April 08, 2017, 01:54:20 PM
I think that was the advice the Shinner veteran was giving his young (17+ or so ) fellow canvassers. People on the doorstep would promise to vote for anyone who knocked on their door. Some would promise their vote to four or five different candidates and the likelihood was that they wouldn't bother their posteriors to to get out and vote for anyone.
That's been the way for generations and not only in Finglas South or West but Pat Carey and Noel Ahern knew their supporters and knew who to target and each had his own part of the constituency to work on. You are right that the number of people on the ground mattered little if they went about looking for support in an indiscriminate fashion.
But I can't accept that voter apathy can be put down to a lack of voter education only. There are complex reasons for this and academic education wouldn't cure the problem. Just as the educational system can't be blamed for the low numbers from working class areas going on to third level education. If the prevailing mindset in an area is to have teenagers being put to work and bringing home a pay packet as early as possible, then all the efforts of schools to change that will count for little. Lots have no interest in current or political affairs because their parents hadn't either.
I would bet that in your own area, there is at least one teacher managing a Gaelic team in any primary school you know. Yet, soccer is the most popular sport in working class Dublin by a long distance. If the school's philosophy will have little effect unless it has the backing of the local community.
BTW, the 11 am deadline has nothing to do with elections. I am referring to what would happen every week!
One man, as inoffensive as you'd meet, used to drive a little council truck emptying rubbish containers on the streets and lampposts. He got out one day on one of the streets I'm talking about to cross the road to pick up a bag of rubbish thrown on the street. When he got out of his cab, a guy came out of a nearby house, hopped into his truck and drove straight at a bus stop pole. He wrecked both bus stop and truck and then went back into his gaff again. No word of any sort or threatening gesture or anything like that. Odds were that he was high on something or other but the fact remains that it wasn't a lack of education that caused him to do what he did.
I see no relevance in the bin man story to my argument. If i'm missing something I'm honestly innocent of it.
I suppose I don't define academic and voter education along the same lines. There are more academic young people than there are academic elderly yet the elderly have a greater voting turnout.
Voter education is something different. This is why the elderly are more voter aware, it's accumulated education. There's a wider community education that can change voter apathy. In the last local election Ladyswell in Mullhuddart rise in turnout from 29% to above 50%. This was a product of voter education. Now, it might return to 29% but it is a sign that education works. The same thing happened over a longer period in Corduff and for similar reasons. One being a local candidate, a voter campaign by the local CDC and the strong campaigns run by SF and the Socialist party. I'll bet now that FF see these figures these areas will be awarded canvass time. I welcome this.
Yes, I'd say there's a lot of inherited voter apathy as there is inherited voter preference.
In my area there is a teacher teaching GAA yet the children do play soccer. I don't agree that it's the reasons you say though. The teachers in my area do not live in the area. It's the local activists that provide the after school activity. These GAA teachers in my local school are members and volunteers of GAA clubs outside their school area, There are all sorts of sports associated with working class areas available but the GAA is weak. Again though, I define voter education as mostly community based rather than school based.
AS an after thought an non related but just as we are talking about social class and voting.
I have canvassed many people over the years. There is a huge self misrepresentation regarding class. There are many professionals struggling daily to meet their bills, with rent, mortgage, childcare, utilities etc who believe they are middle class. If you are finding your wage is paying for your life without an excess you are working class. Many of these people will hear politicians talk about the squeezed middle class. If you are feeling squeezed you are not middle class.
There is also a small under class that see them selves as working class. They are not.
After the crash I canvassed one man who really attacked me. He said there is no way he is voting left as they only want to tax the middle class. He claimed he was in negative equity and that his wife had lost her job in the crash and was struggling. When I told him he sounded perfectly working class he was insulted. I tried to explain it to him but he was too shocked to hear himself described as working class. I hope I planted a seed though.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 08, 2017, 01:28:34 PM
No at all.Its been going for over 2000 years,decline is temporary.The constitution should reflect the overwhelming will of the people,that's all
So the overwhelming will of the people is that the Catholic Church be given constitutional protection or recognition?
What has changed since a much more conservative and catholic and insular populace approved the Fifth Amendment in 1972?
The fifth amendment was wrong,as it contradicted the reality of the fact that the Catholic Church is the guardian of the faith of the vast majority of the Irish people.I actually admire the British and Unionists for prioritising and defending their religious beliefs
Not much religious beliefs in Britain.
I think Muslims and Catholics are now the biggest religions.
As for Unionists beliefs.... Poots, Orange Order... no further comment necessary.
Quote from: vallankumous on April 08, 2017, 02:26:24 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on April 08, 2017, 01:54:20 PM
I think that was the advice the Shinner veteran was giving his young (17+ or so ) fellow canvassers. People on the doorstep would promise to vote for anyone who knocked on their door. Some would promise their vote to four or five different candidates and the likelihood was that they wouldn't bother their posteriors to to get out and vote for anyone.
That's been the way for generations and not only in Finglas South or West but Pat Carey and Noel Ahern knew their supporters and knew who to target and each had his own part of the constituency to work on. You are right that the number of people on the ground mattered little if they went about looking for support in an indiscriminate fashion.
But I can't accept that voter apathy can be put down to a lack of voter education only. There are complex reasons for this and academic education wouldn't cure the problem. Just as the educational system can't be blamed for the low numbers from working class areas going on to third level education. If the prevailing mindset in an area is to have teenagers being put to work and bringing home a pay packet as early as possible, then all the efforts of schools to change that will count for little. Lots have no interest in current or political affairs because their parents hadn't either.
I would bet that in your own area, there is at least one teacher managing a Gaelic team in any primary school you know. Yet, soccer is the most popular sport in working class Dublin by a long distance. If the school's philosophy will have little effect unless it has the backing of the local community.
BTW, the 11 am deadline has nothing to do with elections. I am referring to what would happen every week!
One man, as inoffensive as you'd meet, used to drive a little council truck emptying rubbish containers on the streets and lampposts. He got out one day on one of the streets I'm talking about to cross the road to pick up a bag of rubbish thrown on the street. When he got out of his cab, a guy came out of a nearby house, hopped into his truck and drove straight at a bus stop pole. He wrecked both bus stop and truck and then went back into his gaff again. No word of any sort or threatening gesture or anything like that. Odds were that he was high on something or other but the fact remains that it wasn't a lack of education that caused him to do what he did.
I see no relevance in the bin man story to my argument. If i'm missing something I'm honestly innocent of it.
I suppose I don't define academic and voter education along the same lines. There are more academic young people than there are academic elderly yet the elderly have a greater voting turnout.
Voter education is something different. This is why the elderly are more voter aware, it's accumulated education. There's a wider community education that can change voter apathy. In the last local election Ladyswell in Mullhuddart rise in turnout from 29% to above 50%. This was a product of voter education. Now, it might return to 29% but it is a sign that education works. The same thing happened over a longer period in Corduff and for similar reasons. One being a local candidate, a voter campaign by the local CDC and the strong campaigns run by SF and the Socialist party. I'll bet now that FF see these figures these areas will be awarded canvass time. I welcome this.
Yes, I'd say there's a lot of inherited voter apathy as there is inherited voter preference.
In my area there is a teacher teaching GAA yet the children do play soccer. I don't agree that it's the reasons you say though. The teachers in my area do not live in the area. It's the local activists that provide the after school activity. These GAA teachers in my local school are members and volunteers of GAA clubs outside their school area, There are all sorts of sports associated with working class areas available but the GAA is weak. Again though, I define voter education as mostly community based rather than school based.
AS an after thought an non related but just as we are talking about social class and voting.
I have canvassed many people over the years. There is a huge self misrepresentation regarding class. There are many professionals struggling daily to meet their bills, with rent, mortgage, childcare, utilities etc who believe they are middle class. If you are finding your wage is paying for your life without an excess you are working class. Many of these people will hear politicians talk about the squeezed middle class. If you are feeling squeezed you are not middle class.
There is also a small under class that see them selves as working class. They are not.
After the crash I canvassed one man who really attacked me. He said there is no way he is voting left as they only want to tax the middle class. He claimed he was in negative equity and that his wife had lost her job in the crash and was struggling. When I told him he sounded perfectly working class he was insulted. I tried to explain it to him but he was too shocked to hear himself described as working class. I hope I planted a seed though.
I had thought that you were blaming a lack of academic education for many people in Finglas South not taking the time and trouble to cast their votes. From my experience, schools get blamed for lots of things but voter apathy can't be put down to a failure of the school system in any sense.
The younger canvasser were ecstatic at the reaction they were getting in parts of Finglas, especially in the south, whereas the older, more experienced guy knew the story only too well. There are pockets where many of those who live there are so antisocial that their behaviour is irrational and bin men are not the only ones to get a hostile reaction if they venture in after the more unsavoury elements have got out of bed. Postmen, pizza delivery boys and all sorts of people who have business to attend to in the area get the same reaction. According to the older man, those are the very ones who come to him demanding that he do something about a whole range of local issues for them and, without fail, promise to vote for his party at the next election.
There are social problems there that schools have no control over. In any region where the schools' philosophy is at odds with the feelings of the community, the schools will always lose out.
This is what I wrote about the status of GAA in local schools and I know I inserted an unnecessary and confusing "if" but other than that, I see no difference between us.
"I would bet that in your own area, there is at least one teacher managing a Gaelic team in any primary school you know. Yet, soccer is the most popular sport in working class Dublin by a long distance. If the school's philosophy will have little effect unless it has the backing of the local community."
I will take it that your are familiar with Cumann na mBunscol and the work teachers do in organising Gaelic competitions in almost all schools, boys and girls, in the country and not only in Dublin.As it is, all this voluntary work doesn't detract from the fact that soccer is, was and will continue to be, the most popular field sport in the capital.
LIke in your school, the teacher does live in the community and doesn't know its values. All kids that play soccer locally are probably playing with their friends and their manager will be a father or uncle of one or several of them. The clubhouse may be an old container stuck in the corner of a council field somewhere but the fact is they are all know each other. Children who play GAA won't have the same easy familiarity with all those who play with them.
My point there, arising from what I thought was your assertion that education can cure social ills, is that schools no matter how hard teachers try will never counter the views of the local attitudes if there is a difference between them.
Actually it all began at the point here Tony asserted that since 78% of those surveyed said they were Catholic then it naturally follows that since they said it, they must still have a lingering attachment to the Catholic faith and many will return to it someday. (Not exactly his words but that's his meaning and immediately I thought of the old SF campaigner and his opinion of what those who promise their votes intend to do on election day.)
Quote from: T Fearon on April 08, 2017, 12:30:36 PM
Is Ireland not recognised as a Christian Country? If so the denominaton of 78% of its population is therefore the state religion.This should be accorded official consitutional recognition once again as was previously the case.
Yeah let's give Catholicism a special position. It's not like they would abuse their position and create scandals. We'll ban womens rights, unmarried mothers will be rounded up and locked away and sell their kids, children are fair game for priests and then we can move them priests to another parish. Divorce and contraception out the window. LGBT rights no thank you. Catholicism where you literally eat the flesh of Jesus.
What's the most ridiculous story or contradiction from the Bible story book I wonder.
Quote from: vallankumous on April 08, 2017, 02:26:24 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on April 08, 2017, 01:54:20 PM
I think that was the advice the Shinner veteran was giving his young (17+ or so ) fellow canvassers. People on the doorstep would promise to vote for anyone who knocked on their door. Some would promise their vote to four or five different candidates and the likelihood was that they wouldn't bother their posteriors to to get out and vote for anyone.
That's been the way for generations and not only in Finglas South or West but Pat Carey and Noel Ahern knew their supporters and knew who to target and each had his own part of the constituency to work on. You are right that the number of people on the ground mattered little if they went about looking for support in an indiscriminate fashion.
But I can't accept that voter apathy can be put down to a lack of voter education only. There are complex reasons for this and academic education wouldn't cure the problem. Just as the educational system can't be blamed for the low numbers from working class areas going on to third level education. If the prevailing mindset in an area is to have teenagers being put to work and bringing home a pay packet as early as possible, then all the efforts of schools to change that will count for little. Lots have no interest in current or political affairs because their parents hadn't either.
I would bet that in your own area, there is at least one teacher managing a Gaelic team in any primary school you know. Yet, soccer is the most popular sport in working class Dublin by a long distance. If the school's philosophy will have little effect unless it has the backing of the local community.
BTW, the 11 am deadline has nothing to do with elections. I am referring to what would happen every week!
One man, as inoffensive as you'd meet, used to drive a little council truck emptying rubbish containers on the streets and lampposts. He got out one day on one of the streets I'm talking about to cross the road to pick up a bag of rubbish thrown on the street. When he got out of his cab, a guy came out of a nearby house, hopped into his truck and drove straight at a bus stop pole. He wrecked both bus stop and truck and then went back into his gaff again. No word of any sort or threatening gesture or anything like that. Odds were that he was high on something or other but the fact remains that it wasn't a lack of education that caused him to do what he did.
I see no relevance in the bin man story to my argument. If i'm missing something I'm honestly innocent of it.
I suppose I don't define academic and voter education along the same lines. There are more academic young people than there are academic elderly yet the elderly have a greater voting turnout.
Voter education is something different. This is why the elderly are more voter aware, it's accumulated education. There's a wider community education that can change voter apathy. In the last local election Ladyswell in Mullhuddart rise in turnout from 29% to above 50%. This was a product of voter education. Now, it might return to 29% but it is a sign that education works. The same thing happened over a longer period in Corduff and for similar reasons. One being a local candidate, a voter campaign by the local CDC and the strong campaigns run by SF and the Socialist party. I'll bet now that FF see these figures these areas will be awarded canvass time. I welcome this.
Yes, I'd say there's a lot of inherited voter apathy as there is inherited voter preference.
In my area there is a teacher teaching GAA yet the children do play soccer. I don't agree that it's the reasons you say though. The teachers in my area do not live in the area. It's the local activists that provide the after school activity. These GAA teachers in my local school are members and volunteers of GAA clubs outside their school area, There are all sorts of sports associated with working class areas available but the GAA is weak. Again though, I define voter education as mostly community based rather than school based.
AS an after thought an non related but just as we are talking about social class and voting.
I have canvassed many people over the years. There is a huge self misrepresentation regarding class. There are many professionals struggling daily to meet their bills, with rent, mortgage, childcare, utilities etc who believe they are middle class. If you are finding your wage is paying for your life without an excess you are working class. Many of these people will hear politicians talk about the squeezed middle class. If you are feeling squeezed you are not middle class.
There is also a small under class that see them selves as working class. They are not.
After the crash I canvassed one man who really attacked me. He said there is no way he is voting left as they only want to tax the middle class. He claimed he was in negative equity and that his wife had lost her job in the crash and was struggling. When I told him he sounded perfectly working class he was insulted. I tried to explain it to him but he was too shocked to hear himself described as working class. I hope I planted a seed though.
I guess there is no point in doing this topic to death. Tony has shut up at last and I don't wanna start him off again. However, I just noticed an omission by me that I'd like to rectify.
I was having three pretty interesting arguments at the same time, all with good debaters so I skipped a sentence in an earlier reply to you. I know my reference to the antisocial brigade in Finglas South makes little sense as I didn't put it in context. When I said it was laziness that stopped many SF supporters going out to vote, you disagreed and said it was a lack of voter education. (Or something like that.)
When I read that, I had a mental picture of some poor do-gooder arriving in one of the areas and the reception he'd get if began knocking on doors to spread his message.
I doubt he'd get further than the first doorstep!
Quote from: mrdeeds on April 09, 2017, 10:13:52 AM
What's the most ridiculous story or contradiction from the Bible story book I wonder.
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. "Get out of here, baldy!" they said. "Get out of here, baldy!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.
Catholic Ireland about to relax the Easter drinking laws, pubs and clubs will now be allowed to open on Good Friday, I'm surprised that the 78% haven't kicked up a fuss!
Quote from: johnneycool on April 11, 2017, 08:14:21 AM
Catholic Ireland about to relax the Easter drinking laws, pubs and clubs will now be allowed to open on Good Friday, I'm surprised that the 78% haven't kicked up a fuss!
Prod north hasnt
I'd say your man Luther wouldn't leave the church now to be honest.
Quote from: johnneycool on April 11, 2017, 08:14:21 AM
Catholic Ireland about to relax the Easter drinking laws, pubs and clubs will now be allowed to open on Good Friday, I'm surprised that the 78% haven't kicked up a fuss!
I'm surprised there aren't more atheists working on Sundays.
Quote from: johnneycool on April 11, 2017, 08:14:21 AM
Catholic Ireland about to relax the Easter drinking laws, pubs and clubs will now be allowed to open on Good Friday, I'm surprised that the 78% haven't kicked up a fuss!
What is kick out time though??
A lot of pubs could make some money over the easter period and are denied.
Surprise surprise.Free state govt out of touch with its people....again.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 11, 2017, 10:55:08 PM
Surprise surprise.Free state govt out of touch with its people....again.
Not surprising seeing as the last Free State Govt went out of existence 80 years ago.
Quote from: vallankumous on April 11, 2017, 10:56:33 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on April 11, 2017, 08:14:21 AM
Catholic Ireland about to relax the Easter drinking laws, pubs and clubs will now be allowed to open on Good Friday, I'm surprised that the 78% haven't kicked up a fuss!
I'm surprised there aren't more atheists working on Sundays.
The Nordie legislation to change the opening hours was held up due to the impasse at Stormont.
Sure if you know where to go you'll get a wee lock in somewhere.
Quote from: vallankumous on April 11, 2017, 10:56:33 AM
I'm surprised there aren't more atheists working on Sundays.
How many are working on Sundays now?
Quote from: vallankumous on April 11, 2017, 10:56:33 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on April 11, 2017, 08:14:21 AM
Catholic Ireland about to relax the Easter drinking laws, pubs and clubs will now be allowed to open on Good Friday, I'm surprised that the 78% haven't kicked up a fuss!
I'm surprised there aren't more atheists working on Sundays.
Enjoying weekends off work is contingent on religious worldview?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/09/god-save-ireland-from-the-catholic-church.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/09/god-save-ireland-from-the-catholic-church.html)
Interesting article on the corrosive effect of the church on Irish society.
Even a wee paragraph just for Tony: :D
Today, Ireland is by and large a secular country, but official figures can be misleading. According to the 2011 census, 84 percent of the Irish population declared themselves to be "Roman Catholic." But the census form makes no distinction between religious belief or practice and a sense of cultural belonging. Catholicism has been extremely powerful in shaping the identity of Irish citizens for hundreds of years, particularly as it stands in binary opposition to the state's old enemy: Protestant England. But cultural Catholics and practicing ones are two very different beasts.
Census figures from 2016, released just this past week show that 3.7 million people identified as Catholic (78%), 132,220 fewer than in 2011.
Furthermore, one in 10 Irish people from these latest findings now say they have no religion (468,421 people), a staggering 73.6% increase since 2011. This makes "no religion" the second largest group in this category behind Roman Catholics.
Another survey from 2011 revealed mass attendances in the nation's capital had fallen to as low as 14 percent a figure the Archbishop of Dublin, and Primate of Ireland, Diarmuid Martin, described at the time as the "biggest crisis since [Catholic] emancipation in 1829."
Quote from: J70 on April 13, 2017, 01:54:47 AM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/09/god-save-ireland-from-the-catholic-church.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/09/god-save-ireland-from-the-catholic-church.html)
Interesting article on the corrosive effect of the church on Irish society.
Even a wee paragraph just for Tony: :D
Today, Ireland is by and large a secular country, but official figures can be misleading. According to the 2011 census, 84 percent of the Irish population declared themselves to be "Roman Catholic." But the census form makes no distinction between religious belief or practice and a sense of cultural belonging. Catholicism has been extremely powerful in shaping the identity of Irish citizens for hundreds of years, particularly as it stands in binary opposition to the state's old enemy: Protestant England. But cultural Catholics and practicing ones are two very different beasts.
Census figures from 2016, released just this past week show that 3.7 million people identified as Catholic (78%), 132,220 fewer than in 2011.
Furthermore, one in 10 Irish people from these latest findings now say they have no religion (468,421 people), a staggering 73.6% increase since 2011. This makes "no religion" the second largest group in this category behind Roman Catholics.
Another survey from 2011 revealed mass attendances in the nation's capital had fallen to as low as 14 percent a figure the Archbishop of Dublin, and Primate of Ireland, Diarmuid Martin, described at the time as the "biggest crisis since [Catholic] emancipation in 1829."
You reap what you sow, the Catholic Church has protected paedophiles for centuries, f**k the Catholic Church, the sooner it sells its assets and feeds the poor people for the next thousand years the better!
Quote from: stew on April 13, 2017, 08:26:40 AM
You reap what you sow, the Catholic Church has protected paedophiles for centuries, f**k the Catholic Church, the sooner it sells its assets and feeds the poor people for the next thousand years the better!
Sells? Should be seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau!
Wishful thinking.All denominations have been afflicted by paedophilia.It was mismanaged in the past,but robust modern child protection policies will guard against this in the future.
78% of the people described themselves as Catholic of their own free will.This demonstrates at least some form of attachment,and provides a solid basis for revival and renewal.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2017, 07:03:40 AM
Wishful thinking.All denominations have been afflicted by paedophilia.It was mismanaged in the past,but robust modern child protection policies will guard against this in the future.
Marie Collins isn't so sure Tony;
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/marie-collins-resigns-from-vatican-child-protection-body-1.2993428 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/marie-collins-resigns-from-vatican-child-protection-body-1.2993428)
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2017, 07:03:40 AM
78% of the people described themselves as Catholic of their own free will.This demonstrates at least some form of attachment,and provides a solid basis for revival and renewal.
I don't believe there is any hope for a revival and renewal of the Catholic church as it is currently constituted in Ireland. For the last century it has leaned on the work of the schools to ensure that children are prepared for its sacraments and then largely stood back in the belief that its authority in the country would be enough to enforce its fear driven catechism. The authority has been totally undermined by the actions of the Church in dealing with those that broke the trust with the people. While it still maintains a degree of control over its schools in both the North and South and the teachers continue to do their best in sacramental preparation and passing on the faith, parents of school going children for most part have a disconnect with the formal Church. They will continue to have their children baptised and go along to first confession, first communion and confirmation as a catholic societal norm and not wanting their children to be highlighted if they (the parents) did not conform. However, the basis to ensure the children build their faith on the sacraments is now almost completely eroded by parents not following up with attendance at Sunday Mass and confession. Primary school teachers know that the vast majority children preparing sacraments are not attending Mass during sacramental preparation never mind into the future, hence, ,many parishes run 'in memory of me' Masses once per month to encourage children and families preparing for first communion to attend. Teachers will tell you that many of the children in secondary schools only get to Mass when it is organised by the schools.
In this dire situation for the Church, what is being done? Virtually nothing. The disconnect between the Church and young parents and families continues to grow and there is no action at this time to remedy this situation. Schools rarely have local priests visiting their pupils and if it was not for the work of teachers the faith would already have diminished below levels that would give hope of revival to even Tony Fearon.
So, why do so 'many' register as Catholic in the RoI? For many it would be similar to them answering a question on whether they belong to or are have a connection to a sporting club or organisation, it is something that many have a connection to and perhaps even a vague loyalty to. No doubt even more would have said they were Christian rather than Catholic. People prefer to have an identity and such questions allow them to nail their colours to a mast.
A more informative answer might have come from a census question along the lines, "which of the following best defines your cultural identity: the Catholic church, the GAA, Keeping up With the Kardashians, Strictly Come Dancing, Nathan Carter, Manchester United?"
As usual, I'm struggling to 'belong' to any of those categories, Hardy. Is there nowhere for cynics?
Quote from: Hardy on April 14, 2017, 12:09:05 PM
A more informative answer might have come from a census question along the lines, "which of the following best defines your cultural identity: the Catholic church, the GAA, Keeping up With the Kardashians, Strictly Come Dancing, Nathan Carter, Manchester United?"
+1
That's one of my points.
Quote from: Billys Boots on April 14, 2017, 12:13:28 PM
As usual, I'm struggling to 'belong' to any of those categories, Hardy. Is there nowhere for cynics?
Sorry, Billy. Revised:
The Catholic church, the GAA, Keeping up With the Kardashians, Strictly Come Dancing, Nathan Carter, Manchester United, mutterers in the garden.
Religious affiliation is not an "identity" or a "culture" it is a universal faith that bestrides many diverse "cultural identities". Bemused once again by those who think the Church should change to become more popular as if it was a commercial outfit.The core beliefs are sacrosanct and cannot be changed as they are scripturally based.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2017, 04:48:14 PM
Religious affiliation is not an "identity" or a "culture" it is a universal faith that bestrides many diverse "cultural identities". Bemused once again by those who think the Church should change to become more popular as if it was a commercial outfit.The core beliefs are sacrosanct and cannot be changed as they are scripturally based.
So in your view it should just keep on doing whats it has been doing ... raping children & covering it up etc...
Are you such a fool that you dont know thats why millions (of people who believe in God) have left it .. You're more than "bemused" Im afraid..
Yes the church rapes children every day😫 It is this type of drivel,totally absurd and anti Catholicism that gives this board a bad name.The Church didn't rape children,paedophiles masquerading as priests raped children.In the past this was badly handled,today there are robust procedures in place to identify and weed out paedophiles swiftly.
I think that's a very fair summary. The Church across the globe has traditionally neglected young adults (18-35) and above. In my last parish there was a big effort to re-catechize parents. If you want your kids to have any kind of faith in God it can't be left to teachers or the clergy - it has to start at home and be reinforced in Church and and at school (if they go to a religious affiliated school).
Most adults have left the Church because of the scandals and how they were handled. I get it. But I'll add that a lot didn't. I'd question why they didn't leave and why their faith means enough to them to stay despite the feelings of the overwhelming majority. I think it's because there wasn't a solid faith there in the first place. A lot of people were just looking for an excuse to get out and they got it. I'm not saying there isn't real empathy for the victims of the abuse or real anger at the Church for how it was handled and continues to be handled - but I do think a lot of people wanted out and were given a great opportunity and reason to leave.
Young people are different though. There are young people craving religion. There are kids in youth groups, church groups, mission trips, service work, all across the country under one faith banner or another - crying out for religion and God. I have hope that Pope Francis' visit to Ireland will make a difference. That it will spark a revival or renewal of sorts. It won't be widespread but every fire starts with a small flame.
There is a cultural identity to being catholic. I think it was summed up perfectly earlier in the conversation. I don't go to Mass anymore but I hate rangers...
But that's with our generation... there are new Catholics, real Catholics growing up in the faith and living it in the world and they are the future of the Church and will have a place in this country.
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 14, 2017, 11:08:15 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2017, 07:03:40 AM
78% of the people described themselves as Catholic of their own free will.This demonstrates at least some form of attachment,and provides a solid basis for revival and renewal.
I don't believe there is any hope for a revival and renewal of the Catholic church as it is currently constituted in Ireland. For the last century it has leaned on the work of the schools to ensure that children are prepared for its sacraments and then largely stood back in the belief that its authority in the country would be enough to enforce its fear driven catechism. The authority has been totally undermined by the actions of the Church in dealing with those that broke the trust with the people. While it still maintains a degree of control over its schools in both the North and South and the teachers continue to do their best in sacramental preparation and passing on the faith, parents of school going children for most part have a disconnect with the formal Church. They will continue to have their children baptised and go along to first confession, first communion and confirmation as a catholic societal norm and not wanting their children to be highlighted if they (the parents) did not conform. However, the basis to ensure the children build their faith on the sacraments is now almost completely eroded by parents not following up with attendance at Sunday Mass and confession. Primary school teachers know that the vast majority children preparing sacraments are not attending Mass during sacramental preparation never mind into the future, hence, ,many parishes run 'in memory of me' Masses once per month to encourage children and families preparing for first communion to attend. Teachers will tell you that many of the children in secondary schools only get to Mass when it is organised by the schools.
In this dire situation for the Church, what is being done? Virtually nothing. The disconnect between the Church and young parents and families continues to grow and there is no action at this time to remedy this situation. Schools rarely have local priests visiting their pupils and if it was not for the work of teachers the faith would already have diminished below levels that would give hope of revival to even Tony Fearon.
So, why do so 'many' register as Catholic in the RoI? For many it would be similar to them answering a question on whether they belong to or are have a connection to a sporting club or organisation, it is something that many have a connection to and perhaps even a vague loyalty to. No doubt even more would have said they were Christian rather than Catholic. People prefer to have an identity and such questions allow them to nail their colours to a mast.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2017, 04:48:14 PM
Religious affiliation is not an "identity"
Okay, the game is up, Tony. We know you're just trolling at this point because nobody could be that stupid. Well played, mate. Well played.
Do you think a Catholic in France shares any identity with one from Ireland?
Quote from: Billys Boots on April 14, 2017, 12:13:28 PM
As usual, I'm struggling to 'belong' to any of those categories, Hardy. Is there nowhere for cynics?
Of course there is. They can live with all the other losers and whingers in Misery Land
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2017, 06:03:24 PM
Do you think a Catholic in France shares any identity with one from Ireland?
I think the answer is in your question:
Definition of Catholic (theological): claiming to possess exclusively the notes or characteristics of the one, only, true, and universal church having unity, visibility, indefectibility, apostolic succession, universality, and sanctity: used in this sense, with these qualifications, only by the Church of Rome, as applicable only to itself and its adherents and to their faith and organisation.
So, members of the Catholic church completely share their identities as members of the church.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2017, 06:03:24 PM
Do you think a Catholic in France shares any identity with one from Ireland?
There are cultural.similarities . I wouldn't say identity.
Exactly.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2017, 06:03:24 PM
Do you think a Catholic in France shares any identity with one from Ireland?
Yes.
Next question.
What identity apart from a common faith?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2017, 10:02:52 PM
What identity apart from a common faith?
You both believe in ghost stories.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2017, 10:02:52 PM
What identity apart from a common faith?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axEGY1zWe8g
Quote from: mrdeeds on April 14, 2017, 10:43:21 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2017, 10:02:52 PM
What identity apart from a common faith?
You both believe in ghost stories.
Once more the gratuitous insult from the secularist/atheist.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 15, 2017, 12:42:07 AM
Quote from: mrdeeds on April 14, 2017, 10:43:21 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2017, 10:02:52 PM
What identity apart from a common faith?
You both believe in ghost stories.
Once more the gratuitous insult from the secularist/atheist.
While Christians continue to judge people who don't fit neatly into their narrow ideal about they should live their lives, they are fair game.
What a narrow minded chap you are Michaelg?
That oul love your neighbour thing doesn't cut much ice with you it seems.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 15, 2017, 11:13:53 AM
What a narrow minded chap you are Michaelg?
That oul love your neighbour thing doesn't cut much ice with you it seems.
Ironic that you call me narrow minded. I am all for "love your neighbour" but not because some book tells me to. Also, why should you "love your neighbour" if they themselves hold such narrow minded views? Lest we forget, some "christian" posters on here have said that they would disown family members if they came out as gay. That to me is about as "unchristian" as you can get.
You are being hypocritical in your contempt for those with faith.I do not judge nor condemn anyone,believer or non believer,I respect the right of every individual to decide.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 15, 2017, 12:42:07 AM
Quote from: mrdeeds on April 14, 2017, 10:43:21 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 14, 2017, 10:02:52 PM
What identity apart from a common faith?
You both believe in ghost stories.
Once more the gratuitous insult from the secularist/atheist.
Better that than a mother having her kids took of her in the name of Catholicism.
Be much better for you not to insult people's beliefs.
Just because some other organisation did evil misdeeds is no reason for gratuitous insults to people's beliefs.
I've never understood this consensus that beliefs are worthy of respect. They're not. People are worthy of respect. If we must respect beliefs, does that mean all beliefs? Racism? Voodoo? Nazism?
"But these are not religions," people will say. "Religious beliefs must be respected." Why, more than other types of belief? Some religious beliefs are stupid beyond ...ehhhh .... belief. Some are downright evil. Cows are sacred. Silly. Adulterers must be beheaded. Evil. A supernatural being worries endlessly about whether I love him; he even demands that I adore him. Farcical. Logically, if you cannot respect some beliefs, respect for beliefs is not a sustainable philosophy.
I think it's a confusion between respect for people, regardless of their beliefs and respect for beliefs.
All beliefs are worthy of respect,even those deemed by all worldly standards,illogical or daft even,unless and until they are absolutely disproven factually.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 15, 2017, 02:07:25 PM
All beliefs are worthy of respect,even those deemed by all worldly standards,illogical or daft even,unless and until they are absolutely disproven factually.
FGM ?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 15, 2017, 02:07:25 PM
All beliefs are worthy of respect,even those deemed by all worldly standards,illogical or daft even,unless and until they are absolutely disproven factually.
Should they not be 'proven' first?
Beliefs proven are no longer beliefs,they are facts
Humans are very vulnerable to groupthink. Faith is an integral part of groupthink. Whether it is the forgiveness of sin, 72 virgins in heaven or shares will grow at 10% a year as long as everyone else believes it is very hard to opt out.
"During the war we were taught that Japan, the land of the Gods, was a righteous, divine country and that America was an evil, barbaric country. We didn't actually believe this, but merely followed along, thinking that, since there was no such thing as a just war , such poisonous, simple minded rhetoric was a way to whip up a state of furious belligerence in the people. Again, we had doubts as to whether or not Japan would be capable of guiding the Greater Asia c0-prosperity sphere.. We did not think we would be defeated. It was not that we were so convinced of victory we never thought of defeat. It was simply unbearable to contemplate it, and because we could not imagine what our fate would be afterward we shielded our eyes from the possibility and went on believing in certain victory.
....
People of the future will find it strange that during the war we so easily accepted an education smacking of distorted self esteem and hostility that advocated such preposterous ambitions, but for us the reasons seemed compelling"
Diary of writer Yamada Futaro, October 1945, quoted in "So Lovely a country will never perish" p 152-153
In the past and particularly through the early 20th century, the Church was able to exert a power and control over the people. This was based on developing a fear of the consequences of not following the control of the Church leaders from priest to Archbishop and then a peer pressure on those who were not conforming. It was also essential to have an 'enemy' who threatened the Church, i.e. Protestants or the heathen English. On the back of this the Church developed it catechism which focused on fear and listed all of the things that people should not do. This ran contrary to the teaching of Jesus who followed up the 10 commandments of the Old Testament based on fear with his two commandments of the New Testament which were based on love and respect.
The development of a detailed catechism covering every aspect of human life and actions was in response to social conditions where control of the masses was the norm in most countries with a fear for what would happen if people did not have tightly prescribed rules for behaviour and living. Therefore, despite what Tony says, the teaching of the Church changed with the times, reflecting its need for control of the people and where possible their elected governments.
The Church's catechism rejects the teaching of Jesus and his two commandments of love with a teaching of fear for actions and their supposed consequences for the individual.
We now live in more liberal times where control of the masses is more difficult particularly in western democracies. The Church has not moderated its stance from the first half of the 20th century and finds itself out of step with the people and this is exacerbated by the actions and hypocrisy of those within the clerical ranks of the Church in Ireland in relation to abuse of children and abuse of trust and position.
Just a few thoughts on return from Easter Sunday Mass, a day which used to attract as many to Mass as Christmas day and packed the seats and aisles but today at 12-30 pm couldn't fill the church with more than 60% capacity. Even those who are nominal Catholics as indicated by the census returns in RoI are now not turning up for Easter Sunday celebrations in anything like the numbers of 5 or 10 years ago.
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 16, 2017, 02:27:17 PM
In the past and particularly through the early 20th century, the Church was able to exert a power and control over the people. This was based on developing a fear of the consequences of not following the control of the Church leaders from priest to Archbishop and then a peer pressure on those who were not conforming. It was also essential to have an 'enemy' who threatened the Church, i.e. Protestants or the heathen English. On the back of this the Church developed it catechism which focused on fear and listed all of the things that people should not do. This ran contrary to the teaching of Jesus who followed up the 10 commandments of the Old Testament based on fear with his two commandments of the New Testament which were based on love and respect.
The development of a detailed catechism covering every aspect of human life and actions was in response to social conditions where control of the masses was the norm in most countries with a fear for what would happen if people did not have tightly prescribed rules for behaviour and living. Therefore, despite what Tony says, the teaching of the Church changed with the times, reflecting its need for control of the people and where possible their elected governments.
The Church's catechism rejects the teaching of Jesus and his two commandments of love with a teaching of fear for actions and their supposed consequences for the individual.
We now live in more liberal times where control of the masses is more difficult particularly in western democracies. The Church has not moderated its stance from the first half of the 20th century and finds itself out of step with the people and this is exacerbated by the actions and hypocrisy of those within the clerical ranks of the Church in Ireland in relation to abuse of children and abuse of trust and position.
Just a few thoughts on return from Easter Sunday Mass, a day which used to attract as many to Mass as Christmas day and packed the seats and aisles but today at 12-30 pm couldn't fill the church with more than 60% capacity. Even those who are nominal Catholics as indicated by the census returns in RoI are now not turning up for Easter Sunday celebrations in anything like the numbers of 5 or 10 years ago.
Owen, you write as if the Catechism was formed in Ireland and the church is just the Catholic Church in Ireland. The Catechism has nothing to do with Protestants in the North or the heathen English or Ireland. It doesn't go against Jesus' teachings.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 15, 2017, 02:07:25 PM
All beliefs are worthy of respect,even those deemed by all worldly standards,illogical or daft even,unless and until they are absolutely disproven factually.
Seriously? ;D
Do you respect the beliefs of the KKK? Do you have empirical proof that racial superiority is an invalid ethos? I mean, it was seen as the norm for much of modern history.
How about the beliefs of murderous Islamic extremists whose basis comes from their interpretation of the Quran? How do we know that they are NOT wrong in brutally killing all around them in the name of Mohammed?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 16, 2017, 12:35:04 PM
Beliefs proven are no longer beliefs,they are facts
Everything is a belief, nothing is proven, therefore nothing is a fact
;)
Obviously beliefs which propose inflicting violence and worse on other humans need to be challenged,but the normal religious beliefs must be respected
Quote from: T Fearon on April 16, 2017, 12:35:04 PM
Beliefs proven are no longer beliefs,they are facts
Great. I used to believe you were a dick, but you've proven it by your actions. So it's now a fact that you're a dick.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 17, 2017, 01:24:28 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 16, 2017, 02:27:17 PM
In the past and particularly through the early 20th century, the Church was able to exert a power and control over the people. This was based on developing a fear of the consequences of not following the control of the Church leaders from priest to Archbishop and then a peer pressure on those who were not conforming. It was also essential to have an 'enemy' who threatened the Church, i.e. Protestants or the heathen English. On the back of this the Church developed it catechism which focused on fear and listed all of the things that people should not do. This ran contrary to the teaching of Jesus who followed up the 10 commandments of the Old Testament based on fear with his two commandments of the New Testament which were based on love and respect.
The development of a detailed catechism covering every aspect of human life and actions was in response to social conditions where control of the masses was the norm in most countries with a fear for what would happen if people did not have tightly prescribed rules for behaviour and living. Therefore, despite what Tony says, the teaching of the Church changed with the times, reflecting its need for control of the people and where possible their elected governments.
The Church's catechism rejects the teaching of Jesus and his two commandments of love with a teaching of fear for actions and their supposed consequences for the individual.
We now live in more liberal times where control of the masses is more difficult particularly in western democracies. The Church has not moderated its stance from the first half of the 20th century and finds itself out of step with the people and this is exacerbated by the actions and hypocrisy of those within the clerical ranks of the Church in Ireland in relation to abuse of children and abuse of trust and position.
Just a few thoughts on return from Easter Sunday Mass, a day which used to attract as many to Mass as Christmas day and packed the seats and aisles but today at 12-30 pm couldn't fill the church with more than 60% capacity. Even those who are nominal Catholics as indicated by the census returns in RoI are now not turning up for Easter Sunday celebrations in anything like the numbers of 5 or 10 years ago.
Owen, you write as if the Catechism was formed in Ireland and the church is just the Catholic Church in Ireland. The Catechism has nothing to do with Protestants in the North or the heathen English or Ireland. It doesn't go against Jesus' teachings.
I know that the catechism is catholic (small c) and applies to the whole Roman Catholic Church (RCC). My point is that the RCC has developed the catechism in such detail that it virtually covers every single aspect of human life and actions. It sets out each action and behaviour, the Church's teaching on it and the consequences of not following the Church's teaching. This gives the RCC its authority over all and hence control. Given its reliance on consequences, its detailing of all behaviour and control, I believe that the RCC has for its own reasons moved away from the teaching in the Gospels where the ten commandments were reduced to two commandments based on love rather than consequences:
Matthew 22:37-40
37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
It is worth a look at the link below to see the extent of the catechism:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM)
By concentrating on the detail of the catechism rather than on the commandments of love as above, I believe that the RCC has lost its congregation. This had already happened across western Europe and in the last 10/15 years it has happened in Catholic Ireland.
You've already summarized what happened in Ireland. You're pointing to something now entirely different. So which is it?
The RCC and the Catechism sit fine with me in their content and teaching. I still struggle with their actions of late but the content, the message remains true.
What part of the Catechism doesn't work for you? It's a bit sweeping to say it doesn't line up with Jesus' teaching.... if there was no need for context then we could have saved a lot of trees and just printed those two commandments and added a footnote
*please interpret above as you will.....
Catholicism usurped the Early Christianity in Ireland, through imposition of doctrine and Canon law, which had earlier usurped the Celtic polytheism through clever adoption of patronage, important religious dates and feast days
I'm sure Aethisim or Humanism will sowly take over from the other isms that have dominated culture over the past few thousand years on the island
You do also realise that most of the stuff in the new testament was written down maybe 200/300 years (at least) after the event?
I can't even write an account of what i did last weekend
Quote from: T Fearon on April 17, 2017, 04:31:55 PM
Obviously beliefs which propose inflicting violence and worse on other humans need to be challenged,but the normal religious beliefs must be respected
So where do you draw the line?
Is it physical violence alone that renders these beliefs worthy of challenge?
If the KKK preached only segregation and racial purity, but drew the line at lynching and even any use of force, are their beliefs then ok and demanding of respect? If slavery is practiced, but the slaves are treated well and indeed, viewed by some, patronizingly, as being treated mercifully and in their own best interests, is that a defensible belief? Should we respect Muslim theocracies who treat their women as second-class citizens, even if within those boundaries those women are usually treated very well?
Or, getting away from violence and subjugation, how about minor religious cults, where some charismatic leader gathers a group away from society and fills them with some brainwashing claptrap? Where do you draw the line in that instance? Is it only the mass suicide, kool-aid drinkers who have crossed it? Should we respect them until they reach that point? Is scientology and their harassment and litigious stranglehold on their members respectable?
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on April 17, 2017, 06:11:21 PM
Catholicism usurped the Early Christianity in Ireland, through imposition of doctrine and Canon law, which had earlier usurped the Celtic polytheism through clever adoption of patronage, important religious dates and feast days
I'm sure Aethisim or Humanism will sowly take over from the other isms that have dominated culture over the past few thousand years on the island
You do also realise that most of the stuff in the new testament was written down maybe 200/300 years (at least) after the event?
I can't even write an account of what i did last weekend
Even the most ardent prominent proponents of atheism/anti-theism dont forsee that happening, thats because theism/faith is part of our inherent makeup and your aforementioned paradigms simply teach us to suppress it.
Course education is hailed as the rise of said paradigms and the downfall of religion, but the irony is that its down to a partial education. A more fuller more rounded education would give a better understanding of thought, logic and the fallacy of using empiricism as dogma are the reason for their rise.
So actually as education improves further we may well see a rebound in theism, also our inherent makeup isnt going anywhere either so if your still suppressing yours you'll have to just get used to all the people that arent.
Quote from: omaghjoe on April 17, 2017, 08:45:11 PM
A more fuller more rounded education would give a better understanding of thought, logic and the fallacy of using empiricism as dogma are the reason for their rise.
Teaching critical thinking has never been more important. They talk about the "information age," but it has also brought what I call the "misinformation age." So much rubbish out there and it's alarming how bad people are at spotting how fake it is.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 17, 2017, 09:33:28 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on April 17, 2017, 08:45:11 PM
A more fuller more rounded education would give a better understanding of thought, logic and the fallacy of using empiricism as dogma are the reason for their rise.
Teaching critical thinking has never been more important. They talk about the "information age," but it has also brought what I call the "misinformation age." So much rubbish out there and it's alarming how bad people are at spotting how fake it is.
Wait, now you're criticising the people who believe in fake news?
I'm confused
Quote from: omaghjoe on April 17, 2017, 08:45:11 PM
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on April 17, 2017, 06:11:21 PM
Catholicism usurped the Early Christianity in Ireland, through imposition of doctrine and Canon law, which had earlier usurped the Celtic polytheism through clever adoption of patronage, important religious dates and feast days
I'm sure Aethisim or Humanism will sowly take over from the other isms that have dominated culture over the past few thousand years on the island
You do also realise that most of the stuff in the new testament was written down maybe 200/300 years (at least) after the event?
I can't even write an account of what i did last weekend
Even the most ardent prominent proponents of atheism/anti-theism dont forsee that happening, thats because theism/faith is part of our inherent makeup and your aforementioned paradigms simply teach us to suppress it.
Course education is hailed as the rise of said paradigms and the downfall of religion, but the irony is that its down to a partial education. A more fuller more rounded education would give a better understanding of thought, logic and the fallacy of using empiricism as dogma are the reason for their rise.
So actually as education improves further we may well see a rebound in theism, also our inherent makeup isnt going anywhere either so if your still suppressing yours you'll have to just get used to all the people that arent.
Faith isn't really part of our make up
It's just that we have the intelligence to be able to conjure it and buy into it unlike all other known creatures
And society conditions us to find an ism that conforms to our education and rationale
I'm a bit meh when it comes to isms.
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on April 18, 2017, 04:08:51 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on April 17, 2017, 08:45:11 PM
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on April 17, 2017, 06:11:21 PM
Catholicism usurped the Early Christianity in Ireland, through imposition of doctrine and Canon law, which had earlier usurped the Celtic polytheism through clever adoption of patronage, important religious dates and feast days
I'm sure Aethisim or Humanism will sowly take over from the other isms that have dominated culture over the past few thousand years on the island
You do also realise that most of the stuff in the new testament was written down maybe 200/300 years (at least) after the event?
I can't even write an account of what i did last weekend
Even the most ardent prominent proponents of atheism/anti-theism dont forsee that happening, thats because theism/faith is part of our inherent makeup and your aforementioned paradigms simply teach us to suppress it.
Course education is hailed as the rise of said paradigms and the downfall of religion, but the irony is that its down to a partial education. A more fuller more rounded education would give a better understanding of thought, logic and the fallacy of using empiricism as dogma are the reason for their rise.
So actually as education improves further we may well see a rebound in theism, also our inherent makeup isnt going anywhere either so if your still suppressing yours you'll have to just get used to all the people that arent.
Faith isn't really part of our make up
It's just that we have the intelligence to be able to conjure it and buy into it unlike all other known creatures
And society conditions us to find an ism that conforms to our education and rationale
I'm a bit meh when it comes to isms.
Would the historical fact that pretty much every human society that has ever developed on earth has formed an organised religion not indicate otherwise. Also even children raised in atheism environments develop a spiritual belief, I'm pretty sure its in all of us if we are honest with ourselves, tho can't speak for everyone.
I think faith and the longing for God is very much part of our makeup...
Give an animal food, water, shelter - it will lay down and fall asleep content. Give a man food, water, shelter and we are still restless. You can fill your life with all kinds of crap, material stuff and you're still restless. Nothing can fill the God shaped hole in your heart but God.
Quote from: omaghjoe on April 18, 2017, 04:39:27 AM
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on April 18, 2017, 04:08:51 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on April 17, 2017, 08:45:11 PM
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on April 17, 2017, 06:11:21 PM
Catholicism usurped the Early Christianity in Ireland, through imposition of doctrine and Canon law, which had earlier usurped the Celtic polytheism through clever adoption of patronage, important religious dates and feast days
I'm sure Aethisim or Humanism will sowly take over from the other isms that have dominated culture over the past few thousand years on the island
You do also realise that most of the stuff in the new testament was written down maybe 200/300 years (at least) after the event?
I can't even write an account of what i did last weekend
Even the most ardent prominent proponents of atheism/anti-theism dont forsee that happening, thats because theism/faith is part of our inherent makeup and your aforementioned paradigms simply teach us to suppress it.
Course education is hailed as the rise of said paradigms and the downfall of religion, but the irony is that its down to a partial education. A more fuller more rounded education would give a better understanding of thought, logic and the fallacy of using empiricism as dogma are the reason for their rise.
So actually as education improves further we may well see a rebound in theism, also our inherent makeup isnt going anywhere either so if your still suppressing yours you'll have to just get used to all the people that arent.
Faith isn't really part of our make up
It's just that we have the intelligence to be able to conjure it and buy into it unlike all other known creatures
And society conditions us to find an ism that conforms to our education and rationale
I'm a bit meh when it comes to isms.
Would the historical fact that pretty much every human society that has ever developed on earth has formed an organised religion not indicate otherwise. Also even children raised in atheism environments develop a spiritual belief, I'm pretty sure its in all of us if we are honest with ourselves, tho can't speak for everyone.
But historically we didn't have the depth of knowledge that we do now. The longing for explanation was there, but the information to fill that gap wasn't. Lightning wasn't the result of an electrical charge, it had to be an angry god lashing out! Now I know you probably think that the growing body of knowledge is incomplete without considering the possible metaphysical or philosophical aspects, but that doesn't appear to be the case for a growing proportion of people. Perhaps, as you said in an earlier post, that still reflects a lack of education and knowledge with a gap still there in terms of those issues, assuming for the sake of argument you are correct, but nevertheless more people are living satisfied lives without a god aspect.
To reference Iceman's post, there's no "God shaped hole" in my personal psyche. I agree that food, water and shelter might be enough for an animal on a particular night, but they also experience the urge to reproduce and, in many species, nurture, which is what drives much of our psychological well being.
What do you mean by "spiritual beliefs" in the case of kids raised in atheist households?
I'm interested because that would include my own (my pair are 2 and 5).
Humans are herd animals who feel the need to belong. It explains religion. But doesn't mean religion is rational.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 18, 2017, 05:53:19 PM
I think faith and the longing for God is very much part of our makeup...
Give an animal food, water, shelter - it will lay down and fall asleep content. Give a man food, water, shelter and we are still restless. You can fill your life with all kinds of crap, material stuff and you're still restless. Nothing can fill the God shaped hole in your heart but God.
If I had a hole in my heart I'd be going in for an operation.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 18, 2017, 07:04:36 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 18, 2017, 05:53:19 PM
I think faith and the longing for God is very much part of our makeup...
Give an animal food, water, shelter - it will lay down and fall asleep content. Give a man food, water, shelter and we are still restless. You can fill your life with all kinds of crap, material stuff and you're still restless. Nothing can fill the God shaped hole in your heart but God.
If I had a hole in my heart I'd be going in for an operation.
I've no problem with a god shaped hole in my heart. When I'm restless I set myself a new challenge. I think people deep problems are the type that turn to God for help, it's a place of last resort.
Quote from: Itchy on April 18, 2017, 07:20:44 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 18, 2017, 07:04:36 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 18, 2017, 05:53:19 PM
I think faith and the longing for God is very much part of our makeup...
Give an animal food, water, shelter - it will lay down and fall asleep content. Give a man food, water, shelter and we are still restless. You can fill your life with all kinds of crap, material stuff and you're still restless. Nothing can fill the God shaped hole in your heart but God.
If I had a hole in my heart I'd be going in for an operation.
I've no problem with a god shaped hole in my heart. When I'm restless I set myself a new challenge. I think people deep problems are the type that turn to God for help, it's a place of last resort.
after every challenge you're still restless though..... and the people who aren't are the one with problems.....
and Eamonn it's a hair transplant you need first lad..... :P
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2017, 06:14:45 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on April 18, 2017, 04:39:27 AM
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on April 18, 2017, 04:08:51 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on April 17, 2017, 08:45:11 PM
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on April 17, 2017, 06:11:21 PM
Catholicism usurped the Early Christianity in Ireland, through imposition of doctrine and Canon law, which had earlier usurped the Celtic polytheism through clever adoption of patronage, important religious dates and feast days
I'm sure Aethisim or Humanism will sowly take over from the other isms that have dominated culture over the past few thousand years on the island
You do also realise that most of the stuff in the new testament was written down maybe 200/300 years (at least) after the event?
I can't even write an account of what i did last weekend
Even the most ardent prominent proponents of atheism/anti-theism dont forsee that happening, thats because theism/faith is part of our inherent makeup and your aforementioned paradigms simply teach us to suppress it.
Course education is hailed as the rise of said paradigms and the downfall of religion, but the irony is that its down to a partial education. A more fuller more rounded education would give a better understanding of thought, logic and the fallacy of using empiricism as dogma are the reason for their rise.
So actually as education improves further we may well see a rebound in theism, also our inherent makeup isnt going anywhere either so if your still suppressing yours you'll have to just get used to all the people that arent.
Faith isn't really part of our make up
It's just that we have the intelligence to be able to conjure it and buy into it unlike all other known creatures
And society conditions us to find an ism that conforms to our education and rationale
I'm a bit meh when it comes to isms.
Would the historical fact that pretty much every human society that has ever developed on earth has formed an organised religion not indicate otherwise. Also even children raised in atheism environments develop a spiritual belief, I'm pretty sure its in all of us if we are honest with ourselves, tho can't speak for everyone.
But historically we didn't have the depth of knowledge that we do now. The longing for explanation was there, but the information to fill that gap wasn't. Lightning wasn't the result of an electrical charge, it had to be an angry god lashing out! Now I know you probably think that the growing body of knowledge is incomplete without considering the possible metaphysical or philosophical aspects, but that doesn't appear to be the case for a growing proportion of people. Perhaps, as you said in an earlier post, that still reflects a lack of education and knowledge with a gap still there in terms of those issues, assuming for the sake of argument you are correct, but nevertheless more people are living satisfied lives without a god aspect.
To reference Iceman's post, there's no "God shaped hole" in my personal psyche. I agree that food, water and shelter might be enough for an animal on a particular night, but they also experience the urge to reproduce and, in many species, nurture, which is what drives much of our psychological well being.
What do you mean by "spiritual beliefs" in the case of kids raised in atheist households?
I'm interested because that would include my own (my pair are 2 and 5).
I'd go easy with how much we know, we really know feck all in the grand scheme of things and as we appear to gain knowledge it appears the horizon of total knowledge just expands. Interestingly a sort of classical fractal pattern that a computer program might use and that we already see everywhere around us.
Well as you say if people are using science and empirical knowledge as vindication that there is no God they are committing a massive logical fallacy. But as education becomes fuller we should begin to iron that one out.
If you understand that and say there is no such thing as God, the supernatural, and that the Universe is only material, then you will understand that you are ironically placing faith in that belief with empiricism as your dogma. And the often quoted argument against that is that its the most likely, well that is not true. The most likely thing is an Idealist universe.... perhaps generated by a computer program?
As far as Iceman goes, in less metaphoric terms I think he's ultimately he's taking about a reason for living. Whats yours? The only logical one for a materialist is there is none as he is in an illusion of photons, time and choice until it all stops. If thats the case why pursue your relationships or even life itself?
Kids and God....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html
Quote from: The Iceman on April 18, 2017, 07:31:59 PM
Quote from: Itchy on April 18, 2017, 07:20:44 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 18, 2017, 07:04:36 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 18, 2017, 05:53:19 PM
I think faith and the longing for God is very much part of our makeup...
Give an animal food, water, shelter - it will lay down and fall asleep content. Give a man food, water, shelter and we are still restless. You can fill your life with all kinds of crap, material stuff and you're still restless. Nothing can fill the God shaped hole in your heart but God.
If I had a hole in my heart I'd be going in for an operation.
I've no problem with a god shaped hole in my heart. When I'm restless I set myself a new challenge. I think people deep problems are the type that turn to God for help, it's a place of last resort.
after every challenge you're still restless though..... and the people who aren't are the one with problems.....
and Eamonn it's a hair transplant you need first lad..... :P
I best get down to the local church so and I'll never need a challenge again, what bliss.
Why does one need a "reason" to live?
And how this manifest itself in terms of a supposed higher power and religion or spiritual belief?
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2017, 08:45:31 PM
Why does one need a "reason" to live?
And how this manifest itself in terms of a supposed higher power and religion or spiritual belief?
Are you serious?? If you have no reason to live then regretably the question would have to be asked.... why would you bother living?
A spiritual reason for living stems from a sense of actual self, that we are more than just flesh and bones. From the intution of free will, morality, and our experience of life. And that we are being guided on our path.
If you have any or all of these things, you can try and reason them away with various theories telling you they arent there, they are an illusion but they wont really leave you, the only way you'll ever satisfy them is by listening to them and fulfiling their needs.
A religion is a group of souls who wish to consolidate their spirituality within a community
Quote from: The Iceman on April 18, 2017, 07:31:59 PM
and Eamonn it's a hair transplant you need first lad..... :P
More in need of a brain transplant ;)
Some of that religiony talk scares the dung outta me.
My reason for living is that me ma and da were at it in a caravan in Bundoran in 1974 and I quite enjoy life. And I get to see my lovely dentist.
Quote from: omaghjoe on April 18, 2017, 10:37:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2017, 08:45:31 PM
Why does one need a "reason" to live?
And how this manifest itself in terms of a supposed higher power and religion or spiritual belief?
Are you serious?? If you have no reason to live then regretably the question would have to be asked.... why would you bother living?
A spiritual reason for living stems from a sense of actual self, that we are more than just flesh and bones. From the intution of free will, morality, and our experience of life. And that we are being guided on our path.
If you have any or all of these things, you can try and reason them away with various theories telling you they arent there, they are an illusion but they wont really leave you, the only way you'll ever satisfy them is by listening to them and fulfiling their needs.
A religion is a group of souls who wish to consolidate their spirituality within a community
I see words, some sentences (capital letters at the start, full stops at the end) but I cannot understand a f**king thing you are saying lad.
Quote from: omaghjoe on April 18, 2017, 10:37:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2017, 08:45:31 PM
Why does one need a "reason" to live?
And how this manifest itself in terms of a supposed higher power and religion or spiritual belief?
Are you serious?? If you have no reason to live then regretably the question would have to be asked.... why would you bother living?
A spiritual reason for living stems from a sense of actual self, that we are more than just flesh and bones. From the intution of free will, morality, and our experience of life. And that we are being guided on our path.
If you have any or all of these things, you can try and reason them away with various theories telling you they arent there, they are an illusion but they wont really leave you, the only way you'll ever satisfy them is by listening to them and fulfiling their needs.
A religion is a group of souls who wish to consolidate their spirituality within a community
"Reason" in quotes, Joe. :)
I have plenty of reasons to live, if we need to list things as such that make life fulfilling. None of them have anything whatsoever to do with religion or a higher power or purpose or the motivation of a supposed afterlife. That doesn't mean I think thoughts and emotions and attachments and so on "aren't there".
Quote from: The Iceman on April 18, 2017, 07:31:59 PM
and Eamonn it's a hair transplant you need first lad..... :P
Ha! ;D
Quote from: J70 on April 19, 2017, 12:49:20 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on April 18, 2017, 10:37:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2017, 08:45:31 PM
Why does one need a "reason" to live?
And how this manifest itself in terms of a supposed higher power and religion or spiritual belief?
Are you serious?? If you have no reason to live then regretably the question would have to be asked.... why would you bother living?
A spiritual reason for living stems from a sense of actual self, that we are more than just flesh and bones. From the intution of free will, morality, and our experience of life. And that we are being guided on our path.
If you have any or all of these things, you can try and reason them away with various theories telling you they arent there, they are an illusion but they wont really leave you, the only way you'll ever satisfy them is by listening to them and fulfiling their needs.
A religion is a group of souls who wish to consolidate their spirituality within a community
"Reason" in quotes, Joe. :)
I have plenty of reasons to live, if we need to list things as such that make life fulfilling. None of them have anything whatsoever to do with religion or a higher power or purpose or the motivation of a supposed afterlife. That doesn't mean I think thoughts and emotions and attachments and so on "aren't there".
But then the paradigms that are used to attempt to refute spirituality also thoroughly refute these as real also. In the materialist universe for example they are just neurons firing in certain patterns creating an illusion of our experience, and if you go further it says there is also no you as such just a wave of atoms that are constantly interchanging.
Or, in other words, "you're wrong in finding no specific purpose for living. I'm right, simply because I believe there is, though I've no idea what it is."
The onus for proof of a proposition is upon the proposer.
Quote from: Hardy on April 19, 2017, 09:29:30 AM
Or, in other words, "you're wrong in finding no specific purpose for living. I'm right, simply because I believe there is, though I've no idea what it is."
The onus for proof of a proposition is upon the proposer.
Exactly
It's funny when followers of faiths berate non believers with a load of mumbo jumbo nonsense that loosely references to some inner meaning or truth
Usually to cover their own doubts and fears
I'm quite happy for anyone to believe in a celestial dictator
I just think you could be doing a lot more beneficial stuff with the limited amount of time you have
The key message of Christianity as far as I can see is the non admissibility of death. This is what distinguished it from pagan religions which were nature based. Christianity tells people that they are superior to nature. And that is makey uppy. There is no escaping the laws of nature.
Jesus rose from the dead ;)
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 03:17:42 PM
Jesus rose from the dead ;)
Yeah. Why didn't he start a second career?
Quote from: seafoid on April 19, 2017, 03:59:55 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 03:17:42 PM
Jesus rose from the dead ;)
Yeah. Why didn't he start a second career?
He's working diligently for all the human race with the exception of herrins and rhubarbs as He knows they belong to the other crowd.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 04:05:10 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 19, 2017, 03:59:55 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 03:17:42 PM
Jesus rose from the dead ;)
Yeah. Why didn't he start a second career?
He's working diligently for all the human race with the exception of herrins and rhubarbs as He knows they belong to the other crowd.
Why is it taking so long?
Quote from: Hardy on April 19, 2017, 09:29:30 AM
Or, in other words, "you're wrong in finding no specific purpose for living. I'm right, simply because I believe there is, though I've no idea what it is."
The onus for proof of a proposition is upon the proposer.
The oft used reasoning to denounce faith is that is that what they believe is not "real", usually using empirical methods with a materialist outlook (neither of which prove anything I might add).
"Finding" a purpose implies that you are inventing something to live for even more so that using your intuition, anyway all things being equal we should apply those same standards to the purpose you find
AS for proving anything how do you do that? Prehaps you should look up faith in the dictionary. As a test me one thing that is real I'll guarente you I can show you that using logic its most likely not
Quote from: seafoid on April 19, 2017, 04:30:55 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 04:05:10 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 19, 2017, 03:59:55 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 03:17:42 PM
Jesus rose from the dead ;)
Yeah. Why didn't he start a second career?
He's working diligently for all the human race with the exception of herrins and rhubarbs as He knows they belong to the other crowd.
Why is it taking so long?
The Lord doesn't operate in human time.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 04:55:36 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 19, 2017, 04:30:55 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 04:05:10 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 19, 2017, 03:59:55 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 03:17:42 PM
Jesus rose from the dead ;)
Yeah. Why didn't he start a second career?
He's working diligently for all the human race with the exception of herrins and rhubarbs as He knows they belong to the other crowd.
Why is it taking so long?
The Lord doesn't operate in human time.
According to the bible he's been in action for only 6000 years
What did he do for the few billion years before that?
Lazy git
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 04:55:36 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 19, 2017, 04:30:55 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 04:05:10 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 19, 2017, 03:59:55 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 03:17:42 PM
Jesus rose from the dead ;)
Yeah. Why didn't he start a second career?
He's working diligently for all the human race with the exception of herrins and rhubarbs as He knows they belong to the other crowd.
Why is it taking so long?
The Lord doesn't operate in human time.
Why is he called Ram in India?
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on April 19, 2017, 05:23:51 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 04:55:36 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 19, 2017, 04:30:55 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 04:05:10 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 19, 2017, 03:59:55 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 03:17:42 PM
Jesus rose from the dead ;)
Yeah. Why didn't he start a second career?
He's working diligently for all the human race with the exception of herrins and rhubarbs as He knows they belong to the other crowd.
Why is it taking so long?
The Lord doesn't operate in human time.
According to the bible he's been in action for only 6000 years
What did he do for the few billion years before that?
Lazy git
Relative to you maybe.
But if God was creator or director of the cosmos of which time is part of and varies vastly within it. Then how would he be even subject to time?
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on April 19, 2017, 05:23:51 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 04:55:36 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 19, 2017, 04:30:55 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 04:05:10 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 19, 2017, 03:59:55 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 03:17:42 PM
Jesus rose from the dead ;)
Yeah. Why didn't he start a second career?
He's working diligently for all the human race with the exception of herrins and rhubarbs as He knows they belong to the other crowd.
Why is it taking so long?
The Lord doesn't operate in human time.
According to the bible he's been in action for only 6000 years
What did he do for the few billion years before that?
Lazy git
You fundamentalist Prods taking the Old Testament literally ::)
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 06:32:53 PM
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on April 19, 2017, 05:23:51 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 04:55:36 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 19, 2017, 04:30:55 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 04:05:10 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 19, 2017, 03:59:55 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 19, 2017, 03:17:42 PM
Jesus rose from the dead ;)
Yeah. Why didn't he start a second career?
He's working diligently for all the human race with the exception of herrins and rhubarbs as He knows they belong to the other crowd.
Why is it taking so long?
The Lord doesn't operate in human time.
According to the bible he's been in action for only 6000 years
What did he do for the few billion years before that?
Lazy git
You fundamentalist Prods taking the Old Testament literally ::)
Agreed
The whole bible is a work of fiction
Every bit of it?????
Pontius Pilate didn't exist??
here's some commentary on the bible as an ancient text - forgetting about content:
Quote
the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is stunning. The most recent count (1980) shows 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts represented by early fragments, uncial codices (manuscripts in capital Greek letters bound together in book form), and minuscules (small Greek letters in cursive style)![7]
Among the nearly 3,000 minuscule fragments are 34 complete New Testaments dating from the 9th to the 15th Centuries.[8]
Uncial manuscripts provide virtually complete codices (multiple books of the New Testament bound together into one volume) back to the 4th Century, though some are a bit younger. Codex Sinaiticus, purchased by the British government from the Soviet government at Christmas, 1933, for £100,000,[9] is dated c. 340.[10] The nearly complete Codex Vaticanus is the oldest uncial, dated c. 325-350.[11] Codex Alexandrinus contains the whole Old Testament and a nearly complete New Testament and dates from the late 4th Century to the early 5th Century.
The most fascinating evidence comes from the fragments (as opposed to the codices). The Chester Beatty Papyri contains most of the New Testament and is dated mid-3rd Century.[12] The Bodmer Papyri II collection, whose discovery was announced in 1956, includes the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John and much of the last seven chapters. It dates from A.D. 200 or earlier.[13]
The most amazing find of all, however, is a small portion of John 18:31-33, discovered in Egypt known as the John Rylands Papyri. Barely three inches square, it represents the earliest known copy of any part of the New Testament. The papyri is dated on paleographical grounds at around A.D. 117-138 (though it may even be earlier),[14] showing that the Gospel of John was circulated as far away as Egypt within 30 years of its composition.
Keep in mind that most of the papyri are fragmentary. Only about 50 manuscripts contain the entire New Testament, though most of the other manuscripts contain the four Gospels. Even so, the manuscript textual evidence is exceedingly rich, especially when compared to other works of antiquity.
The argument of chinese whispers and inaccurate text is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason. Simply put, if we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we'd have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D.
Has the New Testament been altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 20, 2017, 11:17:40 AM
Every bit of it?????
Pontius Pilate didn't exist??
the talking burning bush is a bit strange though
Quote from: Rossfan on April 20, 2017, 11:17:40 AM
Every bit of it?????
Pontius Pilate didn't exist??
Historical fiction
Ever read any story books on ancient Rome or the mongols? Or Napoleonic wars...
Some it is founded on fact - like the era the story is set
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 20, 2017, 01:58:10 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 20, 2017, 11:17:40 AM
Every bit of it?????
Pontius Pilate didn't exist??
the talking burning bush is a bit strange though
You ever hear the song "Are yeh diggin' them Dillon"?
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on April 20, 2017, 02:26:40 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 20, 2017, 11:17:40 AM
Every bit of it?????
Pontius Pilate didn't exist??
Historical fiction
Ever read any story books on ancient Rome or the mongols? Or Napoleonic wars...
Some it is founded on fact - like the era the story is set
And there I was thinking The Life of Brian was a true story.
I mean, its set in the Jerusalem of Jesus, Pontius Pilate and Biggus Dickus!
Quote from: The Iceman on April 20, 2017, 01:39:06 PM
here's some commentary on the bible as an ancient text - forgetting about content:
Quote
the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is stunning. The most recent count (1980) shows 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts represented by early fragments, uncial codices (manuscripts in capital Greek letters bound together in book form), and minuscules (small Greek letters in cursive style)![7]
Among the nearly 3,000 minuscule fragments are 34 complete New Testaments dating from the 9th to the 15th Centuries.[8]
Uncial manuscripts provide virtually complete codices (multiple books of the New Testament bound together into one volume) back to the 4th Century, though some are a bit younger. Codex Sinaiticus, purchased by the British government from the Soviet government at Christmas, 1933, for £100,000,[9] is dated c. 340.[10] The nearly complete Codex Vaticanus is the oldest uncial, dated c. 325-350.[11] Codex Alexandrinus contains the whole Old Testament and a nearly complete New Testament and dates from the late 4th Century to the early 5th Century.
The most fascinating evidence comes from the fragments (as opposed to the codices). The Chester Beatty Papyri contains most of the New Testament and is dated mid-3rd Century.[12] The Bodmer Papyri II collection, whose discovery was announced in 1956, includes the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John and much of the last seven chapters. It dates from A.D. 200 or earlier.[13]
The most amazing find of all, however, is a small portion of John 18:31-33, discovered in Egypt known as the John Rylands Papyri. Barely three inches square, it represents the earliest known copy of any part of the New Testament. The papyri is dated on paleographical grounds at around A.D. 117-138 (though it may even be earlier),[14] showing that the Gospel of John was circulated as far away as Egypt within 30 years of its composition.
Keep in mind that most of the papyri are fragmentary. Only about 50 manuscripts contain the entire New Testament, though most of the other manuscripts contain the four Gospels. Even so, the manuscript textual evidence is exceedingly rich, especially when compared to other works of antiquity.
The argument of chinese whispers and inaccurate text is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason. Simply put, if we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we'd have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D.
Has the New Testament been altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.
What's your take on the Dead Sea Scrolls? If I recall correctly they tell of Jesus surviving the crucifixion, retiring from public life, joining some monk order called the Essenes (sp?) and starting a family with Mary Magdalene in some quiet corner somewhere.
1st example of fake news.
Trump has been around longer than we thought....
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 20, 2017, 09:42:00 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 20, 2017, 01:39:06 PM
here's some commentary on the bible as an ancient text - forgetting about content:
Quote
the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is stunning. The most recent count (1980) shows 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts represented by early fragments, uncial codices (manuscripts in capital Greek letters bound together in book form), and minuscules (small Greek letters in cursive style)![7]
Among the nearly 3,000 minuscule fragments are 34 complete New Testaments dating from the 9th to the 15th Centuries.[8]
Uncial manuscripts provide virtually complete codices (multiple books of the New Testament bound together into one volume) back to the 4th Century, though some are a bit younger. Codex Sinaiticus, purchased by the British government from the Soviet government at Christmas, 1933, for £100,000,[9] is dated c. 340.[10] The nearly complete Codex Vaticanus is the oldest uncial, dated c. 325-350.[11] Codex Alexandrinus contains the whole Old Testament and a nearly complete New Testament and dates from the late 4th Century to the early 5th Century.
The most fascinating evidence comes from the fragments (as opposed to the codices). The Chester Beatty Papyri contains most of the New Testament and is dated mid-3rd Century.[12] The Bodmer Papyri II collection, whose discovery was announced in 1956, includes the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John and much of the last seven chapters. It dates from A.D. 200 or earlier.[13]
The most amazing find of all, however, is a small portion of John 18:31-33, discovered in Egypt known as the John Rylands Papyri. Barely three inches square, it represents the earliest known copy of any part of the New Testament. The papyri is dated on paleographical grounds at around A.D. 117-138 (though it may even be earlier),[14] showing that the Gospel of John was circulated as far away as Egypt within 30 years of its composition.
Keep in mind that most of the papyri are fragmentary. Only about 50 manuscripts contain the entire New Testament, though most of the other manuscripts contain the four Gospels. Even so, the manuscript textual evidence is exceedingly rich, especially when compared to other works of antiquity.
The argument of chinese whispers and inaccurate text is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason. Simply put, if we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we'd have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D.
Has the New Testament been altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.
What's your take on the Dead Sea Scrolls? If I recall correctly they tell of Jesus surviving the crucifixion, retiring from public life, joining some monk order called the Essenes (sp?) and starting a family with Mary Magdalene in some quiet corner somewhere.
I thought they didnt mention him at all. Are you sure that not the Andrew Lloyd Weber scrolls?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 20, 2017, 09:42:00 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 20, 2017, 01:39:06 PM
here's some commentary on the bible as an ancient text - forgetting about content:
Quote
the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is stunning. The most recent count (1980) shows 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts represented by early fragments, uncial codices (manuscripts in capital Greek letters bound together in book form), and minuscules (small Greek letters in cursive style)![7]
Among the nearly 3,000 minuscule fragments are 34 complete New Testaments dating from the 9th to the 15th Centuries.[8]
Uncial manuscripts provide virtually complete codices (multiple books of the New Testament bound together into one volume) back to the 4th Century, though some are a bit younger. Codex Sinaiticus, purchased by the British government from the Soviet government at Christmas, 1933, for £100,000,[9] is dated c. 340.[10] The nearly complete Codex Vaticanus is the oldest uncial, dated c. 325-350.[11] Codex Alexandrinus contains the whole Old Testament and a nearly complete New Testament and dates from the late 4th Century to the early 5th Century.
The most fascinating evidence comes from the fragments (as opposed to the codices). The Chester Beatty Papyri contains most of the New Testament and is dated mid-3rd Century.[12] The Bodmer Papyri II collection, whose discovery was announced in 1956, includes the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John and much of the last seven chapters. It dates from A.D. 200 or earlier.[13]
The most amazing find of all, however, is a small portion of John 18:31-33, discovered in Egypt known as the John Rylands Papyri. Barely three inches square, it represents the earliest known copy of any part of the New Testament. The papyri is dated on paleographical grounds at around A.D. 117-138 (though it may even be earlier),[14] showing that the Gospel of John was circulated as far away as Egypt within 30 years of its composition.
Keep in mind that most of the papyri are fragmentary. Only about 50 manuscripts contain the entire New Testament, though most of the other manuscripts contain the four Gospels. Even so, the manuscript textual evidence is exceedingly rich, especially when compared to other works of antiquity.
The argument of chinese whispers and inaccurate text is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason. Simply put, if we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we'd have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D.
Has the New Testament been altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.
What's your take on the Dead Sea Scrolls? If I recall correctly they tell of Jesus surviving the crucifixion, retiring from public life, joining some monk order called the Essenes (sp?) and starting a family with Mary Magdalene in some quiet corner somewhere.
whats your take on the accuracy of the bible as a document?
the dead sea scrolls contained a copy of the book of Isiah which was 1100 years older than any copy in existence at the time. Estimated to be 200BC. The dead sea scrolls further highlight the accuracy of the old testament and the skill of the Jewish scholars in preserving texts.
I don't believe the stories you are referring to are in the dead sea scrolls. I think they're from one of those other gospel of thomas or something like that....
but how about you comment on the accuracy of the bible as an ancient text?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 21, 2017, 01:21:28 PM
whats your take on the accuracy of the bible as a document?
the dead sea scrolls contained a copy of the book of Isiah which was 1100 years older than any copy in existence at the time. Estimated to be 200BC. The dead sea scrolls further highlight the accuracy of the old testament and the skill of the Jewish scholars in preserving texts.
I don't believe the stories you are referring to are in the dead sea scrolls. I think they're from one of those other gospel of thomas or something like that....
but how about you comment on the accuracy of the bible as an ancient text?
I think the gnostic gospels (Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Judas, etc.) are interesting. The story behind why they didn't make the "final cut" of the Bible is a great story in itself.
What I take from the Bible is that there probably was a Jesus-type character who was a "prophet" in the sense of being a philosopher and public speaker, since that was a common thing in Palestine at the time. The re-telling of some of the stories has lost some accuracy along the way, which is a pity because some of the intended lessons were lost. Case in point; the feeding of the 5000. It's told today as him performing a miracle by converting small amounts of fish and bread into large amounts. What really happened was people in those days carried food around with them because there wasn't exactly a grocery store or cafe on every corner. Some of his followers had run out of food, so he got everyone to put a bit of their food into a pile that could be evenly redistributed among the crowd. It was a lesson about collective effort to help everyone.
Did the crucifixion happen? Sounds about right since the Roman state felt a bit threatened by civil unrest he was stirring up with his newfangled ideas. The Romans wanted stability.
Did the resurrection happen? Obviously not, but if he somehow survived the crucifixion and was seen alive afterwards then that would explain how that little story got out to a small number of people. People being misdiagnosed as dead (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-19968625) is not unheard of. If an earthquake coincided with his apparent "death" then the superstitious nature in everyone would have pounced on that as a meaningful event.
As for the old testament, some interesting creation myths in there. I heard once that there is evidence of a big ancient flood in the Black Sea region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis), so that would have fueled the Noah story.
So my personal take on the Bible a scripture in general is that there's probably a kernel of truth in a lot of it, but I don't accept supernatural explanations. I mean, what do you think is more likely? Mary was impregnated by an alien or was she fooling around with someone and decided to stick to her story? That said, there are some good lessons and messages in there. You can agree with the teachings of Ghandi without being Hindu, and you can agree with a lot of the teachings of Jesus without being a Christian.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 21, 2017, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 21, 2017, 01:21:28 PM
whats your take on the accuracy of the bible as a document?
the dead sea scrolls contained a copy of the book of Isiah which was 1100 years older than any copy in existence at the time. Estimated to be 200BC. The dead sea scrolls further highlight the accuracy of the old testament and the skill of the Jewish scholars in preserving texts.
I don't believe the stories you are referring to are in the dead sea scrolls. I think they're from one of those other gospel of thomas or something like that....
but how about you comment on the accuracy of the bible as an ancient text?
I think the gnostic gospels (Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Judas, etc.) are interesting. The story behind why they didn't make the "final cut" of the Bible is a great story in itself.
What I take from the Bible is that there probably was a Jesus-type character who was a "prophet" in the sense of being a philosopher and public speaker, since that was a common thing in Palestine at the time. The re-telling of some of the stories has lost some accuracy along the way, which is a pity because some of the intended lessons were lost. Case in point; the feeding of the 5000. It's told today as him performing a miracle by converting small amounts of fish and bread into large amounts. What really happened was people in those days carried food around with them because there wasn't exactly a grocery store or cafe on every corner. Some of his followers had run out of food, so he got everyone to put a bit of their food into a pile that could be evenly redistributed among the crowd. It was a lesson about collective effort to help everyone.
Did the crucifixion happen? Sounds about right since the Roman state felt a bit threatened by civil unrest he was stirring up with his newfangled ideas. The Romans wanted stability.
Did the resurrection happen? Obviously not, but if he somehow survived the crucifixion and was seen alive afterwards then that would explain how that little story got out to a small number of people. People being misdiagnosed as dead (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-19968625) is not unheard of. If an earthquake coincided with his apparent "death" then the superstitious nature in everyone would have pounced on that as a meaningful event.
As for the old testament, some interesting creation myths in there. I heard once that there is evidence of a big ancient flood in the Black Sea region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis), so that would have fueled the Noah story.
So my personal take on the Bible a scripture in general is that there's probably a kernel of truth in a lot of it, but I don't accept supernatural explanations. I mean, what do you think is more likely? Mary was impregnated by an alien or was she fooling around with someone and decided to stick to her story? That said, there are some good lessons and messages in there. You can agree with the teachings of Ghandi without being Hindu, and you can agree with a lot of the teachings of Jesus without being a Christian.
Eamonn did you read the commentary I posted about the accuracy of the bible as a document? There has been no watering down in the retelling of anything. The dead sea scrolls presented a document from 200BC, the oldest one they had (Old testament) was 900AD and they were identical. No watering down.
I'm not interested in how you interpret the bible. I'm interested if you will admit that it isn't watered down or hasn't changed and as an ancient text is the most accurate document known to man...?
As stated above, I think it's fairly accurate in some places but not so accurate in others. Particularly the bits where the laws of physics are violated.
Never believe the accuracy of those ancient writings
History has always been rewritten to suit the agenda of whoever had the power and wealth to do so
Even the monks were at it!
Forgery is one of the oldest professions out there, along with prostitution
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 21, 2017, 09:20:58 PM
I think the gnostic gospels (Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Judas, etc.) are interesting. The story behind why they didn't make the "final cut" of the Bible is a great story in itself.
What I take from the Bible is that there probably was a Jesus-type character who was a "prophet" in the sense of being a philosopher and public speaker, since that was a common thing in Palestine at the time. The re-telling of some of the stories has lost some accuracy along the way, which is a pity because some of the intended lessons were lost. Case in point; the feeding of the 5000. It's told today as him performing a miracle by converting small amounts of fish and bread into large amounts. What really happened was people in those days carried food around with them because there wasn't exactly a grocery store or cafe on every corner. Some of his followers had run out of food, so he got everyone to put a bit of their food into a pile that could be evenly redistributed among the crowd. It was a lesson about collective effort to help everyone.
Did the crucifixion happen? Sounds about right since the Roman state felt a bit threatened by civil unrest he was stirring up with his newfangled ideas. The Romans wanted stability.
Did the resurrection happen? Obviously not, but if he somehow survived the crucifixion and was seen alive afterwards then that would explain how that little story got out to a small number of people. People being misdiagnosed as dead (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-19968625) is not unheard of. If an earthquake coincided with his apparent "death" then the superstitious nature in everyone would have pounced on that as a meaningful event.
As for the old testament, some interesting creation myths in there. I heard once that there is evidence of a big ancient flood in the Black Sea region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis), so that would have fueled the Noah story.
So my personal take on the Bible a scripture in general is that there's probably a kernel of truth in a lot of it, but I don't accept supernatural explanations. I mean, what do you think is more likely? Mary was impregnated by an alien or was she fooling around with someone and decided to stick to her story? That said, there are some good lessons and messages in there. You can agree with the teachings of Ghandi without being Hindu, and you can agree with a lot of the teachings of Jesus without being a Christian.
That's a very deliberate and offensive choice of words.
Adding a question mark is a cowardly way to try to escape that.
Your explanations are based on current theory applied to a 2000 year old event. Your explanations are at least equally open to dismissal on those grounds.
I agree with you that the bible is not an accurate historic account but there is no way I'd try to offend Christians for their faith. Nor would I argue with an atheists with deliberate attempts to offend.
Quote from: vallankumous on April 22, 2017, 09:12:01 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 21, 2017, 09:20:58 PM
I think the gnostic gospels (Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Judas, etc.) are interesting. The story behind why they didn't make the "final cut" of the Bible is a great story in itself.
What I take from the Bible is that there probably was a Jesus-type character who was a "prophet" in the sense of being a philosopher and public speaker, since that was a common thing in Palestine at the time. The re-telling of some of the stories has lost some accuracy along the way, which is a pity because some of the intended lessons were lost. Case in point; the feeding of the 5000. It's told today as him performing a miracle by converting small amounts of fish and bread into large amounts. What really happened was people in those days carried food around with them because there wasn't exactly a grocery store or cafe on every corner. Some of his followers had run out of food, so he got everyone to put a bit of their food into a pile that could be evenly redistributed among the crowd. It was a lesson about collective effort to help everyone.
Did the crucifixion happen? Sounds about right since the Roman state felt a bit threatened by civil unrest he was stirring up with his newfangled ideas. The Romans wanted stability.
Did the resurrection happen? Obviously not, but if he somehow survived the crucifixion and was seen alive afterwards then that would explain how that little story got out to a small number of people. People being misdiagnosed as dead (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-19968625) is not unheard of. If an earthquake coincided with his apparent "death" then the superstitious nature in everyone would have pounced on that as a meaningful event.
As for the old testament, some interesting creation myths in there. I heard once that there is evidence of a big ancient flood in the Black Sea region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis), so that would have fueled the Noah story.
So my personal take on the Bible a scripture in general is that there's probably a kernel of truth in a lot of it, but I don't accept supernatural explanations. I mean, what do you think is more likely? Mary was impregnated by an alien or was she fooling around with someone and decided to stick to her story? That said, there are some good lessons and messages in there. You can agree with the teachings of Ghandi without being Hindu, and you can agree with a lot of the teachings of Jesus without being a Christian.
That's a very deliberate and offensive choice of words.
Adding a question mark is a cowardly way to try to escape that.
Your explanations are based on current theory applied to a 2000 year old event. Your explanations are at least equally open to dismissal on those grounds.
I agree with you that the bible is not an accurate historic account but there is no way I'd try to offend Christians for their faith. Nor would I argue with an atheists with deliberate attempts to offend.
His explanations are based on run of the mill, every day, plausible interpretations e.g. pooling of food. Or they're based on scientific theories for which there is actual evidence e.g. flood myths being based on the flooding of the Black Sea through the Bosphorus. That's a lot more than can be said for a literal interpretation of the actual biblical stories.
As for your offense at the Mary bit, are you really that sensitive and delicate?
Quote from: J70 on April 22, 2017, 04:58:17 PM
His explanations are based on run of the mill, every day, plausible interpretations e.g. pooling of food. Or they're based on scientific theories for which there is actual evidence e.g. flood myths being based on the flooding of the Black Sea through the Bosphorus. That's a lot more than can be said for a literal interpretation of the actual biblical stories.
As for your offense at the Mary bit, are you really that sensitive and delicate?
Yes, agreed.
I'm slightly offended. I'm not a strong catholic yet am still slightly offended.
Mary is a very important figure in Catholicism. While the faith is not above criticism the specific criticisms of Mary by the poster are deliberate with the intent to offend. The faith in and the figure of Mary can rightly be questioned without the need to degrade.
If someone said to you tomorrow that Cinderella was in fact real and created the world I think you'd laugh in their face rather than partake in a discussion on the topic.
Quote from: Esmarelda on April 24, 2017, 09:47:19 AM
If someone said to you tomorrow that Cinderella was in fact real and created the world I think you'd laugh in their face rather than partake in a discussion on the topic.
what if someone told you today that a male olympian who was married with kids was actually a woman?
biologically forever a man but actually a woman and would be named woman of the year and you would call him a woman and encourage little kids to choose whatever gender they wanted to be......
your science comes to a screeching halt when the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ agenda waves their checkered flag....
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2017, 12:45:40 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on April 24, 2017, 09:47:19 AM
If someone said to you tomorrow that Cinderella was in fact real and created the world I think you'd laugh in their face rather than partake in a discussion on the topic.
what if someone told you today that a male olympian who was married with kids was actually a woman?
biologically forever a man but actually a woman and would be named woman of the year and you would call him a woman and encourage little kids to choose whatever gender they wanted to be......
your science comes to a screeching halt when the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ agenda waves their checkered flag....
So a fire talking bush and a man who wants to be a woman (but technically still a man) is on the same scale?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2017, 12:45:40 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on April 24, 2017, 09:47:19 AM
If someone said to you tomorrow that Cinderella was in fact real and created the world I think you'd laugh in their face rather than partake in a discussion on the topic.
what if someone told you today that a male olympian who was married with kids was actually a woman?
biologically forever a man but actually a woman and would be named woman of the year and you would call him a woman and encourage little kids to choose whatever gender they wanted to be......
your science comes to a screeching halt when the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ agenda waves their checkered flag....
"Your" science??
In what way is trangenderism at odds with science?
Quote from: J70 on April 24, 2017, 01:32:26 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2017, 12:45:40 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on April 24, 2017, 09:47:19 AM
If someone said to you tomorrow that Cinderella was in fact real and created the world I think you'd laugh in their face rather than partake in a discussion on the topic.
what if someone told you today that a male olympian who was married with kids was actually a woman?
biologically forever a man but actually a woman and would be named woman of the year and you would call him a woman and encourage little kids to choose whatever gender they wanted to be......
your science comes to a screeching halt when the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ agenda waves their checkered flag....
"Your" science??
In what way is trangenderism at odds with science?
I just find it funny that logic and reason and science are used so much in the case against religion....but biology is forgotten when it comes to Bruce Jenner or anyone else in his heels...
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2017, 12:45:40 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on April 24, 2017, 09:47:19 AM
If someone said to you tomorrow that Cinderella was in fact real and created the world I think you'd laugh in their face rather than partake in a discussion on the topic.
what if someone told you today that a male olympian who was married with kids was actually a woman?
biologically forever a man but actually a woman and would be named woman of the year and you would call him a woman and encourage little kids to choose whatever gender they wanted to be......
your science comes to a screeching halt when the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ agenda waves their checkered flag....
I'd say that sounds a bit mad, could you explain how, and more importantly, could you prove to me that you're not talking nonsense by showing me the woman.
Do you know what their answer would most likely be?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2017, 01:48:15 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 24, 2017, 01:32:26 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2017, 12:45:40 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on April 24, 2017, 09:47:19 AM
If someone said to you tomorrow that Cinderella was in fact real and created the world I think you'd laugh in their face rather than partake in a discussion on the topic.
what if someone told you today that a male olympian who was married with kids was actually a woman?
biologically forever a man but actually a woman and would be named woman of the year and you would call him a woman and encourage little kids to choose whatever gender they wanted to be......
your science comes to a screeching halt when the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ agenda waves their checkered flag....
"Your" science??
In what way is trangenderism at odds with science?
I just find it funny that logic and reason and science are used so much in the case against religion....but biology is forgotten when it comes to Bruce Jenner or anyone else in his heels...
I'm not seeing how "biology is forgotten"?
a dude with a dick is on the front of Time magazine championed as woman of the year...where is the biological science, reasoning and fact there?
the responsibility of proof is on the side that says he is a woman..
2-5 year old children who think they are boys or girls are being held up as trophy kids
male athletes are competing in female MMA and beating the shit out of women
male powerlifters are competing in female competition and breaking records
where's the science? wheres the biology?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2017, 03:37:40 PM
a dude with a dick is on the front of Time magazine championed as woman of the year...where is the biological science, reasoning and fact there?
the responsibility of proof is on the side that says he is a woman..
2-5 year old children who think they are boys or girls are being held up as trophy kids
male athletes are competing in female MMA and beating the shit out of women
male powerlifters are competing in female competition and breaking records
where's the science? wheres the biology?
You're mixing up separate arguments and using the implications of one to falsely invalidate the other.
1. Whether or not there is a biological basis to transgenderism.
2. What the implications of transgenderism are or should be with respect to sports and athletics (or bathrooms etc.).
On the biological basis, true, anatomy is obviously a biological issue, but so is psychology, behaviour, hormones etc. And when it comes to anatomy, even something as straightforward as genitalia isn't always unambiguous and or subject to simple pigeonholing. Unless you're claiming that hermaphroditism doesn't exist or isn't subject to scientific study? That's before we even begin to touch on sexuality or gender identity. If one, like many biological traits, is subject to variation and resistant to simple either/or categorization, why would we be shocked when the other is too?
Again, I don't see the conflict with biology or science.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2017, 03:37:40 PM
a dude with a dick is on the front of Time magazine championed as woman of the year...where is the biological science, reasoning and fact there?
the responsibility of proof is on the side that says he is a woman..
2-5 year old children who think they are boys or girls are being held up as trophy kids
male athletes are competing in female MMA and beating the shit out of women
male powerlifters are competing in female competition and breaking records
where's the science? wheres the biology?
you still believe its the same as the talking burning bush?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 24, 2017, 04:08:51 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2017, 03:37:40 PM
a dude with a dick is on the front of Time magazine championed as woman of the year...where is the biological science, reasoning and fact there?
the responsibility of proof is on the side that says he is a woman..
2-5 year old children who think they are boys or girls are being held up as trophy kids
male athletes are competing in female MMA and beating the shit out of women
male powerlifters are competing in female competition and breaking records
where's the science? wheres the biology?
you still believe its the same as the talking burning bush?
I'm simply asking where Science disappears to when we look at these things today...
And J70 if we allow people to be whoever or whatever they want to be because they think they are then where do we draw the line?
I realize this is probably a whole other thread and apologize for hijacking this one or steering it so far off course
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2017, 04:12:36 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 24, 2017, 04:08:51 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2017, 03:37:40 PM
a dude with a dick is on the front of Time magazine championed as woman of the year...where is the biological science, reasoning and fact there?
the responsibility of proof is on the side that says he is a woman..
2-5 year old children who think they are boys or girls are being held up as trophy kids
male athletes are competing in female MMA and beating the shit out of women
male powerlifters are competing in female competition and breaking records
where's the science? wheres the biology?
you still believe its the same as the talking burning bush?
I'm simply asking where Science disappears to when we look at these things today...
And J70 if we allow people to be whoever or whatever they want to be because they think they are then where do we draw the line?
I realize this is probably a whole other thread and apologize for hijacking this one or steering it so far off course
I don't know (and its something that would require a lot of thought and discussion).
But like I said, the implications of something and the scientific basis or justification for its existence are two separate issues.
I don't see the scientific justification for it.
And I'm concerned about the implications of it.
I agree they are two separate things.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2017, 04:26:24 PM
I don't see the scientific justification for it.
And I'm concerned about the implications of it.
I agree they are two separate things.
But you haven't given any reason why you don't see a scientific justification.
Anatomy, gender identity, sexuality... are they NOT all controlled by our development, whether that is influenced by genetics, hormones, environment etc?
You said earlier science "comes to a screeching halt" when it comes to transgenderism. How?
a dude is a dude. whether he chops it off or not.
there was an episode of Special Victims Unit (SVU) one of those Law and Order shows from years ago. This woman in her 30s identified as a 16 year old girl and continued to date 16 year old boys. Back then the show was exploring how belief = reality in society...back then it was taboo - but now I'm not so sure....
I haven't seen any scientific evidence that a man can be changed in to a woman. He might have different parts from plastic surgery and mutilation but he's still a man?
What are your thoughts (if we keep this going) on a woman identifying as a little girl? A man identifying as a little boy? Or whatever they want to be (let's stick to the human spectrum)?
Quote from: J70 on April 24, 2017, 04:41:29 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2017, 04:26:24 PM
I don't see the scientific justification for it.
And I'm concerned about the implications of it.
I agree they are two separate things.
But you haven't given any reason why you don't see a scientific justification.
Anatomy, gender identity, sexuality... are they NOT all controlled by our development, whether that is influenced by genetics, hormones, environment etc?
You said earlier science "comes to a screeching halt" when it comes to transgenderism. How?
So, when the paedophile claims that he has not committed a crime because his/her development was not under his control and his/her behaviour is as natural as gender dysmorphia, homosexuality, etc that are now accepted as such and he/she is just on a spectrum, what will be your view?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2017, 06:09:34 PM
a dude is a dude. whether he chops it off or not.
there was an episode of Special Victims Unit (SVU) one of those Law and Order shows from years ago. This woman in her 30s identified as a 16 year old girl and continued to date 16 year old boys. Back then the show was exploring how belief = reality in society...back then it was taboo - but now I'm not so sure....
I haven't seen any scientific evidence that a man can be changed in to a woman. He might have different parts from plastic surgery and mutilation but he's still a man?
What are your thoughts (if we keep this going) on a woman identifying as a little girl? A man identifying as a little boy? Or whatever they want to be (let's stick to the human spectrum)?
How do you know if a "dude is a dude" just because of the equipment? Is the possession of a penis ALL that there is to being male? Is there no psychological aspect to it? Hormonal, developmental aspects?
Where does the previously mentioned hermaphrodite fit in if it is all defined by genitalia and everyone fits into one box or the other? What about the effeminate lad you knew growing up with the high pitched voice and limp-wristed mannerisms? Was he a fraud, choosing to bring the bullying and ostracism onto himself in school? Or is there variation in what constitutes a male or female in terms of behaviour? And if so, why does the anatomical prevail completely over the psychological when it comes to the categorization?
I still don't see any scientific argument against the existence of genuine transgenderism in what you are saying. And I'm not saying I have all (or any) of the answers, but I'm not the one making the definitive claim about the scientific legitimacy of it all.
As for the woman identifying as a little girl or man as a little boy, what exactly does that mean? That they're choosing to do so for whatever reason? That they are adults who legitimately feel that way? That they are developmentally stunted intellectually and emotionally? That they're a fetishist who likes to wear nappies and a pacifier on the weekend?
And what does it have to do with transgender people? I get the whole free-for-all, be-what-you-want-or-choose argument you are hinting at, but so what? They're separate issues. If someone chooses to identify as a fifteen year old so he can get himself a nice young naive piece of ass, they're still subject to the laws of the land, just like anyone who has sexual relations with a minor.
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 24, 2017, 06:59:22 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 24, 2017, 04:41:29 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2017, 04:26:24 PM
I don't see the scientific justification for it.
And I'm concerned about the implications of it.
I agree they are two separate things.
But you haven't given any reason why you don't see a scientific justification.
Anatomy, gender identity, sexuality... are they NOT all controlled by our development, whether that is influenced by genetics, hormones, environment etc?
You said earlier science "comes to a screeching halt" when it comes to transgenderism. How?
So, when the paedophile claims that he has not committed a crime because his/her development was not under his control and his/her behaviour is as natural as gender dysmorphia, homosexuality, etc that are now accepted as such and he/she is just on a spectrum, what will be your view?
Same as it is now: follow the laws that protect the young and vulnerable and wider society, just like the rest of us. Some lads are too ugly or idiotic to find someone to get laid with - that doesn't mean they should be allowed to force themselves on some unconsenting woman because they have an urge to satisfy.
Quote from: vallankumous on April 22, 2017, 09:12:01 AM
That's a very deliberate and offensive choice of words.
Adding a question mark is a cowardly way to try to escape that.
Your explanations are based on current theory applied to a 2000 year old event. Your explanations are at least equally open to dismissal on those grounds.
I agree with you that the bible is not an accurate historic account but there is no way I'd try to offend Christians for their faith. Nor would I argue with an atheists with deliberate attempts to offend.
Haha! You think I have nothing better to do than try to set out to offend people? My choice of words is an accurate picture of how I interpret these ancient texts. I could refer to the invisible man in the sky as "almighty holy and merciful God" but it wouldn't be an accurate description of how I view that character. If you choose to be offended by it than that's your business.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 24, 2017, 07:27:23 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on April 22, 2017, 09:12:01 AM
That's a very deliberate and offensive choice of words.
Adding a question mark is a cowardly way to try to escape that.
Your explanations are based on current theory applied to a 2000 year old event. Your explanations are at least equally open to dismissal on those grounds.
I agree with you that the bible is not an accurate historic account but there is no way I'd try to offend Christians for their faith. Nor would I argue with an atheists with deliberate attempts to offend.
Haha! You think I have nothing better to do than try to set out to offend people? My choice of words is an accurate picture of how I interpret these ancient texts. I could refer to the invisible man in the sky as "almighty holy and merciful God" but it wouldn't be an accurate description of how I view that character. If you choose to be offended by it than that's your business.
I see this nonsense phrase bouncing around a lot. I was always taught that God is within us and all around us. But I suppose its easier to try and and make believers sound stupid from within your own paradigm that actually trying to understand theirs.
Quote from: J70 on April 24, 2017, 07:10:43 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 24, 2017, 06:59:22 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 24, 2017, 04:41:29 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2017, 04:26:24 PM
I don't see the scientific justification for it.
And I'm concerned about the implications of it.
I agree they are two separate things.
But you haven't given any reason why you don't see a scientific justification.
Anatomy, gender identity, sexuality... are they NOT all controlled by our development, whether that is influenced by genetics, hormones, environment etc?
You said earlier science "comes to a screeching halt" when it comes to transgenderism. How?
So, when the paedophile claims that he has not committed a crime because his/her development was not under his control and his/her behaviour is as natural as gender dysmorphia, homosexuality, etc that are now accepted as such and he/she is just on a spectrum, what will be your view?
Same as it is now: follow the laws that protect the young and vulnerable and wider society, just like the rest of us. Some lads are too ugly or idiotic to find someone to get laid with - that doesn't mean they should be allowed to force themselves on some unconsenting woman because they have an urge to satisfy.
Total thread hijack here lads. Iceman you already started a thread on this subject before. The only way I could this as relating to religion is that i heard Mr(s) Jenner refer to his soul as a woman's...
Quote from: omaghjoe on April 24, 2017, 08:40:57 PM
I see this nonsense phrase bouncing around a lot. I was always taught that God is within us and all around us. But I suppose its easier to try and and make believers sound stupid from within your own paradigm that actually trying to understand theirs.
"Try"?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 24, 2017, 08:55:23 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on April 24, 2017, 08:40:57 PM
I see this nonsense phrase bouncing around a lot. I was always taught that God is within us and all around us. But I suppose its easier to try and and make believers sound stupid from within your own paradigm that actually trying to understand theirs.
"Try"?
::)
...coming from the man who believes than consciousness is an illusion and there is no "self"
An appeal to humour is only that Eammon
Virgin birth is a familiar religious marketing tool
Eg Buddhism
"The most popular legendary account of the birth of Buddha is in the Nidanakatha Jataka which accounted for the lives of Buddha in previous incarnations. In this account, the "Great Being" chose the time and place of his birth, the tribe into which he would be born, and who his mother would be. In the time chosen by him, Maya, his mother, fell asleep and dreamed that four archangels carried her to the Himalayan Mountains where their queens bathed and dressed her. In her dream the Great Being soon entered her womb from her side, in the form of a white elephant. When she woke, she told her dream to the Raja, who summoned sixty-four eminent Brahmans to interpret it."
Quote from: seafoid on April 24, 2017, 09:42:20 PM
Virgin birth is a familiar religious marketing tool
Eg Buddhism
"The most popular legendary account of the birth of Buddha is in the Nidanakatha Jataka which accounted for the lives of Buddha in previous incarnations. In this account, the "Great Being" chose the time and place of his birth, the tribe into which he would be born, and who his mother would be. In the time chosen by him, Maya, his mother, fell asleep and dreamed that four archangels carried her to the Himalayan Mountains where their queens bathed and dressed her. In her dream the Great Being soon entered her womb from her side, in the form of a white elephant. When she woke, she told her dream to the Raja, who summoned sixty-four eminent Brahmans to interpret it."
Yup. Most gods seem to have a hard time with the female reproductive system and the need for a man to get it working.They wish the birth canal were a one-way passage, hence the universality of the virgin birth trope. Even Star Wars has it.
Quote from: omaghjoe on April 24, 2017, 08:40:57 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 24, 2017, 07:27:23 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on April 22, 2017, 09:12:01 AM
That's a very deliberate and offensive choice of words.
Adding a question mark is a cowardly way to try to escape that.
Your explanations are based on current theory applied to a 2000 year old event. Your explanations are at least equally open to dismissal on those grounds.
I agree with you that the bible is not an accurate historic account but there is no way I'd try to offend Christians for their faith. Nor would I argue with an atheists with deliberate attempts to offend.
Haha! You think I have nothing better to do than try to set out to offend people? My choice of words is an accurate picture of how I interpret these ancient texts. I could refer to the invisible man in the sky as "almighty holy and merciful God" but it wouldn't be an accurate description of how I view that character. If you choose to be offended by it than that's your business.
I see this nonsense phrase bouncing around a lot. I was always taught that God is within us and all around us. But I suppose its easier to try and and make believers sound stupid from within your own paradigm that actually trying to understand theirs.
That's not what I was taught. The big man up there creating and watching and seeing and judging everything is what it was for us. Maybe there was more than just an arbitrarily drawn border in the 40 miles between our home places! :)
Quote from: J70 on April 25, 2017, 01:24:01 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on April 24, 2017, 08:40:57 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 24, 2017, 07:27:23 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on April 22, 2017, 09:12:01 AM
That's a very deliberate and offensive choice of words.
Adding a question mark is a cowardly way to try to escape that.
Your explanations are based on current theory applied to a 2000 year old event. Your explanations are at least equally open to dismissal on those grounds.
I agree with you that the bible is not an accurate historic account but there is no way I'd try to offend Christians for their faith. Nor would I argue with an atheists with deliberate attempts to offend.
Haha! You think I have nothing better to do than try to set out to offend people? My choice of words is an accurate picture of how I interpret these ancient texts. I could refer to the invisible man in the sky as "almighty holy and merciful God" but it wouldn't be an accurate description of how I view that character. If you choose to be offended by it than that's your business.
I see this nonsense phrase bouncing around a lot. I was always taught that God is within us and all around us. But I suppose its easier to try and and make believers sound stupid from within your own paradigm that actually trying to understand theirs.
That's not what I was taught. The big man up there creating and watching and seeing and judging everything is what it was for us. Maybe there was more than just an arbitrarily drawn border in the 40 miles between our home places! :)
Well you Donegal folk are renowned for your simplicity after all, and there was probably a good few years between us too J70 ;)
Yeah being honest there would have been a fair bit of that as well but its just a way for kids to understand the concept of God. The teaching and my understanding of God moved on with my age, and intellectual maturity, probably about the same time that I was able to grasp the concept that the sun doesn't go to sleep and the earth is actually spinning.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 24, 2017, 07:27:23 PM
Haha! You think I have nothing better to do than try to set out to offend people? My choice of words is an accurate picture of how I interpret these ancient texts. I could refer to the invisible man in the sky as "almighty holy and merciful God" but it wouldn't be an accurate description of how I view that character. If you choose to be offended by it than that's your business.
No, I don't think that. And I didn't choose to be offended. Is your argument not strong enough to defend without the need to insert a new argument and defend it instead?
I said i'm ok with your interpretation of the text. I somewhat agree.
Was in Derry today and was delighted to see that Ex Meath Manager Sean Boylan will be speaking about his devout catholic faith at a special Novena next Monday.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 01, 2017, 07:42:55 PM
Was in Derry today and was delighted to see that Ex Meath Manager Sean Boylan will be speaking about his devout catholic faith at a special Novena next Monday.
sure didn't he marry a nun
Wasn't much Christianity in the teams he sent out.
A case of do it unto others and keep doing it till they're carried off.
There are many in the GAA with a strong Catholic Faith.This is good to see and to observe men like Boylan and Harte publicly proclaim their faith with confidence and devoid of any fear.
Ha! "Devoid of any fear," eh? No fear of hellfire and damnation?
Indeed Tony, and there are many of no faith at all and there are people of other faiths and other Christian denominations.
Ad a matter of interest would diving to win a free be against Catholicism?
Quote from: T Fearon on May 01, 2017, 10:40:24 PM
There are many in the GAA with a strong Catholic Faith.This is good to see and to observe men like Boylan and Harte publicly proclaim their faith with confidence and devoid of any fear.
Yes, they're really sticking their necks out there! ;D
Indeed. How brave of them to go along with what everyone else around them is doing. ::)
Sean Boylan is making a fairly long journey up to Derry,presumably because he feels strongly that he should give testament to his catholic faith,and how it impacts upon his life.This is admirable in this day and age
Is it possible to be a catholic without a child of Prague statue in the garden ?
Yes.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 01, 2017, 11:20:17 PM
Indeed Tony, and there are many of no faith at all and there are people of other faiths and other Christian denominations.
Ad a matter of interest would diving to win a free be against Catholicism?
Yes.
Or the other less talked about commandnent: Thou shalt not fall down like a big cissy after having thy hair ruffled.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 01, 2017, 08:51:30 PM
Wasn't much Christianity in the teams he sent out.
A case of do it unto others and keep doing it till they're carried off.
The bible is very strong on smiting. We decided we could praise the Lord with lots of smiting.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 07:41:34 AM
Sean Boylan is making a fairly long journey up to Derry,presumably because he feels strongly that he should give testament to his catholic faith,and how it impacts upon his life.This is admirable in this day and age
Fairly long? Thats a stretch... Belfast to Cork is 4.30 hours ffs....
Quote from: Rossfan on May 01, 2017, 11:20:17 PM
Indeed Tony, and there are many of no faith at all and there are people of other faiths and other Christian denominations.
Ad a matter of interest would diving to win a free be against Catholicism?
there is one in the line in the Mass that I find very interesting
"Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church."
And the faith is waning so will God look at the sins now ?
Faith is the be all and end all.Without it you reject God and Salvation sadly.
Will someone please think of the children?
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 12:01:50 PM
Faith is the be all and end all.Without it you reject God and Salvation sadly.
Au contraire. I reject God and salvation happily.
You may die to regret this
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 10:28:42 PM
You may die to regret this
We'll die and we'll regret it
Quote from: Avondhu star on May 02, 2017, 08:01:34 PM
Will someone please think of the children?
It certainly won't be the government.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 12:01:50 PM
Faith is the be all and end all.Without it you reject God and Salvation sadly.
If you don't believe you will be punished
https://youtu.be/5Uu3kCEEc98
ah the church
spreading fake news since the year dot
Quote from: seafoid on May 02, 2017, 10:38:19 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 01, 2017, 11:20:17 PM
Indeed Tony, and there are many of no faith at all and there are people of other faiths and other Christian denominations.
Ad a matter of interest would diving to win a free be against Catholicism?
there is one in the line in the Mass that I find very interesting
"Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church."
And the faith is waning so will God look at the sins now ?
But why have faith in your Church? Surely thats a man made (a deeply flawed) construct. Why not just have faith in this God fella and leave the Church out of it?
Quote from: johnneycool on May 03, 2017, 09:05:05 AM
Quote from: seafoid on May 02, 2017, 10:38:19 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 01, 2017, 11:20:17 PM
Indeed Tony, and there are many of no faith at all and there are people of other faiths and other Christian denominations.
Ad a matter of interest would diving to win a free be against Catholicism?
there is one in the line in the Mass that I find very interesting
"Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church."
And the faith is waning so will God look at the sins now ?
But why have faith in your Church? Surely thats a man made (a deeply flawed) construct. Why not just have faith in this God fella and leave the Church out of it?
The faith is in God, the church is a community of that faith, and it is that community of faith that is being referred to.
And to question seafoid's original point in what way is the faith waning? The last time I looked the church continues to expand.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 03:47:35 PM
The last time I looked the church continues to expand.
Where?
Another great line in the mass is "do not consider what we truly deserve"
https://youtu.be/jxo81Ok9Urk
Whats wrong with that? A simple plea for mercy for all sinners
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2017, 08:28:59 PM
Whats wrong with that? A simple plea for mercy for all sinners
How can everyone be a sinner? It''s nuts
Quote from: seafoid on May 03, 2017, 08:30:52 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2017, 08:28:59 PM
Whats wrong with that? A simple plea for mercy for all sinners
How can everyone be a sinner? It''s nuts
Do you remember nothing Seafoid?
Our bodies are just vessels riddled by temptations like selfishness, egos, and envy, therefore we are inherently all sinners. In fact that first line is probably sinning against you as its somewhat belittling you, but I'll leave it in as an example of how easy it is to sin. ;)
Maybe you should ask yourself or a priest about what these lines are trying to say rather than declare it nuts just straight off.
It comes across like you have a very closed mind. Like you have a paradigm that you are not going to deviate from maybe?
Quote from: seafoid on May 03, 2017, 08:30:52 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2017, 08:28:59 PM
Whats wrong with that? A simple plea for mercy for all sinners
How can everyone be a sinner? It''s nuts
I'm with Tony for once!
His statement doesn't imply that all people are sinners; just that all who are sinners are fúcked for eternity or something like that unless you, me and the rest of humanity plead for mercy for them, or whatever.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 10:28:42 PM
You may die to regret this
Why would one regret an honestly held opinion?
If the god of the bible is real, are we not supposed to use our intellectual gifts/talents to the best of our ability?
Is the person who comes to the honestly held opinion that its all a pile of bollocks in worse shape than the person who doesn't give any of it much thought at all, but merely coasts along on what they were indoctrinated with as a young child?
Quote from: J70 on May 03, 2017, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 10:28:42 PM
You may die to regret this
Why would one regret an honestly held opinion?
If the god of the bible is real, are we not supposed to use our intellectual gifts/talents to the best of our ability?
Is the person who comes to the honestly held opinion that its all a pile of bollocks in worse shape than the person who doesn't give any of it much thought at all, but merely coasts along on what they were indoctrinated with as a young child?
But if your dead and you are able to regret (or not) something... then....theres an afterlife
On your other point if you used your intellectual ability you would indeed realise that many version of what is real are possible, unless of course you've been indoctrinated into thinking that one of them is for sure real...?
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 11:43:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 03, 2017, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 10:28:42 PM
You may die to regret this
Why would one regret an honestly held opinion?
If the god of the bible is real, are we not supposed to use our intellectual gifts/talents to the best of our ability?
Is the person who comes to the honestly held opinion that its all a pile of bollocks in worse shape than the person who doesn't give any of it much thought at all, but merely coasts along on what they were indoctrinated with as a young child?
But if your dead and you are able to regret (or not) something... then....theres an afterlife
On your other point if you used your intellectual ability you would indeed realise that many version of what is real are possible, unless of course you've been indoctrinated into thinking that one of them is for sure real...?
Let's not complicate or obfuscate a straightforward question Joe. Tony is saying that someone may come to regret a lack of faith if they were to die and find they were mistaken. I'm merely asking how someone could be subject to such harsh consequences for an honestly held opinion and asking why someone who did have faith merely because they'd never challenged it beyond what they were taught as a child should fair better?
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2017, 12:00:19 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 11:43:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 03, 2017, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 10:28:42 PM
You may die to regret this
Why would one regret an honestly held opinion?
If the god of the bible is real, are we not supposed to use our intellectual gifts/talents to the best of our ability?
Is the person who comes to the honestly held opinion that its all a pile of bollocks in worse shape than the person who doesn't give any of it much thought at all, but merely coasts along on what they were indoctrinated with as a young child?
But if your dead and you are able to regret (or not) something... then....theres an afterlife
On your other point if you used your intellectual ability you would indeed realise that many version of what is real are possible, unless of course you've been indoctrinated into thinking that one of them is for sure real...?
Let's not complicate or obfuscate a straightforward question Joe. Tony is saying that someone may come to regret a lack of faith if they were to die and find they were mistaken. I'm merely asking how someone could be subject to such harsh consequences for an honestly held opinion and asking why someone who did have faith merely because they'd never challenged it beyond what they were taught as a child should fair better?
What harsh consequences?
Anyway ..So your telling me that with so many telling you there is the supernatural, the undeniable possibility that there is one, your former belief that there was one. You wouldn't regret in choosing to believe there is defo none, even when you also had a third (and admittedly) probably more logical choice to say maybe there is?
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 12:17:36 AM
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2017, 12:00:19 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 11:43:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 03, 2017, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 10:28:42 PM
You may die to regret this
Why would one regret an honestly held opinion?
If the god of the bible is real, are we not supposed to use our intellectual gifts/talents to the best of our ability?
Is the person who comes to the honestly held opinion that its all a pile of bollocks in worse shape than the person who doesn't give any of it much thought at all, but merely coasts along on what they were indoctrinated with as a young child?
But if your dead and you are able to regret (or not) something... then....theres an afterlife
On your other point if you used your intellectual ability you would indeed realise that many version of what is real are possible, unless of course you've been indoctrinated into thinking that one of them is for sure real...?
Let's not complicate or obfuscate a straightforward question Joe. Tony is saying that someone may come to regret a lack of faith if they were to die and find they were mistaken. I'm merely asking how someone could be subject to such harsh consequences for an honestly held opinion and asking why someone who did have faith merely because they'd never challenged it beyond what they were taught as a child should fair better?
What harsh consequences?
Seriously?
Damnation and hellfire.
Millennia in some penitential purgatory.
Whatever the consequence of unbelief in whatever god one is talking about, in this case, Tony's christian god.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 12:17:36 AM
Anyway ..So your telling me that with so many telling you there is the supernatural, the undeniable possibility that there is one, your former belief that there was one. You wouldn't regret in choosing to believe there is defo none, even when you also had a third (and admittedly) probably more logical choice to say maybe there is?
I don't choose to believe or disbelieve anything. It is a judgment call.
Which is my point.
The point is,according to scripture belief in God is an essential requirement for salvation,not the capacity to rationalise or use intellect.Quite simply and logically then,dying without belief in God (if he in fact exists and scripture is true) has disastrous consequences for such individuals.
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2017, 02:55:17 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 12:17:36 AM
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2017, 12:00:19 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 11:43:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 03, 2017, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 10:28:42 PM
You may die to regret this
Why would one regret an honestly held opinion?
If the god of the bible is real, are we not supposed to use our intellectual gifts/talents to the best of our ability?
Is the person who comes to the honestly held opinion that its all a pile of bollocks in worse shape than the person who doesn't give any of it much thought at all, but merely coasts along on what they were indoctrinated with as a young child?
But if your dead and you are able to regret (or not) something... then....theres an afterlife
On your other point if you used your intellectual ability you would indeed realise that many version of what is real are possible, unless of course you've been indoctrinated into thinking that one of them is for sure real...?
Let's not complicate or obfuscate a straightforward question Joe. Tony is saying that someone may come to regret a lack of faith if they were to die and find they were mistaken. I'm merely asking how someone could be subject to such harsh consequences for an honestly held opinion and asking why someone who did have faith merely because they'd never challenged it beyond what they were taught as a child should fair better?
What harsh consequences?
Seriously?
Damnation and hellfire.
Millennia in some penitential purgatory.
Whatever the consequence of unbelief in whatever god one is talking about, in this case, Tony's christian god.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 12:17:36 AM
Anyway ..So your telling me that with so many telling you there is the supernatural, the undeniable possibility that there is one, your former belief that there was one. You wouldn't regret in choosing to believe there is defo none, even when you also had a third (and admittedly) probably more logical choice to say maybe there is?
I don't choose to believe or disbelieve anything. It is a judgment call.
Which is my point.
Now your adding things on that may be the case but it depends on your faith, who knows. Who said anything about consequences? I was talking about it from a more personal viewpoint but thinking about it maybe I was assuming we still have an ego in the here after, apologies if there was confusion.
Anyway you've professed atheism here before so I was alluding to your honestly held belief / disbelief in that....? So are you saying that you've shifted your position on it?
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 08:51:59 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 03, 2017, 08:30:52 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2017, 08:28:59 PM
Whats wrong with that? A simple plea for mercy for all sinners
How can everyone be a sinner? It''s nuts
Do you remember nothing Seafoid?
Our bodies are just vessels riddled by temptations like selfishness, egos, and envy, therefore we are inherently all sinners. In fact that first line is probably sinning against you as its somewhat belittling you, but I'll leave it in as an example of how easy it is to sin. ;)
Maybe you should ask yourself or a priest about what these lines are trying to say rather than declare it nuts just straight off.
It comes across like you have a very closed mind. Like you have a paradigm that you are not going to deviate from maybe?
If God made us like that Joe how is it our fault? Why do.other religions not have the concept of sin?
Quote from: T Fearon on May 04, 2017, 03:15:35 AM
The point is,according to scripture belief in God is an essential requirement for salvation,not the capacity to rationalise or use intellect.Quite simply and logically then,dying without belief in God (if he in fact exists and scripture is true) has disastrous consequences for such individuals.
so now you're questioning the bible and his existence.
big change since earlier in the thread
Quote from: T Fearon on May 04, 2017, 03:15:35 AM
The point is,according to scripture belief in God is an essential requirement for salvation,not the capacity to rationalise or use intellect.Quite simply and logically then,dying without belief in God (if he in fact exists and scripture is true) has disastrous consequences for such individuals.
Are Hindus damned ?
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 03:56:52 AM
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2017, 02:55:17 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 12:17:36 AM
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2017, 12:00:19 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 11:43:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 03, 2017, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 10:28:42 PM
You may die to regret this
Why would one regret an honestly held opinion?
If the god of the bible is real, are we not supposed to use our intellectual gifts/talents to the best of our ability?
Is the person who comes to the honestly held opinion that its all a pile of bollocks in worse shape than the person who doesn't give any of it much thought at all, but merely coasts along on what they were indoctrinated with as a young child?
But if your dead and you are able to regret (or not) something... then....theres an afterlife
On your other point if you used your intellectual ability you would indeed realise that many version of what is real are possible, unless of course you've been indoctrinated into thinking that one of them is for sure real...?
Let's not complicate or obfuscate a straightforward question Joe. Tony is saying that someone may come to regret a lack of faith if they were to die and find they were mistaken. I'm merely asking how someone could be subject to such harsh consequences for an honestly held opinion and asking why someone who did have faith merely because they'd never challenged it beyond what they were taught as a child should fair better?
What harsh consequences?
Seriously?
Damnation and hellfire.
Millennia in some penitential purgatory.
Whatever the consequence of unbelief in whatever god one is talking about, in this case, Tony's christian god.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 12:17:36 AM
Anyway ..So your telling me that with so many telling you there is the supernatural, the undeniable possibility that there is one, your former belief that there was one. You wouldn't regret in choosing to believe there is defo none, even when you also had a third (and admittedly) probably more logical choice to say maybe there is?
I don't choose to believe or disbelieve anything. It is a judgment call.
Which is my point.
Now your adding things on that may be the case but it depends on your faith, who knows. Who said anything about consequences? I was talking about it from a more personal viewpoint but thinking about it maybe I was assuming we still have an ego in the here after, apologies if there was confusion.
Anyway you've professed atheism here before so I was alluding to your honestly held belief / disbelief in that....? So are you saying that you've shifted your position on it?
Er... no... in my opinion, which I did not choose, gods don't exist. Which makes me an atheist.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 04, 2017, 03:15:35 AM
The point is,according to scripture belief in God is an essential requirement for salvation,not the capacity to rationalise or use intellect.Quite simply and logically then,dying without belief in God (if he in fact exists and scripture is true) has disastrous consequences for such individuals.
Well then god is an irrational, egomaniac.
Trump-type figure.
How can one choose to believe?
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2017, 02:26:28 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 03:56:52 AM
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2017, 02:55:17 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 12:17:36 AM
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2017, 12:00:19 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 11:43:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 03, 2017, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 10:28:42 PM
You may die to regret this
Why would one regret an honestly held opinion?
If the god of the bible is real, are we not supposed to use our intellectual gifts/talents to the best of our ability?
Is the person who comes to the honestly held opinion that its all a pile of bollocks in worse shape than the person who doesn't give any of it much thought at all, but merely coasts along on what they were indoctrinated with as a young child?
But if your dead and you are able to regret (or not) something... then....theres an afterlife
On your other point if you used your intellectual ability you would indeed realise that many version of what is real are possible, unless of course you've been indoctrinated into thinking that one of them is for sure real...?
Let's not complicate or obfuscate a straightforward question Joe. Tony is saying that someone may come to regret a lack of faith if they were to die and find they were mistaken. I'm merely asking how someone could be subject to such harsh consequences for an honestly held opinion and asking why someone who did have faith merely because they'd never challenged it beyond what they were taught as a child should fair better?
What harsh consequences?
Seriously?
Damnation and hellfire.
Millennia in some penitential purgatory.
Whatever the consequence of unbelief in whatever god one is talking about, in this case, Tony's christian god.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 12:17:36 AM
Anyway ..So your telling me that with so many telling you there is the supernatural, the undeniable possibility that there is one, your former belief that there was one. You wouldn't regret in choosing to believe there is defo none, even when you also had a third (and admittedly) probably more logical choice to say maybe there is?
I don't choose to believe or disbelieve anything. It is a judgment call.
Which is my point.
Now your adding things on that may be the case but it depends on your faith, who knows. Who said anything about consequences? I was talking about it from a more personal viewpoint but thinking about it maybe I was assuming we still have an ego in the here after, apologies if there was confusion.
Anyway you've professed atheism here before so I was alluding to your honestly held belief / disbelief in that....? So are you saying that you've shifted your position on it?
Er... no... in my opinion, which I did not choose, gods don't exist. Which makes me an atheist.
You didn't choose your opinion? so...... you dont believe in freewill either?
As I say I would like to see your rationale on that "opinion" because the only logical one is that God's may exist or they may not. Taking one or other of those two sides further involves a belief.
Quote from: seafoid on May 04, 2017, 04:30:37 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 08:51:59 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 03, 2017, 08:30:52 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2017, 08:28:59 PM
Whats wrong with that? A simple plea for mercy for all sinners
How can everyone be a sinner? It''s nuts
Do you remember nothing Seafoid?
Our bodies are just vessels riddled by temptations like selfishness, egos, and envy, therefore we are inherently all sinners. In fact that first line is probably sinning against you as its somewhat belittling you, but I'll leave it in as an example of how easy it is to sin. ;)
Maybe you should ask yourself or a priest about what these lines are trying to say rather than declare it nuts just straight off.
It comes across like you have a very closed mind. Like you have a paradigm that you are not going to deviate from maybe?
If God made us like that Joe how is it our fault? Why do.other religions not have the concept of sin?
Other religions dont have the concept of sin? What are you talking about of course they do
I dunno why he gave us bodies like this Seafoid you'll have to ask him yourself. Perhaps it was the only way that he could get a vessel for us to experience this world and gave us freewill, through generations of evolution.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 02:51:03 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2017, 02:26:28 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 03:56:52 AM
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2017, 02:55:17 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 12:17:36 AM
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2017, 12:00:19 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 11:43:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 03, 2017, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 10:28:42 PM
You may die to regret this
Why would one regret an honestly held opinion?
If the god of the bible is real, are we not supposed to use our intellectual gifts/talents to the best of our ability?
Is the person who comes to the honestly held opinion that its all a pile of bollocks in worse shape than the person who doesn't give any of it much thought at all, but merely coasts along on what they were indoctrinated with as a young child?
But if your dead and you are able to regret (or not) something... then....theres an afterlife
On your other point if you used your intellectual ability you would indeed realise that many version of what is real are possible, unless of course you've been indoctrinated into thinking that one of them is for sure real...?
Let's not complicate or obfuscate a straightforward question Joe. Tony is saying that someone may come to regret a lack of faith if they were to die and find they were mistaken. I'm merely asking how someone could be subject to such harsh consequences for an honestly held opinion and asking why someone who did have faith merely because they'd never challenged it beyond what they were taught as a child should fair better?
What harsh consequences?
Seriously?
Damnation and hellfire.
Millennia in some penitential purgatory.
Whatever the consequence of unbelief in whatever god one is talking about, in this case, Tony's christian god.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 12:17:36 AM
Anyway ..So your telling me that with so many telling you there is the supernatural, the undeniable possibility that there is one, your former belief that there was one. You wouldn't regret in choosing to believe there is defo none, even when you also had a third (and admittedly) probably more logical choice to say maybe there is?
I don't choose to believe or disbelieve anything. It is a judgment call.
Which is my point.
Now your adding things on that may be the case but it depends on your faith, who knows. Who said anything about consequences? I was talking about it from a more personal viewpoint but thinking about it maybe I was assuming we still have an ego in the here after, apologies if there was confusion.
Anyway you've professed atheism here before so I was alluding to your honestly held belief / disbelief in that....? So are you saying that you've shifted your position on it?
Er... no... in my opinion, which I did not choose, gods don't exist. Which makes me an atheist.
You didn't choose your opinion? so...... you dont believe in freewill either?
As I say I would like to see your rationale on that "opinion" because the only logical one is that God's may exist or they may not. Taking one or other of those two sides further involves a belief.
I'm not seeing the apparent conflict between coming to a conclusion and free will.
And I never said belief is not involved. I said I don't see how one "chooses" a belief.
Are you suggesting I can sit down now over lunch and choose to believe in deities? Or that Tony can just decide to be an atheist?
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2017, 02:30:39 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 04, 2017, 03:15:35 AM
The point is,according to scripture belief in God is an essential requirement for salvation,not the capacity to rationalise or use intellect.Quite simply and logically then,dying without belief in God (if he in fact exists and scripture is true) has disastrous consequences for such individuals.
Well then god is an irrational, egomaniac.
Trump-type figure.
How can one choose to believe?
The Christian God is vindictive. The Hindu God Ganesh is much more decent
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2017, 06:23:59 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 02:51:03 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2017, 02:26:28 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 03:56:52 AM
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2017, 02:55:17 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 12:17:36 AM
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2017, 12:00:19 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 11:43:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 03, 2017, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 10:28:42 PM
You may die to regret this
Why would one regret an honestly held opinion?
If the god of the bible is real, are we not supposed to use our intellectual gifts/talents to the best of our ability?
Is the person who comes to the honestly held opinion that its all a pile of bollocks in worse shape than the person who doesn't give any of it much thought at all, but merely coasts along on what they were indoctrinated with as a young child?
But if your dead and you are able to regret (or not) something... then....theres an afterlife
On your other point if you used your intellectual ability you would indeed realise that many version of what is real are possible, unless of course you've been indoctrinated into thinking that one of them is for sure real...?
Let's not complicate or obfuscate a straightforward question Joe. Tony is saying that someone may come to regret a lack of faith if they were to die and find they were mistaken. I'm merely asking how someone could be subject to such harsh consequences for an honestly held opinion and asking why someone who did have faith merely because they'd never challenged it beyond what they were taught as a child should fair better?
What harsh consequences?
Seriously?
Damnation and hellfire.
Millennia in some penitential purgatory.
Whatever the consequence of unbelief in whatever god one is talking about, in this case, Tony's christian god.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 12:17:36 AM
Anyway ..So your telling me that with so many telling you there is the supernatural, the undeniable possibility that there is one, your former belief that there was one. You wouldn't regret in choosing to believe there is defo none, even when you also had a third (and admittedly) probably more logical choice to say maybe there is?
I don't choose to believe or disbelieve anything. It is a judgment call.
Which is my point.
Now your adding things on that may be the case but it depends on your faith, who knows. Who said anything about consequences? I was talking about it from a more personal viewpoint but thinking about it maybe I was assuming we still have an ego in the here after, apologies if there was confusion.
Anyway you've professed atheism here before so I was alluding to your honestly held belief / disbelief in that....? So are you saying that you've shifted your position on it?
Er... no... in my opinion, which I did not choose, gods don't exist. Which makes me an atheist.
You didn't choose your opinion? so...... you dont believe in freewill either?
As I say I would like to see your rationale on that "opinion" because the only logical one is that God's may exist or they may not. Taking one or other of those two sides further involves a belief.
I'm not seeing the apparent conflict between coming to a conclusion and free will.
And I never said belief is not involved. I said I don't see how one "chooses" a belief.
Are you suggesting I can sit down now over lunch and choose to believe in deities? Or that Tony can just decide to be an atheist?
You said it wasn't a choice, so if you dont have a choice then you dont have free will...no?
You also said above that you dont believe or disbelieve anything, which as I pointed couldn't be true as it would be impossible to hold an opinion on anything.
Course its a choice to believe (or not) in the non physical, Tony's even said as much before. I even had that Eureka moment your talking about, in one moment I gave into my own intuition, I could choose not to tomorrow who knows ;)
So yes you can, and if you say you can't then it appears you dont believe you have freewill.
It seems to me that there is a lot of inconsistencies in what your saying J70 perhaps you could point me in the right direction.
How can the God who sacrificed his son on a cross,out of love for mankind,be described as vindictive?
Quote from: T Fearon on May 04, 2017, 09:02:56 PM
How can the God who sacrificed his son on a cross,out of love for mankind,be described as vindictive?
Maybe the answer is in the question.
It's not.Given that God is made up of the Holy Trinity he in effect took on the suffering of the crucifixion on himself,out of love for mankind,thus offering salvation to all
So God gave up his son (who is himself) as the ultimate sacrafice even though he was going to rise up into heaven anyway. Yeah sure.
Whatever about salvation I acknowledge the job God has done,but he has met minimum expectations domestically,for which lavish praise is not due in my opinion. The Iona Institute will always spin the numbers. This has unbelievably exceeded the praise lavished on the Holy Spirit who exceeded all expectations last year.
I suspect God himself will be judged ultimately on how he performs in Europe.Especially on church attendances.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 04, 2017, 10:07:07 PM
It's not.Given that God is made up of the Holy Trinity he in effect took on the suffering of the crucifixion on himself,out of love for mankind,thus offering salvation to all
He sent himself, to sacrifice himself, to appease himself.
Makes perfect sense.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 05, 2017, 01:30:37 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 04, 2017, 10:07:07 PM
It's not.Given that God is made up of the Holy Trinity he in effect took on the suffering of the crucifixion on himself,out of love for mankind,thus offering salvation to all
He sent himself, to sacrifice himself, to appease himself.
Makes perfect sense.
Who manned the cloud when he was down on earth?
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 09:01:57 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2017, 06:23:59 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 02:51:03 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2017, 02:26:28 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 03:56:52 AM
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2017, 02:55:17 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 12:17:36 AM
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2017, 12:00:19 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 11:43:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 03, 2017, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 10:28:42 PM
You may die to regret this
Why would one regret an honestly held opinion?
If the god of the bible is real, are we not supposed to use our intellectual gifts/talents to the best of our ability?
Is the person who comes to the honestly held opinion that its all a pile of bollocks in worse shape than the person who doesn't give any of it much thought at all, but merely coasts along on what they were indoctrinated with as a young child?
But if your dead and you are able to regret (or not) something... then....theres an afterlife
On your other point if you used your intellectual ability you would indeed realise that many version of what is real are possible, unless of course you've been indoctrinated into thinking that one of them is for sure real...?
Let's not complicate or obfuscate a straightforward question Joe. Tony is saying that someone may come to regret a lack of faith if they were to die and find they were mistaken. I'm merely asking how someone could be subject to such harsh consequences for an honestly held opinion and asking why someone who did have faith merely because they'd never challenged it beyond what they were taught as a child should fair better?
What harsh consequences?
Seriously?
Damnation and hellfire.
Millennia in some penitential purgatory.
Whatever the consequence of unbelief in whatever god one is talking about, in this case, Tony's christian god.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 12:17:36 AM
Anyway ..So your telling me that with so many telling you there is the supernatural, the undeniable possibility that there is one, your former belief that there was one. You wouldn't regret in choosing to believe there is defo none, even when you also had a third (and admittedly) probably more logical choice to say maybe there is?
I don't choose to believe or disbelieve anything. It is a judgment call.
Which is my point.
Now your adding things on that may be the case but it depends on your faith, who knows. Who said anything about consequences? I was talking about it from a more personal viewpoint but thinking about it maybe I was assuming we still have an ego in the here after, apologies if there was confusion.
Anyway you've professed atheism here before so I was alluding to your honestly held belief / disbelief in that....? So are you saying that you've shifted your position on it?
Er... no... in my opinion, which I did not choose, gods don't exist. Which makes me an atheist.
You didn't choose your opinion? so...... you dont believe in freewill either?
As I say I would like to see your rationale on that "opinion" because the only logical one is that God's may exist or they may not. Taking one or other of those two sides further involves a belief.
I'm not seeing the apparent conflict between coming to a conclusion and free will.
And I never said belief is not involved. I said I don't see how one "chooses" a belief.
Are you suggesting I can sit down now over lunch and choose to believe in deities? Or that Tony can just decide to be an atheist?
You said it wasn't a choice, so if you dont have a choice then you dont have free will...no?
You also said above that you dont believe or disbelieve anything, which as I pointed couldn't be true as it would be impossible to hold an opinion on anything.
Course its a choice to believe (or not) in the non physical, Tony's even said as much before. I even had that Eureka moment your talking about, in one moment I gave into my own intuition, I could choose not to tomorrow who knows ;)
So yes you can, and if you say you can't then it appears you dont believe you have freewill.
It seems to me that there is a lot of inconsistencies in what your saying J70 perhaps you could point me in the right direction.
Joe, you are misquoting me, presumably unintentionally.
I did not say I don't believe or disbelieve anything. I said I don't CHOOSE to believe or disbelieve anything.
And sorry, but it's NOT a choice. One forms an opinion or makes a judgement by weighing the evidence and using reason and logic. How I am supposed to just choose to believe in the existence of gods or some specific god is beyond me. Your "giving in to your intuition", whatever that entailed or means, doesn't change that.
I don't see any inconsistency Joe. Same, simple, straightforward point over and over. Which I stand by.
omaghjoe and J70, if I may enter the debate, I think what J70 is saying is that he has assessed all the evidence, as he sees it, and has decided that it is very unlikely that there is a deity and so he considers himself an atheist.
I'm in the same boat.
omaghjoe feels that there is a deity. This feeling exists due to some inexplicable reason(s). I'm unsure of how that translates over to a specific deity, i.e. Yahweh, Jesus Christ etc.
I've stopped using the word "believe" in these discussions as I find it hard to define, as I think your discussion to this point has highlighted.
People are more educated and have access to more information than peasants in the 7th century did. It is not surprising that faith is under pressure.
Catholicism has very little to offer modern women.
J70
If you say your not choosing to believe or disbelieve anything, then your saying you don't have freewill is that correct? Besides if your an atheist by definition you dont believe in God but what your are saying contradicts that.
And....
Esm/J70
If you are forming an opinion using evidence you are choosing to believe that the evidence you have is correct.
So I will ask... how do you know you have all the evidence? And more pertinently how do you know that any of the evidence you have is correct? These questions i have asked dozens of times on here and usually I receive no answer, ad hominen (tho not from your good selfs), or on occasions I'll a completely inadequate one.
If you were using logic you would have questioned the validity of the evidence and you could only conclude there is no possible way to know if it is correct and complete and most likely it does not give us a true or accurate picture.
So therefore without belief in something (in your case your "evidence") you could not believe anything is correct.
Quote from: seafoid on May 05, 2017, 01:50:35 PM
People are more educated and have access to more information than peasants in the 7th century did. It is not surprising that faith is under pressure.
Catholicism has very little to offer modern women.
This is codswallop Seafoid in my experience women usually easily outnumber men at mass.
Why would faith be under pressure from education? The only thing that's its under pressure from is the cultural rise of self-importance, but long term thats likely to be only a blip as it will be checked by society.
But if you keep repeating mantra eventually you'll convince yourself.
On a side note, I find it strange when people in sport use lines like "please God we'll get through to the final". What's God got to do with it? If they didn't win, was it Gods fault or the teams?
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2017, 08:58:57 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 05, 2017, 01:50:35 PM
People are more educated and have access to more information than peasants in the 7th century did. It is not surprising that faith is under pressure.
Catholicism has very little to offer modern women.
This is codswallop Seafoid in my experience women usually easily outnumber men at mass.
Why would faith be under pressure from education? The only thing that's its under pressure from is the cultural rise of self-importance, but long term thats likely to be only a blip as it will be checked by society.
But if you keep repeating mantra eventually you'll convince yourself.
I saw a list of all the developments opposed by the Church in the South.
Childrens allowance, tampons (FFS), contraception, divorce .. it was quite a long list.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2017, 08:58:57 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 05, 2017, 01:50:35 PM
People are more educated and have access to more information than peasants in the 7th century did. It is not surprising that faith is under pressure.
Catholicism has very little to offer modern women.
This is codswallop Seafoid in my experience women usually easily outnumber men at mass.
Why would faith be under pressure from education? The only thing that's its under pressure from is the cultural rise of self-importance, but long term thats likely to be only a blip as it will be checked by society.
But if you keep repeating mantra eventually you'll convince yourself.
Joe. I don'rt intend to join the barney going on here so I won't be hanging around but I can't let some of your comments pass without question. Firstly, in my experience women do definitely outnumber men at mass so I have no problem with that. I can only go by what I see.
However, it is also my experience that faith, the Christian dogma anyway, is under tremendous from education. Numbers that are active Christians are falling in Ireland, England, and all others we regard as first world societies eg,those who who are literate, numerate as well as articulate .
Numbers are increasing in Eastern Europe and third world countries such as the Philippines who are none of the above. The common themes here is poverty and lack of education. Cultural self-importance is a by-product of education, pure and simple.
When Paddys and Biddys emigrated in their thousands, they carried a simple faith with them and stuck with it in the face of all difficulties they had to contend with. Nowadays, the numbers of practicing Christians are dwindling rapidly and the only major reason is the difference of the standard of education back then and now.
I'm not taking any side in the present dispute when I say that there is no evidence of any sort to suggest that the decline of Catholicism will be checked by society. if it's not being checked at present, there is little hope that it will be in some future time.
Quote from: BennyCake on May 05, 2017, 09:41:08 PM
On a side note, I find it strange when people in sport use lines like "please God we'll get through to the final". What's God got to do with it? If they didn't win, was it Gods fault or the teams?
some of the feckers on the squad didn't go to mass
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2017, 08:58:57 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 05, 2017, 01:50:35 PM
People are more educated and have access to more information than peasants in the 7th century did. It is not surprising that faith is under pressure.
Catholicism has very little to offer modern women.
This is codswallop Seafoid in my experience women usually easily outnumber men at mass.
Why would faith be under pressure from education? The only thing that's its under pressure from is the cultural rise of self-importance, but long term thats likely to be only a blip as it will be checked by society.
But if you keep repeating mantra eventually you'll convince yourself.
Hmmm.
http://indo.ie/8WKg30bucVn (http://indo.ie/8WKg30bucVn)
Stephen fry reportedto guards for blasphemous comments on rte show. Kind of related to the thread...
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on May 06, 2017, 10:22:19 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 05, 2017, 09:41:08 PM
On a side note, I find it strange when people in sport use lines like "please God we'll get through to the final". What's God got to do with it? If they didn't win, was it Gods fault or the teams?
some of the feckers on the squad didn't go to mass
That would explain it.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2017, 06:59:37 PM
J70
If you say your not choosing to believe or disbelieve anything, then your saying you don't have freewill is that correct? Besides if your an atheist by definition you dont believe in God but what your are saying contradicts that.
Once again, I'm not getting the connection between free will and weighing evidence and coming to an honest conclusion.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2017, 06:59:37 PM
And....
Esm/J70
If you are forming an opinion using evidence you are choosing to believe that the evidence you have is correct.
So I will ask... how do you know you have all the evidence? And more pertinently how do you know that any of the evidence you have is correct? These questions i have asked dozens of times on here and usually I receive no answer, ad hominen (tho not from your good selfs), or on occasions I'll a completely inadequate one.
How can one EVER know they have all the evidence? That is obviously an impossibility. So one goes on what one has. For millennia, evidence of any kind was so limited and inadequate, that deities (whether single or multiple) were the default cause and origin of everything. There was so much we could not explain, that that was the starting point for what caused A-Z. We can't explain X by what we see every day, therefore there must be such and such a magical unseen being behind it. Then, especially in the past 200 years, we've been chiseling away at the causes of A-Z, and the movement from column A to B has been one way.
But even if we accept that we don't know (or ever will know) everything, we still have to come to an intellectually honest conclusion, one way or the other, based on what we do know. That conclusion is not a choice. Either you find one explanation convincing or you find the other convincing. One can cherry pick when
presenting an argument, but you can't fool yourself (or, if he/she/it/they exist(s) as an omniscient, omnipotent being(s) with some kind of interest in whether you believe in them or not, gods).
I mean, what's the alternative? That you DON'T form an opinion because you can't determine if anything is valid or approaching some level of completeness allowing a judgment to be formed? Assuming that is even possible, where does that leave on when faced with the supposed judgment day?
And sorry if you consider my response inadequate. I'm obviously no philosopher.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2017, 06:59:37 PM
If you were using logic you would have questioned the validity of the evidence and you could only conclude there is no possible way to know if it is correct and complete and most likely it does not give us a true or accurate picture.
So therefore without belief in something (in your case your "evidence") you could not believe anything is correct.
As above, that still doesn't make one's conclusion a choice. And if the god Tony believes in is real and is the one who equipped us with our senses and intellect and perception, how can he hold us accountable for honestly coming to the wrong conclusion using the very tools he granted? Are we supposed to use our "free will" to reject, a priori, anything that leads us to the wrong conclusion? Is it a case of I'll let you do what you want, but you better arrive at this pre-determined end point or that shit is going down? Do we judge what's valid and what is not, after the fact, based on the outcome?
And once again, is the person who simply accepts the indoctrination and slides through, not challenging themselves and lucking out on the right side, in better shape than the honest, curious person who ended up being wrong? If any of us had lived 300 years ago, we'd almost to a man be unquestioning, young earth creationists. Would we be on the fast track to heaven, with no intellectual obstacles in our way?
I think I've said this before, but if you live your day to day life to the standard you espouse here, where no assumptions or perceptions are necessarily valid, I don't know how you make it out of bed! :)
Surely in the light of Stephen Fry case, Garda should be prosecuting loads of constant blasphemers on this thread and Board. Over to the Mods.
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2017, 07:07:16 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2017, 06:59:37 PM
J70
If you say your not choosing to believe or disbelieve anything, then your saying you don't have freewill is that correct? Besides if your an atheist by definition you dont believe in God but what your are saying contradicts that.
Once again, I'm not getting the connection between free will and weighing evidence and coming to an honest conclusion.
J70 If you say you didnt choose your conclusion then there was no choice involved therefore no freewill? Similar to a computer running some logic? ..ie no freewill? I pretty sure tho that a computer would just say I don't know. Your in agreement tho that your arent actually an atheist since you dont believe you just conclude? Or are they the same thing?
Also didnt you choose to make the analysis yourself even if you cant admit that the conclusions you make are a choice?
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2017, 07:07:16 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2017, 06:59:37 PM
And....
Esm/J70
If you are forming an opinion using evidence you are choosing to believe that the evidence you have is correct.
So I will ask... how do you know you have all the evidence? And more pertinently how do you know that any of the evidence you have is correct? These questions i have asked dozens of times on here and usually I receive no answer, ad hominen (tho not from your good selfs), or on occasions I'll a completely inadequate one.
How can one EVER know they have all the evidence? That is obviously an impossibility. So one goes on what one has. For millennia, evidence of any kind was so limited and inadequate, that deities (whether single or multiple) were the default cause and origin of everything. There was so much we could not explain, that that was the starting point for what caused A-Z. We can't explain X by what we see every day, therefore there must be such and such a magical unseen being behind it. Then, especially in the past 200 years, we've been chiseling away at the causes of A-Z, and the movement from column A to B has been one way.
But even if we accept that we don't know (or ever will know) everything, we still have to come to an intellectually honest conclusion, one way or the other, based on what we do know. That conclusion is not a choice. Either you find one explanation convincing or you find the other convincing. One can cherry pick when presenting an argument, but you can't fool yourself (or, if he/she/it/they exist(s) as an omniscient, omnipotent being(s) with some kind of interest in whether you believe in them or not, gods).
I mean, what's the alternative? That you DON'T form an opinion because you can't determine if anything is valid or approaching some level of completeness allowing a judgment to be formed? Assuming that is even possible, where does that leave on when faced with the supposed judgment day?
And sorry if you consider my response inadequate. I'm obviously no philosopher.
So your aware that you dont have all the evidence but are willing to make a call on it anyway? Sounds more like a prediction than anything. Like you would make about a match in the future where there is no way to possibly know but your gonna call it anyway. If you'll allow that analogy then you'd have to say that predicting football matches is exactly that, a prediction as you never really know..
You also didnt address my more pertinent point about how you know the evidence that you do have is correct?
Also what is this evidence by the way? I've havent seen any to suggest there is no non physical realm out there. In fact the order in the universe that we experience would suggest it is made by intelligent design (computer simulation is a front runner these days), and moreover the fact that we experience it at all when there is seemingly no reason for us to also suggests there is a deeper meaning to our lives. Rehashing the God of Gaps is simply a straw man which out of interest originated as a term for those of weak faith.
Quote
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2017, 06:59:37 PM
If you were using logic you would have questioned the validity of the evidence and you could only conclude there is no possible way to know if it is correct and complete and most likely it does not give us a true or accurate picture.
So therefore without belief in something (in your case your "evidence") you could not believe anything is correct.
As above, that still doesn't make one's conclusion a choice. And if the god Tony believes in is real and is the one who equipped us with our senses and intellect and perception, how can he hold us accountable for honestly coming to the wrong conclusion using the very tools he granted? Are we supposed to use our "free will" to reject, a priori, anything that leads us to the wrong conclusion? Is it a case of I'll let you do what you want, but you better arrive at this pre-determined end point or that shit is going down? Do we judge what's valid and what is not, after the fact, based on the outcome?
And once again, is the person who simply accepts the indoctrination and slides through, not challenging themselves and lucking out on the right side, in better shape than the honest, curious person who ended up being wrong? If any of us had lived 300 years ago, we'd almost to a man be unquestioning, young earth creationists. Would we be on the fast track to heaven, with no intellectual obstacles in our way?
I think I've said this before, but if you live your day to day life to the standard you espouse here, where no assumptions or perceptions are necessarily valid, I don't know how you make it out of bed! :)
They aren't my standards J70, they are yours, I dont live my life to them but you use them to conclude/believe/predict that the spiritual may/can/should not exist. I was wondering how rigorously you apply them to all aspects of your life? Obviously you don't as you say you wouldn't get out of bed, but if in the interests of fairness you did apply them to say a similar thing to spirituality like love... then the question would arise why get out of bed?
Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 05, 2017, 11:38:02 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2017, 08:58:57 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 05, 2017, 01:50:35 PM
People are more educated and have access to more information than peasants in the 7th century did. It is not surprising that faith is under pressure.
Catholicism has very little to offer modern women.
This is codswallop Seafoid in my experience women usually easily outnumber men at mass.
Why would faith be under pressure from education? The only thing that's its under pressure from is the cultural rise of self-importance, but long term thats likely to be only a blip as it will be checked by society.
But if you keep repeating mantra eventually you'll convince yourself.
Joe. I don'rt intend to join the barney going on here so I won't be hanging around but I can't let some of your comments pass without question. Firstly, in my experience women do definitely outnumber men at mass so I have no problem with that. I can only go by what I see.
However, it is also my experience that faith, the Christian dogma anyway, is under tremendous from education. Numbers that are active Christians are falling in Ireland, England, and all others we regard as first world societies eg,those who who are literate, numerate as well as articulate .
Numbers are increasing in Eastern Europe and third world countries such as the Philippines who are none of the above. The common themes here is poverty and lack of education. Cultural self-importance is a by-product of education, pure and simple.
When Paddys and Biddys emigrated in their thousands, they carried a simple faith with them and stuck with it in the face of all difficulties they had to contend with. Nowadays, the numbers of practicing Christians are dwindling rapidly and the only major reason is the difference of the standard of education back then and now.
I'm not taking any side in the present dispute when I say that there is no evidence of any sort to suggest that the decline of Catholicism will be checked by society. if it's not being checked at present, there is little hope that it will be in some future time.
Lar I was trying to say that the dip in religion is caused by the rise of individualism. The importance of the individual seems to supercede everything else these days. and that is not linked to education, well directly at least. I believe its linked to the pyraid scheme of capitalism which will either crash or be checked (likely the latter). There's a strong consensus among Anthropologists that society thrives with religion and that it isn't going anywhere.
Some of the greatest minds that ever lived were religious, they understood things a whole lot better than the modern educated masses who really just do what their peers are doing and for the most part only come up with rubbish (like many here do) anti-theist catch phrases, but there is gaping holes in their logic, if they were better educated they would likely recognise those gaps and be alot more aware that God/spiritual/dualist realm is indeed as possible as anything else.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 07, 2017, 08:54:43 AM
Surely in the light of Stephen Fry case, Garda should be prosecuting loads of constant blasphemers on this thread and Board. Over to the Mods.
On a completely unrelated matter, what's the deal with Jesus hanging out with men all the time, washing their feet, telling them he loved them and never getting married? I think Jesus might have been gay. What do you think, Tony? Would it explain his failure to close the deal with Mary Magdalene and hook up with her?
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 08, 2017, 08:53:42 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2017, 07:07:16 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2017, 06:59:37 PM
J70
If you say your not choosing to believe or disbelieve anything, then your saying you don't have freewill is that correct? Besides if your an atheist by definition you dont believe in God but what your are saying contradicts that.
Once again, I'm not getting the connection between free will and weighing evidence and coming to an honest conclusion.
J70 If you say you didnt choose your conclusion then there was no choice involved therefore no freewill? Similar to a computer running some logic? ..ie no freewill? I pretty sure tho that a computer would just say I don't know. Your in agreement tho that your arent actually an atheist since you dont believe you just conclude? Or are they the same thing?
Also didnt you choose to make the analysis yourself even if you cant admit that the conclusions you make are a choice?
You're just getting into ridiculous nitpicking now.
Yes, I guess one "chooses" the more convincing option when faced with a choice. If that it how weakly you interpret the concept of "choosing" to believe in the supernatural, then this god we are talking about is a petty, narcissistic, egomanaical arsehole for penalizing anyone who "chooses" wrongly.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 08, 2017, 08:53:42 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2017, 07:07:16 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2017, 06:59:37 PM
And....
Esm/J70
If you are forming an opinion using evidence you are choosing to believe that the evidence you have is correct.
So I will ask... how do you know you have all the evidence? And more pertinently how do you know that any of the evidence you have is correct? These questions i have asked dozens of times on here and usually I receive no answer, ad hominen (tho not from your good selfs), or on occasions I'll a completely inadequate one.
How can one EVER know they have all the evidence? That is obviously an impossibility. So one goes on what one has. For millennia, evidence of any kind was so limited and inadequate, that deities (whether single or multiple) were the default cause and origin of everything. There was so much we could not explain, that that was the starting point for what caused A-Z. We can't explain X by what we see every day, therefore there must be such and such a magical unseen being behind it. Then, especially in the past 200 years, we've been chiseling away at the causes of A-Z, and the movement from column A to B has been one way.
But even if we accept that we don't know (or ever will know) everything, we still have to come to an intellectually honest conclusion, one way or the other, based on what we do know. That conclusion is not a choice. Either you find one explanation convincing or you find the other convincing. One can cherry pick when presenting an argument, but you can't fool yourself (or, if he/she/it/they exist(s) as an omniscient, omnipotent being(s) with some kind of interest in whether you believe in them or not, gods).
I mean, what's the alternative? That you DON'T form an opinion because you can't determine if anything is valid or approaching some level of completeness allowing a judgment to be formed? Assuming that is even possible, where does that leave on when faced with the supposed judgment day?
And sorry if you consider my response inadequate. I'm obviously no philosopher.
So your aware that you dont have all the evidence but are willing to make a call on it anyway? Sounds more like a prediction than anything. Like you would make about a match in the future where there is no way to possibly know but your gonna call it anyway. If you'll allow that analogy then you'd have to say that predicting football matches is exactly that, a prediction as you never really know..
You also didnt address my more pertinent point about how you know the evidence that you do have is correct?
Also what is this evidence by the way? I've havent seen any to suggest there is no non physical realm out there. In fact the order in the universe that we experience would suggest it is made by intelligent design (computer simulation is a front runner these days), and moreover the fact that we experience it at all when there is seemingly no reason for us to also suggests there is a deeper meaning to our lives. Rehashing the God of Gaps is simply a straw man which out of interest originated as a term for those of weak faith.
You haven't seen evidence to suggest there is no non-physical realm??
Just what would evidence for OR against a non-physical realm look like?
And who is this intelligent designer with this supercomputer? And who designed him?? And who designed that designer??
And what have the intelligent design people been up to for the past 20+ years since they arrived on the scene announcing themselves and "irreducible complexity" as about to unleash a scientific revolution on a par with Newton?
As for "correctness of evidence", I have already addressed the concept. We are talking about humans forming an opinion of whether there are deities or supernatural beings or phenomena and whether there is a cost to the outcome of coming to that opinion.
In order to form the opinion, one obviously has to make assumptions that what one perceives and the evidence that accumulates and is repeatedly confirmed has some basis in reality. We do this all day, every day. And all day, every day those assumptions are either reinforced or reevaluated. (And this is what I was talking about in the "getting out of bed" bit, although I'm pretty sure you knew that).
But, as I've already said, the key is that these are the only tools we have. So why the f**k should person A be punished for coming to an honest opinion through the same process as person B who just lucked upon the "correct" conclusion?
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 08, 2017, 08:53:42 PM
Quote
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2017, 06:59:37 PM
If you were using logic you would have questioned the validity of the evidence and you could only conclude there is no possible way to know if it is correct and complete and most likely it does not give us a true or accurate picture.
So therefore without belief in something (in your case your "evidence") you could not believe anything is correct.
As above, that still doesn't make one's conclusion a choice. And if the god Tony believes in is real and is the one who equipped us with our senses and intellect and perception, how can he hold us accountable for honestly coming to the wrong conclusion using the very tools he granted? Are we supposed to use our "free will" to reject, a priori, anything that leads us to the wrong conclusion? Is it a case of I'll let you do what you want, but you better arrive at this pre-determined end point or that shit is going down? Do we judge what's valid and what is not, after the fact, based on the outcome?
And once again, is the person who simply accepts the indoctrination and slides through, not challenging themselves and lucking out on the right side, in better shape than the honest, curious person who ended up being wrong? If any of us had lived 300 years ago, we'd almost to a man be unquestioning, young earth creationists. Would we be on the fast track to heaven, with no intellectual obstacles in our way?
I think I've said this before, but if you live your day to day life to the standard you espouse here, where no assumptions or perceptions are necessarily valid, I don't know how you make it out of bed! :)
They aren't my standards J70, they are yours, I dont live my life to them but you use them to conclude/believe/predict that the spiritual may/can/should not exist. I was wondering how rigorously you apply them to all aspects of your life? Obviously you don't as you say you wouldn't get out of bed, but if in the interests of fairness you did apply them to say a similar thing to spirituality like love... then the question would arise why get out of bed?
Em, no, they're not my standards. Everyday, run of the mill life functions just fine going by our perceptions and assumptions. Extending that outwards to bigger questions presents no problems whatsoever for me. And I suspect that's the way for almost everyone, whatever "choice" they end up making vis a vis the needy gods.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 08, 2017, 09:06:27 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 05, 2017, 11:38:02 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2017, 08:58:57 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 05, 2017, 01:50:35 PM
People are more educated and have access to more information than peasants in the 7th century did. It is not surprising that faith is under pressure.
Catholicism has very little to offer modern women.
This is codswallop Seafoid in my experience women usually easily outnumber men at mass.
Why would faith be under pressure from education? The only thing that's its under pressure from is the cultural rise of self-importance, but long term thats likely to be only a blip as it will be checked by society.
But if you keep repeating mantra eventually you'll convince yourself.
Joe. I don'rt intend to join the barney going on here so I won't be hanging around but I can't let some of your comments pass without question. Firstly, in my experience women do definitely outnumber men at mass so I have no problem with that. I can only go by what I see.
However, it is also my experience that faith, the Christian dogma anyway, is under tremendous from education. Numbers that are active Christians are falling in Ireland, England, and all others we regard as first world societies eg,those who who are literate, numerate as well as articulate .
Numbers are increasing in Eastern Europe and third world countries such as the Philippines who are none of the above. The common themes here is poverty and lack of education. Cultural self-importance is a by-product of education, pure and simple.
When Paddys and Biddys emigrated in their thousands, they carried a simple faith with them and stuck with it in the face of all difficulties they had to contend with. Nowadays, the numbers of practicing Christians are dwindling rapidly and the only major reason is the difference of the standard of education back then and now.
I'm not taking any side in the present dispute when I say that there is no evidence of any sort to suggest that the decline of Catholicism will be checked by society. if it's not being checked at present, there is little hope that it will be in some future time.
Lar I was trying to say that the dip in religion is caused by the rise of individualism. The importance of the individual seems to supercede everything else these days. and that is not linked to education, well directly at least. I believe its linked to the pyraid scheme of capitalism which will either crash or be checked (likely the latter). There's a strong consensus among Anthropologists that society thrives with religion and that it isn't going anywhere.
Some of the greatest minds that ever lived were religious, they understood things a whole lot better than the modern educated masses who really just do what their peers are doing and for the most part only come up with rubbish (like many here do) anti-theist catch phrases, but there is gaping holes in their logic, if they were better educated they would likely recognise those gaps and be alot more aware that God/spiritual/dualist realm is indeed as possible as anything else.
I am well educated, I absolutely recognize that there are gaps (and have said so plenty of times, including in this very discussion) and sure there could be a god or whatever (my receding hair
could grow back next year too). But that whole deity/creator thing has been the default position for almost all of history, a given for any period, unquestioned, including for many of these intellectual giants of the past, given that you are ludicrously dismissing modern growing lack of belief as a product of peer pressure and culture (and as if the ubiquity of religion was down to serious, in depth, considered thought on the part of each individual). Do you hold believers accountable to the same extent to the idea that there may be nothing whatsoever beyond the material and that their logic has a quite few large holes?
Quote from: T Fearon on May 07, 2017, 08:54:43 AM
Surely in the light of Stephen Fry case, Garda should be prosecuting loads of constant blasphemers on this thread and Board. Over to the Mods.
:D
Seriously though, an absolute embarrassment for Ireland.
I hope it ends up in court after court.
Quote from: J70 on May 09, 2017, 01:32:38 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 08, 2017, 08:53:42 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2017, 07:07:16 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2017, 06:59:37 PM
J70
If you say your not choosing to believe or disbelieve anything, then your saying you don't have freewill is that correct? Besides if your an atheist by definition you dont believe in God but what your are saying contradicts that.
Once again, I'm not getting the connection between free will and weighing evidence and coming to an honest conclusion.
J70 If you say you didnt choose your conclusion then there was no choice involved therefore no freewill? Similar to a computer running some logic? ..ie no freewill? I pretty sure tho that a computer would just say I don't know. Your in agreement tho that your arent actually an atheist since you dont believe you just conclude? Or are they the same thing?
Also didnt you choose to make the analysis yourself even if you cant admit that the conclusions you make are a choice?
You're just getting into ridiculous nitpicking now.
Yes, I guess one "chooses" the more convincing option when faced with a choice. If that it how weakly you interpret the concept of "choosing" to believe in the supernatural, then this god we are talking about is a petty, narcissistic, egomanaical arsehole for penalizing anyone who "chooses" wrongly.
No need to get so defensive J70, I just pointing it out that's all. It comes across like your trying to insult people's beliefs. But its really bordering on the ridiculous to have such venom for something that you dont believe in. But for me its even more ridiculous to assume such physical human characteristics for a being that isn't human (and that was my opinion on Mr Fry tirade also).
Quote from: J70 on May 09, 2017, 01:32:38 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 08, 2017, 08:53:42 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2017, 07:07:16 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2017, 06:59:37 PM
And....
Esm/J70
If you are forming an opinion using evidence you are choosing to believe that the evidence you have is correct.
So I will ask... how do you know you have all the evidence? And more pertinently how do you know that any of the evidence you have is correct? These questions i have asked dozens of times on here and usually I receive no answer, ad hominen (tho not from your good selfs), or on occasions I'll a completely inadequate one.
How can one EVER know they have all the evidence? That is obviously an impossibility. So one goes on what one has. For millennia, evidence of any kind was so limited and inadequate, that deities (whether single or multiple) were the default cause and origin of everything. There was so much we could not explain, that that was the starting point for what caused A-Z. We can't explain X by what we see every day, therefore there must be such and such a magical unseen being behind it. Then, especially in the past 200 years, we've been chiseling away at the causes of A-Z, and the movement from column A to B has been one way.
But even if we accept that we don't know (or ever will know) everything, we still have to come to an intellectually honest conclusion, one way or the other, based on what we do know. That conclusion is not a choice. Either you find one explanation convincing or you find the other convincing. One can cherry pick when presenting an argument, but you can't fool yourself (or, if he/she/it/they exist(s) as an omniscient, omnipotent being(s) with some kind of interest in whether you believe in them or not, gods).
I mean, what's the alternative? That you DON'T form an opinion because you can't determine if anything is valid or approaching some level of completeness allowing a judgment to be formed? Assuming that is even possible, where does that leave on when faced with the supposed judgment day?
And sorry if you consider my response inadequate. I'm obviously no philosopher.
So your aware that you dont have all the evidence but are willing to make a call on it anyway? Sounds more like a prediction than anything. Like you would make about a match in the future where there is no way to possibly know but your gonna call it anyway. If you'll allow that analogy then you'd have to say that predicting football matches is exactly that, a prediction as you never really know..
You also didnt address my more pertinent point about how you know the evidence that you do have is correct?
Also what is this evidence by the way? I've havent seen any to suggest there is no non physical realm out there. In fact the order in the universe that we experience would suggest it is made by intelligent design (computer simulation is a front runner these days), and moreover the fact that we experience it at all when there is seemingly no reason for us to also suggests there is a deeper meaning to our lives. Rehashing the God of Gaps is simply a straw man which out of interest originated as a term for those of weak faith.
You haven't seen evidence to suggest there is no non-physical realm??
Just what would evidence for OR against a non-physical realm look like?
And who is this intelligent designer with this supercomputer? And who designed him?? And who designed that designer??
And what have the intelligent design people been up to for the past 20+ years since they arrived on the scene announcing themselves and "irreducible complexity" as about to unleash a scientific revolution on a par with Newton?
As for "correctness of evidence", I have already addressed the concept. We are talking about humans forming an opinion of whether there are deities or supernatural beings or phenomena and whether there is a cost to the outcome of coming to that opinion.
In order to form the opinion, one obviously has to make assumptions that what one perceives and the evidence that accumulates and is repeatedly confirmed has some basis in reality. We do this all day, every day. And all day, every day those assumptions are either reinforced or reevaluated. (And this is what I was talking about in the "getting out of bed" bit, although I'm pretty sure you knew that).
But, as I've already said, the key is that these are the only tools we have. So why the f**k should person A be punished for coming to an honest opinion through the same process as person B who just lucked upon the "correct" conclusion?
For a start the evidence wouldnt "look" like anything, how could it, its not physical? Its actually your the one that needs the evidence so its a question for yourself really. But for me I have evidence of God by the experience of life I have all around me. The designer with the supercomputer I don't know? Its not my theory its more comes from the skeptists and solipsists, fractals in nature and the commonality with modern computer graphics are a big part of their basis for this.
But you are also assuming causality would extend to the creator of the empirical universe. Why would it? Just because its something that we see why would that also apply to the creator? And when I think about it since causality is a governed by the passing of time, and time is a part of the empirical universe, Why also would the creator of the universe be subjected to time at all?
Sorry but I must have missed the place where you addressed the correctness of evidence. Your assuming its correct is what it sounds like your telling me because you dont really know if it is our not. But I wake up everyday and feel God and experience things when there is no reason for me to do so none why should I experience smell or sight?
I'll be honest with you I dont know if God would subject someone who rejects him but has lived a wholesome honest and moral life, it would be a difficult one for him. Prehaps he would say "WELLLL? Do you believe now? FFS everyone was telling you including your own intution only you allowed yourself to be convinced otherwise, it was an honestish mistake but your going in prugatory for a stint just below those who take my name in vain on a regular basis (thats me by the way)
Quote from: J70 on May 09, 2017, 01:32:38 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 08, 2017, 08:53:42 PM
Quote
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2017, 06:59:37 PM
If you were using logic you would have questioned the validity of the evidence and you could only conclude there is no possible way to know if it is correct and complete and most likely it does not give us a true or accurate picture.
So therefore without belief in something (in your case your "evidence") you could not believe anything is correct.
As above, that still doesn't make one's conclusion a choice. And if the god Tony believes in is real and is the one who equipped us with our senses and intellect and perception, how can he hold us accountable for honestly coming to the wrong conclusion using the very tools he granted? Are we supposed to use our "free will" to reject, a priori, anything that leads us to the wrong conclusion? Is it a case of I'll let you do what you want, but you better arrive at this pre-determined end point or that shit is going down? Do we judge what's valid and what is not, after the fact, based on the outcome?
And once again, is the person who simply accepts the indoctrination and slides through, not challenging themselves and lucking out on the right side, in better shape than the honest, curious person who ended up being wrong? If any of us had lived 300 years ago, we'd almost to a man be unquestioning, young earth creationists. Would we be on the fast track to heaven, with no intellectual obstacles in our way?
I think I've said this before, but if you live your day to day life to the standard you espouse here, where no assumptions or perceptions are necessarily valid, I don't know how you make it out of bed! :)
They aren't my standards J70, they are yours, I dont live my life to them but you use them to conclude/believe/predict that the spiritual may/can/should not exist. I was wondering how rigorously you apply them to all aspects of your life? Obviously you don't as you say you wouldn't get out of bed, but if in the interests of fairness you did apply them to say a similar thing to spirituality like love... then the question would arise why get out of bed?
Em, no, they're not my standards. Everyday, run of the mill life functions just fine going by our perceptions and assumptions. Extending that outwards to bigger questions presents no problems whatsoever for me. And I suspect that's the way for almost everyone, whatever "choice" they end up making vis a vis the needy gods.
As you say we perceive and assume all day long, people of faith also do this but then somehow we are incorrect to do tie our feelings on a certain subject into this as well? At what point do you say that's not included because of x and this is because of y. Why not subject love and morality to the same rigorous examination that you have subjected God too? If you think these things are real then more power to you, this is where I find God and attribute them to, but how conclude they are real if God is not?
Quote from: J70 on May 09, 2017, 01:54:39 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 08, 2017, 09:06:27 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 05, 2017, 11:38:02 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 05, 2017, 08:58:57 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 05, 2017, 01:50:35 PM
People are more educated and have access to more information than peasants in the 7th century did. It is not surprising that faith is under pressure.
Catholicism has very little to offer modern women.
This is codswallop Seafoid in my experience women usually easily outnumber men at mass.
Why would faith be under pressure from education? The only thing that's its under pressure from is the cultural rise of self-importance, but long term thats likely to be only a blip as it will be checked by society.
But if you keep repeating mantra eventually you'll convince yourself.
Joe. I don'rt intend to join the barney going on here so I won't be hanging around but I can't let some of your comments pass without question. Firstly, in my experience women do definitely outnumber men at mass so I have no problem with that. I can only go by what I see.
However, it is also my experience that faith, the Christian dogma anyway, is under tremendous from education. Numbers that are active Christians are falling in Ireland, England, and all others we regard as first world societies eg,those who who are literate, numerate as well as articulate .
Numbers are increasing in Eastern Europe and third world countries such as the Philippines who are none of the above. The common themes here is poverty and lack of education. Cultural self-importance is a by-product of education, pure and simple.
When Paddys and Biddys emigrated in their thousands, they carried a simple faith with them and stuck with it in the face of all difficulties they had to contend with. Nowadays, the numbers of practicing Christians are dwindling rapidly and the only major reason is the difference of the standard of education back then and now.
I'm not taking any side in the present dispute when I say that there is no evidence of any sort to suggest that the decline of Catholicism will be checked by society. if it's not being checked at present, there is little hope that it will be in some future time.
Lar I was trying to say that the dip in religion is caused by the rise of individualism. The importance of the individual seems to supercede everything else these days. and that is not linked to education, well directly at least. I believe its linked to the pyraid scheme of capitalism which will either crash or be checked (likely the latter). There's a strong consensus among Anthropologists that society thrives with religion and that it isn't going anywhere.
Some of the greatest minds that ever lived were religious, they understood things a whole lot better than the modern educated masses who really just do what their peers are doing and for the most part only come up with rubbish (like many here do) anti-theist catch phrases, but there is gaping holes in their logic, if they were better educated they would likely recognise those gaps and be alot more aware that God/spiritual/dualist realm is indeed as possible as anything else.
I am well educated, I absolutely recognize that there are gaps (and have said so plenty of times, including in this very discussion) and sure there could be a god or whatever (my receding hair could grow back next year too). But that whole deity/creator thing has been the default position for almost all of history, a given for any period, unquestioned, including for many of these intellectual giants of the past, given that you are ludicrously dismissing modern growing lack of belief as a product of peer pressure and culture (and as if the ubiquity of religion was down to serious, in depth, considered thought on the part of each individual). Do you hold believers accountable to the same extent to the idea that there may be nothing whatsoever beyond the material and that their logic has a quite few large holes?
What are you educated in J70? If you came out of the education system in Ireland (North or South) you are more than likely educated very narrowly, and if its in a science or applied science (like myself) there is an almost dogmatic approach to its correctness. I was never taught anything on anthropology, philosophy I think ever and never taught any maths theory, history, language or literature since I was 16. It wasnt till I got older and started putting all these things together that I realised there are whole other fields of thought out there there are equally as valid or maybe even more so than prevailing one of materialism in science. God has constantly been challenged throughout history, it goes back to the Greeks (or whenever the written word began). So its hardly a new concept that's sweeping the world. And I wasnt blaming peer pressure I said people automatically do what their peers are doing there's a difference, but by even assuming thats what I meant is like a microcosm of the point I was trying to make. And that is that its a product of our society that has become more focused on the individual and the importance of self, so the self-centrism of atheism is why it appeals to people.
Do you know what faith means? Its not based on logic or anything else. How could I possibly hold anyone accountable to it, its like these retards that prefer coffee over tea, who am I to say they don't like coffee.
Quote from: J70 on May 09, 2017, 01:58:33 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 07, 2017, 08:54:43 AM
Surely in the light of Stephen Fry case, Garda should be prosecuting loads of constant blasphemers on this thread and Board. Over to the Mods.
:D
Seriously though, an absolute embarrassment for Ireland.
I hope it ends up in court after court.
What did Fry say that was Blasphemous?
He said Tony Fearon is more religious than God.
Omaghjoe, apologies, I didn't keep up with this thread. Here, and on other threads, you've opened my eyes to other ways of seeing things. But I still don't quite get your outlook.
You're querying the information on which some of us make calls and compare it to a prediction of a football match. If you watched a football match and it ended a draw, the scoreboard said it was a draw, the reports in the paper said it was a draw, would you take it that it was a draw or would you suggest that it might not have been a draw because you're not 100% certain? Couldn't you have dreamt the whole thing?
So when I suggest that J70 and myself consider ourselves atheists based on the information we have, of course nothing is certain, but you make life choices based on the information you have and you make a call on whether that information is accurate or trustworthy.
You say you believe in what you believe in based on life experiences. You clearly believe there's a higher power. I think I've asked before, and forgive me (figuratively) if you've answered it, but why Christianity? I have a huge number of questions but for presentation purposes I'll keep this post to this lenght.
Quote from: Esmarelda on May 09, 2017, 04:18:46 PM
So when I suggest that J70 and myself consider ourselves atheists based on the information we have, of course nothing is certain, but you make life choices based on the information you have and you make a call on whether that information is accurate or trustworthy.
You can't possibly be an atheist on the information you have. As you have no more idea how the world started you cannot say their is no God. While being agnostic is reasonable based on the information available, atheism is just arrogance.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2017, 06:44:07 PMQuote from: Esmarelda on May 09, 2017, 04:18:46 PM
So when I suggest that J70 and myself consider ourselves atheists based on the information we have, of course nothing is certain, but you make life choices based on the information you have and you make a call on whether that information is accurate or trustworthy.
You can't possibly be an atheist on the information you have.
On the contrary, I can be nothing but an atheist on the information I have because the information I have gives me no reason to believe in the existence of a god - which is the definition of atheism. What information do you have that makes you a theist?Quote As you have no more idea how the world started you cannot say their is no God.
And as you have the correct idea of how the world started you can say there is a God? Did you make up these bizarre rules of debate?Quote While being agnostic is reasonable based on the information available, atheism is just arrogance.
So it's perfectly reasonable to make assertions without evidence that the rest of us are expected to accept - on pain of eternal torture according to some? But it's arrogant to reject such ... well ... arrogance? Atheists are not making any assertions. Theists and creationists are the ones asserting that an entity for whose existence they present no supportable evidence not only exists, but created the universe, intervenes in the daily lives of all individuals, cares about being loved, exacts retribution on those who fail to adore it, etc. etc. Atheists are merely pointing out the lack of evidence for these assertions.
Why are atheists never accused of arrogance for pointing out precisely the same deficiency in assertions of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Cosmic Teapot as you would yourself? And these assertions stop at existence, leaving out all the other made up stuff about omnipotence, etc. I think the answer is obvious. The 'creator of the universe' god has more believers than the monster or the teapot. It's only a question of numbers. Forgive the following cliché but it's accurate: we're all atheists, in that we don't accept assertions of the existence of any number of deities or imagined supernatural beings, from Buddha to Thor. I'm just atheist about one more god than you.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2017, 06:44:07 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on May 09, 2017, 04:18:46 PM
So when I suggest that J70 and myself consider ourselves atheists based on the information we have, of course nothing is certain, but you make life choices based on the information you have and you make a call on whether that information is accurate or trustworthy.
You can't possibly be an atheist on the information you have. As you have no more idea how the world started you cannot say their is no God. While being agnostic is reasonable based on the information available, atheism is just arrogance.
Incredible irony if you're a Christian. Are you saying it's impossible to be an atheist? To be honest I've previously struggled with the atheism/agnosticism line but now I'm not bothered by the label any more. However, that doesn't make your comment any better.
What I think is arrogance is that human beings believe that this one species on this one relatively tiny planet in this one solar system in this universe, whose size we (the chosen ones) have no ability to appreciate, are the one species that the creator of the aforementioned universe wants to save and bring to his kingdom. For some reason he only created/allowed (?) this species to exist millions of years after our tiny planet came into existence and then only made himself know a couple of thousand years ago, f**king it all up for many of his now deceased people.
It's a lengthy definition, and not likely to be found in a dictionary, but arrogance beyond belief nonetheless.
http://www.irishnews.com/lifestyle/2017/05/09/news/first-holy-communion-less-about-worshipping-god-more-about-worshipping-money-1019842/ (http://www.irishnews.com/lifestyle/2017/05/09/news/first-holy-communion-less-about-worshipping-god-more-about-worshipping-money-1019842/)
Quote from: Esmarelda on May 09, 2017, 08:50:29 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2017, 06:44:07 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on May 09, 2017, 04:18:46 PM
So when I suggest that J70 and myself consider ourselves atheists based on the information we have, of course nothing is certain, but you make life choices based on the information you have and you make a call on whether that information is accurate or trustworthy.
You can't possibly be an atheist on the information you have. As you have no more idea how the world started you cannot say their is no God. While being agnostic is reasonable based on the information available, atheism is just arrogance.
Incredible irony if you're a Christian. Are you saying it's impossible to be an atheist? To be honest I've previously struggled with the atheism/agnosticism line but now I'm not bothered by the label any more. However, that doesn't make your comment any better.
What I think is arrogance is that human beings believe that this one species on this one relatively tiny planet in this one solar system in this universe, whose size we (the chosen ones) have no ability to appreciate, are the one species that the creator of the aforementioned universe wants to save and bring to his kingdom. For some reason he only created/allowed (?) this species to exist millions of years after our tiny planet came into existence and then only made himself know a couple of thousand years ago, f**king it all up for many of his now deceased people.
It's a lengthy definition, and not likely to be found in a dictionary, but arrogance beyond belief nonetheless.
Well I dont think your arrogant thats for between yourself and God :) But I agree with the premise of what Armaghniac is saying. Your assuming that there is only the material in the cosmos and that our senses can perceive it all. Your also making the mistake of talking about time that it also applys to a creator, since its part of the empirical universe why would it apply to a creator?
As for the football match analogy the analogy was about the prediction not the result but I think you knew that... ;)
I think what I was telling you before that I did have a spiritual journey before but that Christianity is basically where I feel most comfortable, the values and faith etc, so thats pretty much where I settled, its not without its contradictions and problems I admit but the overall faith and message is one that reflects my faith fairly well
Quote from: Hardy on May 09, 2017, 08:14:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2017, 06:44:07 PMQuote from: Esmarelda on May 09, 2017, 04:18:46 PM
So when I suggest that J70 and myself consider ourselves atheists based on the information we have, of course nothing is certain, but you make life choices based on the information you have and you make a call on whether that information is accurate or trustworthy.
You can't possibly be an atheist on the information you have.
On the contrary, I can be nothing but an atheist on the information I have because the information I have gives me no reason to believe in the existence of a god - which is the definition of atheism. What information do you have that makes you a theist?
Quote As you have no more idea how the world started you cannot say their is no God.
And as you have the correct idea of how the world started you can say there is a God? Did you make up these bizarre rules of debate?
Quote While being agnostic is reasonable based on the information available, atheism is just arrogance.
So it's perfectly reasonable to make assertions without evidence that the rest of us are expected to accept - on pain of eternal torture according to some? But it's arrogant to reject such ... well ... arrogance?
Atheists are not making any assertions. Theists and creationists are the ones asserting that an entity for whose existence they present no supportable evidence not only exists, but created the universe, intervenes in the daily lives of all individuals, cares about being loved, exacts retribution on those who fail to adore it, etc. etc. Atheists are merely pointing out the lack of evidence for these assertions.
Why are atheists never accused of arrogance for pointing out precisely the same deficiency in assertions of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Cosmic Teapot as you would yourself? And these assertions stop at existence, leaving out all the other made up stuff about omnipotence, etc. I think the answer is obvious. The 'creator of the universe' god has more believers than the monster or the teapot. It's only a question of numbers.
Forgive the following cliché but it's accurate: we're all atheists, in that we don't accept assertions of the existence of any number of deities or imagined supernatural beings, from Buddha to Thor. I'm just atheist about one more god than you.
Atheists are making assertions, if your not making an assertion your an agnostic you need to decide.
But before going on please answer the following questions, I have been asking you for a long time on this
How do you know your evidence is correct and complete?
How do you your methods of collecting the evidence is correct ie empirical. Our senses are seemingly honed for reproducing and surviving not for giving us an accurate picture of the cosmos.
Do you assume there is only the material in this universe and if so why?
How do you know there is not a solipsistic or idealist universe? Both of which are much more logical than a materialist universe and infinitely more so than a empirical universe.
Where do you lie in all of this? A bunch of interchanging atoms? so YOU as a distinct seperate entitiy don't exist.
Lets start with a satisfactory response to those and then I will get into consciousness, freewill, morals, and God knows what else.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 10, 2017, 04:22:47 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on May 09, 2017, 08:50:29 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2017, 06:44:07 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on May 09, 2017, 04:18:46 PM
So when I suggest that J70 and myself consider ourselves atheists based on the information we have, of course nothing is certain, but you make life choices based on the information you have and you make a call on whether that information is accurate or trustworthy.
You can't possibly be an atheist on the information you have. As you have no more idea how the world started you cannot say their is no God. While being agnostic is reasonable based on the information available, atheism is just arrogance.
Incredible irony if you're a Christian. Are you saying it's impossible to be an atheist? To be honest I've previously struggled with the atheism/agnosticism line but now I'm not bothered by the label any more. However, that doesn't make your comment any better.
What I think is arrogance is that human beings believe that this one species on this one relatively tiny planet in this one solar system in this universe, whose size we (the chosen ones) have no ability to appreciate, are the one species that the creator of the aforementioned universe wants to save and bring to his kingdom. For some reason he only created/allowed (?) this species to exist millions of years after our tiny planet came into existence and then only made himself know a couple of thousand years ago, f**king it all up for many of his now deceased people.
It's a lengthy definition, and not likely to be found in a dictionary, but arrogance beyond belief nonetheless.
Well I dont think your arrogant thats for between yourself and God :) But I agree with the premise of what Armaghniac is saying. Your assuming that there is only the material in the cosmos and that our senses can perceive it all. Your also making the mistake of talking about time that it also applys to a creator, since its part of the empirical universe why would it apply to a creator?
As for the football match analogy the analogy was about the prediction not the result but I think you knew that... ;)
I think what I was telling you before that I did have a spiritual journey before but that Christianity is basically where I feel most comfortable, the values and faith etc, so thats pretty much where I settled, its not without its contradictions and problems I admit but the overall faith and message is one that reflects my faith fairly well
I'm not assuming anything. I'm making a judgement based on the information (and my perception of its accuracy) available. It's what I do with every other judgement that I make. I suspect it's how you make daily judgements also? That was what my football analogy was about. I wasn't trying to contradict your own analogy. Armaghniac has basically said that it's impossible to be an atheist. Surely then it's impossible to believe in a creator without the information that he says is required to be an atheist?
Back to what you say I assume. Are you assuming that there is more in the universe than we can perceive? If so, what are you suggesting there is and what relevance does it have to this discussion? If you assume there's more, might there be more still than you assume there is? Does this make any difference to what you believe or is it just a way of countering the atheist argument?
You see what I get from you is that you tell me and others of many reasons why we can't apply day to day logic when it comes to faith. There's potentially so much more out there that we don't and can't yet understand and we must consider this when we consider faith. It seems to be an argument against dismissing a deity, which is fine.
However, when pressed on the flip side, how you come to believe in a deity and a very specific one, you use vague terms like "a spiritual journey" and say that despite reservations, it's where you've come to settle. That actually sounds like you don't believe in the christian god. You say that you feel most comfortable with its message and values. So do I. They're pretty basic. Treat others how you'd like to be treated. I can sign up to that. Why the need for the rest of it. Why not take the agnostic approach? Why not say, I don't know what's out there or if there's anything out there but the christian message seems to make sense. I'll be a good person and see what happens?
Might we be very similar? ;)
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 10, 2017, 04:36:38 AM
Quote from: Hardy on May 09, 2017, 08:14:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2017, 06:44:07 PMQuote from: Esmarelda on May 09, 2017, 04:18:46 PM
So when I suggest that J70 and myself consider ourselves atheists based on the information we have, of course nothing is certain, but you make life choices based on the information you have and you make a call on whether that information is accurate or trustworthy.
You can't possibly be an atheist on the information you have.
On the contrary, I can be nothing but an atheist on the information I have because the information I have gives me no reason to believe in the existence of a god - which is the definition of atheism. What information do you have that makes you a theist?
Quote As you have no more idea how the world started you cannot say their is no God.
And as you have the correct idea of how the world started you can say there is a God? Did you make up these bizarre rules of debate?
Quote While being agnostic is reasonable based on the information available, atheism is just arrogance.
So it's perfectly reasonable to make assertions without evidence that the rest of us are expected to accept - on pain of eternal torture according to some? But it's arrogant to reject such ... well ... arrogance?
Atheists are not making any assertions. Theists and creationists are the ones asserting that an entity for whose existence they present no supportable evidence not only exists, but created the universe, intervenes in the daily lives of all individuals, cares about being loved, exacts retribution on those who fail to adore it, etc. etc. Atheists are merely pointing out the lack of evidence for these assertions.
Why are atheists never accused of arrogance for pointing out precisely the same deficiency in assertions of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Cosmic Teapot as you would yourself? And these assertions stop at existence, leaving out all the other made up stuff about omnipotence, etc. I think the answer is obvious. The 'creator of the universe' god has more believers than the monster or the teapot. It's only a question of numbers.
Forgive the following cliché but it's accurate: we're all atheists, in that we don't accept assertions of the existence of any number of deities or imagined supernatural beings, from Buddha to Thor. I'm just atheist about one more god than you.
Atheists are making assertions, if your not making an assertion your an agnostic you need to decide.
But before going on please answer the following questions, I have been asking you for a long time on this
How do you know your evidence is correct and complete?
How do you your methods of collecting the evidence is correct ie empirical. Our senses are seemingly honed for reproducing and surviving not for giving us an accurate picture of the cosmos.
Do you assume there is only the material in this universe and if so why?
How do you know there is not a solipsistic or idealist universe? Both of which are much more logical than a materialist universe and infinitely more so than a empirical universe.
Where do you lie in all of this? A bunch of interchanging atoms? so YOU as a distinct seperate entitiy don't exist.
Lets start with a satisfactory response to those and then I will get into consciousness, freewill, morals, and God knows what else.
Joe, I'm not engaging with you other than to make the following points just once. There's no point in debating with someone who is conducting an entirely different debate of his own, the parameters of which are unfathomable and whose argument consists mostly of non sequiturs. That's not to mention the difficulty of figuring out your "your" from your "'you're".
Just to clarify - I'm not discussing solipsistic or idealist universes, nor indeed materialist or empirical universes. I'm not discussing universes at all. My point has nothing to do with consciousness, free will, morals, or your "God knows what else". I'm not interested in when or how you will get into whatever you're threatening to get into. Fire away. Just don't expect me to pay attention. I tired of the tree falling in the forest conjecture in my teens.
I was simply responding to Armaghniac's point suggesting one couldn't be an atheist (in this material universe) and outlining my definition of an atheist for the practical purposes that definitions are for.
You just enjoy yourself with wondering whether words or letters exist. Or what is ink. And if we can't decide whether ink exists, what are we to make of pixels on a screen? Never mind the meaning contained in the pixels, letters and words that construct this thread.
Most of us have figured out that if we treat every item of communication as a research project into the nature of existence or the existence of existence, we'll have missed out on what is (probably – and that's the important word in this whole post) our one and only opportunity to experience existence.
Quote from: Hardy on May 10, 2017, 11:18:31 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 10, 2017, 04:36:38 AM
Quote from: Hardy on May 09, 2017, 08:14:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2017, 06:44:07 PMQuote from: Esmarelda on May 09, 2017, 04:18:46 PM
So when I suggest that J70 and myself consider ourselves atheists based on the information we have, of course nothing is certain, but you make life choices based on the information you have and you make a call on whether that information is accurate or trustworthy.
You can't possibly be an atheist on the information you have.
On the contrary, I can be nothing but an atheist on the information I have because the information I have gives me no reason to believe in the existence of a god - which is the definition of atheism. What information do you have that makes you a theist?
Quote As you have no more idea how the world started you cannot say their is no God.
And as you have the correct idea of how the world started you can say there is a God? Did you make up these bizarre rules of debate?
Quote While being agnostic is reasonable based on the information available, atheism is just arrogance.
So it's perfectly reasonable to make assertions without evidence that the rest of us are expected to accept - on pain of eternal torture according to some? But it's arrogant to reject such ... well ... arrogance?
Atheists are not making any assertions. Theists and creationists are the ones asserting that an entity for whose existence they present no supportable evidence not only exists, but created the universe, intervenes in the daily lives of all individuals, cares about being loved, exacts retribution on those who fail to adore it, etc. etc. Atheists are merely pointing out the lack of evidence for these assertions.
Why are atheists never accused of arrogance for pointing out precisely the same deficiency in assertions of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Cosmic Teapot as you would yourself? And these assertions stop at existence, leaving out all the other made up stuff about omnipotence, etc. I think the answer is obvious. The 'creator of the universe' god has more believers than the monster or the teapot. It's only a question of numbers.
Forgive the following cliché but it's accurate: we're all atheists, in that we don't accept assertions of the existence of any number of deities or imagined supernatural beings, from Buddha to Thor. I'm just atheist about one more god than you.
Atheists are making assertions, if your not making an assertion your an agnostic you need to decide.
But before going on please answer the following questions, I have been asking you for a long time on this
How do you know your evidence is correct and complete?
How do you your methods of collecting the evidence is correct ie empirical. Our senses are seemingly honed for reproducing and surviving not for giving us an accurate picture of the cosmos.
Do you assume there is only the material in this universe and if so why?
How do you know there is not a solipsistic or idealist universe? Both of which are much more logical than a materialist universe and infinitely more so than a empirical universe.
Where do you lie in all of this? A bunch of interchanging atoms? so YOU as a distinct seperate entitiy don't exist.
Lets start with a satisfactory response to those and then I will get into consciousness, freewill, morals, and God knows what else.
Joe, I'm not engaging with you other than to make the following points just once. There's no point in debating with someone who is conducting an entirely different debate of his own, the parameters of which are unfathomable and whose argument consists mostly of non sequiturs. That's not to mention the difficulty of figuring out your "your" from your "'you're".
Just to clarify - I'm not discussing solipsistic or idealist universes, nor indeed materialist or empirical universes. I'm not discussing universes at all. My point has nothing to do with consciousness, free will, morals, or your "God knows what else". I'm not interested in when or how you will get into whatever your threatening to get into. Fire away. Just don't expect me to pay attention. I tired of the tree falling in the forest conjecture in my teens.
I was simply responding to Armaghniac's point suggesting one couldn't be an atheist (in this material universe) and outlining my definition of an atheist for the practical purposes that definitions are for.
You just enjoy yourself with wondering whether words or letters exist. Or what is ink. And if we can't decide whether ink exists, what are we to make of pixels on a screen? Never mind the meaning contained in the pixels, letters and words that construct this thread.
Most of us have figured out that if we treat every item of communication as a research project into the nature of existence or the existence of existence, we'll have missed out on what is (probably – and that's the important word in this whole post) our one and only opportunity to experience existence.
Now now Ad hominen only makes you look silly Hardy ;)
Where's the non sequitur? Your continuously trying to assert there could be no such things as a spiritual entity through empirical means which is completely contradictory your assuming that a whole other range of possibilites are not possible either which I have questioned. If you'd never thought about them fair enough, now Ive outlined a few of them to you what do you think now?
You need to consider these other possibilities and be able to refute them outright to show the materialist/empirical universe you are asserting can explain everything (even tho it cant within its own realm) and then you'd be in a position to say something concrete about God.
So if you dont want to do this fair enough, you already said that it was too difficult for you to think about, so i understand.
Regarding our experience, freewill, you as an entity, and language now that mention it, etc with all things being equal if you say God doesn't exist because of empirical evidence what does that evidence say about those things? Yup they vanish into quantum spacetime. Its nothing to do with me Hardy and my outlook as I said to J70 earlier, their your standards....
But huffing probably works better if you want to understand things simply so knock yourself out ;D .
Joe, again, I think your arguments have plenty of merit but they're about debunking the atheist argument rather than backing your own.
Of course you're full entitled to keep your specific reasons for your beliefs to yourself. But for someone who's so prolific on the board when it comes to this topic I think it would aid the discussion if you revealed all, so to speak.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2017, 04:27:11 AM
No need to get so defensive J70, I just pointing it out that's all. It comes across like your trying to insult people's beliefs. But its really bordering on the ridiculous to have such venom for something that you dont believe in. But for me its even more ridiculous to assume such physical human characteristics for a being that isn't human (and that was my opinion on Mr Fry tirade also).
Don't think I've tried to insult anyone beliefs. I think its fair game to ask someone who is predicting regret and sorrow come judgment day for unbelievers what kind of being would harshly judge someone who honestly arrived at the wrong conclusions with respect to that being's existence. I thought Fry's comments were fair too. Are they not issues that theologians have been wrestling with for centuries?
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2017, 04:27:11 AM
For a start the evidence wouldnt "look" like anything, how could it, its not physical? Its actually your the one that needs the evidence so its a question for yourself really. But for me I have evidence of God by the experience of life I have all around me. The designer with the supercomputer I don't know? Its not my theory its more comes from the skeptists and solipsists, fractals in nature and the commonality with modern computer graphics are a big part of their basis for this.
But you are also assuming causality would extend to the creator of the empirical universe. Why would it? Just because its something that we see why would that also apply to the creator? And when I think about it since causality is a governed by the passing of time, and time is a part of the empirical universe, Why also would the creator of the universe be subjected to time at all?
I can appreciate your personal conclusion based on your own life experience, but you're losing me with the rest. The "just is", "always was", not subject to time or causality or even evidence (you're right!)... We have to have SOMETHING to go on, or at least I do.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2017, 04:27:11 AM
Sorry but I must have missed the place where you addressed the correctness of evidence. Your assuming its correct is what it sounds like your telling me because you dont really know if it is our not. But I wake up everyday and feel God and experience thingswhen there is no reason for me to do so none why should I experience smell or sight?
What I meant was that the "correctness", as in how do know what we perceive is real and so on and on, is beside the point. With respect to Tony's point, our perception and the tools we use to understand the world is all we have and we are all using the same tools. So if some of us end up, despite our best and very honest efforts, being wrong, then why should we be penalized?
More broadly, given that we cannot rule out what we cannot detect, we can obviously never rule out the existence of deities (or any other supernatural phenomena). But, we have no real reason to rule them in either, beyond, in my opinion, the "gaps".
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2017, 04:27:11 AM
I'll be honest with you I dont know if God would subject someone who rejects him but has lived a wholesome honest and moral life, it would be a difficult one for him. Prehaps he would say "WELLLL? Do you believe now? FFS everyone was telling you including your own intution only you allowed yourself to be convinced otherwise, it was an honestish mistake but your going in prugatory for a stint just below those who take my name in vain on a regular basis (thats me by the way)
If this god is all knowing and all powerful, then surely he would know that the person's intuition (I still am not sure what you mean by this) was telling him there was a god and so that person would not have much of a defense? If something deep in you is telling you that that being exists, can your mind honestly just deny that?
I've got slight OCD with respect to certain things. I know I'm overthinking the issue when it comes up and I can think logically about why it should be safe to ignore it, but I still have to satisfy the compulsion to move on past the miniscule risk. My mind seems to be wired to obsess on a relatively minor, seemingly trivial thing or risk. But I feel no such conflict with respect to the possible existence of deities, including those who would demand our reverence, with possibly severe consequences.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2017, 04:27:11 AM
As you say we perceive and assume all day long, people of faith also do this but then somehow we are incorrect to do tie our feelings on a certain subject into this as well? At what point do you say that's not included because of x and this is because of y. Why not subject love and morality to the same rigorous examination that you have subjected God too? If you think these things are real then more power to you, this is where I find God and attribute them to, but how conclude they are real if God is not?
Don't see the connection. I don't see love and morality as being in any way contingent on the existence of a god. In fact, it only makes the idea more troubling. What if the particular god happened to favour murder and mayhem (as many groups' interpretations of their gods throughout history did and do)? Plus, morality is obviously not universal or set in stone. I see no reason to doubt that scientists will settle on a sound biological basis for love and morality in time.
With that, I think I'm done with this for now (busy week!). Last word to you.
Quote from: Esmarelda on May 10, 2017, 09:22:11 PM
Joe, again, I think your arguments have plenty of merit but they're about debunking the atheist argument rather than backing your own.
Of course you're full entitled to keep your specific reasons for your beliefs to yourself. But for someone who's so prolific on the board when it comes to this topic I think it would aid the discussion if you revealed all, so to speak.
I thought my own faith would be fairly obvious at this point and Im pretty sure Ive gone over it before, but saying your a civil fella I'll put it out for ye. ;)
My choice of faith resides from having an instinctive feeling of God, which Im pretty sure we all have (or had) as there is research to show that as children we are "prewired" for a belief in God.
This is backed up by:
The world around me, the total beauty of it all (well Socal might struggle on that front actually :) ). Nature, Art, music sometimes even sport also stirs that feeling of God, I suppose you could say that feeling of the sublime.
Then we have all had that experience of recieving kindness and good sometimes for no reason what so whatever.
I also gain strength from God and see others gain strength from their faith also.
Then I have my relationships which I feel is a connection that is more than physical. I feel like I'm connected to other souls through our relationships. With my wife I feel like our souls are completed intertwined with each other. I feel my kids come from God, that they're a gift that they're more than flesh and bones that they have souls which have been nurtured and shown the way of life and faith also.
Then there is my conscience which I believe is a guide to give us the choice between right and wrong in our actions which admittedly can be confusing and contradictory at times.
Its all subjective of course not testable but then isnt everything ultimately subjective and untestable?
Some people talk about fear of the here after keeping them in check but the only thing that I have a fear of is that we are just the flesh. But the fact that I experience life and feel God everyday counters this. I mean if we are just flesh and bones with a brain we would just be zombies who couldn't experience our lifes at all.
I have plenty struggles too, but incidentally not with science in the slightness, that many on here seem to. I take a great interest in many fields of science and I find it bizarre that people use it to suppress their faith, it actually is part of the experience of life should be embraced and in fact strengthens my faith.
The obvious bad and unjust in the world weigh heavily on my faith. Homelessness is rife here is Socal and it really is a demoralising to see these people have to live how they do. But that just what I see personally on a daily basis, we also have genocide, war, murder and rape countless atrocities in the world.
I also had a friend die abroad in unfortunate circumstances when I was younger, this was a great guy and the though of him going the way he did really makes me doubt things, still does to be honest.
So trying to reason those things out can be hard to swallow at times.... but I do try. Truth is I don't really understand why terrible things can happen to good people sometimes but they do.
But I put all of these things together and still come out with a faith in God, its went the other way before too so who knows maybe I'll switch again. :P Tho the reality is losing my faith was just part of the journey in faith I had to have, its answered many questions I had and left my faith stronger.
Michael Shermer's "The Believing Mind" is a good read (so far - I'm halfway through it) about the neurological basis of belief. It's far too early in the progress of neurological research to have a coherent theory of the mind, but Shermer outlines a lot of fascinating research that builds the case for the physical basis of the workings of the human mind - i.e. the case that what we call the mind resides physically in the brain and is essentially the manifestation of the firing of neurons.
The book's main subject is belief - justified or otherwise. It's interesting in explaining the light research throws on how our brains work in dealing with religious, political, ideological and other beliefs.
Joe, you hadn't outlined that before but thank you for doing so.
None of that makes any sense to me though. What I mean is, I have most of those things that you've listed but I see no place for any deity in those experiences.
To me it sounds like you're working backwards from your belief. I don't mean to insult you or tell you what you believe but if appears that you were brought up believing in the Christian god, had some doubts and then looked for reasons to regain your faith. Obviously there are so many wonderful things in the world and in your life specifically that can attribute to god if it helps you on the path you desire. You recognise the bad stuff in the world and how it sort of contradicts how you attribute the good stuff to god, but you settle for the god side as it brings you peace.
Like I said, that probably sounds very arrogant and condescending. It's not supposed to be and of course I might be wrong. It's just how I read it.
Quote from: Esmarelda on May 11, 2017, 09:58:35 AM...
To me it sounds like you're working backwards from your belief. I don't mean to insult you or tell you what you believe but if appears that you were brought up believing in the Christian god, had some doubts and then looked for reasons to regain your faith ...
Interestingly, this is one of the subjects examined in the book I mentioned above. Research indicates that the practice of deciding on your belief and then finding arguments to support it is not a disorder or a form of faulty brainwork.
Some here will know more than I do about this but it is suggested that we are predisposed to this behaviour by the evolution of the part of the brain that governs fight or flight responses as opposed to the analytical, reasoning part of the brain.
It's about the consequences of Type 1 (assuming something to be true that is false) versus Type 2 (assuming something to be false that is true) cognitive errors and the fact that it is genetically preferable to make Type 1 errors than Type 2.
Which is better for survival?
1. To make an error by deciding that the rustling in the reeds is a tiger about to attack you and just running like hell, when it's really just the wind, or
2. To make an error in deciding that it's just the wind, when it really is a tiger.
Organisms that make Type 2 errors disappear from the gene pool.
Quote from: Esmarelda on May 11, 2017, 09:58:35 AM
Joe, you hadn't outlined that before but thank you for doing so.
None of that makes any sense to me though. What I mean is, I have most of those things that you've listed but I see no place for any deity in those experiences.
To me it sounds like you're working backwards from your belief. I don't mean to insult you or tell you what you believe but if appears that you were brought up believing in the Christian god, had some doubts and then looked for reasons to regain your faith. Obviously there are so many wonderful things in the world and in your life specifically that can attribute to god if it helps you on the path you desire. You recognise the bad stuff in the world and how it sort of contradicts how you attribute the good stuff to god, but you settle for the god side as it brings you peace.
Like I said, that probably sounds very arrogant and condescending. It's not supposed to be and of course I might be wrong. It's just how I read it.
Yes God forms the basis of my view of the world so I would say that I work up from faith but no Im not working backwards.
IF you say you dont have it fair enough but you beleive "you" as a distinct entity exist dont you? you believe that you have freewill dont you?
Maybe you dont but and there are plenty of people who dont, there are some people who even believe that their consciousness experience is an illusion. Ironically much of this is based on the notion that our consciousness experience gives us a solely accurate depiction of the world, ourselves and of consciousness itself. This is an assumption based on nothing and the later is complete circular reasoning.
Anyway my point is (that I am continuously trying to make) that everyone needs a foundation to base their outlook on and that ultimately has to be something subjective. Otherwise you'll end up at skepticism where nothing exists. It also seems to me that those basing their outlook solely on the empirical believe that it is somehow objective. Truth is, its not, as empiricism is based on our subjective experience, at least those of faith are frank about where their outlook comes from.
As far as how or why I lost and regained by faith, obviously I refute your assessment. I lost faith because I didnt like the idea of someone telling me what to do, and to a lesser extent thought it was fashionable, God of the Gaps etc and then looked for ways to back that that up (mostly more God of Gaps and assumption that we live in base reality, but there are plenty more). I regained it because of the experience of life i had, the relationships I had and probably what finally tipped me over was a certain occasion when I had that feeling of sublime. I have to say tho I never completely lost that fire of faith, just choose the doubts ahead of it. Maybe a few more years of suppressing it tho and I might have extinguished it, I don't know. Obviously its brings me more at peace is that not further vindication?
Quote from: Hardy on May 11, 2017, 08:45:54 AM
Michael Shermer's "The Believing Mind" is a good read (so far - I'm halfway through it) about the neurological basis of belief. It's far too early in the progress of neurological research to have a coherent theory of the mind, but Shermer outlines a lot of fascinating research that builds the case for the physical basis of the workings of the human mind - i.e. the case that what we call the mind resides physically in the brain and is essentially the manifestation of the firing of neurons.
The book's main subject is belief - justified or otherwise. It's interesting in explaining the light research throws on how our brains work in dealing with religious, political, ideological and other beliefs.
I try to cut to the chase Hardy and make a few assumptions about where this guy is going with his book...
So when we experience the colour red (for example) its neurons firing in a certain pattern? correct?
So where does that leave the colour red residing then? I imagine your author probably says its an illusion? If so then he is saying that everything he is studying and indeed all of science is based of an illusion.... can you see the problem?
Its a problem as old as the hills, most recently called the hard problem.
So where does that tie into the materialist universe? Any luck with it yet?
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 11, 2017, 08:42:22 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on May 11, 2017, 09:58:35 AM
Joe, you hadn't outlined that before but thank you for doing so.
None of that makes any sense to me though. What I mean is, I have most of those things that you've listed but I see no place for any deity in those experiences.
To me it sounds like you're working backwards from your belief. I don't mean to insult you or tell you what you believe but if appears that you were brought up believing in the Christian god, had some doubts and then looked for reasons to regain your faith. Obviously there are so many wonderful things in the world and in your life specifically that can attribute to god if it helps you on the path you desire. You recognise the bad stuff in the world and how it sort of contradicts how you attribute the good stuff to god, but you settle for the god side as it brings you peace.
Like I said, that probably sounds very arrogant and condescending. It's not supposed to be and of course I might be wrong. It's just how I read it.
Yes God forms the basis of my view of the world so I would say that I work up from faith but no Im not working backwards.
IF you say you dont have it fair enough but you beleive "you" as a distinct entity exist dont you? you believe that you have freewill dont you?
Maybe you dont but and there are plenty of people who dont, there are some people who even believe that their consciousness experience is an illusion. Ironically much of this is based on the notion that our consciousness experience gives us a solely accurate depiction of the world, ourselves and of consciousness itself. This is an assumption based on nothing and the later is complete circular reasoning.
Anyway my point is (that I am continuously trying to make) that everyone needs a foundation to base their outlook on and that ultimately has to be something subjective. Otherwise you'll end up at skepticism where nothing exists. It also seems to me that those basing their outlook solely on the empirical believe that it is somehow objective. Truth is, its not, as empiricism is based on our subjective experience, at least those of faith are frank about where their outlook comes from.
As far as how or why I lost and regained by faith, obviously I refute your assessment. I lost faith because I didnt like the idea of someone telling me what to do, and to a lesser extent thought it was fashionable, God of the Gaps etc and then looked for ways to back that that up (mostly more God of Gaps and assumption that we live in base reality, but there are plenty more). I regained it because of the experience of life i had, the relationships I had and probably what finally tipped me over was a certain occasion when I had that feeling of sublime. I have to say tho I never completely lost that fire of faith, just choose the doubts ahead of it. Maybe a few more years of suppressing it tho and I might have extinguished it, I don't know. Obviously its brings me more at peace is that not further vindication?
But don't you base your every day life on empirical evidence? Because we're dealing with the supernatural you claim we shouldn't apply the same approach. Why? Like i said in my football analogy earlier. Maybe the game I saw wasn't a draw. Maybe I imagined the whole thing. But I'm going to assume I saw it because it's what I tend to do.
The way you talk about your faith doesn't sound like faith to me at all. It sounds like you're pretty much on the fence. Talk of potentially going to the other side, that its bringing of peace to you being a vindication. It sounds like you might be thinking about it in the empirical way that you're saying we shouldn't.
And we haven't even started on why Christianity over any of the others.
I'm guessing even more that you're just happy being at peace with what you've decided to follow, rather than actually believing in what you say you believe in. Then again, I said from the outset that I don't usually use the word believe as I find it hard to define.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 11, 2017, 08:55:29 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 11, 2017, 08:45:54 AM
Michael Shermer's "The Believing Mind" is a good read (so far - I'm halfway through it) about the neurological basis of belief. It's far too early in the progress of neurological research to have a coherent theory of the mind, but Shermer outlines a lot of fascinating research that builds the case for the physical basis of the workings of the human mind - i.e. the case that what we call the mind resides physically in the brain and is essentially the manifestation of the firing of neurons.
The book's main subject is belief - justified or otherwise. It's interesting in explaining the light research throws on how our brains work in dealing with religious, political, ideological and other beliefs.
I try to cut to the chase Hardy and make a few assumptions about where this guy is going with his book...
So when we experience the colour red (for example) its neurons firing in a certain pattern? correct?
So where does that leave the colour red residing then? I imagine your author probably says its an illusion? If so then he is saying that everything he is studying and indeed all of science is based of an illusion.... can you see the problem?
Its a problem as old as the hills, most recently called the hard problem.
So where does that tie into the materialist universe? Any luck with it yet?
What are you talking about?
Quote from: Hardy on May 12, 2017, 01:07:19 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 11, 2017, 08:55:29 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 11, 2017, 08:45:54 AM
Michael Shermer's "The Believing Mind" is a good read (so far - I'm halfway through it) about the neurological basis of belief. It's far too early in the progress of neurological research to have a coherent theory of the mind, but Shermer outlines a lot of fascinating research that builds the case for the physical basis of the workings of the human mind - i.e. the case that what we call the mind resides physically in the brain and is essentially the manifestation of the firing of neurons.
The book's main subject is belief - justified or otherwise. It's interesting in explaining the light research throws on how our brains work in dealing with religious, political, ideological and other beliefs.
I try to cut to the chase Hardy and make a few assumptions about where this guy is going with his book...
So when we experience the colour red (for example) its neurons firing in a certain pattern? correct?
So where does that leave the colour red residing then? I imagine your author probably says its an illusion? If so then he is saying that everything he is studying and indeed all of science is based of an illusion.... can you see the problem?
Its a problem as old as the hills, most recently called the hard problem.
So where does that tie into the materialist universe? Any luck with it yet?
What are you talking about?
You're going to regret that, Hardy.
Quote from: Hardy on May 12, 2017, 01:07:19 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 11, 2017, 08:55:29 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 11, 2017, 08:45:54 AM
Michael Shermer's "The Believing Mind" is a good read (so far - I'm halfway through it) about the neurological basis of belief. It's far too early in the progress of neurological research to have a coherent theory of the mind, but Shermer outlines a lot of fascinating research that builds the case for the physical basis of the workings of the human mind - i.e. the case that what we call the mind resides physically in the brain and is essentially the manifestation of the firing of neurons.
The book's main subject is belief - justified or otherwise. It's interesting in explaining the light research throws on how our brains work in dealing with religious, political, ideological and other beliefs.
I try to cut to the chase Hardy and make a few assumptions about where this guy is going with his book...
So when we experience the colour red (for example) its neurons firing in a certain pattern? correct?
So where does that leave the colour red residing then? I imagine your author probably says its an illusion? If so then he is saying that everything he is studying and indeed all of science is based of an illusion.... can you see the problem?
Its a problem as old as the hills, most recently called the hard problem.
So where does that tie into the materialist universe? Any luck with it yet?
What are you talking about?
Seeing a colour is a complex thing, which is dependent on a few variables including how the light shines on it and through our experience of that 'colour'. Someone who is colour blind can name a colour correctly without seeing it the same as a non colour blind person.So yes in a way it is an illusion. So is time. I can't explain the concepts but perhaps your God is an illusion too? Your belief, Joe, appears to be based on instinct which is I suppose what faith is. Perhaps atheism is an instinct too or perhaps it is just a position arrived at due to lack of evidence. All these arguments have been done to death. Neither side is going to persuade the other.
Quote from: ned on May 12, 2017, 08:01:30 AM
Quote from: Hardy on May 12, 2017, 01:07:19 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 11, 2017, 08:55:29 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 11, 2017, 08:45:54 AM
Michael Shermer's "The Believing Mind" is a good read (so far - I'm halfway through it) about the neurological basis of belief. It's far too early in the progress of neurological research to have a coherent theory of the mind, but Shermer outlines a lot of fascinating research that builds the case for the physical basis of the workings of the human mind - i.e. the case that what we call the mind resides physically in the brain and is essentially the manifestation of the firing of neurons.
The book's main subject is belief - justified or otherwise. It's interesting in explaining the light research throws on how our brains work in dealing with religious, political, ideological and other beliefs.
I try to cut to the chase Hardy and make a few assumptions about where this guy is going with his book...
So when we experience the colour red (for example) its neurons firing in a certain pattern? correct?
So where does that leave the colour red residing then? I imagine your author probably says its an illusion? If so then he is saying that everything he is studying and indeed all of science is based of an illusion.... can you see the problem?
Its a problem as old as the hills, most recently called the hard problem.
So where does that tie into the materialist universe? Any luck with it yet?
What are you talking about?
Seeing a colour is a complex thing, which is dependent on a few variables including how the light shines on it and through our experience of that 'colour'. Someone who is colour blind can name a colour correctly without seeing it the same as a non colour blind person.So yes in a way it is an illusion. So is time. I can't explain the concepts but perhaps your God is an illusion too? Your belief, Joe, appears to be based on instinct which is I suppose what faith is. Perhaps atheism is an instinct too or perhaps it is just a position arrived at due to lack of evidence. All these arguments have been done to death. Neither side is going to persuade the other.
That's most likely. I like to discuss it because faith and the reasons for it interest me. Omaghjoe seems happy to discuss it so I don't see the harm.
for people who dont have faith (like myself) the notion of having faith is a fascinating one, I'm always intrigued by it and love discussing it with people who have faith.
a lot of the time its a hard topic to discuss because with a lot of people their faith is built on foundations of sand and when the discussion starts going in a direction that challenges it they can pull away and even take offense.
in fairness to joe he is doing his best to describe the reasons of his belief and why he believes as opposed to the usual what he believes.
Quote from: Hardy on May 12, 2017, 01:07:19 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 11, 2017, 08:55:29 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 11, 2017, 08:45:54 AM
Michael Shermer's "The Believing Mind" is a good read (so far - I'm halfway through it) about the neurological basis of belief. It's far too early in the progress of neurological research to have a coherent theory of the mind, but Shermer outlines a lot of fascinating research that builds the case for the physical basis of the workings of the human mind - i.e. the case that what we call the mind resides physically in the brain and is essentially the manifestation of the firing of neurons.
The book's main subject is belief - justified or otherwise. It's interesting in explaining the light research throws on how our brains work in dealing with religious, political, ideological and other beliefs.
I try to cut to the chase Hardy and make a few assumptions about where this guy is going with his book...
So when we experience the colour red (for example) its neurons firing in a certain pattern? correct?
So where does that leave the colour red residing then? I imagine your author probably says its an illusion? If so then he is saying that everything he is studying and indeed all of science is based of an illusion.... can you see the problem?
Its a problem as old as the hills, most recently called the hard problem.
So where does that tie into the materialist universe? Any luck with it yet?
What are you talking about?
Apologies for the abrupt response earlier.
I really don't have time to engage in the sort of lengthy discourse you're conducting with J70 and I don't see the point of it anyway.
I'll try to answer your question. Shermer does not suggest that the colour red is an illusion and so does not approach taking such a suggestion to its logical conclusion that everything (in what you call the material universe) is an illusion. I haven't read all of your ruminations here, but I get the impression that that's the conclusion you're heading towards.
Shermer is presenting the case that the results of neurological research are leading us further and further towards the confirmation of monism (mind and brain are synonymous - mind is the outworking of physiological activity in the brain) as opposed to dualism (mind and brain are separate).
He would say that red is just the name we give to the neuronal activity that takes place when the brain reacts to light of a certain frequency impinging on the retina.
The brain evolved to run the body. It's easy to understand how our low-level physical functions – breathing, beating of the heart, scratching an itch, standing upright without falling over – are managed by the chemical action of neurons in response to input stimuli, these actions in turn controlling muscles in a fairly classical feedback loop arrangement.
At a higher functional level, the same sorts of processes take place. An external stimulus (light of the "red" frequency striking the retina) occurs. Those neurons fire whose job it is to interpret the frequency of light hitting the retina. Depending on the requirements of the particular situation, other neurons in the brain will fire in response. They may just passively notice, "look, there's something red"; they may stimulate a response in the part of the brain that manages feelings and emotions – "that's a beautiful shade of red"; or they may send a signal to your muscles to hit the brake pedal in response to a red traffic light.
(None of this is quoting directly from the book, as Shermer doesn't so far discuss the particular question of colour perception. I'm attempting to answer your question about how his conclusions, as I understand them, would apply to how the brain reacts to the colour red.)
So, to answer your questions as per Shermer's conclusions:
QuoteSo where does that leave the colour red residing then?
The colour red "resides" in the actions of neurons in response to certain stimuli.
QuoteI imagine your author probably says its an illusion?
He doesn't. Quite the opposite. He would describe the colour red in detailed physical terms. It is far from an illusion.
QuoteIf so then he is saying that everything he is studying and indeed all of science is based of an illusion
That does not follow from anything he says.
Quotecan you see the problem?
Nope. If you think everything material is based on an illusion try checking what happens if you decide to ignore the instructions of the neurons telling you to hit the brake at the red light. On a cosmic level it may be insignificant, but it's still not an illusion that the atoms and molecules of you, your Ferrari and that big truck are scrambled into a pattern different to the one that existed a moment before.
Quote from: Esmarelda on May 11, 2017, 10:22:26 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 11, 2017, 08:42:22 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on May 11, 2017, 09:58:35 AM
Joe, you hadn't outlined that before but thank you for doing so.
None of that makes any sense to me though. What I mean is, I have most of those things that you've listed but I see no place for any deity in those experiences.
To me it sounds like you're working backwards from your belief. I don't mean to insult you or tell you what you believe but if appears that you were brought up believing in the Christian god, had some doubts and then looked for reasons to regain your faith. Obviously there are so many wonderful things in the world and in your life specifically that can attribute to god if it helps you on the path you desire. You recognise the bad stuff in the world and how it sort of contradicts how you attribute the good stuff to god, but you settle for the god side as it brings you peace.
Like I said, that probably sounds very arrogant and condescending. It's not supposed to be and of course I might be wrong. It's just how I read it.
Yes God forms the basis of my view of the world so I would say that I work up from faith but no Im not working backwards.
IF you say you dont have it fair enough but you beleive "you" as a distinct entity exist dont you? you believe that you have freewill dont you?
Maybe you dont but and there are plenty of people who dont, there are some people who even believe that their consciousness experience is an illusion. Ironically much of this is based on the notion that our consciousness experience gives us a solely accurate depiction of the world, ourselves and of consciousness itself. This is an assumption based on nothing and the later is complete circular reasoning.
Anyway my point is (that I am continuously trying to make) that everyone needs a foundation to base their outlook on and that ultimately has to be something subjective. Otherwise you'll end up at skepticism where nothing exists. It also seems to me that those basing their outlook solely on the empirical believe that it is somehow objective. Truth is, its not, as empiricism is based on our subjective experience, at least those of faith are frank about where their outlook comes from.
As far as how or why I lost and regained by faith, obviously I refute your assessment. I lost faith because I didnt like the idea of someone telling me what to do, and to a lesser extent thought it was fashionable, God of the Gaps etc and then looked for ways to back that that up (mostly more God of Gaps and assumption that we live in base reality, but there are plenty more). I regained it because of the experience of life i had, the relationships I had and probably what finally tipped me over was a certain occasion when I had that feeling of sublime. I have to say tho I never completely lost that fire of faith, just choose the doubts ahead of it. Maybe a few more years of suppressing it tho and I might have extinguished it, I don't know. Obviously its brings me more at peace is that not further vindication?
But don't you base your every day life on empirical evidence? Because we're dealing with the supernatural you claim we shouldn't apply the same approach. Why? Like i said in my football analogy earlier. Maybe the game I saw wasn't a draw. Maybe I imagined the whole thing. But I'm going to assume I saw it because it's what I tend to do.
The way you talk about your faith doesn't sound like faith to me at all. It sounds like you're pretty much on the fence. Talk of potentially going to the other side, that its bringing of peace to you being a vindication. It sounds like you might be thinking about it in the empirical way that you're saying we shouldn't.
And we haven't even started on why Christianity over any of the others.
I'm guessing even more that you're just happy being at peace with what you've decided to follow, rather than actually believing in what you say you believe in. Then again, I said from the outset that I don't usually use the word believe as I find it hard to define.
Esm no offence but it seems your going around in circles by just reverting to your stance where you say..
"Its sounds to me that your x even tho you say your y" which doesnt really mean anything to anyone except you.
There is no explanation behind that statement nothing specific that you dont understand, therefore I cant respond. Your basically saying I think you should think the same way as me...well...right back at ye Esm!....
I asked you the following questions to try give you an understand where faith comes from so if you are earnestly trying to do that try and answer them.
Do you believe in freewill? If so whats the reasoning behind it?
Do you believe in yourself as a distinct entity? If so....why?
I ask you this because most if not all people have an instinct belief in both of these same as I do in faith. However some people reason them away.
Of course I use my senses to asses my environment we were over that in a prior thread, and from above it should be obvious that are used to experience and discover the world around us, Just because I dont believe they can tell us everything doesn't mean i dont think they are inherently useful or that they cant tell us anything at all. I'll put that down as an attempt to corral me into the either or fallacy.
And if I did live my life on the prevailing theory based on empirical evidence then I wouldn't give a shit about anything because Im just a bunch of interchanging atoms living out an illusion...
"Why Christianity" was even covered in this thread and in one of our prior discussion as well as previously so I am tempted to say that your just making stuff up at this point.
I would suggest going over what I have written you in this thread and in other ones, try earnestly to understand it and ask questions that I can answer. It sounds to me that
"Its sounds to me" is just the point where you either don't or don't want to understand anymore.
Quote from: Hardy on May 12, 2017, 12:58:03 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 12, 2017, 01:07:19 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 11, 2017, 08:55:29 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 11, 2017, 08:45:54 AM
Michael Shermer's "The Believing Mind" is a good read (so far - I'm halfway through it) about the neurological basis of belief. It's far too early in the progress of neurological research to have a coherent theory of the mind, but Shermer outlines a lot of fascinating research that builds the case for the physical basis of the workings of the human mind - i.e. the case that what we call the mind resides physically in the brain and is essentially the manifestation of the firing of neurons.
The book's main subject is belief - justified or otherwise. It's interesting in explaining the light research throws on how our brains work in dealing with religious, political, ideological and other beliefs.
I try to cut to the chase Hardy and make a few assumptions about where this guy is going with his book...
So when we experience the colour red (for example) its neurons firing in a certain pattern? correct?
So where does that leave the colour red residing then? I imagine your author probably says its an illusion? If so then he is saying that everything he is studying and indeed all of science is based of an illusion.... can you see the problem?
Its a problem as old as the hills, most recently called the hard problem.
So where does that tie into the materialist universe? Any luck with it yet?
What are you talking about?
Apologies for the abrupt response earlier.
I really don't have time to engage in the sort of lengthy discourse you're conducting with J70 and I don't see the point of it anyway.
I'll try to answer your question. Shermer does not suggest that the colour red is an illusion and so does not approach taking such a suggestion to its logical conclusion that everything (in what you call the material universe) is an illusion. I haven't read all of your ruminations here, but I get the impression that that's the conclusion you're heading towards.
Shermer is presenting the case that the results of neurological research are leading us further and further towards the confirmation of monism (mind and brain are synonymous - mind is the outworking of physiological activity in the brain) as opposed to dualism (mind and brain are separate).
He would say that red is just the name we give to the neuronal activity that takes place when the brain reacts to light of a certain frequency impinging on the retina.
The brain evolved to run the body. It's easy to understand how our low-level physical functions – breathing, beating of the heart, scratching an itch, standing upright without falling over – are managed by the chemical action of neurons in response to input stimuli, these actions in turn controlling muscles in a fairly classical feedback loop arrangement.
At a higher functional level, the same sorts of processes take place. An external stimulus (light of the "red" frequency striking the retina) occurs. Those neurons fire whose job it is to interpret the frequency of light hitting the retina. Depending on the requirements of the particular situation, other neurons in the brain will fire in response. They may just passively notice, "look, there's something red"; they may stimulate a response in the part of the brain that manages feelings and emotions – "that's a beautiful shade of red"; or they may send a signal to your muscles to hit the brake pedal in response to a red traffic light.
(None of this is quoting directly from the book, as Shermer doesn't so far discuss the particular question of colour perception. I'm attempting to answer your question about how his conclusions, as I understand them, would apply to how the brain reacts to the colour red.)
So, to answer your questions as per Shermer's conclusions:
QuoteSo where does that leave the colour red residing then?
The colour red "resides" in the actions of neurons in response to certain stimuli.
QuoteI imagine your author probably says its an illusion?
He doesn't. Quite the opposite. He would describe the colour red in detailed physical terms. It is far from an illusion.
QuoteIf so then he is saying that everything he is studying and indeed all of science is based of an illusion
That does not follow from anything he says.
Quotecan you see the problem?
Nope. If you think everything material is based on an illusion try checking what happens if you decide to ignore the instructions of the neurons telling you to hit the brake at the red light. On a cosmic level it may be insignificant, but it's still not an illusion that the atoms and molecules of you, your Ferrari and that big truck are scrambled into a pattern different to the one that existed a moment before.
I think the highlighted term says it all Hardy, it means you've a certain paradigm that you want to be proved right on. I was cutting to the chase and telling you that book isnt gonna do it as there are basic logical questions that need to be answered.
Firstly I think your really talking about the binding problem of linking physcology and neurology (which is no where near to be resolved either) rather than the Hard Problem of our conscious experience.
Monism is a broader term and could apply to solipism, idealism as well as materialism. What you are professing seems to be more specific materialism. However neural patterns dont really tell us anything and in fact gave more credence to the brain in the VAT scenario than proper empirical materialism. It would also suggest there is no freewill, that we are just on a rollercoster and we dont have any proper genuine input.
Anyway if the colour red resides in a nueral pattern I should be able to look at your nueral pattern and see the colour red that you see, but guess what... I can't, I just see electrical pulses. In a way Neural patterns are no different to me watching Brian Dooher get his face imprinted onto the Croke Park turf by Martin O'Connell and saying.... I can feel his pain (well actually... I sort of did and still do!)
Check out Mary's problem it gives a better explanation...
If your author doesnt say explicitly its an illusion fair enough. however neurologists and quantum physicists have put thier heads together and said well the energy from the photons (which are the quantum source of light) is all used up by the firing of the neural pattern. There's no energy left unless they missed some in the dark matter :P, therefore they conclude that our consciousness experience is an illusion. But of course their assuming a materialist universe in the first place
So I dont know how far down that road your author goes with that but thats the prevailing thought at the moment from neuroscientists. Generally these guys are trying to sell books, and generally that is to people with a paradigm that their work compliments without even touching on the more difficult questions that are hanging over their subject.
Good work on ignoring me BTW ;) maybe you dont have freewill at all Hardy?
Joe, it seems emotions are getting out of hand so I'll keep it short and to the point out of courtesy.
If I say that something "seems to me" it's because it's my assessment something as I see it. How can you say it means nothing to anyone but me when you're just one person? Maybe it means plenty to plenty of other people.
I never said you should think like me. I've no idea where you got that from and at this stage I'm not even going to ask such is your apparent frustration.
To your questions, I'm unsure on free will. I've read a bit on it and I see the conflict. Does my indecisiveness on the matter mean something for or against my general view on faith?
Do I believe in myself as a distinct entity? I believe I exist because I can see myself in the mirror and I experience emotions. Other people also recognise me. I guess I do, yes.
I'll probably leave you to it at this stage. I'm obviously frustrating you and I've no interest on this deteriorating any further.
Quote from: Esmarelda on May 13, 2017, 01:31:35 AM
Joe, it seems emotions are getting out of hand so I'll keep it short and to the point out of courtesy.
If I say that something "seems to me" it's because it's my assessment something as I see it. How can you say it means nothing to anyone but me when you're just one person? Maybe it means plenty to plenty of other people.
I never said you should think like me. I've no idea where you got that from and at this stage I'm not even going to ask such is your apparent frustration.
To your questions, I'm unsure on free will. I've read a bit on it and I see the conflict. Does my indecisiveness on the matter mean something for or against my general view on faith?
Do I believe in myself as a distinct entity? I believe I exist because I can see myself in the mirror and I experience emotions. Other people also recognise me. I guess I do, yes.
I'll probably leave you to it at this stage. I'm obviously frustrating you and I've no interest on this deteriorating any further.
Feck me Esm get a spine look at Hardy Im snarky as f**k with him and he keeps coming back, (tho when your civil to him he gets bored).
If someone says about an explanation that I give that it seems to them to your explanation is not right with no rational to back it up of course they're gonna hold you accountable for that.
Anyway freewill and sense of self are analogies to where faith comes from, thats really what your asking about isnt it?
However the prevailing theory of both is that neither exist. You seem to understand the freewill problem and are undecided yet I'll bet you still live your life like you have it?
On the sense of self as a single entity the conventional wisdom these days is that we are actually within an interconnected, interchanging "cloud" of atoms, and somehow within that cloud atoms have arranged themselves to create the self awareness that you and I experience. So when you see your arm or face or even your brain while you may think its the same and belongs to you is really just a "force-field" that your see at the interface of different arrangement patterns of atoms.
Im not talking about your view on faith Im talking about my own and drawing comparisons to your belief in freewill and sense of self to mine in God. You seemingly started this out with the goal of understanding faith as you say you have none? Well my point is if you can understand your intuitive belief in those things that can be easily reasoned away then you should understand someone else's intuitive belief in God which most atheists have reasoned away.
Anyone else catch Joe Duffy show today about the ex cop that claims to have seen Fr John Sullivan? found it fascinating for he seemed of sound mind although at the time he was under a lot of pressure