All about me

paddyharris
paddyharris's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
All about me

My name is Paddy Harris, I am 28 years old and am married with 2 young sons. I am currently training to become a Pastor and have nearly finished my first year at Oxford University. My intention here is to CONVERT YOU ALL.... nah just kidding, actually i am keen to hear cutting edge reasoned arguments for and against faith and to be open to critiquing my faith, as well as hopefully meeting other like-minded people.

I am a fourth generation Chelsea fan and as we have just won the premier league (scoring 8 goals in our final game) i am about as sure as i can be that there must be a God! I love all sports and learned to play American football on a gap year i spent in America and have been a Pats fan ever since then too.

 

 

So yeah.. hello.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
paddyharris wrote:My name is

paddyharris wrote:

My name is Paddy Harris, I am 28 years old and am married with 2 young sons. I am currently training to become a Pastor and have nearly finished my first year at Oxford University. My intention here is to CONVERT YOU ALL.... nah just kidding, actually i am keen to hear cutting edge reasoned arguments for and against faith and to be open to critiquing my faith, as well as hopefully meeting other like-minded people.

I am a fourth generation Chelsea fan and as we have just won the premier league (scoring 8 goals in our final game) i am about as sure as i can be that there must be a God! I love all sports and learned to play American football on a gap year i spent in America and have been a Pats fan ever since then too.

 

 

So yeah.. hello.

Well if you love violent sports like your football and our football, then verbal brawls should be no problem for you. But if we are going to talk about sports making a god real, my Redskins (Washington DCs NFL team) sucks huge donkey balls, I'd say if there was a god, he's been asleep for the past 17 years.

All kidding aside, take none of what us say here personally, when we debate some here take the library approach and others here, like me, like to get down and dirty. But it isn't to attack you the person, merely the claims that you make.

Some come here with a claim and when we don't roll over and say, "Thats nice" they get offended. What they dont understand is IT ISN'T JUST THEM, OR THEIR CLAIM.

This site has had all sorts of claims, and not just about standard popular religion. This site just had a pantheist give that position up. There is a polytheist pagan here, she's nice enough even with her claims. We have an epic thread where we've been debating Capioskia who is stubborn as all get out, but it is nice to see that they don't go run screaming.

A former pastor just joined. I'd love to see you two debate.

Anyway, welcome and don't think we hate you, we just met you. But it would be a mistake to think your claims will always get kid gloves here.

Welcome.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliateSilver Member
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
 Welcome Paddy !I love your

 Welcome Paddy !

I love your avatar ~ looks very peaceful  Smiling

Jump right in and have fun, I look forward to interacting!

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


paddyharris
paddyharris's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
thanks and hello

Hey guys, thanks for the friendly welcome, Renee i like your avatar too ; )

 

 


paddyharris
paddyharris's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
just out of interest

Know it's a little cheeky but has anyone moved from an atheistic standpoint to a faith position on here as far as you know?


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
paddyharris wrote:Know it's

paddyharris wrote:

Know it's a little cheeky but has anyone moved from an atheistic standpoint to a faith position on here as far as you know?

Not that I have seen, I suppose anything is possible though.

Welcome.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


paddyharris
paddyharris's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Anything is possible...

"Anything is possible"

Anything is possible... Does this mean i have turned you from an Atheist to a believer in one short post? This was easier then i thought it was going to be!


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2396
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Welcome

 

 

 

           Knowing you are a fellow Patriots fan means you  can't be all bad. Remember the mantra "Tom Brady is my god."  I grew up in New England so I was a Pats fan long before it became popular, but for the last 34 years I live in the Toronto area.

 

 

            Tell me do you think the man quoted in Mathew 5: ( the beatitudes) is the same person quoted in Mathew 10:34 (I come not to bring peace....). It is clearly two different personalitys. When the bible calls J.C. "the Nazarene" the writer is not refering to his hometown (which did not exist) but to his Jewish sect. Nazarenes where known has quiet conservatives. A third personality type vs. Matt 5 & 10.  Turning water into wine was an aspect of the Roman god Bacchus,  Plus J.C.'s  birth and death are direct copies of Mithras' birth and death,  for these and other reasons I do not think any Jesu Christos ever existed,  the charactor is a conglomeration of several people some real and some fictitious.

 

 

             Respond early and often.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Welcome!Training to become a

Welcome!

Training to become a pastor in the CoE?


paddyharris
paddyharris's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
No, i lapsed and became a

No, i lapsed and became a baptist!


paddyharris
paddyharris's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
yes

Do i think it is the same man? Yes i do.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Welcome!From my observation,

Welcome!

From my observation, the most common path is from a faith held since childhood to a point where some puzzling apparent anomalies in the claims of the faith are noticed, often as the result of reading and education outside the context of the faith.

For the more genuinely curious people, a serious investigation turns up not the hoped-for resolution of the puzzle, but even more inconsistencies, and either a refusal to go further, denial, and an even stronger clinging to the beliefs, or a progression into a realization that none of it really holds up, into at least agnosticism, or into full abandonment of any remnant of respect for the 'faith' position.

Return to faith is typically the result of a life crisis, and an environment surrounded by still devout friends and relatives who offer the distressed non-believer a comforting refuge back in the faith.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2396
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Good.

paddyharris wrote:

Do i think it is the same man? Yes i do.

 

 

                     Don't be afraid to use the quote function. It is less confusing.  I do NOT believe any ONE person --  known has Jesus Christsus  --  ever existed.  There is simply no evidence.  Jesus Christ ,   Jesu christos  {these are titles  not names} or Joshua bar Joeseph or Yeoshuah bar  Yeushuph,  {these are commen names equal to John Smith  or John Doe}  are all four imaginary names.  Yet has Paul of Tarsus {Saul B'nai Tarsus} explained;   One does not need to see but to feel ........[        Is there a difference between your beliefs  --  leap of faith  --  and Paul {Saul) 's  mysticisim?

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


paddyharris
paddyharris's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
yes and also no

BobSpence1 wrote:

Welcome!

From my observation, the most common path is from a faith held since childhood to a point where some puzzling apparent anomalies in the claims of the faith are noticed, often as the result of reading and education outside the context of the faith.

 

I massively agree that for many people in the west the type of upbringing you have powerfully shapes whether or not you 'develop' faith. I also know from some of the child psychology stuff i have studied that the transition in adolesence from concrete to abstract thought as the brain develops leads many to go through a crisis of faith as they question their faith and realise others hold different views to them...

however this doesn't explain why in China and Africa, where the church is currently growing fastest (there are now more Christians in the southern hemisphere then the north) why so many people are becoming Christians from a different  or 'no' faith upbringing. I guess something else is going on there? 

 

 


paddyharris
paddyharris's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:paddyharris

Jeffrick wrote:

paddyharris wrote:

Do i think it is the same man? Yes i do.

   I do NOT believe any ONE person --  known has Jesus Christsus  --  ever existed.  There is simply no evidence.  Jesus Christ ,   Jesu christos  {these are titles  not names} or Joshua bar Joeseph or Yeoshuah bar  Yeushuph,  {these are commen names equal to John Smith  or John Doe}  are all four imaginary names.  Yet has Paul of Tarsus {Saul B'nai Tarsus} explained;   One does not need to see but to feel ........[        Is there a difference between your beliefs  --  leap of faith  --  and Paul {Saul) 's  mysticisim?

 

What evidence do you have for someone/a group collating a number of stories (as per your initial message) and making them into one account about someone called Jesus? If you were trying to create a story most probably for people to rally behind why would you create one where the hero dies in a way that all jews knew meant he was cursed? (Deut 21:23 niv).

When you quote, is it possible to include the reference (inc translation) and the context as it makes it easier to follow up and be accurate in getting back to you.

When you say there is no evidence for Jesus Christ existing what sort of evidence would be satisfactory for you? I know that on this website there are critiques of sources from Josephus etc but at the very least non-biblical sources do mention an individual called Jesus and i believe a description of the practices of those who worshipped him. The question seems to be more centred on who he was and claimed to be not, if he was... 

 

In terms of Saul i thought the big part of his story was that he saw and didn't just feel?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
paddyharris wrote:BobSpence1

paddyharris wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Welcome!

From my observation, the most common path is from a faith held since childhood to a point where some puzzling apparent anomalies in the claims of the faith are noticed, often as the result of reading and education outside the context of the faith.

I massively agree that for many people in the west the type of upbringing you have powerfully shapes whether or not you 'develop' faith. I also know from some of the child psychology stuff i have studied that the transition in adolesence from concrete to abstract thought as the brain develops leads many to go through a crisis of faith as they question their faith and realise others hold different views to them...

however this doesn't explain why in China and Africa, where the church is currently growing fastest (there are now more Christians in the southern hemisphere then the north) why so many people are becoming Christians from a different  or 'no' faith upbringing. I guess something else is going on there? 

Of course.

In China, it is like the reverse of the situation in Europe, where in most countries, and in many still, the Church is/was an aspect of the State, and people tend to drift away from it.

In China, the State is very anti-religion, and very much against outside influences, so adopting Christianity has an element of defying the State, providing an alternative to a system they don't identify with. Chinese have always been very superstitious and tend to believe in the supernatural in some form, such as 'demons' being everywhere. Charms and special symbolic characters to ward them off, even architectural features of their buildings being designed to impede the movement of demons. I was very struck by this in my two trips thru China.

In Africa, most people are in significant hardship, poverty, conflict, and as the traditional beliefs lose their power, as tribes lose their distinct identity to some extent, the refuge offered by a great unifying system has a strong appeal. Note that it is not a matter there of religious belief growing, more a matter of adopting a different version of belief from the traditional ones. They were always strong believers in the supernatural in some form.

So in both China and Africa, the general belief in the supernatural has persisted much more so than in the West, and there is far less of a tradition of scientific and rational scepticism which the European Enlightenment brought to the West, especially Europe itself. So when a person begins to question, there is much less chance of them coming across people and books offering an alternative to some form of religious belief.

So if they rebel against their childhood faith, it is more likely they will adopt another faith seen as in some way in opposition to the one they grew up in. In countries like China and Russia, with a Communist history, in the early days when Communism was coming in, it was often seen as the alternative world-view, so was taken up by the youth. Now the situation is reversed, and Religion, especially western faiths in the case of China, are seen as the alternative.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


paddyharris
paddyharris's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:paddyharris

BobSpence1 wrote:

paddyharris wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Welcome!

From my observation, the most common path is from a faith held since childhood to a point where some puzzling apparent anomalies in the claims of the faith are noticed, often as the result of reading and education outside the context of the faith.

I massively agree that for many people in the west the type of upbringing you have powerfully shapes whether or not you 'develop' faith. I also know from some of the child psychology stuff i have studied that the transition in adolesence from concrete to abstract thought as the brain develops leads many to go through a crisis of faith as they question their faith and realise others hold different views to them...

however this doesn't explain why in China and Africa, where the church is currently growing fastest (there are now more Christians in the southern hemisphere then the north) why so many people are becoming Christians from a different  or 'no' faith upbringing. I guess something else is going on there? 

Of course.

In China, it is like the reverse of the situation in Europe, where in most countries, and in many still, the Church is/was an aspect of the State, and people tend to drift away from it.

 

Right so in countries where it is the societal norm to be a Christian the youth majority rather then rebelling against the state go along with their parents but in countries where it is not the societal norm to believe they go against their parents... Seems a no win for Christianity!

 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
paddyharris wrote:BobSpence1

paddyharris wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Welcome!

From my observation, the most common path is from a faith held since childhood to a point where some puzzling apparent anomalies in the claims of the faith are noticed, often as the result of reading and education outside the context of the faith.

 

I massively agree that for many people in the west the type of upbringing you have powerfully shapes whether or not you 'develop' faith. I also know from some of the child psychology stuff i have studied that the transition in adolesence from concrete to abstract thought as the brain develops leads many to go through a crisis of faith as they question their faith and realise others hold different views to them...

however this doesn't explain why in China and Africa, where the church is currently growing fastest (there are now more Christians in the southern hemisphere then the north) why so many people are becoming Christians from a different  or 'no' faith upbringing. I guess something else is going on there? 

 

Welcome paddyharris,

 

It is very nice to see a Chelsea fan theist here!  I am from Russia and I am sure you know your team is very popular in Russia. Smiling

Back to our 'business', I have tons of questions.  

Some theists claim that the choice of a specific religion does NOT depend on cultural background and family traditions.  I always was puzzled by this claim and I has never seen any good argument supporting it.  I always thought that the choice of religion is almost exactly the same thing as the choice of your lovely football team.  If I were born and grown up in say Liverpool, there is very very little chance I will ever be a fan of Manchester United (and some certain danger indeed).   Isn't it the same way people choose Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism? 

 

Thank you.

 

100%

 

 

 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
paddyharris wrote:BobSpence1

paddyharris wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

paddyharris wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Welcome!

From my observation, the most common path is from a faith held since childhood to a point where some puzzling apparent anomalies in the claims of the faith are noticed, often as the result of reading and education outside the context of the faith.

I massively agree that for many people in the west the type of upbringing you have powerfully shapes whether or not you 'develop' faith. I also know from some of the child psychology stuff i have studied that the transition in adolesence from concrete to abstract thought as the brain develops leads many to go through a crisis of faith as they question their faith and realise others hold different views to them...

however this doesn't explain why in China and Africa, where the church is currently growing fastest (there are now more Christians in the southern hemisphere then the north) why so many people are becoming Christians from a different  or 'no' faith upbringing. I guess something else is going on there? 

Of course.

In China, it is like the reverse of the situation in Europe, where in most countries, and in many still, the Church is/was an aspect of the State, and people tend to drift away from it.

 

Right so in countries where it is the societal norm to be a Christian the youth majority rather then rebelling against the state go along with their parents but in countries where it is not the societal norm to believe they go against their parents... Seems a no win for Christianity!

 

 

As I just said, I had a perfect chance to observe the country of non-believing majority, and I can assure you and Bob there was absolutely no "rebelling" against parents in an attempt to pursue a religious path.   Some of our parents in Russia were religious, my grandma was religious, my grandpa was a priest, I had friends who became religious, and even one who graduated from a seminary.  All these were modest (and totally acceptable) fluctuations from the "norm" of a non-believing state. 

100%


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
paddyharris wrote:BobSpence1

paddyharris wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

paddyharris wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Welcome!

From my observation, the most common path is from a faith held since childhood to a point where some puzzling apparent anomalies in the claims of the faith are noticed, often as the result of reading and education outside the context of the faith.

I massively agree that for many people in the west the type of upbringing you have powerfully shapes whether or not you 'develop' faith. I also know from some of the child psychology stuff i have studied that the transition in adolesence from concrete to abstract thought as the brain develops leads many to go through a crisis of faith as they question their faith and realise others hold different views to them...

however this doesn't explain why in China and Africa, where the church is currently growing fastest (there are now more Christians in the southern hemisphere then the north) why so many people are becoming Christians from a different  or 'no' faith upbringing. I guess something else is going on there? 

Of course.

In China, it is like the reverse of the situation in Europe, where in most countries, and in many still, the Church is/was an aspect of the State, and people tend to drift away from it.

 

Right so in countries where it is the societal norm to be a Christian the youth majority rather then rebelling against the state go along with their parents but in countries where it is not the societal norm to believe they go against their parents... Seems a no win for Christianity!

 

I don't quite see just what you are arguing there. I was not talking about 'societal norms', certainly not in that sentence you quoted.

In both Europe and China, youth will tend to go against authority figures, both the State and their parents.

In Europe, the official Church tends to be seen as an arm of the Government, which reduces its appeal, so it loses out.

In China, it is seen as opposing the Government, so benefits from that in the eyes of the youth, definitely a win. They won't have been brought up in a church-going environment, so they won't have any impulse to reject it on those grounds either. 

In Europe, most adults are not strongly doctrinaire for or against religion, in many cases it is simply not a big factor in their life, so if the youth think about religion in big way, it is more a matter of their personal judgement, and the fact that religion would be in most cases seen as part of the establishment would tend to work against it.

The success of churches in the USA is another example of how they can benefit from not being explicitly connected with government.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The success

BobSpence1 wrote:

The success of churches in the USA is another example of how they can benefit from not being explicitly connected with government.

 

Do you think that if creationism is being taught in schools and every US citizen is requested to pray this will hurt churches in the US?

 

Edit: I suggest there is some "critical mass" of carp(TM) beyond which the society is a religious totalitarian society controlling the government.  How many US senators are atheists?  What are the chances of an atheist presidential candidate? Perhaps ... the USA is already on the dark side of ideological sanity ....  just a thought. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The success of churches in the USA is another example of how they can benefit from not being explicitly connected with government.

Do you think that if creationism is being taught in schools and every US citizen is requested to pray this will hurt churches in the US?

Edit: I suggest there is some "critical mass" of carp(TM) beyond which the society is a religious totalitarian society controlling the government.  How many US senators are atheists?  What are the chances of an atheist presidential candidate? Perhaps ... the USA is already on the dark side of ideological sanity ....  just a thought. 

it is a thought that occurred to me as I was writing that: if the government gets more directly involved in promoting religion, will that start to work against it, given the widespread antipathy to government intervention in people's lives?

Then there is the impression I get that people in the US feel much closer to their state governments than the Federal Govt. They seem to identify with the state govt when it 'stands up to' the Feds. It has pretty much been all state govts bringing in Creationist crap.

Interesting.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
paddyharris wrote:"Anything

paddyharris wrote:

"Anything is possible"

Anything is possible... Does this mean i have turned you from an Atheist to a believer in one short post? This was easier then i thought it was going to be!

I know you are kidding, but lots of people DO delude themselves into thinking that because we are atheists we are all politically correct library types and get shocked when we knock their claims around. It is great to see a theist who is aware of what they are in for. At least I hope you know what you are in for. This isn't always Mr Rogers Neighborhood.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The success of churches in the USA is another example of how they can benefit from not being explicitly connected with government.

Do you think that if creationism is being taught in schools and every US citizen is requested to pray this will hurt churches in the US?

Edit: I suggest there is some "critical mass" of carp(TM) beyond which the society is a religious totalitarian society controlling the government.  How many US senators are atheists?  What are the chances of an atheist presidential candidate? Perhaps ... the USA is already on the dark side of ideological sanity ....  just a thought. 

it is a thought that occurred to me as I was writing that: if the government gets more directly involved in promoting religion, will that start to work against it, given the widespread antipathy to government intervention in people's lives?

Then there is the impression I get that people in the US feel much closer to their state governments than the Federal Govt. They seem to identify with the state govt when it 'stands up to' the Feds. It has pretty much been all state govts bringing in Creationist crap.

Interesting.

 

There is a - rather - large problem with the US government getting more involved in religion.  The number of religions to choose from.  Jehovah Witness?  Southern Baptist?  Scientologist?  How about Christian Scientist?  Lutheran?  Unitarian?  Catholic, Muslim, Pandeist, Wiccan, Hindu.......If you put representatives from them into a room, you can count on the fireworks going up in short order.  What ever the government does, it has to be for all the various flavors.  And it has to at least pretend to be even handed.  Which will piss some of them off.  I can just hear my sister, "They are giving money to the Catholics - IDOLATORS!" 

She really talks that way.

There will never be a federal religion in the US.  Too many choices.  And too many willing to die for it.  It might be that you can get close to a state religion - rather like Utah and the Mormons.  The trick here is that they have to behave to get federal funds.  If they go overboard, no more federal funds.  For any programs.  People pay federal income taxes and fees which then are returned to the states for various federally funded programs - like schools and roads and Medicaid (medical insurance for poor people).  It's a big deal to the states and a lot of money.

I just don't see it happening.  There are some people may think it would be wonderful until they think about all the consequences.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
paddyharris wrote:however

paddyharris wrote:

however this doesn't explain why in China and Africa, where the church is currently growing fastest (there are now more Christians in the southern hemisphere then the north) why so many people are becoming Christians from a different  or 'no' faith upbringing. I guess something else is going on there?

According to this Islam is growing faster then Christianity.  Does that mean that Islam is correct, and Christianity is wrong?

Quote:

bulletThe growth rate of Christianity, according to the U.S. Center for World Mission, is very close to the growth rate of the world's population. The percentage of Christians in the world has remained almost constant for decades.

bulletThe growth rate of Islam, according to the U.S. Center for World Mission, at 2.9% is higher than the 2.6% growth rate of the world's population. Thus, the percentage of Muslims in the world is growing on the order of 0.6% per year.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/growth_isl_chr.htm

edit:  Changed the word the to then.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I know you are

Brian37 wrote:

I know you are kidding, but lots of people DO delude themselves into thinking that because we are atheists we are all politically correct library types and get shocked when we knock their claims around. It is great to see a theist who is aware of what they are in for. At least I hope you know what you are in for. This isn't always Mr Rogers Neighborhood.

I think a certain British Biologist might be partly to blame for that stereotype. Could be wrong... Nietzsche was certainly library-friendly but FAR from politically correct.

This guy never struck me as library-loving or "politically correct"...

Literate, but not fond of libraries or political correctness either. He does like bunnies.

I don't think he's huge on libraries or PC talk, either.

Ditto. Pretty neutral on PC stuff (though I've barely scratched the surface on her)

I don't thinks she's spent a day in the library without a friend or two nearby, and she LOVES stirring shit up against OT passages and Bible-thumpers in general.

Oh, sure... he's SUPER pc and probably spends his days looking at encyclopedias... NEXT PLEASE!

EERRRRRRRRRR?????????????

DDDUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR?????

Huh????????????????


Brian, maybe the problem isn't 'perception', as you appear to be implying, but rather the simple probability that many staunch theists are a little perturbed and frustrated with how many calm, cool, successful and well-liked individuals no longer have any need for 'God'. It tips their sacred cows over...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
paddyharris wrote:"Anything

paddyharris wrote:

"Anything is possible"

Anything is possible... Does this mean i have turned you from an Atheist to a believer in one short post? This was easier then i thought it was going to be!

Yea, to a degree leprechauns are possible as are magic genie's who grant wishes. I would like to find either of those or perhaps just the genie and I could wish for a leprechaun, hmm the possibilities.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
paddyharris wrote:My name is

paddyharris wrote:

My name is Paddy Harris, I am 28 years old and am married with 2 young sons. I am currently training to become a Pastor and have nearly finished my first year at Oxford University. My intention here is to CONVERT YOU ALL.... nah just kidding, actually i am keen to hear cutting edge reasoned arguments for and against faith and to be open to critiquing my faith, as well as hopefully meeting other like-minded people.

I am a fourth generation Chelsea fan and as we have just won the premier league (scoring 8 goals in our final game) i am about as sure as i can be that there must be a God! I love all sports and learned to play American football on a gap year i spent in America and have been a Pats fan ever since then too.

 

 

So yeah.. hello.

Welcome.  I respect you and your right to hold your position representing Christianity,  however I have many problems with the Religion and especially the philosophies and character traits of the god of arbraham.  For now I will leave it at that. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Brian37 wrote:I

Kapkao wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I know you are kidding, but lots of people DO delude themselves into thinking that because we are atheists we are all politically correct library types and get shocked when we knock their claims around. It is great to see a theist who is aware of what they are in for. At least I hope you know what you are in for. This isn't always Mr Rogers Neighborhood.

I think a certain British Biologist might be partly to blame for that stereotype. Could be wrong... Nietzsche was certainly library-friendly but FAR from politically correct.

This guy never struck me as library-loving or "politically correct"...

Literate, but not fond of libraries or political correctness either. He does like bunnies.

I don't think he's huge on libraries or PC talk, either.

Ditto. Pretty neutral on PC stuff (though I've barely scratched the surface on her)

I don't thinks she's spent a day in the library without a friend or two nearby, and she LOVES stirring shit up against OT passages and Bible-thumpers in general.

Oh, sure... he's SUPER pc and probably spends his days looking at encyclopedias... NEXT PLEASE!

EERRRRRRRRRR?????????????

DDDUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR?????

Huh????????????????


Brian, maybe the problem isn't 'perception', as you appear to be implying, but rather the simple probability that many staunch theists are a little perturbed and frustrated with how many calm, cool, successful and well-liked individuals no longer have any need for 'God'. It tips their sacred cows over...

LARRY FLINT? What the fuck, he'd wash your mouth out with soap for cussing! Jeeze, you didn't know he is the new CEO of Disney?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Welcome Paddy

 

paddyharris wrote:

When you say there is no evidence for Jesus Christ existing what sort of evidence would be satisfactory for you? I know that on this website there are critiques of sources from Josephus etc but at the very least non-biblical sources do mention an individual called Jesus and i believe a description of the practices of those who worshipped him. The question seems to be more centred on who he was and claimed to be not, if he was... 

 

I think there is sufficent conjecture over the writings of the early church and the lack of support for jesus' existence in historical writings of the time to call into question the existence of jesus and not to gloss over these things in the way you are quite clearly doing. It does not matter what theological scholars say - the existing evidence is found in the books of the NT whose sources and authors are unknown.

There are 2 references in Josephus, one almost certainly forged and there are perhaps 2 other oblique references, one being in Tacitus, that cannot be said with any surety to refer to the NT jesus. Now, as you know Paddy, there were about 50 noted historians writing at the time jesus lived but not one mentions him directly and uncontestably. Josephus gabbles on about all sorts of minor folk. The chances he would miss some one like jesus, and the alleged tumultuous events surrounding his death, are remote.

What I'm interested in though, is why you believe the historical method can be employed to verify the certain existence on this planet of the master of the universe. Now, I know we can posit various things, and come to broad conclusions about people and events in further history. But jesus was not claimed to be just some guy, or even a caesar. He is claimed to be something completely different and the veracity of the case surrounding those claims cannot depend on the loose nature of the historical method.

Did jesus certainly exist? You cannot truly say. Was jesus the son of god and god himself as is claimed in the NT? You cannot truly say. The proof of these things lies in the canon of the faith itself. The evidence outside it remains subjective.

From your general tone you are a strong believer and are not here to have your mind changed. The fact you have these beliefs based heavily in the unknown and the unknowable does not give you knowledge of what is true.

All we can say with honesty is that we do not understand our position in this particular reality and in attempting to understand it in the only way we can, through the prism of our human minds, we may never comprehend it at all.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:
Kapkao wrote:

DDDUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR?????

LARRY FLINT? What the fuck, he'd wash your mouth out with soap for cussing! Jeeze, you didn't know he is the new CEO of Disney?

I must have missed the punchline buried and carefully hidden somewhere in that sentence...  

(I am aware of how the Children's Cartoon-cum-Fantasyland Theme Park business is deeply interconnected with the smut business)

It's believed by some educated on the subject that he has undiagnosed Bipolar Disorder, considering all the anger-laden, misbehaving, loud-mouthed publicity stunts he's led over the years. Just a thought...

ANYWAYS!


Here are some atheists who genuinely fit the egghead stereotype:

A ex-Muslim Somalian expatriate:

    High School: Muslim Girls' Secondary School, Nairobi, Kenya
    University: Valley Secretarial College, Nairobi, Kenya (one year)
    University: MA Political Science, Leiden University (2000)

Something about "first person shooters" comes to mind...

"I was sort of an amoral little jerk when I was young. I was arrogant about being smarter than other people, but unhappy that I wasn't able to spend all my time doing what I wanted. I spent a year in a juvenile home for a first offense after an evaluation by a psychologist went very badly."

Something about car crash films..

Pioneer of the "Double-Helix" model of nucleic acids.

Developed a 1-6 scale for sexual preferences. He and his associates did consort with practicing pedophiles to study child sexuality, and his Institute is apologetic to this day about it.

And the world-famous British Biologist (That apparently comes as close to a certified spokesman on atheism as anyone I can think of):

Very clever guy, very 'well-read'/literate and at the same time read up on by millions. Could use a mild touch-up on his interpersonal skills and charisma, but then... nobody's perfect.

edit; stupid bbcode!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I would have folded like a

I would have folded like a deck of cards if I had to go through what Ayaan went through in her life. Of course I don't believe in capes or colorful leotards, much less deities, but damn, to put up with what she did without going postal or caving in?

Ayaan is a hero to humanity. She shows humanity that Santa for adults is not needed.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

paddyharris wrote:

When you say there is no evidence for Jesus Christ existing what sort of evidence would be satisfactory for you? I know that on this website there are critiques of sources from Josephus etc but at the very least non-biblical sources do mention an individual called Jesus and i believe a description of the practices of those who worshipped him. The question seems to be more centred on who he was and claimed to be not, if he was... 

 

I think there is sufficent conjecture over the writings of the early church and the lack of support for jesus' existence in historical writings of the time to call into question the existence of jesus and not to gloss over these things in the way you are quite clearly doing. It does not matter what theological scholars say - the existing evidence is found in the books of the NT whose sources and authors are unknown.

There are 2 references in Josephus, one almost certainly forged and there are perhaps 2 other oblique references, one being in Tacitus, that cannot be said with any surety to refer to the NT jesus. Now, as you know Paddy, there were about 50 noted historians writing at the time jesus lived but not one mentions him directly and uncontestably. Josephus gabbles on about all sorts of minor folk. The chances he would miss some one like jesus, and the alleged tumultuous events surrounding his death, are remote.

What I'm interested in though, is why you believe the historical method can be employed to verify the certain existence on this planet of the master of the universe. Now, I know we can posit various things, and come to broad conclusions about people and events in further history. But jesus was not claimed to be just some guy, or even a caesar. He is claimed to be something completely different and the veracity of the case surrounding those claims cannot depend on the loose nature of the historical method.

Did jesus certainly exist? You cannot truly say. Was jesus the son of god and god himself as is claimed in the NT? You cannot truly say. The proof of these things lies in the canon of the faith itself. The evidence outside it remains subjective.

From your general tone you are a strong believer and are not here to have your mind changed. The fact you have these beliefs based heavily in the unknown and the unknowable does not give you knowledge of what is true.

All we can say with honesty is that we do not understand our position in this particular reality and in attempting to understand it in the only way we can, through the prism of our human minds, we may never comprehend it at all.

A preacher who was a closet atheist would be doing it right... religion is here, and you could play it like a cheap fiddle. Hmm, idea's ...

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I would have

Brian37 wrote:

I would have folded like a deck of cards if I had to go through what Ayaan went through in her life. Of course I don't believe in capes or colorful leotards, much less deities, but damn, to put up with what she did without going postal or caving in?

Ayaan is a hero to humanity. She shows humanity that Santa for adults is not needed.

Indeed, but I think you underestimate the INCREDIBLY powerful drive to 'keep living' that nearly all humans are hard wired with since birth, including yourself, and is only "turned off" after extreme emotional duress and (usually) the feeling of being alone in the world - both of which are AKA "Suicidal Ideation". (Ayaan did not feel alone, trust me.)

While it's difficult to imagine some of the horrendous strife suffered by millions daily, none the least of which is in Ayaan's life story, you have to think "Huh... the human instinctual impulse to survive has kept the species alive for dozens of millenia, and against nearly impossible odds, just the same!" and then you might realize your brain starts doing unusual, inexplicable  things when it's well-being is threatened in the extreme. (The same is true of kids as well, but in most cases... exposing them to too much aggression and ruthlessness means they grow up with out any moral conscience whatsoever.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1230
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Hello paddy,Here's a couple

Hello paddy,

Here's a couple of topics I'd be curious to have your thoughts on if you have an interest:

paddyharris wrote:
I am 28 years old and am married with 2 young sons. I am currently training to become a Pastor and have nearly finished my first year at Oxford University.

You mention you started out in the C of E, then became a baptist.  In microcosm, that represents one of the problems that I have with christianity.  The baptists broke off from the separatists, which broke off from the C of E, which broke off from the catholics.  John Smyth, credited as pastor of the first baptist church, himself became a mennonite.  christianity as a whole has shown itself over the past 2 millennia to be an ever-morphing organism, now existing in countless variations, each posturing that it's gotten it right (or at least, more right than all the others).    

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


paddyharris
paddyharris's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:paddyharris

RatDog wrote:

paddyharris wrote:

however this doesn't explain why in China and Africa, where the church is currently growing fastest (there are now more Christians in the southern hemisphere then the north) why so many people are becoming Christians from a different  or 'no' faith upbringing. I guess something else is going on there?

According to this Islam is growing faster then Christianity.  Does that mean that Islam is correct, and Christianity is wrong?

Quote:

bulletThe growth rate of Christianity, according to the U.S. Center for World Mission, is very close to the growth rate of the world's population. The percentage of Christians in the world has remained almost constant for decades.

bulletThe growth rate of Islam, according to the U.S. Center for World Mission, at 2.9% is higher than the 2.6% growth rate of the world's population. Thus, the percentage of Muslims in the world is growing on the order of 0.6% per year.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/growth_isl_chr.htm

edit:  Changed the word the to then.

 

Does islam's popularity compared to Christianity's mean it is more correct? No i don't think the amount of converts is directly proportional to the 'rightness' of a religion or else a religion is 'more right' when it is has more converts at a point in history. Islam and Christianity (Evangelical Christianity at least) also have a difference in that a muslim is born islamic wheras you dont' get born as a Christian but have to make that choice for yourself. In pure statistics terms this means that Islam woudl have the base birth rate/growth rate PLUS anyone who made the choice to adopt islam. The 'rightness' of the religion has to be based i would think on the claims it makes not its popularity imho.


paddyharris
paddyharris's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
nuff respect

Welcome.  I respect you and your right to hold your position representing Christianity,  however I have many problems with the Religion and especially the philosophies and character traits of the god of arbraham.  For now I will leave it at that.

 

What specific philosophy and traits do you have a problem with? Is it all the genocide or something different?


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The success of churches in the USA is another example of how they can benefit from not being explicitly connected with government.

Do you think that if creationism is being taught in schools and every US citizen is requested to pray this will hurt churches in the US?

Edit: I suggest there is some "critical mass" of carp(TM) beyond which the society is a religious totalitarian society controlling the government.  How many US senators are atheists?  What are the chances of an atheist presidential candidate? Perhaps ... the USA is already on the dark side of ideological sanity ....  just a thought. 

it is a thought that occurred to me as I was writing that: if the government gets more directly involved in promoting religion, will that start to work against it, given the widespread antipathy to government intervention in people's lives?

Then there is the impression I get that people in the US feel much closer to their state governments than the Federal Govt. They seem to identify with the state govt when it 'stands up to' the Feds. It has pretty much been all state govts bringing in Creationist crap.

Interesting.

I'm certain I have mentioned this before, we want church and state to stay seperate, but a state run church would work against their own cause so the more intelligent theists will not push it. There is one catch however. If one did not believe in their own religion, but wanted it state run to force it, hmm, implications, dollar signs are more important than actually having people believe in this. (Think roman cathlic church in the 10th century and beyond) In light of this I'm just not really certain what to think.

Creationism in school is the main irritant to me, kids do not need this carp forced down their throat, keep it at home!

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 Interesting... priests as

 Interesting... priests as federal employees... Centralized federal-run donations collection... Multireligion pray houses... "Visit your god" virtual reality computer simulators, your choice of any of ten most popular gods, complementary angels included...

 

Maybe atheists should fight for government-controlled church instead of separation?

 

Edit: Actually, it might be a simple way to resolve economic challenges by collecting huge new revenues.  Maybe it is not a good time anymore to let church be separated from the government.

 

 

 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Yes the fun part though is

Yes the fun part though is that a state run religion, would be one religion. This is what would spark a fire. In this country it would undoubtedly be christian and fairly strict on types of christians. I don't think there is another new world to the west of us for the pilgrims to flock too though. For so many through history, certain religious philosophies did not suit some peoples own opinions and they started new branches. In a state run religious society.. I'll leave it up to the imagination, though we do have some other historical happenings to consider so imagination is not a real requirement.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
paddyharris wrote:Welcome. 

paddyharris wrote:

Welcome.  I respect you and your right to hold your position representing Christianity,  however I have many problems with the Religion and especially the philosophies and character traits of the god of arbraham.  For now I will leave it at that.

 

What specific philosophy and traits do you have a problem with? Is it all the genocide or something different?

It's obviously far more deep than one single objectionable aspect of the bible.  It's the entire show.  The god of abraham as portrayed in the bible has serious issues, his character is truly messed up.  The scenario of the talking snake causing the hole apple eating fiaso foiling the god of abrahams plan is absolutely proposterous, it simply doesn't make sense in any way.  Also all the many prophets and holy men that represented the god of abraham in the bible who were called righteous and "good" in the eyes of god who seem to be complete morons, twisted people, or just plain violent.  The hole thing just doesn't make a lick of sense.  Don't even get me started on the god sacrificing himself to himself thing, that doesn't make a lick of sense either.  The book has some charming parts, but as a hole it is simply no good.   


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
paddyharris wrote:Welcome. 

paddyharris wrote:

Welcome.  I respect you and your right to hold your position representing Christianity,  however I have many problems with the Religion and especially the philosophies and character traits of the god of arbraham.  For now I will leave it at that.

What specific philosophy and traits do you have a problem with? Is it all the genocide or something different?

I think that to some extent, it's about religion hitting particularly close to home for many of us. In my case, however... I believe that all the 'bad acts' done on behalf of a particular faith can be used as an argument in favor of opposing/abolishing said faith.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
paddyharris wrote:Does

paddyharris wrote:

Does islam's popularity compared to Christianity's mean it is more correct? No i don't think the amount of converts is directly proportional to the 'rightness' of a religion or else a religion is 'more right' when it is has more converts at a point in history. Islam and Christianity (Evangelical Christianity at least) also have a difference in that a muslim is born islamic wheras you dont' get born as a Christian but have to make that choice for yourself. In pure statistics terms this means that Islam woudl have the base birth rate/growth rate PLUS anyone who made the choice to adopt islam. The 'rightness' of the religion has to be based i would think on the claims it makes not its popularity imho.

 

I have to ask now:  What about Christianity makes it more objectively right than any other religions, past, present and future?  If you were locked in a room with an imam, a rabbi, a priest, a scientologist, a pandit, a (etc...), how could you show a neutral party your belief is more "true" than the others?  Could any of the others duplicate your method or evidence?

I'm also interested to see how the geography thing plays out...to many of us, myself included, the fact that religion seems to be heavily linked (far more so than any other input) to the local culture is a strong blow against any particular religion being objectively true.  Apologetics seems to be about justifying the belief that you were born into more than anything else.

 

paddy wrote:

What specific philosophy and traits do you have a problem with? Is it all the genocide or something different?

For me it is the absurdity of the entire story.  From a recent thread:

mellestad wrote:

To you, God didn't just make Hell, It made humans, It made human morality, It made humans weak, It made the tempter that helped start our 'fall', It made the law that It knew would be violated, It created the situation for that choice to be made, It made the curse and applied it to all humans who would ever be born after the fact, then It spent a couple thousands years murdering and generally screwing with humans, then It changes It's mind about the whole system and carved off a piece of Itself so it could kill Itself then raise Itself from the dead and suck Itself into space to create a loophole in the law that It created, then It disappears.  

And you come on here and tell us how it all makes sense, God is love, and you don't understand why we think the world makes more sense without invoking your deity.

 

I don't see anything that justifies belief in any deity, much less the ever changing and evolving concept of the Christian deity.  At least the Muslims and Jews have the capacity to be consistent.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


paddyharris
paddyharris's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:paddyharris

Kapkao wrote:

paddyharris wrote:

I think that to some extent, it's about religion hitting particularly close to home for many of us. In my case, however... I believe that all the 'bad acts' done on behalf of a particular faith can be used as an argument in favor of opposing/abolishing said faith.

 

 

I guess the important thing about the 'bad acts' is firstly whether it is people just using religion to then act as they would want to act or if genuinely and clearly they can demonstrate that their faith is making them do it. If someone justified an evil act by citing their faith and yet it was clear that actually they didn't speak truly on behalf of it (e.g. abortion clinic bombers, that southboro family who call eveyone fags and picket soldiers funerals) then actually you can't use that to oppose or abolish a faith. You should use it to challenge the individual about how their faith is causing them to live in a way that actually dishonours God and makes people turn off him. I also know that although faith doesn't have the monopoly on philanthropic activity you would in the cause of fairness also have to use all the 'good acts' as an argument for proposing that faith is a postive thing, you can't have it one way without the other. I am sorry though if you have been hurt personally by a church/person (i infer it from what you say) there is no excuse for that.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
paddyharris wrote:I guess

paddyharris wrote:

I guess the important thing about the 'bad acts' is firstly whether it is people just using religion to then act as they would want to act or if genuinely and clearly they can demonstrate that their faith is making them do it. If someone justified an evil act by citing their faith and yet it was clear that actually they didn't speak truly on behalf of it (e.g. abortion clinic bombers, that southboro family who call eveyone fags and picket soldiers funerals) then actually you can't use that to oppose or abolish a faith. You should use it to challenge the individual about how their faith is causing them to live in a way that actually dishonours God and makes people turn off him. I also know that although faith doesn't have the monopoly on philanthropic activity you would in the cause of fairness also have to use all the 'good acts' as an argument for proposing that faith is a postive thing, you can't have it one way without the other. I am sorry though if you have been hurt personally by a church/person (i infer it from what you say) there is no excuse for that.

MMmmmmmmmm I don't think religion makes a person do anything, but it does enable quite a few ill deeds.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


paddyharris
paddyharris's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:paddyharris

Kapkao wrote:

paddyharris wrote:

I guess the important thing about the 'bad acts' is firstly whether it is people just using religion to then act as they would want to act or if genuinely and clearly they can demonstrate that their faith is making them do it. If someone justified an evil act by citing their faith and yet it was clear that actually they didn't speak truly on behalf of it (e.g. abortion clinic bombers, that southboro family who call eveyone fags and picket soldiers funerals) then actually you can't use that to oppose or abolish a faith. You should use it to challenge the individual about how their faith is causing them to live in a way that actually dishonours God and makes people turn off him. I also know that although faith doesn't have the monopoly on philanthropic activity you would in the cause of fairness also have to use all the 'good acts' as an argument for proposing that faith is a postive thing, you can't have it one way without the other. I am sorry though if you have been hurt personally by a church/person (i infer it from what you say) there is no excuse for that.

MMmmmmmmmm I don't think religion makes a person do anything, but it does enable quite a few ill deeds.

 

As does any political, ideological or faith-based grouping. So on a scale vegetarianism is one thing but the people over here who break into farms and commit arson because they think the animals should be free or are being ill treated are an example whereby the ideology does not enable but maybe inspires?


paddyharris
paddyharris's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:paddyharris

Kapkao wrote:

paddyharris wrote:

I guess the important thing about the 'bad acts' is firstly whether it is people just using religion to then act as they would want to act or if genuinely and clearly they can demonstrate that their faith is making them do it. If someone justified an evil act by citing their faith and yet it was clear that actually they didn't speak truly on behalf of it (e.g. abortion clinic bombers, that southboro family who call eveyone fags and picket soldiers funerals) then actually you can't use that to oppose or abolish a faith. You should use it to challenge the individual about how their faith is causing them to live in a way that actually dishonours God and makes people turn off him. I also know that although faith doesn't have the monopoly on philanthropic activity you would in the cause of fairness also have to use all the 'good acts' as an argument for proposing that faith is a postive thing, you can't have it one way without the other. I am sorry though if you have been hurt personally by a church/person (i infer it from what you say) there is no excuse for that.

MMmmmmmmmm I don't think religion makes a person do anything, but it does enable quite a few ill deeds.

 

As does any political, ideological or faith-based grouping. So on a scale vegetarianism is one thing but the people over here who break into farms and commit arson because they think the animals should be free or are being ill treated are an example whereby the ideology does not enable but maybe inspires?


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
paddyharris wrote:As does

paddyharris wrote:


As does any political, ideological or faith-based grouping. So on a scale vegetarianism is one thing but the people over here who break into farms and commit arson because they think the animals should be free or are being ill treated are an example whereby the ideology does not enable but maybe inspires?

Eeeggghhhhh... how many groups say they're justified in hating (It's more than one religion), having multiple wives, punishing homosexuals as a gov't right, and are generally allowed to stroke their egoes all day and night simply because of what one book says about morality and the transgessions of others?

I wasn't planning on going mano-a-mano about religion in someone's introduction thread; much better, more meaningful places to do that around here anyhow!

Here's AtheistExtremist's thread on "Can christianity be proved by objective evidence?" - pay attention to a poster called "Pmichael", and contemplate his thoughts on the matter thoroughly. I believe that you and him overlap quite a bit in terms of personal beliefs, and that he could add a great deal of insight to many of the philosophical and ideological dilemmas Christianity faces in the 20th and 21st centuries. (I also made a few "vicious" posts of no use to anyone but myself )

As for me... I'm done here. Listing the strengths and weaknesses of one faith or another can be a chore, yes?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paddy, Others here have much

Paddy,

Others here have much more patience than I do in slow deconstruction of an argument. I like to cut to the chase and skip the dance.

Keep in mind what I am about to type has nothing to do with you, but the concept of a deity itself. Anyone could make up a deity and give it any attribute they want, and I would still look at the concept the same way.

What is this deity/god/super natural being?

For most it is a non-material brain with no brain, no neurons, no cerebellum, with a location that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time that meddles in the affairs in humans.

So even before we get to your god and your specific claim, the "generic" concept has not been established as universal fact. There is no way to independently verify and replicate and falsify such a concept.

WHAT we do know about human history is that humans can and do make up stories and falsely believe them to be fact because they like an idea.

We can take a slice of human cadaver brain, put it under a microscope and juxtapose it next to a Hubble space telescope photo. In doing such we don't see neurons in space, nor can we locate a giant brain, much less an invisible one with magic super powers.

WHY, because the universe is not a brain capable of thought. It is a thing, an object, a non-cognitive what.

Conversely though, we have plenty of evidence in the history of our species of believing in myth as if it were real. Think about the myths you reject that others believe to be real. When you understand why you reject those claims, you will understand why we reject yours as well.

The only difference between you and an atheist is that we reject one more myth than you do.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37