Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    That is a great question. Clearly, they can't all be correct - If only because Buddha states that there are many paths to Enlightenment while Jesus says He is the only way, right?

    If Buddha is right then, even if Jesus was -a- way, he wouldn't be the -only- way as he said, correct?

    This is essentially your question? That is a genuine and honest question and well-worth asking, but I want to know if that's your actual concern.
    To an extent yes. Considering that there are some estimated 4,600 religions in existence right now, it would seem to me that there is almost certainly a competing or contradictory claim with regards to most fundamental religious claims between those 4,600. For example, the Abrahamic faiths take the stance that God created the universe, but the Jains believe the Universe has always existed and wasn't created by any God.

    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    I am certainly not saying that we must believe whatever people tell us. From a car accident, to vandalism to a miracle claim - we must assess the testimony and the circumstances. But it seems people have an a priori problem with testimony mainly when it comes to miracles. Why pick miracles to take this biased view towards, as opposed to something else? E.g. Suppose that I say that I have so much trust in my friend Jim that I will never believe that he has done something really bad unless I can be "100% sure that my senses are not deceiving me." Would not this be said to be an unreasonable and closed-minded approach to any re-evaluation of Jim character? So, if I saw with my own eyes Jim beating a kitten to death, I would conclude that Jim is still a wonderful person unless I can be 100% sure that my senses are not deceiving me.
    The same issues that tends to arise with miracles, also arises with issues such as the paranormal and alternative medicine. William Lane Craig for example completely dismisses the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Would you argue that he is wrong there in taking such a stance?

    Let us start with an example. I reject homeopathy and would only be willing to change my opinion should further strong evidence come to the contrary to prove homeopathy to be a valid form of treatment. This is in fact the whole basis behind evidence based medicine. Would you regard me in this case to be unreasonable and close-minded?

    Such refusals to reconsider a proposition on the basis of future evidence are nothing more than closing oneself, a priori, to evidence. There is no justification for that sort of refusal. It is not as though "Miracles do not happen" is a mathematical certainty, any more than, "Jim is a wonderful person" is a mathematical certainty.

    Naturally, with some things, we say that it would take a *lot* to convince us, and that is legitimate.
    The problem is that it is a mathematical certainty that rare events happen. For example, a person with cancer goes to Lourdes and prays for the week. They come home and they go to doctor and the doctor finds the cancer has gone and s/he cannot explain it. Can the person now claim a miracle to have occurred? I would argue against jumping to such conclusions as it is still perfectly possible that an incredibly rare natural event may have happened that we just don't understand yet.

    So much like the person who heard someone call their name, the person who is cured of cancer will speak with complete conviction about their cure. Other people will naturally be sceptical, but they can bring the doctors testimony as evidence. But even if we are to accept that their cancer has suddenly become cured, the truth is that we don't have an explanation for how or why. I believe it a reasonable claim to state "my cancer was cured", but to state that it was a miracle is for me quite a jump that needs more evidence, especially seeing that it is the case with all miracles that what we could be witnessing is in fact just a mathematically probable rare natural event. So to claim a miracle in this case is to claim that a mathematically probable event didn't happen.

    In your example about your friend Jim, you were certain that your friend Jim was a good person, it would not be unreasonable to assume that maybe he was hallucinating or that some sort of insanity had come over him that led to him doing something that was out of the ordinary for Jim. So you can witness Jim killing a kitten, but still believe Jim to have a good character. I don't think that to be contradictory.

    That is why I do not lightly accept miracle claims and neither do other theists.
    I am more than willing to accept and believe the former, but I am sceptical that many theists set the bar equally high.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    And Slavery! Still not refuted by the Christian apologists.

    Yes it has been refuted many times. but you don't want to hear that.

    Changes in slavery have been due mainly to Quaker/Christian influence.

    Granville Sharp, Thomas Clarkson, and William Wilberforce,

    Wilberforce being the main name associated with the abolition of slavery.

    http://www.jubilee-centre.org/the-ab...y-john-coffey/
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    Changes in slavery have been due mainly to Quaker/Christian influence.
    Individuals that happen to follow those religions, yes. Those religions, no. If you claim for Christianity the credit that slavery was abolished then, I presume, you will be admitting Christianity's guilt for the Holocaust, since it was caused by someone born a Catholic. They are merely the opposite sides of the same coin: if you claim credit for abolition you must accept blame for the Holocaust.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    Yes it has been refuted many times. but you don't want to hear that.

    Changes in slavery have been due mainly to Quaker/Christian influence.

    Granville Sharp, Thomas Clarkson, and William Wilberforce,

    Wilberforce being the main name associated with the abolition of slavery.

    http://www.jubilee-centre.org/the-ab...y-john-coffey/
    Unfortunately none of these people are part of the Trinity that is God, God nailed his acceptance of slavery to the door, I cannot recall the Jesus part of God ever recanting his acceptance of slavery. I suppose these people that you mention are morally superior to God?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Individuals that happen to follow those religions, yes. Those religions, no. If you claim for Christianity the credit that slavery was abolished then, I presume, you will be admitting Christianity's guilt for the Holocaust, since it was caused by someone born a Catholic. They are merely the opposite sides of the same coin: if you claim credit for abolition you must accept blame for the Holocaust.
    This is your deliberate 'misunderstanding' of what having faith in God is.

    You can call yourself anything. Being called some thing doesn't make you that thing unless your actions reflect the message you are preaching.

    As you are an atheist does that make you responsible then for the atrocities associated with Pol Pot and Stalin?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    Unfortunately none of these people are part of the Trinity that is God, God nailed his acceptance of slavery to the door, I cannot recall the Jesus part of God ever recanting his acceptance of slavery. I suppose these people that you mention are morally superior to God?

    For some reason God has allowed a spiritual blindness to cover your eyes.

    I think it might be so that in the future your testimony will be so much stronger. I look forward to that day.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Individuals that happen to follow those religions, yes. Those religions, no. If you claim for Christianity the credit that slavery was abolished then, I presume, you will be admitting Christianity's guilt for the Holocaust, since it was caused by someone born a Catholic. They are merely the opposite sides of the same coin: if you claim credit for abolition you must accept blame for the Holocaust.


    This is your deliberate 'misunderstanding' of what having faith in God is.You can call yourself anything. Being called some thing doesn't make you that thing unless your actions reflect the message you are preaching.

    As you preach from the atheist book of faith does that make you responsible then for the atrocities associated with Pol Pot and Stalin?

    Hello?????
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    As you are an atheist does that make you responsible then for the atrocities associated with Pol Pot and Stalin?
    No. I was calling you out for claiming on behalf of Christianity the kudos of having abolished slavery, when it had very little (if anything at all) to do with the religion. Christianity acquiesced in slavery for almost two thousand years, and many Christians held slaves, including bishops.

    The Christian churches always returned escaped slaves seeking sanctuary to their Roman owners. St Ignatius of Antioch even said that slaves should seek to become better slaves rather than expect the church to purchase their freedom.

    And St Paul famously wrote:

    Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

    Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.
    1 Cor 7:20-21

    So let's have no crass claims that Christianity fought, or was even against,slavery. It didn't, and wasn't.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    Hello?????
    This is not instant messaging, you know.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    Unfortunately none of these people are part of the Trinity that is God, God nailed his acceptance of slavery to the door, I cannot recall the Jesus part of God ever recanting his acceptance of slavery. I suppose these people that you mention are morally superior to God?

    As you obviously have slavery driven into your psyche it would be good to funnel that anger (which is good and righteous) into campaigning against something like this child brides, this and human trafficking is the slavery of the 21st century.

    This is enough to make you cry.


    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/vi...-a6875326.html
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    This is not instant messaging, you know.
    I know, sorry.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    No. I was calling you out for claiming on behalf of Christianity the kudos of having abolished slavery, when it had very little (if anything at all) to do with the religion. Christianity acquiesced in slavery for almost two thousand years, and many Christians held slaves, including bishops.

    The Christian churches always returned escaped slaves seeking sanctuary to their Roman owners. St Ignatius of Antioch even said that slaves should seek to become better slaves rather than expect the church to purchase their freedom.

    And St Paul famously wrote:

    Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

    Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 1 Cor 7:20-21

    So let's have no crass claims that Christianity fought, or was even against,slavery. It didn't, and wasn't.
    I'm sorry but you are wrong.

    http://www.jubilee-centre.org/the-ab...y-john-coffey/

    The revelation of God unfolds throughout the generations.



    Also what you are saying because of the sins of the fathers you carry that sin forever? That is not the Christian message.

    In your view then you are responsible for other atheists crimes to humanity.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    I'm sorry but you are wrong.
    No. Almost all politicians of the time were religious. Almost all people of the time were religious. It is inevitable that Christians were involved. Christianity, though, was not involved, and that self-serving website is singularly dishonest in trying to claim the credit. But that is religion for you: a dishonest attempt to exert influence and control on the masses. To add the adjective "Christian" in front of every use of the word "abolitionist" is literally true but dishonest in the extreme as it wrongly implies that Christianity led the way. It didn't. Men's enlightened consciences led the way.

    The only truly honest part of that link is:

    But most Christians in the early eighteenth century accepted slavery as a fact of life. The evangelist George Whitefield deplored the cruelty of slave-owners in the American South, but did not condemn slavery itself – indeed, he owned over fifty slaves in Georgia.

    (Original post by Racoon)
    Also what you are saying because of the sins of the fathers you carry that sin forever? That is not the Christian message.

    In your view then you are responsible for other atheists crimes to humanity.
    I've already told you I don't hold that view. As I have said already, I was merely using your own logic against you to demonstrate how poor your argument was.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    Virtually every Atheist on the planet would agree that God possibly exists, but what is the liklihood of some God existing? The probability that some specific God exists is even less.

    Why have you made a God existing your default belief, considering there is no actual evidence for any supernatural occurrences, surely it is wiser to believe that God does not exist unless evidence is forthcoming?
    I think that it is more probable that some 'specific' God is likely to exist. By specific, I mean to say that a God that does not demand the attention of humans, a God that is not involved in human affairs etc...

    Probabilistic thinking here isn't in accordance with any general rule of Probabilistic logic. It seems like we rely on our intuition when we say that 'the probability that some specific God exists is even less.' when we're able to deduce qualities of a specific God existing that would also be compatible with out current knowledge that we owe to scientific endeavours.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I'm sorry, but metaphysics is not a science at all, and has no connection with physics; it is the branch of philosophy that deals with being, knowing and deities.

    I'll leave you to find out for yourself what quantum really means and why time cannot travel across one. You'll kick yourself for not looking critically at the true meaning of what people using clever-sounding words are spouting. It is often completely nonsensical, just like your statement about time.
    If i had the time and effort i would rewatch the video and provide you with some quotes. However i don't. So suffice to say that quantum and meta physics are often beyond what the rational mind can conclude. You clearly haven't reached this far down the rabbit hole.

    Or what about the idea that water is living?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    If i had the time and effort i would rewatch the video and provide you with some quotes.
    I don't want quotes. Quotes from someone who believes metaphysics is a science are worthless.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Theres abit too much that science cant or doesn't answer for me to have complete assurance that there isn't some kind of god lol

    I mean, " you dont know what you dont know " right?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I don't want quotes. Quotes from someone who believes metaphysics is a science are worthless.
    stop calling my contributions worhless okay? or i will block you as well
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    stop calling my contributions worhless okay? or i will block you as well
    As well as what? Why don't you check the meaning of words you use in the dictionary?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    As a Christian if I see God at work in people then they will be displaying the fruits of the Holy Spirit as evidence. These are:

    "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." Galatians 5:22-23.

    If they go against God's laws then they are not showing us God is alive in them. That means their God is non existent. If God is non exist in their lives then they can make up their own rules, and they do.

    This is the evil we see in the world today but it goes deeper then that, if you believe in God (as a Christian) you realise there is a spiritual battle going on for the souls of men and the devil is very active. The bible says the devil prowls around the world looking for people to devour.

    How clever of the devil to bind all religions up into one bundle and say all religions are bad. You hear atheists saying this all the time 'the world would be a better place without religion'. What they don't realise is that the evil they see is hiding under the name of certain religions, these should not be grouped together.
    or you could just be sane and realise that there isnt a red bloke with horns living in the center of the earth controlling all evil
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 13, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.