Australian Atheists Forum

Barryk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 7:02 pm The fact that the universe exists is evidence of God creating it.

I know this is addressed to pip, but this is just wrong. The existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of the universe. How do you get god from it?

Barryk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 7:02 pm There is much evidence of Jesus Christ living, performing miracles, dying and rising from the dead. To compare God to “elves” is not convincing to me.

What evidence? I don't know of any credible evidence, unless your standards are very very low.

Barryk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 7:02 pm ...
The fact that the universe exists is evidence of God creating it. There is much evidence of Jesus Christ living, performing miracles, dying and rising from the dead.
...

What utter fuckin' codswallop!

Barryk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 7:04 pm

stylofone wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 6:26 pmHi Barry. It doesn't matter what I believe. I enjoy declaring baldly that I don't believe in anything. But then, what I don't believe in is also inconsequential. That's the thing about belief, individuals can believe in anything, even ridiculous things which by most measures run counter to reality. Belief itself is a kind of arrogance and self aggrandisement. Atheism is about a lack of belief. It is humble.

Hi Stylo
Everything you said is a “belief”. Welcome to the club.
Cheers Barry

On some level, though, objective reality exists, doesn't it? There must be something that we all agree is real, something that is not merely belief. Or do we all get to say "because of my belief, I alone am the arbiter of what is real to me"? If that is your position, if belief is privileged, then this entire discussion is absurd. I could profess a belief in anything, and you would have to yield.

Barryk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 6:17 pm

Hi again Pip,
I’m just getting used to using the reply function. I feel empowered……
It doesn’t seem logical to comment on my faith me turning into a “judgemental fuckwit who cares more” etc etc. Your comments about the church are extremely judgmental.

Yes, a small but significant number of Catholic clergy committed various acts of evil. And there was a scandalous coverup by some church leaders. But to ignore all the good the church has done and say it has a “despicable and disgusting history” is very unfair. The Catholic Church has a long history of helping the poor, the sick, the disadvantaged, the imprisoned, families.

As far as abuse goes, it has sadly happened in many organisations eg scouts, gymnastics, cricket, swimming, football, schools, other church organisations. But most abuse occurs in families or by family friends.
Cheers Barry

And the inquisition and the millions slaughtered by colonial conversionists, the aids epidemic and the contraception ban, the massacreing of babies, the unmarked graves, the enslavement of women, the guilt trip buried in a billion adolescent brains, the obscene wealth, the pathological obsession with suffering ...i could go on. Not sure at all what 'good' has been done by the RCC that could possibly outweigh a thousand years of violence against people but whatever.

You understand Barry, i don't hold you personally responsible for the bloodshed and torture, and those who defend this vile and illegal institution i generally see as among its victims.

Anyway Barry, back to an earlier question you missed, do you think homosexuality is morally wrong? And seeing as though i mentioned it, is contraception morally wrong?

joele wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 7:16 pmWould love to see some of this evidence, can you present some of it, or at least describe it?

Hi Joele,
As far as evidence goes about Jesus goes, we can start with the New Testament. It mentions Jesus’s birth, life, miracles, death, rising from the dead, ascending into heaven. The authors all knew Jesus or knew someone who knew Jesus. Except for St John, and Judas, all the apostles were killed for giving witness to Jesus life, death and resurrection. Many others were persecuted and killed at the time too for witnessing. It is unlikely they would do that unless they were convinced. 4 Roman historians mentioned Jesus and or the Christians. The Jewish historian Josephus mentioned Jesus. You don’t have to believe Jesus was God but you cannot deny he lived at the time.
Cheers Barry
PS I meant to mention the Roman authors:
Tacitus 116 AD
Pliny the Younger 112 AD
Suetonius 2nd century AD
Josephus about 93 AD

two dogs wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 7:59 pmWhat utter fuckin' codswallop!

Hi two dogs,
Thanks for your contribution. Pls see the reply I wrote to Joele:

Cheers Barry

Barryk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 10:03 pm Hi two dogs,
Thanks for your contribution. Here is the reply I wrote to Joele:

(Snip)

Please, that's not necessary. Your post to Joele is quite visible, immediately above.

Perhaps it would help more if you concentrated on citing your sources a little more clearly.

pipbarber wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 9:44 pmAnd the inquisition and the millions slaughtered by colonial conversionists, the aids epidemic and the contraception ban, the massacreing of babies, the unmarked graves, the enslavement of women, the guilt trip buried in a billion adolescent brains, the obscene wealth, the pathological obsession with suffering ...i could go on. Not sure at all what 'good' has been done by the RCC that could possibly outweigh a thousand years of violence against people but whatever.

You understand Barry, i don't hold you personally responsible for the bloodshed and torture, and those who defend this vile and illegal institution i generally see as among its victims.

Anyway Barry, back to an earlier question you missed, do you think homosexuality is morally wrong? And seeing as though i mentioned it, is contraception morally wrong?

Hi Pip,
Actually I did write a reply to your question about homosexuality. Somehow it never surfaced. As I said, I’m new to this forum. So I apologise for that.
I answered it separately as it deserves special attention.
I accept all the teachings of the Catholic church. I don’t believe you can call yourself a Catholic unless you do. You may be pleased to know only about 5% maximum of baptised Catholics would accept all the teachings.
The Catholic position is that all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is against the law of God. The vast majority of young Catholics have sex before marriage, often with multiple partners and many live in de facto relationships. And never get married.
It’s a difficult doctrine, but I accept and support it.
So too the church doctrine on contraception. In some ways that is even more complex. And before you ask me, I’m 100% against
abortion. I see it as the deliberate killing of human life. Many women and girls are pressured into having their babies killed and can suffer guilt and regret for the rest of their lives.

I think you unfairly exaggerate the wrongs done by some Catholics. You cannot blame Catholics for AIDS, and guilt in a billion adolescent brains. Adolescents are being encouraged to indulge in sexual activity by our society today and the results are STDs, unplanned pregnancies, multiple abortions, emotional damage. Yes there was an inquisition, it was wrong, but in over 300 years there were 2,000 to 5,000 killed. And it was the Spanish monarchy who were controlling it for political ends,

You talk about “millions slaughtered by colonial conversionists” - I’m sure you cannot justify that comment. Who are all the enslaved women? Women far outnumber men in the church today.
Obscene wealth? Really? The church owns a lot of land, but much of it is used for hospitals, schools, charities. Most of the churches are losing money. Catholics are very bad givers.
The massacreing of babies. In Australia we have massacred about 3 million unborn babies in the last 40 years.
Catholics are not obsessed with suffering. I’ve never met one who is.
I’m sad you have such a distorted view of the Catholic Church.
Cheers Barry

Irrev-Black wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 10:24 pm

Please, that's not necessary. Your post to Joele is quite visible, immediately above.

Perhaps it would help more if you concentrated on citing your sources a little more clearly.

Sorry, I meant to list the sources, see above. I deleted my duplicate comment, still on my L plates.

Barryk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 10:00 pm As far as evidence goes about Jesus goes, we can start with the New Testament. It mentions Jesus’s birth, life, miracles, death, rising from the dead, ascending into heaven.

According to the book, but you cannot use a book making claims to reference itself as true.

The authors all knew Jesus or knew someone who knew Jesus.

So they claim in the book, doesn't mean a thing.

Many others were persecuted and killed at the time too for witnessing. It is unlikely they would do that unless they were convinced.

Again means nothing, many people martyr themselves for many other faiths, they all true too?

4 Roman historians mentioned Jesus and or the Christians.

So no one is denying they believed things, the question is where those things true.

Barryk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 10:00 pm The Jewish historian Josephus mentioned Jesus. You don’t have to believe Jesus was God but you cannot deny he lived at the time.

According to a number of historians, linguistic exports and literary experts the Josephus evidence was in fact a forgery.. Besides the fact even if true it proves Josephus heard stories, he did not witness anything himself he wrote what others claimed if he wrote anything which is very much in question.

Testimonium Flavianum for example is said to have been forged by Eusebius in the 4th century.

Evidence for this is a Jewish historian (Josephus) using a greek term for the messiah (Christos) not very likely and not the word he uses for messiah in his other writings.

Also a greek term poietes is used to mean "doer" which is consistent with Eusebius's other writings but not with Josephus's.

It is also interesting that no other christian historian (and there were more than a few) before Eusebius (300 odd years after Joshephus) mentions the Testimonium Flavianum, strange indeed.

Also find it interesting that you site the Kalam cosmological argument as proof of god and ignore my questions about how you get from the Kalam to a god not to mention your god, or decided that doesn't work so moving on?