Proselytism

[Owlswing]

The only way belief in a deity could possibly help an individual is by employing the placebo effect, imo. If you really, really believe something to be true, from time to time it can have a beneficial effect on your psyche.

And what weight does your opinion hold, Floo - especially when you remember how often folk like Jim, Alien and I have shown it to be false?

No you have not!

How many times do you have to be told - it is false only for YOU! And why? Because you WANT it to be false and that does not make it so for anyone but you and anyone who thinks like you.

[Owlswing]

... let's not forget your deity's failure to assist.

We only have Rhi's implication that he didn't provide help in the way that she was anticipating, O.  Remember that help can arrive in different forms, and can sometimes work out to more effective in a form that we aren't anticipating.

She didn't get it in ANY form! She told you that!

Why won't you listen! Because tou don't want to have to admit that your god can be less than perfect?

[floo]

The only way belief in a deity could possibly help an individual is by employing the placebo effect, imo. If you really, really believe something to be true, from time to time it can have a beneficial effect on your psyche.

And what weight does your opinion hold, Floo - especially when you remember how often folk like Jim, Alien and I have shown it to be false?

But you haven't that is the point. You have never managed to prove an deity exists.

[Hope]

But you haven't that is the point. You have never managed to prove an deity exists.

Didn't say that I had; I said that, over time, Jim, Alien and I have shown most of your claims (opinions) in the 'religion' field to be spurious or wrong.

[Hope]

She didn't get it in ANY form! She told you that!

Why won't you listen! Because tou don't want to have to admit that your god can be less than perfect?

Actually, no she didn't.  She said that she didn't get any from God (suggesting hat she got some from another source) - which is why I asked what nature of help she was hoping to get.  As I've already pointed out God helps in a variety of ways, not always in the way that we have in mind when we ask for help.  We might ask for help and mean that we want a helping hand there and then, when what we get is a a bit of medical or counselling help and a long-term friend.

[Hope]

How many times do you have to be told - it is false only for YOU! And why? Because you WANT it to be false and that does not make it so for anyone but you and anyone who thinks like you.

Sorry Matt, but if Floo (or you for that matter) make a claim about a faith or anything else, as has been the case with Floo on a number of occasions, that is shown to be untrue, that doesn't automatiaclly show that it is 'falso only for me.

Let's take her regular suggestion that for Mary to have been impregnated at the age od 12 or 13 was child abuse.  Archaeology and other history sources show that that was a fairly normal age for women to be giving birth to a first child in those days.  I realise that you have an agenda that aims to discredit Christianity, but all you do by your railing is show how limited your understanding of history is.

[ProfessorDavey]

Let's take her regular suggestion that for Mary to have been impregnated at the age od 12 or 13 was child abuse.  Archaeology and other history sources show that that was a fairly normal age for women to be giving birth to a first child in those days.

Just because something was considered to be normal two thousand years ago does not mean it therefore wasn't abusive.

This isn't a point about religion in any way, but there is nothing inconsistent with believing that getting 12 or 13 year old girls pregnant is abusive even if it was normal two thousand years ago.

I consider slavery to be fundamentally abusive, even though it was also common place thousands of years ago.

[Shaker]

But you haven't that is the point. You have never managed to prove an deity exists.

Didn't say that I had; I said that, over time, Jim, Alien and I have shown most of your claims (opinions) in the 'religion' field to be spurious or wrong.

For the second time of asking: where?

[Shaker]

Actually, no she didn't.  She said that she didn't get any from God (suggesting hat she got some from another source) - which is why I asked what nature of help she was hoping to get.  As I've already pointed out God helps in a variety of ways, not always in the way that we have in mind when we ask for help.  We might ask for help and mean that we want a helping hand there and then, when what we get is a a bit of medical or counselling help and a long-term friend.

How is "Help from God in a way not expected or foreseen" distinguishable or distinguished from "The operation of random chance without any God"? What methodology do you propose to tell the former from the latter, please?

You will chicken out of answering this question the same as you've always done, of course, but you can't say you're not given opportunities.

[Owlswing]

How many times do you have to be told - it is false only for YOU! And why? Because you WANT it to be false and that does not make it so for anyone but you and anyone who thinks like you.

Sorry Matt, but if Floo (or you for that matter) make a claim about a faith or anything else, as has been the case with Floo on a number of occasions, that is shown to be untrue, that doesn't automatiaclly show that it is 'falso only for me.

Let's take her regular suggestion that for Mary to have been impregnated at the age od 12 or 13 was child abuse.  Archaeology and other history sources show that that was a fairly normal age for women to be giving birth to a first child in those days.  I realise that you have an agenda that aims to discredit Christianity, but all you do by your railing is show how limited your understanding of history is.

Hope

Let us get something straight once and for all so that I do not have to post it again.

I am ready to admit that my belief in my deities, male and female, is a matter of faith not fact.

You on the other hand will brook no argument that yours is the same! As far as you are concerned if someone calls on your god for help and doesn't get it it is because they asked in the wrong way, they asked for the wrong help, they didn't wait long enough for your god to get of his arse and give the help that was requested, or they did not ask nicely enough.

You can squirm and argue and twist the English language into multiple pretzel knots all you like, it does not change the fact the your deity is fickle at the very least.

It is why I DUMPED him for deities who do not make me promises that they will not keep, they do not offer me paradise for doing exactly what they say, or an eternity of fire and brimstone if I do not.

You can argue until you are blue in the face to the contrary but my personal experiences of your deity ensure that I do not believe a good word said for your deity.

If you want me to return to the Christian fold, I have written and pinned up a request to your deity in front of my computer, if he is all you say he is, he can see it, if he wants me to believe in him in the way that you do then he will either do what I have asked of him or he will tell me why he will not - unless he does one of these two things he is, as far as I am concerned, not worth one second more of my time.

You can say what you like in response to this post, I am not interested in your response nor that of any of your Christian cronies, I am only interested in the response of your deity and you can believe that I am not planning on holding my breath waiting for it!

[Shaker]

Let's take her regular suggestion that for Mary to have been impregnated at the age od 12 or 13 was child abuse.  Archaeology and other history sources show that that was a fairly normal age for women to be giving birth to a first child in those days.  I realise that you have an agenda that aims to discredit Christianity, but all you do by your railing is show how limited your understanding of history is.

And merely invoking "history" makes it OK?

The law of this land - possibly most lands, I'd say - holds that in spite of exceedingly rare possible examples to the contrary, a female of 12 years does not possess the capacity and competence to give informed consent to sexual intercourse, let alone childbirth, all the more so with a significantly older male with all that that entails for the possibilities of coercion, control and compulsion. There is deemed to be insufficient intellectual development for that individual to be fully aware of all possible consequences and ramifications of the act. This is based on observation (of twelve year olds) and experience (of what tends to happen if they start having sex and indeed babies).

Do you consider that the passage of two thousand years is sufficient to change this scenario? In other words, do you hold it to be the case that a twelve year old girl of the Middle East two thousand years ago was so different for some reason from a twelve year old girl from Bedford (for instance) today to make the airy, handy-wavy statement "Well, it was normal back then" to be not the statement of an immoral arsehole?

[Outrider]

Let's take her regular suggestion that for Mary to have been impregnated at the age od 12 or 13 was child abuse.  Archaeology and other history sources show that that was a fairly normal age for women to be giving birth to a first child in those days.

Slavery was accepted then, racism was accepted then, lots of things that we now realise are not acceptable ways to behave towards other human beings.

Your god apparently took part in this. Now it might have been the human norm of the time, but isn't the deity perfect? Shouldn't it know better than that? Or is it that your god worked within the cultural norms of the time, in which case isn't that making the case that morality is not absolute but relative (and cultural)?

I realise that you have an agenda that aims to discredit Christianity, but all you do by your railing is show how limited your understanding of history is.

Christianity's past is well documented, it's a mixed bag and no-one's going to be able to complete discredit or whitewash it. However, whilst you might think this is about history and cultural appreciation of the time it's not, it's about the implications of the ridiculous claims made on behalf of your God.

O.

[jeremyp]

The only way belief in a deity could possibly help an individual is by employing the placebo effect, imo. If you really, really believe something to be true, from time to time it can have a beneficial effect on your psyche.

And what weight does your opinion hold, Floo - especially when you remember how often folk like Jim, Alien and I have shown it to be false?

You are becoming a parody of yourself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let's take her regular suggestion that for Mary to have been impregnated at the age od 12 or 13 was child abuse.  Archaeology and other history sources show that that was a fairly normal age for women to be giving birth to a first child in those days.

Slavery was accepted then, racism was accepted then, lots of things that we now realise are not acceptable ways to behave towards other human beings.

Your god apparently took part in this. Now it might have been the human norm of the time, but isn't the deity perfect? Shouldn't it know better than that? Or is it that your god worked within the cultural norms of the time, in which case isn't that making the case that morality is not absolute but relative (and cultural)?

I realise that you have an agenda that aims to discredit Christianity, but all you do by your railing is show how limited your understanding of history is.

Christianity's past is well documented, it's a mixed bag and no-one's going to be able to complete discredit or whitewash it. However, whilst you might think this is about history and cultural appreciation of the time it's not, it's about the implications of the ridiculous claims made on behalf of your God.

O.

I don't think it was an impregnation in the accepted sense. Atheists don't believe in it  anyway. I don't think it's recorded how old Mary was and Shakers description of God as ''A significantly older male'' is a bit of a boggling analogy.....and an extension of ''God as a man in a white beard'' idea.

Of course an antitheist is always going to think and announce the worse.
.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Christian God has never advertised himself as someone who will save us form everything but as someone who will save us.

He failed to save Rhiannon.

The expectations aren't set by God, they are set by Christians who keep claiming that, "if you open your heart, Christ will come" or some other variation thereof.

well that's an antitheists definition of Salvation.

If the expectations are set by Christians and not God we might as well give up because we are surrounded in everyday life by other peoples expectations. Mercifully God has promised that the judgers may be judged.

[Outrider]

I don't think it was an impregnation in the accepted sense.

Otherwise it wouldn't have been a virgin birth, presumably?

Atheists don't believe in it  anyway.

That it's a Christian belief does, though, give an opportunity to look into the psyche of religious belief and the shifting of the moral ground that it sometimes involves.

I don't think it's recorded how old Mary was and Shakers description of God as ''A significantly older male'' is a bit of a boggling analogy.....and an extension of ''God as a man in a white beard'' idea.

I agree that it doesn't specify how old Mary was, but the general consensus (from the cultural norms of the times) is that she would have been around puberty, so a young teen most likely.

Of course an antitheist is always going to think and announce the worse.

If we ever get one we'll ask them...

O.
.
[/quote]

[jeremyp]

But you haven't that is the point. You have never managed to prove an deity exists.

Didn't say that I had; I said that, over time, Jim, Alien and I have shown most of your claims (opinions) in the 'religion' field to be spurious or wrong.

One of Floo's opinions is that God does not exist. Since the only way you could prove that false would be to prove that God does exist, are you omitting that opinion from the group you say you have proved false?

[jeremyp]

As I've already pointed out God helps in a variety of ways, not always in the way that we have in mind when we ask for help.  We might ask for help and mean that we want a helping hand there and then, when what we get is a a bit of medical or counselling help and a long-term friend.

Well, if your god exists, it seems that, in this case, he thought it best that Rhiannon stop being a Christian and start being a pagan. Is that what you mean by a "variety of ways"?

[Owlswing]

As I've already pointed out God helps in a variety of ways, not always in the way that we have in mind when we ask for help.  We might ask for help and mean that we want a helping hand there and then, when what we get is a a bit of medical or counselling help and a long-term friend.

Well, if your god exists, it seems that, in this case, he thought it best that Rhiannon stop being a Christian and start being a pagan. Is that what you mean by a "variety of ways"?

        

[Udayana]

Christian proselytism ...

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article4602163.ece

"Christians who speak openly about their faith with friends and colleagues are three times more likely to put them off God than attract them, research carried out privately by the Church of England has found.
The study found that 59 per cent of people “did not want to know more about Jesus Christ” after speaking to a practising Christian about their faith.
The survey of more than 2,500 adults discovered 42 per cent “felt glad” they did not share their friends’ faith after talking with them and 30 per cent felt “more negative” towards Jesus.
The stark findings will challenge the church, which is wrestling with the problem of declining and ageing congregations, with a quarter of churches in England having a weekly attendance of fewer than 16 worshippers.
The study, Talking Jesus: Perceptions of Jesus, Christians and evangelism in England, was commissioned by the Church of England and faith groups the Evangelical Alliance and Hope."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Christian proselytism ...

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article4602163.ece

"Christians who speak openly about their faith with friends and colleagues are three times more likely to put them off God than attract them, research carried out privately by the Church of England has found.
The study found that 59 per cent of people “did not want to know more about Jesus Christ” after speaking to a practising Christian about their faith.
The survey of more than 2,500 adults discovered 42 per cent “felt glad” they did not share their friends’ faith after talking with them and 30 per cent felt “more negative” towards Jesus.
The stark findings will challenge the church, which is wrestling with the problem of declining and ageing congregations, with a quarter of churches in England having a weekly attendance of fewer than 16 worshippers.
The study, Talking Jesus: Perceptions of Jesus, Christians and evangelism in England, was commissioned by the Church of England and faith groups the Evangelical Alliance and Hope."

It merely demonstrates that the ego does not want to be challenged with any view which suggests it is not as ''in the pink'' as it would like to view itself.

[Shaker]

It demonstrates that a hearteningly large number of people have a low bullshit threshold.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It demonstrates that a hearteningly large number of people have a low bullshit threshold.

Did you realise that these are British people though Shakey.

[Shaker]

Of course. I'd expect nothing less 

[Rhiannon]

Christian proselytism ...

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article4602163.ece

"Christians who speak openly about their faith with friends and colleagues are three times more likely to put them off God than attract them, research carried out privately by the Church of England has found.
The study found that 59 per cent of people “did not want to know more about Jesus Christ” after speaking to a practising Christian about their faith.
The survey of more than 2,500 adults discovered 42 per cent “felt glad” they did not share their friends’ faith after talking with them and 30 per cent felt “more negative” towards Jesus.
The stark findings will challenge the church, which is wrestling with the problem of declining and ageing congregations, with a quarter of churches in England having a weekly attendance of fewer than 16 worshippers.
The study, Talking Jesus: Perceptions of Jesus, Christians and evangelism in England, was commissioned by the Church of England and faith groups the Evangelical Alliance and Hope."

It merely demonstrates that the ego does not want to be challenged with any view which suggests it is not as ''in the pink'' as it would like to view itself.

Do you have any idea how egotistical that sounds?