The Atheist Challenge [Kill Em With Kindness]

pyrokineticist
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-11-14
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Challenge [Kill Em With Kindness]

I understand that not all self-proclaimed "atheists" behave in this manner, but to those who do...    

     Let us begin with a brief deconstruction of the word, "atheist."  It comes from two Greek roots, the first root being, "a-" meaning "without" and "theos" meaning "god."  Now that we've discovered that "atheist" means "without a god," let us evaluate this statement.  No where in the meaning of "atheist" does one find any reference to Christianity.

     Which brings us to the crux of the matter.  My challenge to anyone who calls himself or herself an atheist is to disavow all religions equally.  I challenge you to criticize and smite with the undeniable power of logic all "irrational belief," as opposed to just denouncing whatever religion will make you popular.  Let's try to maintain some ideological purity, shall we?  If you hate Christians, don't say you oppose religion.  Say you oppose Christianity with every moral, intellectual fiber of your being.  If the goal of atheists is to hold oneself to the standard of reason, then do so.  If you are anti-Christian, but Buddhism, Hinduism, and New Age belief is fine, then admit it!  Don't, however, use a term to mean what it does not.  After all, one of the chief criticisms of religion is that it blinds the masses and encourages disinformation, correct?  Avoid such hypocrisy, then.  The irony is unbearable when an anti-Christian posing as an atheist contributes to confusion and falsehood.    

And to repeat myself: I know full and well that not every atheist is guilty of this.

Thanks

 


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
pyrokineticist wrote: My

pyrokineticist wrote:
My challenge to anyone who calls himself or herself an atheist is to disavow all religions equally.

K.

All religions are man made social powers built around fear and making money.


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
The reason it seems we

The reason it seems we "attack" christanity so much, IS BECAUSE IT IS THE MOST POPULAR RELIGION, in the country that most people on this board live in.

I will say, all religons are equally irrational.

 

Also i will say that theists of all religions who we base (we have based many) think we only bash on their specfic religion, it is a form of confirmation bias. Now please get over your self and your damn persecution complex, you are basically saying "wahh you aren't athiest because you bash only christanity wahhh"

 

Also i am not anti-christian, i am not anti any human that i know of, i am vehmently anti-irrationalty. 


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
pyrokineticist wrote: Which

pyrokineticist wrote:
Which brings us to the crux of the matter. My challenge to anyone who calls himself or herself an atheist is to disavow all religions equally. I challenge you to criticize and smite with the undeniable power of logic all "irrational belief," as opposed to just denouncing whatever religion will make you popular. Let's try to maintain some ideological purity, shall we?

 The thing is, not all religions have the same affect on us.  Having been brought up in a Roman Catholic family and attending catholic schooling all my life, that was the greatest influence on me and the religion I know the most about.  I know the ins and outs of it quite well and can speak out quite well on it.  I barely know about islam, I know less about Krishna, Buddhism etc.  

In western society it is the christian religions that have the most influence and most effects on our day to day lives.  They are the religions most likely to cause us problems.  Islam is increasing its influence at a growing rate and therefore is getting resisted at a growing rate by atheists, but we can only resist what we know. 

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It necessarily logical to

It is not necessarily logical to deny all religions equally, they differ to some extent in the degree they offend rationality and what sort of God concept they avow.

In particular, Buddhism does not have a God figure in the normal sense, so it would be irrational for an atheist to object to it a much as Xianity.

I do have problems with Buddhism, both with several aspects of its philosophy of life and with the supernatural elements that many variants of the tradition hold to, especially karma and re-incarnation, but these are not directly relevant to Atheism.

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


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
pyrokineticist wrote:

pyrokineticist wrote:


Let us begin with a brief deconstruction of the word, "atheist." It comes from two Greek roots, the first root being, "a-" meaning "without" and "theos" meaning "god."

The etymological history of 'Atheist' is not this: Greek á + the(os), godless + ist (which you happen to have gotten wrong, even if it is false). The English word is borrowed from French and is not directly descended from the Greek. The French word that was loaned into English is athéisme, which in English was rendered atheist. Atheism in English use came later and related words in English followed first from atheist: deist, theist, deism and theism. Your etymology is flawed.

pyrokineticist wrote:

Now that we've discovered that "atheist" means "without a god," let us evaluate this statement. No where in the meaning of "atheist" does one find any reference to Christianity.

It follows that the definition you provide is also incorrect. Simply translating the Greek rootwords into English does not provide the definition. The term has not had the same definition throughout time, but I am not giving a lesson in the evolution of the term's definition and use. The definition of 'Atheist' as applied today is this: a person who denies or disbelieves in the existence of a god or gods.

You are correct in that the definition has nothing to do with Christianity, specifically.

pyrokineticist wrote:

Which brings us to the crux of the matter. My challenge to anyone who calls himself or herself an atheist is to disavow all religions equally. I challenge you to criticize and smite with the undeniable power of logic all "irrational belief," as opposed to just denouncing whatever religion will make you popular. Let's try to maintain some ideological purity, shall we? If you hate Christians, don't say you oppose religion. Say you oppose Christianity with every moral, intellectual fiber of your being. If the goal of atheists is to hold oneself to the standard of reason, then do so. If you are anti-Christian, but Buddhism, Hinduism, and New Age belief is fine, then admit it! Don't, however, use a term to mean what it does not. After all, one of the chief criticisms of religion is that it blinds the masses and encourages disinformation, correct? Avoid such hypocrisy, then. The irony is unbearable when an anti-Christian posing as an atheist contributes to confusion and falsehood.

You won't find anyone on this site who fits your description. If you happen to notice that a lot of time is devoted to debunking Christianity, it's because a whole lot of the theists who visit the forums are Christian. Equal time cannot be put to debunking every other religion, however, the arguments that debunk Christianity maintain for every religious doctrine with little exception. It is unnecessary to apply a rigorous debunking of all religious doctrine for exactly that fact. If a Hindu happens along the forums with arguments intended to show how the Hindu pantheon is the real deal, it will be refuted just as Christians' claims are. No one here believes any religion is better than any other. Also, Buddhism is not necessarily a religion at all. For all intents and purposes, however, most Buddhism is religious.

pyrokineticist wrote:

And to repeat myself: I know full and well that not every atheist is guilty of this.

I'm glad you're aware that not every Atheist is 'guilty' of treating other religions differently than they treat Christianity.

pyrokineticist wrote:

Thanks

Thank you.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Nimitz68
Nimitz68's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-10-29
User is offlineOffline
We don't have

We don't have many Buddhists here in Oklahoma, but the few that we do have don't pound on my door at all hours of the day wanting me to join their cult.

Also the members of these other religions don't go to my childrens school and try to convert my kids behind my back. They also don't try to get laws passed forcing their cult into every aspect of our society.

I've NEVER had a new ager fluff bunny tell me I'm going to hell for not accepting his religious beliefs. I've never seen a Hindu tell everyone to stop what they're doing because they wanted to give thanks to Vishnu. The Muslims here don't rip the Darwin stickers off my car either.

 Tell you what, if some Hindu family moves in next door and gives me shit about putting their god on the grill, I'll bitch about it in here.

Ever "hang-ten" on the bow of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier at 30+ knots?


illbeats
illbeats's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-11-08
User is offlineOffline
Hmmm

This to me is simple.

Let me give you a situation and ask your responce. "this wil be long winded and is more for my fun but in the end it will make a point i think you will get"

 Lets say you are in a room with 4 other people, they all stand on a wall and hold phones to there ear's they take instructions from the voice that come through's the handset.  Now if you follow the handset you see that the cord of the handset is cut THERE IS NO ONE ON THE PHONE! the people you are staring at are taking orders from some one you dont belive is there and you cant prove is there...... NOW. Of these four people one walks up to you and punches you in the face and tells  you  " the man on the phone said i should do this and i do what he tells me to" and then walks away. 

 

The other three remaining people stare at you with distain mumble about how ugly you are and how much you suck at life and disscuss your failings and how should not be aloowed scertain rights because you wont talk on the hand sets like they are.  They dont attack you with violoence  nor do they threaten your life in any way they just make  you uncomfortable.

Do you treat them all the same? Simply because you think they all tke orders from a made up person?

Or do you speak up louder against the one that threatens  your life?

While still speaking up against the idoicy that every one in the room has a imginary friend.

 

 

Sometimes some imaginary freinds are more dangours then others.

 

 

 

Many a man have failed because his wish bone is where his back bone should have been. " not written by me"


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
 BobSpence1 ... the way I

 BobSpence1 ... the way I read it , the real buddhists were never into that school of fundy crap,  karma and re-incarnation are terms the fundys fucked up, as they fuck everything up.

Hell even the jesus philosophy was perverted by fundys'

I think our ancient wise men were ripped off ....   


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
pyrokineticist wrote: I

pyrokineticist wrote:
I understand that not all self-proclaimed “atheists“ behave in this manner, but to those who do...

You haven't stated the premise yet.

[snipped etymological reference as it's been handled]

pyrokineticist wrote:
Which brings us to the crux of the matter.  My challenge to anyone who calls himself or herself an atheist is to disavow all religions equally.

All religions would have to first be represented equally in a given culture. When faith or adherence is distributed among “every” religion (there are thousands) equally, your premise will be arguable. In reality, the religions that present themselves tend to be the dominant and aggressive majorities, interjecting themselves into the public discourse, trying to steer politics toward their ends. We challenge their claims and their logic because we have a vested interest in the things in our society they hope to influence. If this were not so, I doubt many atheists would pay attention to religion. Expect criticism if your religion is:

1. Powerful.

2. Influential.

3. Aggressive.

pyrokineticist wrote:
I challenge you to criticize and smite with the undeniable power of logic all “irrational belief,“ as opposed to just denouncing whatever religion will make you popular.

Yeah, that's a straw-man.

pyrokineticist wrote:
Let's try to maintain some ideological purity, shall we?

There's no atheist ideology. I know that's hard for a religious person to grasp.

pyrokineticist wrote:
If you hate Christians, don't say you oppose religion.

If you're a vegetarian, stop eating veal. If you're going to criticize something, make sure you're not begging the question and making straw-men.

pyrokineticist wrote:
Say you oppose Christianity with every moral, intellectual fiber of your being.  If the goal of atheists is to hold oneself to the standard of reason, then do so.

Yawn.

pyrokineticist wrote:
If you are anti-Christian, but Buddhism, Hinduism, and New Age belief is fine, then admit it!

I admit it. They just don't meet the aforementioned criteria in my country.

pyrokineticist wrote:
Don't, however, use a term to mean what it does not.

Redundant.

pyrokineticist wrote:
After all, one of the chief criticisms of religion is that it blinds the masses and encourages disinformation, correct?  Avoid such hypocrisy, then.

You haven't demonstrated hypocrisy in atheists.

pyrokineticist wrote:
The irony is unbearable when an anti-Christian posing as an atheist contributes to confusion and falsehood.    

And to repeat myself: I know full and well that not every atheist is guilty of this.

You haven't shown that any are.

pyrokineticist wrote:
Thanks

You're welcome.


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Let us begin with a

Quote:
Let us begin with a brief deconstruction of the word, "atheist." It comes from two Greek roots, the first root being, "a-" meaning "without" and "theos" meaning "god." Now that we've discovered that "atheist" means "without a god," let us evaluate this statement. No where in the meaning of "atheist" does one find any reference to Christianity.


You should be careful with etymology. Etymology doesn't study the true meaning of words, just their history. Thinking that etymology reveals the true meaning of a word is a small reasoning error that's commonly called the etymological fallacy. It's early in the morning and I have nothing better to do so I think I might shed some light on the etymology of the word before proceeding to comment on the last sentence of your's quoted above.

"Atheos" meant "godless" in the moral sense of the term. "Atheos" wasn't used in its original language to mean "being without the belief that the universe was created by a god or gods," as you can ascertain by looking at ancient texts. The apocryphal text "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" says the Romans--after watching Germanicus fight the beast in the colloseum as part of Germanicus' suicide attempt--thought Germanicus was brave (a godly behavior) and yelled for atheists to be thrown in. "Let Polycarp be sought out!" They called Polycarp, an early church father, an atheist because he didn't exhibit virtues they considered godly.

The term was then brought into the French language and gained ground in other languages. The French philosopher and encyclopedist Baron d'Holbach (one of my favorite authors) was the first person to take the word atheist and "spin it." He gave it a new meaning by writing a sentence that would haunt Christians for centuries, "Children are born atheists; they have no idea of god." Christians are still trying to argue against that one sentence, which is literally true and completely harmless and only demonstrates that Christians associate many irrational stigmas to the word "atheist."

Also note that to say "Children are born atheists" is to say that "negative atheism" was considered to be a part of the definition of "atheism" for Baron d'Holbach. Baron d'Holbach is, as far as I'm aware, the first person to use the term outside of the moral sense. This effectively destroys the argument that "atheism" only includes "positive atheism" and that "negative atheism" arose by redefining the original term. As far as the historical texts reveal, the "only positive atheism" definition of the word is itself a redefinition while the more inclusive definition was what the word originally meant (outside of the moral sense of the term).

With that out of the way, I agree with the gist of your argument that Christianity, Non-Christianity, or Anti-Christianity is not a part of the definition of the word. This is best illustrated by the atheist groups that fit all three categories. Christian Atheists are obviously not a group one would properly label "non-Christianity" or "anti-Christianity." (Some might argue otherwise but their arguments are not with standing.) Many atheists would fit a group titled "non-Christianity" but not fit a group titled "anti-Christianity." They are simply not Christians, perhaps because they are members of another religious group (Theravada Buddhism, Jainism, and so on). Many atheists would also fit in a group titled "anti-Christianity" who think Christianity has a negative influence on people that is detrimental to educational and political systems.

Quote:
Which brings us to the crux of the matter. My challenge to anyone who calls himself or herself an atheist is to disavow all religions equally.


To disavow all religions means either (1) refusing to acknowledge them, (2) disclaim knowledge of them, (3) disclaim responsibility for them, or (4) disclaim association with them. You can put me down for (3) and (4) but I refuse to disavow them in the sense of (1) or (2). Extremist religious positions are too dangerous to not acknowledge them or be ignorant of them.

Quote:
If you hate Christians, don't say you oppose religion. Say you oppose Christianity with every moral, intellectual fiber of your being.


I could hate Christianity with every moral, intellectual fiber of my being without hating Christians. One should tread carefully because attacks against a religious body shouldn't be considered attacks against the people underneath that religious body. As an example, one can attack the government without attacking all the government employees. If someone is going to hate something, it should be the crimes, injustices, errors, and dogmas rather than the victims and pawns.

Quote:
If the goal of atheists is to hold oneself to the standard of reason, then do so. If you are anti-Christian, but Buddhism, Hinduism, and New Age belief is fine, then admit it! Don't, however, use a term to mean what it does not. After all, one of the chief criticisms of religion is that it blinds the masses and encourages disinformation, correct? Avoid such hypocrisy, then. The irony is unbearable when an anti-Christian posing as an atheist contributes to confusion and falsehood.


I think you'll find that "anti-religion" has more than just one meaning. I typically see the word being used in two ways. If the "anti-religion" label is being applied by the person on his or her self, rather than someone else applying it to them, then the word essentially means anti-dogma. Those people tend to be the kind who would say, "I am anti-dogma but I'm also of the opinion that religion is one of the largest, if not the largest, source of dogma on this planet." When the label is being applied by a person to someone other than his or her self, the word essentially means, "You hold the dogmatic opinion that you should be against religion." In this sense, the two uses of the word are nearly diametrically opposite, or perhaps one of the two people are deluded--who knows? Only rarely does the word strictly mean "I am against all religion in all of it's forms." You might find an atheist or two on YouTube who are anti-religion in that manner, but the position isn't a popular one.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
I'd bet ready money that the

I'd bet ready money that the OP is an evangelical / fundamentalist Christian, the OP can't patch the many holes this site pokes into his/her faith, and so the OP crys, "Stop picking on my side, it's not fair!"


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
OK. All religions,

OK. All religions, including but not limited to Christianity, are batshit insane and probably the result of a parasitic meme that fucks up people's minds to further its own reproduction.

Wow, that was an easy challenge. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
Atheism is Irrational

I don't think that you can prove that God doesn't exist with 100% cetainty, therefore, you are being irrational calling yourself and atheist. Maybe you should be a little more humble and admit that you, like everyone else on this planet is trying to figure out why we are here. Whether it's by accident as atheist think or by purpose which theists think, either way, there is no way that anyone can be 100% sure of what happens to you when you die.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3614
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: I don't think

seth wrote:
I don't think that you can prove that God doesn't exist with 100% cetainty, therefore, you are being irrational calling yourself and atheist. Maybe you should be a little more humble and admit that you, like everyone else on this planet is trying to figure out why we are here. Whether it's by accident as atheist think or by purpose which theists think, either way, there is no way that anyone can be 100% sure of what happens to you when you die.

I assume from your use of the term "God" ( capital "G"  ) that in your mind the only god whose existence that you would consider viable is the Judeo / Christian one ?

If you claim to represent a true unbiased rational stance, are you equally open to the possibility that other gods exist ?

If not, then why not ? 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
Is there a God?

I assume from your use of the term "God" ( capital "G"  ) that in your mind the only god whose existence that you would consider viable is the Judeo / Christian one ?

If you claim to represent a true unbiased rational stance, are you equally open to the possibility that other gods exist ?

If not, then why not ?

 

You are right, I do believe in one God.  I've examined the claims of the Bible and I believe them to be true.  That being said, God says that there are no other gods beside Him. That's why I believe that not other gods exist.  Thanks for your question.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
As people have said, but I

As people have said, but I will repeat for me personally...

I personally tend to focus on catholicism because that is what is popular in Canada, but also what I was raised with so it is the one that I am the most educated on and able to discuss the various parts of their teachings.

I write off all things that would fall under the classification of supernatural.

I believe that alone should write off the vast majority of if not all religions. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: I assume from

seth wrote:

I assume from your use of the term "God" ( capital "G" ) that in your mind the only god whose existence that you would consider viable is the Judeo / Christian one ?

If you claim to represent a true unbiased rational stance, are you equally open to the possibility that other gods exist ?

If not, then why not ?

 

You are right, I do believe in one God. I've examined the claims of the Bible and I believe them to be true. That being said, God says that there are no other gods beside Him. That's why I believe that not other gods exist. Thanks for your question.

But can you prove with 100% certainty that the Bible is true in all respects? If not, then are you not being irrational in believing it, or do you allow that it possibly might not be true?

What is irrational about judging, on the evidence, that 'God' is so unlikely to exist, that we can safely ignore the possibility?

It would be extremely impractical, and therefore irrational, to go about our lives making provision for the possible truth of every theory ever proposed about the 'true' nature of reality that we can't 100% disprove. So should we try and observe the requirements of every religion, just in case?

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


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: I assume from

seth wrote:

I assume from your use of the term "God" ( capital "G"  ) that in your mind the only god whose existence that you would consider viable is the Judeo / Christian one ?

If you claim to represent a true unbiased rational stance, are you equally open to the possibility that other gods exist ?

If not, then why not ?

 

You are right, I do believe in one God.  I've examined the claims of the Bible and I believe them to be true.  That being said, God says that there are no other gods beside Him. That's why I believe that not other gods exist.  Thanks for your question.

First, FYI: How To Use The Quote Function

Second, what convinced you what the bible says is true? 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3614
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: I assume from

seth wrote:

I assume from your use of the term "God" ( capital "G" ) that in your mind the only god whose existence that you would consider viable is the Judeo / Christian one ?

If you claim to represent a true unbiased rational stance, are you equally open to the possibility that other gods exist ?

If not, then why not ?

 

You are right, I do believe in one God. I've examined the claims of the Bible and I believe them to be true. That being said, God says that there are no other gods beside Him. That's why I believe that not other gods exist. Thanks for your question.

Are you saying that in your search for spiritual truth you only examined Christianity ?  You accepted Christianity because the Bible says that being a Christian is the best choice ?  No offense, but what did you expect a book written by Christians to say ? Wink

Consider this peculiar fact :All religions affirm their own legitimacy.

For example, do you think that Muslims believe that they are in error simply because your doctrines are in conflict with their own ?  They are so certain of their beliefs that many are willing to blow themselves up.  How's that for an affirmation of belief ? That certainty doesn't make their religious claims legitimate, does it ?

During the Viet Nam war a number of Buddhists monks set themselves on fire as a form of protest.  Pretty painful way to affirm your spiritual beliefs but no one could accuse them of not being certain..so certain that they were willing to stake there very lives upon it. Although I greatly respect their sacrifice that doesn't make their spiritual claims valid does it ?

I'm not trying to disrespect your devotion to your religion ( I myself was a Christian for more than twenty years ) but your assertions are in exactly the same category as these other religious factions.

These non-christians whose devotion to their "gods" far exceeds the level of commitment most Christians are willing to endure in no way proves their religious claims...the same can be said of Christianity, as well. 

I know my attempts to persuade you to not be taken in by religious claims will accomlish nothing.  You've made up your mind and that's that. 

I used to believe what you believe. I was taught never to question it. No options were allowed, ( even some other Christian denominations were poo-pooed. )  But that attitude is like putting your mind in a prison.

That's cool if you want to limit your perspective.  As a matter of fact it's your right to believe whatever you choose to....just as I do.

Peace !

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: I don't think

seth wrote:
I don't think that you can prove that God doesn't exist with 100% cetainty, therefore, you are being irrational calling yourself and atheist. Maybe you should be a little more humble and admit that you, like everyone else on this planet is trying to figure out why we are here. Whether it's by accident as atheist think or by purpose which theists think, either way, there is no way that anyone can be 100% sure of what happens to you when you die.

There is no such thing as 100% certainty, so it is certainly not irrational to call yourself anything on the basis of less than perfect certainty. However, I know that there is no God and no afterlife with the same certainty with which I know that the sun is coming up tomorrow and that I will fall if I jump off something. That's enough for me to say I know that there is no God. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
pyrokineticist wrote: I

pyrokineticist wrote:

I understand that not all self-proclaimed "atheists" behave in this manner, but to those who do...

Let us begin with a brief deconstruction of the word, "atheist." It comes from two Greek roots, the first root being, "a-" meaning "without" and "theos" meaning "god." 

Not this stupidity AGAIN.

Atheism means 'without theism'... an atheist does not hold to the beliefs that theists hold, qua god belief. That's it.  You don't believe in Zeus or Polytheism, I don't hold to theism. Got it?

There's no cheap rhetorical victory to be had here.... the very idea is childish. Grow up.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Yep, as has alreay been

Yep, as has alreay been said, the origin of the word and its comppnents does not dictate its meaning to contemprary users - that is determined by common usage. There is no ultimate authority on the meaning of a word beyond whatever consensus exists.

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


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
Absolute Truth

Excerpt from Tilberian: There is no such thing as 100% certainty, so it is certainly not irrational to call yourself anything on the basis of less than perfect certainty. However, I know that there is no God and no afterlife with the same certainty with which I know that the sun is coming up tomorrow and that I will fall if I jump off something. That's enough for me to say I know that there is no God.

 

My response: So I'm taking it that you don't believe in absolute truth? So there is a chance that you are wrong, even a greater chance than the existence of gravity or the functioning of our solar system. So then how can one say that Theism is irrational if you yourself admit that you are not 100% in your own belief? Further you admit that, "it is certainly not irrational to call yourself anything on the basis of less than perfect certainty." So I guss theists aren't so irrational after all...?

But back to absolute truth, tell me, when is rape ok? When is it ok to strangle your mom because she won't let you go to the movies? No those things are never ok to do, 100% of the time, and thus absolutes.

 

 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: There is no

seth wrote:

There is no such thing as 100% certainty

 

 

False.

I am 100% certain that I believe that I am alive.

 


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
Correction

Hey wavefreak, that was the excerpt I was responding to, and not my own quote, I guess I should have used the quote button to clarify that, I agree with you, sorry for the confusion.


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
Another certainty

I am also 100% sure that you are someday going to die, and be taxed until then...


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
     Thanks very much

     Thanks very much pyrokineticist for your Opening Post

This has gotten interesting

Sure like what Visual_Paradox wrote

, and todangst always gets me .... the rest of ya too,

really, thanks .... ( tears of joy ) crying in my beer , ever laugh and cry at the same time ! ?


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
Cheers

I agree, this has developed into a great topic and I appreciate everyone giving deep thought to what they are writing.  To answer ProzacDeathWish I think it would be foolish not to have evidence to back what I believe or even look at the claims of other religions or philosophies.  I wouldn't be on here if I was one of the brainless adherents to a religion who just believed it because that's what I was taught.  In fact, in school what we are taught is completely opposite of what I believe. Here's the major problem I have with atheism as I wrote in another forum.

Let's say the you have a watch for example. You take apart the watch and lay all the pieces on the table. Now let's say that instead of a watchmaker, you have time, barometric pressure, wind, rain, sunlight. How long will it take the parts of a watch to evolve into a watch? It would never happen, not in an infinite amount of years. Now to make it more complex, instead of having the parts, you actually only have the raw materials to make the parts. So first the parts need to somehow form on their own and then somehow put themselvles together. This is how I picture evolution at the very beginning, because without life there can be no evolution. Ok, I took a very simple example of a watch, but life, even the most basic living thing is way more complex than a watch, yet you want me to believe that somehow, from the raw materials around us, that life was able to form itself? Now that is the most absurd thing that I have ever heard in my entire life! And to think, scientists cannot even replicate what time was able to do by chance. That is why I believe that there is an intellegent designer who created everything around us, one who is infinitely more intellegent than us.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
    seth asks , 1, "yet

    seth asks , 1, "yet you want me to believe that somehow, from the raw materials around us, that life was able to form itself?

YES

2, That is why I believe that there is an intellegent designer who created everything around us, one who is infinitely more intellegent than us. "

GOD IS INDEED AWESOME, PROOF IS IN THE MIRROR , WE ARE THE SAME , WHAT IS NOT GOD?, DO YOU KNOW YOURSELF ?, OF COURSE NOT , WOW GOD,  ..... WELCOME TO "INFINITY"

WHAT NOW, PRAY ? TRY IT THE MIRROR ! WITH EYES WIDE OPEN .....

(( LUV YA ,   SMILE  Smile

 

  


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
haha

Well I say NO in place of your yes and 

You and I are not God that is for sure.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: I am also 100%

seth wrote:
I am also 100% sure that you are someday going to die, and be taxed until then...

For a little hair splitting fun ... I am not sure that I am alive, as I could be some complex dream artifact in a sleeping god. I am only sure that I believe I am alive, being unaware of the dream.

So I am also 100% sure I believe I will die. Taxes aren't 100%. I could refuse to pay them and go to prison. 


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: My response:

seth wrote:

My response: So I'm taking it that you don't believe in absolute truth?

That's right. I only believe in things for which I have evidence. So far, this Absolute Truth thing is a lot like Bigfoot. 

 

seth wrote:
So there is a chance that you are wrong, even a greater chance than the existence of gravity or the functioning of our solar system.

Without examining any arguments, we can say that my odds of being wrong are exactly the same as anyone else's. So if you try to defeat me by saying that there is a high chance that I am wrong, I can simply turn that around and say the same thing about you. So the point is moot. 

 However, I am not making a point about your argument about God, I am making a point about the actual existence of a real God (according to the most common claims). 

 

seth wrote:
 So then how can one say that Theism is irrational if you yourself admit that you are not 100% in your own belief?

Because my belief that there is no God is supported by evidence and reason, the tools that everyone must use to make valid conclusions about the objective universe. Tools, by the way, that theists are very fond of deploying for their own purposes (as you are now) right up to the point where their precious fantasy is threatened.

God belief is not supported by reason, it is supported by faith. That is why it is irrational. 

 

seth wrote:
Further you admit that, "it is certainly not irrational to call yourself anything on the basis of less than perfect certainty." So I guss theists aren't so irrational after all...?

 Rationality and certainty are not the same things. Look up the words if you don't understand them. Theists are irrational. They are also uncertain. I am uncertain too, but I try to be rational. That's the difference between me and a theist.

 

seth wrote:
 But back to absolute truth, tell me, when is rape ok? When is it ok to strangle your mom because she won't let you go to the movies? No those things are never ok to do, 100% of the time, and thus absolutes.

Nope. There's nothing absolute about it. Even if every single person on the planet holds that these are evil acts, all this points to is agreement between all humans, which isn't surprising given our shared genetic heritage. If we were evolved from certain species of insects, it would be highly normal to kill and eat your mother. Rape is not unusual even among some of our close primate relatives. We could expect an intelligent species that evolved on another planet to have even more bizarre behaviors that are, to them, entirely moral but, to us, constitute horrifying evils.

Before you get up on your high horse, I'll point out that I'm not a moral relativist. I think there is a code of moral and ethical behavior that all humans share by virtue of our shared humanity. But it is specific to humans, and was invented by us and applies only to us. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote:   Let's say

seth wrote:

 

Let's say the you have a watch for example. You take apart the watch and lay all the pieces on the table. Now let's say that instead of a watchmaker, you have time, barometric pressure, wind, rain, sunlight. How long will it take the parts of a watch to evolve into a watch? It would never happen, not in an infinite amount of years. Now to make it more complex, instead of having the parts, you actually only have the raw materials to make the parts. So first the parts need to somehow form on their own and then somehow put themselvles together. This is how I picture evolution at the very beginning, because without life there can be no evolution. Ok, I took a very simple example of a watch, but life, even the most basic living thing is way more complex than a watch, yet you want me to believe that somehow, from the raw materials around us, that life was able to form itself? Now that is the most absurd thing that I have ever heard in my entire life! And to think, scientists cannot even replicate what time was able to do by chance. That is why I believe that there is an intellegent designer who created everything around us, one who is infinitely more intellegent than us.

1) Are you honest?

2) Are you courageous?

If you can answer "yes" to both of those questions, and if we explain why this version of the "tornado in a junkyard" argument is terrible, will you agree that in order to continue being honest and courageous, you need to change your mind?

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
pyrokineticist wrote: I

pyrokineticist wrote:

I understand that not all self-proclaimed "atheists" behave in this manner, but to those who do...

And another thing, what the hell is a self-proclaimed atheist? Is there an atheist licensing board  that issue permits for legitimate atheists? How is one proclaimed an atheist? Is there a ceremony?

 

Meh. The OP looks to be a drive by, but I was just wondering. 


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
so you want proof

So you are saying that although the theories to back atheism lack evidence to make them facts, that theism, including it's claims or "theories" is irrational? Neither have 100% certainty, both have theories and evidence to back them up, but one is rational and the other not? Sounds like a double standard to me...

Explain to me, how did Isaiah chapter 53 predict Christs death in detail over 700 years before it happened? 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote:   Ok, I took

seth wrote:

 

Ok, I took a very simple example of a watch, but life, even the most basic living thing is way more complex than a watch

Before you can make this claim, you need to tell me how you measure complexity. Otherwise you are creating an arbitrary and unsubstantiated comparison. Another problem is that just because watches don't assemble themselves, this does not allow you to conclude that all complex things must be assembled. Snowflakes do a real good job of self assembly and they can be very complex.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: So you are

seth wrote:

So you are saying that although the theories to back atheism lack evidence to make them facts, that theism, including it's claims or "theories" is irrational? Neither have 100% certainty, both have theories and evidence to back them up, but one is rational and the other not? Sounds like a double standard to me...

A rational conclusion demands two things. First, it requires a chain of sound reasoning. Second it requires some form of evidence to substantiate each link in the chain.

 You can claim god exists, god is love, and god hates evil, and continue on  with an entire theology based on those three  assertions. The entire theology can be perfectly consistent, but it is not rational without offering evidence for the initial claims.

An additional problem is there is broad disagreemnt on what constitutes valid evidence. Quoting a verse in the bible and saying Jesus fulfilled a prophecy is not considered empirical evidence, even if it is sufficient evidence for many believers.  So the standard of evidence for atheists is different that for theists.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: So you are

seth wrote:
So you are saying that although the theories to back atheism lack evidence to make them facts, that theism, including it's claims or "theories" is irrational? Neither have 100% certainty, both have theories and evidence to back them up, but one is rational and the other not? Sounds like a double standard to me...

Atheism is a default position. There are no "theories" to back it. Do you believe that unicorns exists? If not, then you could be called an a-unicornist. Are you going to claim that they certainly don't exists? If not, you are an agnostic a-unicornist. If you aren't going to believe in unicorns, do you need a theory to back your position? No, you need only find a lack of sufficient evidence that they exist.

Also, when you use the word "theory" are you using the scientific method's definition or the layman's definition?

If you have any evidence to prove your religion true, please present it. (Preferably in a separate thread entitled: "Proof of God's existence!" Make sure to define what you mean by "god".) But, before posting, please do some research to see if any claims you plan to make haven't been debunked already.

-Triften


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
pyrokineticist wrote: I

pyrokineticist wrote:

I understand that not all self-proclaimed "atheists" behave in this manner, but to those who do...

Let us begin with a brief deconstruction of the word, "atheist." It comes from two Greek roots, the first root being, "a-" meaning "without" and "theos" meaning "god." Now that we've discovered that "atheist" means "without a god," let us evaluate this statement. No where in the meaning of "atheist" does one find any reference to Christianity.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter. My challenge to anyone who calls himself or herself an atheist is to disavow all religions equally. I challenge you to criticize and smite with the undeniable power of logic all "irrational belief," as opposed to just denouncing whatever religion will make you popular. Let's try to maintain some ideological purity, shall we? If you hate Christians, don't say you oppose religion. Say you oppose Christianity with every moral, intellectual fiber of your being. If the goal of atheists is to hold oneself to the standard of reason, then do so. If you are anti-Christian, but Buddhism, Hinduism, and New Age belief is fine, then admit it! Don't, however, use a term to mean what it does not. After all, one of the chief criticisms of religion is that it blinds the masses and encourages disinformation, correct? Avoid such hypocrisy, then. The irony is unbearable when an anti-Christian posing as an atheist contributes to confusion and falsehood.

And to repeat myself: I know full and well that not every atheist is guilty of this.

Thanks

 

I really don't know how to respond to this post. I can only speek  for myself. I challenge all claims I find to be lacking in credibility. Everything from pantheism(universal conciousnes), to tarrot cards and I most recently scolded fellow atheists for saying "It could happen" when equating moving a photon to the "Transporter" in Star Trec. These speculations which are extreemly wild and unsubstantiated amount to a case of the "warm fuzzies" of "wouldnt it be nice if". It still falls into the gap argument and makes huge leaps over gaps in knowlege.

So when you say you challenge atheists to treat everything equally, what makes you think most dont? In America at least, the people we run into the most are Christian, so we get into debates with them more often. That doesnt mean we ignor other religous or super natural claims. 

 

 

"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


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
uh

snowflakes are water.  pretty, but not too complex.  no assembly required, just freezing temperatures.  you could argue however that there was a creator who designed water to have certain properties so that when it freezes it becomes less dense, unlike many other compounds allowing it to float on the top of our oceans and allowing sea life to exist in cold climates.  that's just one example of design in our complex world, but apparently no one here seems to care about that.  they just want to prove that God doesn't exist so they can go about their pointless lives and no have to worry about their actions having any reprocussions.

atheists, would you agree that there is at least one absolute truth, that being that there are no abosolute truths? 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: seth

wavefreak wrote:

seth wrote:
I am also 100% sure that you are someday going to die, and be taxed until then...

For a little hair splitting fun ... I am not sure that I am alive, as I could be some complex dream artifact in a sleeping god. I am only sure that I believe I am alive, being unaware of the dream.

So I am also 100% sure I believe I will die. Taxes aren't 100%. I could refuse to pay them and go to prison.

Since this is the KTWK section, I am obligated to retract my fangs. So in lue of that I will admit that my beloved Skins stink really  bad so I know the suffering Bills fans are going through. Having said that, I hope you dont mind me rolling my eyes at this post, just like I roll my eyes at the Skins year after year.

I love you man, I really do. You put up with me without chopping my head off. But.........itchy keyboard........must resist.......(note to Wave: Just hit the glass box on the wall "In case of Brian break glass"(Contains elephent tranquilizer gun).

Just being silly guys.

WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDUALED POST ALREADY IN PROGRESS. 

"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


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote: Atheism is

triften wrote:

Atheism is a default position. There are no "theories" to back it.

So since you are sitting in the "default" position, does that me you don't have to support your stance?

 I just gave an example of evidence, and since it doesn't fit into your scientific box, you just dismiss it as though it doesn't exist.  Why don't you read Isaiah 53 and see for yourself.  It was written 700 years before Christ's death.  Can science do that?  I don't think so.  Science is just the study of what already exists.  It doesn't create things, and most of the time it can't even explain them.  Science is just on means of people trying to figure out what is going on in this world.  People trying to find meaning for life, or trying to remove meaning from life.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: seth

wavefreak wrote:
seth wrote:

 

Ok, I took a very simple example of a watch, but life, even the most basic living thing is way more complex than a watch

Before you can make this claim, you need to tell me how you measure complexity. Otherwise you are creating an arbitrary and unsubstantiated comparison. Another problem is that just because watches don't assemble themselves, this does not allow you to conclude that all complex things must be assembled. Snowflakes do a real good job of self assembly and they can be very complex.

When you post things like this it makes me tingle with antisipation that someday, maybe someday you will become a Redskin fan(oh of topic, nevermind) I ment, "one of us".

Join the dark side Luke. 

"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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: triften

seth wrote:
triften wrote:

Atheism is a default position. There are no "theories" to back it.

So since you are sitting in the "default" position, does that me you don't have to support your stance?

I just gave an example of evidence, and since it doesn't fit into your scientific box, you just dismiss it as though it doesn't exist. Why don't you read Isaiah 53 and see for yourself. It was written 700 years before Christ's death. Can science do that? I don't think so. Science is just the study of what already exists. It doesn't create things, and most of the time it can't even explain them. Science is just on means of people trying to figure out what is going on in this world. People trying to find meaning for life, or trying to remove meaning from life.

Why should I have to support a non-stance? You have the stance -  you support it.

You are right about Isaiah It was written before Christ was created. Several years later, the guys who wrote the Gospels helped Paul of Tarsus create a character name Jesus Christ. They wanted to convince people that this character was the Messiah. To do that that went back through Isaiah and found all the Messianic prophecies and wrote that their Christ fulfilled all of them.

It's like me making prophecies now about what happened last year. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: triften

seth wrote:
triften wrote:

Atheism is a default position. There are no "theories" to back it.

So since you are sitting in the "default" position, does that me you don't have to support your stance?

The person making the claim must back it up with evidence and reason. If I claimed I had a nuclear reactor in the trunk of my car, the default position would be to not believe me until I proved it by showing it to you, or showing you conclusive evidence of its existence (e.g., measuring its power output, stray radiation, removing depleted uranium, etc.). All of these things taken together would make a strong case that I did indeed have a reactor in the trunk.

The trick is, the evidence has to be conclusive; it has to point in the direction of my claim, and not someplace else. If I tried to prove it by taking depleted uranium out of my trunk, though, that wouldn't prove anything other than that I had DU in my trunk.

Quote:

I just gave an example of evidence, and since it doesn't fit into your scientific box, you just dismiss it as though it doesn't exist.

No, we dismiss it because it doesn't qualify as evidence.

Quote:
Why don't you read Isaiah 53 and see for yourself. It was written 700 years before Christ's death. Can science do that? I don't think so.

Can "science" do what, make predictions? Absolutely; throw a ball of known weight at a known angle and speed and you can make a very accurate guess as to where it will land. Can it make long-term predictions? Sure; the sun will eventually go nova and destroy the inner planets (this one is sort of cheating, though, since none of us will be around to check).

Quote:

Science is just the study of what already exists. It doesn't create things, and most of the time it can't even explain them. Science is just on means of people trying to figure out what is going on in this world.

Not true. Science is a method of discovering reliable facts. That's why answers change sometimes: we find a model that isn't reliable, and discard it in favour of a better one.

I agree with one thing you said, thought: science doesn't create things; people who practice science sometimes do.

Quote:
People trying to find meaning for life, or trying to remove meaning from life.

Finding meaning is outside the realm of science; it's only us scared mortals that feel a need for meaning.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
nice try


Nice try jcgadfly, but there is tons of evidence regarding the life of Christ. It's very well documented. Christ was not the figment of someone's imagination. He's talked about throughout history and not just in the Bible. That was an easy dismiss but I'm not accepting that. There is way too much evidence that says otherwise.

 BTW, be a man and take a stance, it's no fun talking to you if you don't believe anything.  So take a stance and try to back it up.  Your mind may grow because of it.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote:   atheists,

seth wrote:

 

atheists, would you agree that there is at least one absolute truth, that being that there are no abosolute truths?

 

Huh? This statment falsifies itself. Or not. 


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
predictions

shikko wrote:

Can "science" do what, make predictions? Absolutely; throw a ball of known weight at a known angle and speed and you can make a very accurate guess as to where it will land. Can it make long-term predictions? Sure; the sun will eventually go nova and destroy the inner planets (this one is sort of cheating, though, since none of us will be around to check).

Can science predict things that are unpredictable? The examples you gave are not very persuasive. Those are things that can be calculated. Can you calculate the day you will die? Can you predict the value of the dollar in 10 years? That is why Isaiah 53 is remarkable, and shows that there is a power outside of our world that is not limited like we are. It predicts something that cannot be calculated.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: seth

wavefreak wrote:
seth wrote:

 

atheists, would you agree that there is at least one absolute truth, that being that there are no abosolute truths?

 

Huh? This statment falsifies itself. Or not. 

Yeah, all it shows is that one can conceive and articulate a meaningless idea. But we knew that.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: Nice try

seth wrote:


Nice try jcgadfly, but there is tons of evidence regarding the life of Christ. It's very well documented. Christ was not the figment of someone's imagination. He's talked about throughout history and not just in the Bible. That was an easy dismiss but I'm not accepting that. There is way too much evidence that says otherwise.

Where? After the fact doesnt count.

And that still doesnt explain HOW a 9 to 14 year old girl got prengant. And it doesnt explain HOW  human flesh reconstitutes itself after rigor mortis after 3 days.

Even IF atheists conceeded that a human people called Jesus existed, it still would not be adiquite to explain the fantastic claims. Many historical humans made outragious claims. If George Washington claimed to be able to turn an apple POOF into Heidi Clume.....it is a fallacy to make the assertion because one can prove the existance of George Washington, that would make him physically capable of instantanously turning an apple into a woman.

There is no evidence outside the bible that is contemparary that a man named Jesus existed. The books that mention him by name WERE NOT written in the alleged claim of his time. 

His character was a culmination of multiple polytheist cultures as a attempt to politically and socially reject the set norms of the time. The old "cheer for the underdog" motif.

His immage, weither a real person inspired the story or not, is not a result of magic, but of mundain human behaivor in an an attempt to improve the future, but falsely assigning magic as the source, based on the social compitition of the time. In laymens terms, a person named "Jesus" preforming magic tricks is merely nothing more than the human ability to sell icecream to Eskimos.

The only differance between Christians and Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists is the flavor of icecream they are trying to sell. I do have to admit, the sales tactics are quite elaborate. 

"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