Why Christianity?
Offline The pretenses of rationality on behalf of atheism are fatuous and self-serving.
Bases for believing are varied, complex, and compelling.
While statistics are commonly used and argued in science, atheists tend to deny the patently obvious - that if atheism is so compelling and so true, then why are there so few atheists worldwide and throughout history? Is everyone so stupid except for non-believers? Evidently atheists would have the overwhelming majority believe just that.
In fact, the most popular organization in history is Christianity.
People of faith live longer, are happier, have a generally lower incidence of clinical depression, a lower incidence of alcoholism, a lower incidence of drug addiction, a lower incidence of suicide, a lower incidence of many untoward illnesses and maladies than their atheistic counterparts.
Why would this be so? I am certain we can expect all manner of creative explanations from the non-believers.
Thus the fact that people tend to do what is in their best interest and what they truly believe, the lack of significant numbers of atheists must be terribly discouraging to them, as it should be.
Likewise the sociological and physical benefits of religious faith encourage belief and discourage atheism which tends to be cynical, arrogant, condescending, and particularly hateful.
Were the rules of this forum not meticulously enforced by the Atheists In Charge, there would be screaming and profanity so typical of atheists most everywhere.
Then there is the profound scientific evidence of God. Time and again, one reads of scientists' fascination with nature's elegance, and nature's wonderful design. When confronted with the obvious inference of a Designer, all is waved aside, as if with the Atheists' Magic Wand.
It all just created itself, organized itself, and runs itself, don't you know. The Anthropic Principle is countered with the Utmost in Fantasy, Megaverses.
First, our own universe was too vast to comprehend, and when that didn't begin to explain away the insuperability of so many critical physical constants, then something magic was invoked by the self-anointed. Our universe is merely one in a virtually infinite number of them, with all the constants right in ours, but not any of the others. The leap of faith to believe such an impossible fantasy as that is infinite.
James Tour, professor of chemistry, Rice University:
"I build molecules for a living. I can't begin to tell you how difficult a job that is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God."
But there is more.
Where is the drug addict, the prisoner, the lifelong pervert, loser, loner, or lost soul who found life anew through atheism? When has someone claimed, "In prison, I found myself through belief in ... no god. Yes, though I lived a life of deprivation and crime, now I see the light. There is no god and this has made me free. I want a fresh start, believing in ... nothing."
Who among you will say this? Stand up and be counted.
Charles Bradlaugh, a prominent atheist in the nineteenth century, challenged Hugh Price Hughes to a debate on atheism versus Christianity. Hughes agreed on one condition - that each bring 100 men and women who have been redeemed from lives of sin and suffering by the influences of their respective teachings. Bradlaugh declined. Hughes offered to reduce it to 10 men and women. Bradlaugh declined. Hughes offered to reduce it to one - one person whose life had been transformed. Bradlaugh withdrew.
When the rubber meets the road, atheism fails, and fails most miserably.
There is also medical evidence, such as that from description of the Crucifixion.
"There remains, therefore, no supposition possible to explain the recorded phenomenon except the combination of the fructification and rupture of the heart." - Samuel Houghton, M.D., great physiologist from the University of Dublin
We have too legal opinions, including one from Sir Luckloo, one of history's most brilliant attorneys. His careful review of the Scriptures revealed what Sir Luckloo found to be absolutely conclusive proof of Jesus Christ's Resurrection from the dead, an impossibility but for the Hand of God.
There is more evidence than I have time to touch on here. I can only hope that it will lead one or more readers to the truth. As my dear friend and former atheist told me, he was approached by a Christian while he was in college who said to him, "I pray you do not rest until you find the truth."
And it was so. When he next lay down his head, he was satisfied that his former atheism was nothing but lies.
- Login to post comments
Offline His entire post sounds like it was copied and pasted straight from some Bible tract or ministry website. Nevertheless, I'll try to counter it.
The pretenses of rationality on behalf of atheism are fatuous and self-serving.
Ad hominem attack
Bases for believing are varied, complex, and compelling.
So are reasons for not believing. As to compelling, that's in the eye of the beholder.
While statistics are commonly used and argued in science, atheists tend to deny the patently obvious - that if atheism is so compelling and so true, then why are there so few atheists worldwide and throughout history?
Because many societies had an official religion to protect the rich and powerful. Nonbelievers risked death.
Numbers of believers in something do not indicate its truth. Ask a small child, he or she probably believes in Santa Claus.
Also, you assume belief proves a god-- then you would have to vouch for proofs of other gods, since many religions were around long before Christianity, and other faiths still exist today.
Is everyone so stupid except for non-believers?
Straw man.
Evidently atheists would have the overwhelming majority believe just that.
If you want to complain and feel sorry for yourself, that is your business, and your fault. Atheists simply lack belief in gods. That's all.
In fact, the most popular organization in history is Christianity.
Probably not. Even if so, who cares? That proves nothing.
People of faith live longer,
Not really. People in Japan and China live anywhere from 80-100 years, and most of them are Buddhists. Buddhism is often described as a philosophy instead of a religion, since it does not assert that Buddha himself was a deity.
are happier,
Once again, eye of the beholder. Happiness is subjective and variable.
have a generally lower incidence of clinical depression, a lower incidence of alcoholism, a lower incidence of drug addiction, a lower incidence of suicide, a lower incidence of many untoward illnesses and maladies than their atheistic counterparts.
Wrong on every count. Also completely free of statistics to prove it.
If there are a large number of believers and a small number of atheists, odds are, whenever you take a sample of who thinks what, believers would come out near the top, because *there are more of them.* This does not, however, prove *why* any of them thinks anything in particular, nor whether they are right or not.
Why would this be so? I am certain we can expect all manner of creative explanations from the non-believers.
Well, sure, since we got a load of creative hogwash from you.
Thus the fact that people tend to do what is in their best interest and what they truly believe,
Really? Since when?
the lack of significant numbers of atheists must be terribly discouraging to them, as it should be.
Wow, you don't like us, do you?
Gleefully snide, deliberately goading, and once again, completely lacking statistics to back it up.
Likewise the sociological and physical benefits of religious faith encourage belief and discourage atheism which tends to be cynical, arrogant, condescending, and particularly hateful.
You just made stuff up to disparage people. All those adjectives are your opinion. How can atheism "be" or "tend to be" things?
Were the rules of this forum not meticulously enforced by the Atheists In Charge, there would be screaming and profanity so typical of atheists most everywhere.
Your entire post so far is incredibly insulting. Bet you feel like a superior person because you did not swear.
Also, you have offered no proof that atheists are always profane, nor that you even know 'atheists everywhere.'
This level of hypocrisy and contradiction really takes the cake.
Then there is the profound scientific evidence of God.
Where?
Time and again, one reads of scientists' fascination with nature's elegance, and nature's wonderful design.
No, one does not.
When confronted with the obvious inference of a Designer, all is waved aside, as if with the Atheists' Magic Wand.
Evidence you have not named.
It all just created itself, organized itself, and runs itself, don't you know. The Anthropic Principle is countered with the Utmost in Fantasy, Megaverses.
What on Earth is a Megaverse, and why are you suddenly capitalizing things for no reason?
More snide, childish teasing. Prove something, if you can. All you have offered thus far is a polemic.
First, our own universe was too vast to comprehend, and when that didn't begin to explain away the insuperability of so many critical physical constants, then something magic was invoked by the self-anointed.
The only person who has anointed himself to tell everybody how things must have happened is you.
More straw man arguments. All still unproven.
Our universe is merely one in a virtually infinite number of them, with all the constants right in ours, but not any of the others. The leap of faith to believe such an impossible fantasy as that is infinite.
You know this how?
James Tour, professor of chemistry, Rice University:
"I build molecules for a living. I can't begin to tell you how difficult a job that is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God."
Probably a Christian. And the only person you've cited so far.
Hardly unbiased, and hardly a preponderance of the evidence.
But there is more.Where is the drug addict, the prisoner, the lifelong pervert, loser, loner, or lost soul who found life anew through atheism?
I can tell you about plenty of prisoners, drug addicts and other losers who have claimed Christianity and then gone back to their old ways. Do a search for 'found Jesus' and 'recidivism.'
Also, there is an organization called Rational Recovery. They are an organization formed specifically to provide self-help options for people who don't desire the theistic approach of Alcoholics Anonymous.
When has someone claimed, "In prison, I found myself through belief in ... no god. Yes, though I lived a life of deprivation and crime, now I see the light. There is no god and this has made me free. I want a fresh start, believing in ... nothing."
I don't know many people who have been to jail, let alone enough to do some kind of survey.
You, on the other hand, should have done some research before you made all these accusations.
Who among you will say this? Stand up and be counted.Charles Bradlaugh, a prominent atheist in the nineteenth century, challenged Hugh Price Hughes to a debate on atheism versus Christianity. Hughes agreed on one condition - that each bring 100 men and women who have been redeemed from lives of sin and suffering by the influences of their respective teachings. Bradlaugh declined. Hughes offered to reduce it to 10 men and women. Bradlaugh declined. Hughes offered to reduce it to one - one person whose life had been transformed. Bradlaugh withdrew.
Sounds fishy, but even if so, what's the big deal? One person's refusal to do something means absolutely nothing as to whether their opinion is true or not. Nothing.
When the rubber meets the road, atheism fails, and fails most miserably.
More name-calling.
There is also medical evidence, such as that from description of the Crucifixion.
What? You've got to be kidding.
The four Gospels don't even agree.
"There remains, therefore, no supposition possible to explain the recorded phenomenon except the combination of the fructification and rupture of the heart." - Samuel Houghton, M.D., great physiologist from the University of Dublin
...And a Christian, right?
Biased and limited sample, again.
We have too legal opinions, including one from Sir Luckloo,
Who?
And why doesn't he have a first name?
one of history's most brilliant attorneys. His careful review of the Scriptures revealed what Sir Luckloo found to be absolutely conclusive proof of Jesus Christ's Resurrection from the dead, an impossibility but for the Hand of God.
...Which you do not offer.
You claim something but offer zero except mean-spirited and exhortatory language to back it up. That's zero scholarship/
There is more evidence than I have time to touch on here.
But you haven't shown any evidence at all. Just name-calling and a handful of unproven personal opinions.
I can only hope that it will lead one or more readers to the truth.
Doubt it.
As my dear friend and former atheist told me,
Why do I feel this is about as trustworthy as a newspaper horoscope?
You didn't even make up a name for your friend.
he was approached by a Christian while he was in college who said to him, "I pray you do not rest until you find the truth."
So he hopes the guy will stagger around sleepless until he changes religions?
And it was so.
Not in the least pretentious.
When he next lay down his head, he was satisfied that his former atheism was nothing but lies.
What this has to do with when someone goes to sleep, I have no idea.
In any event, you have failed to do anything but generate spite and hot air. Maybe that was what you were shooting for. Still, it accomplished zero good.
You sound like a deeply dissatisfied person. I feel sorry for you.
- Login to post comments
Offline
Finally, took me about 6 paragraphs to get to anything even remotely resembling an attempt at providing evidence for a God. Ok, so this is an appeal to authority. You claim that such and such thinks he has conclusive proof of something, so LuckLoo must be right. That's not how it works. Head over to the forum to prove that Jesus Christ even existed, and get to work. But bring better arguments than this because Rook is likely to bite your head off. When he doesn't have babies to eat, he eats the heads of people who provide poor argumentation.
LOL! Brilliant!
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
- Login to post comments
Offline His entire post sounds like it was copied and pasted straight from some Bible tract or ministry website. Nevertheless, I'll try to counter it.paucoremhominem wrote:The pretenses of rationality on behalf of atheism are fatuous and self-serving.Ad hominem attack
An unconscious ad hominem attack on himself, perhaps! I'd just go ahead and call this a projection of his own feelings about faith. There's no way he could know how every atheist operates, whereas he's privy to a great deal of information concerning how he holds to his theism. So its far more likely that he's teling us what he really feels about faith.
And he's described faith quite well. There's nothing more fatuous and self serving than holding to a belief on religious faith! It's an irrational process by defintion. It's a silly pretense to pretend that religious belief is held by reason. It's held by convention, by faith inculcated by parents, and only defended, much later, by 'reason'... well after the fact.
You see this is in the rest of this insipid argument... you don't get this level of illogic unless a person is driven by ideology, not reason.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm really digging this projection thing you've been on for a few posts todangst. I've been tossing this idea through my head as I've talked to various people for the last day or two, and it is definitely making some sense. Do you have a recommended reading for me to refresh myself on the paranoid personality or projection? I've been out of college for quite a few years, and I'm sure I don't have any of my old psych texts.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline Wow, nice start. I can't admit they are fatuous, but I can give in to self serving. We all have beliefs because they are the beliefs that are right for us, I think an easy case could be made that most beliefs are self serving. Doing things for oneself is a good thing, doing things for an imaginary being is not.
When men rape women, are they not "doing things for themselves"? And raping women "is a good thing"?
Mother Theresa did not do good things because she believed in what you call "an imaginary being"? And your scientific proof that God is "imaginary" is what?
Bases for believing are varied, complex, and compelling.
I have yet to see a compelling basis for theistic belief, they certainly are varied and complex.
The Holy Bible calls it "faith," not "proof." If the pervasive evidence surrounding you is not sufficient, you would not believe God Himself. So says the Bible written some 2,000 years ago. It anticipates your every objection.
While statistics are commonly used and argued in science, atheists tend to deny the patently obvious - that if atheism is so compelling and so true, then why are there so few atheists worldwide and throughout history?
To start, the church murdered a good deal of them. Religion intimidates and strikes the fear of the unknown into people. Religion has tried to constrain science, philosophy, and the advancement of reason for thousands of years. Through a great many violent battles and not so violent battles (laws, burnings of libraries/books, bans on books, etc), religion has managed to stifle scientific progress for too long. Here is the danger of religion.
Here again you attempt to invoke the Crusades of the Twelfth Century. The world has six billion people today, and you invoke something so ancient and archaic that it is completely irrelevant. And this you pretend is "science."
Here's the danger of your presumptious, arrogant argument. To pretend that you are the victim when in fact you are far from it. You lie and pretend that your lies are science.
In fact, the most popular organization in history is Christianity.
So? At one point virtually everyone on Earth agreed that the Sun orbited around the Earth, did that make it true? FYI: it was religion that taught us that. They even murdered the man who proved the Church wrong on this issue.
Copernicus was not murdered. Please get your facts straight.
People of faith live longer, are happier, have a generally lower incidence of clinical depression, a lower incidence of alcoholism, a lower incidence of drug addiction, a lower incidence of suicide, a lower incidence of many untoward illnesses and maladies than their atheistic counterparts.
Present the studies, sounds like outright lies to me.
Were I to do so, you would deny them, as is the habit of atheists. What was that about Copernicus being "murdered"?
Why would this be so? I am certain we can expect all manner of creative explanations from the non-believers.
I'll just stick with a factual explanation, which is that you've turned the facts upside down and presented an opposite world.
Thus the fact that people tend to do what is in their best interest and what they truly believe, the lack of significant numbers of atheists must be terribly discouraging to them, as it should be.
I'm not discouraged at all. There are perfectly good reasons why there are so many religious people in the world. I'll spend my life getting to further humanity to fix the atrocities religion has committed on mankind.
Likewise the sociological and physical benefits of religious faith encourage belief and discourage atheism which tends to be cynical, arrogant, condescending, and particularly hateful.
You're funny. Not only are your argument projections of the inadequacies of religion,(SIC) but you've got this slick way of throwing an ad hominem at the end of sentences that don't (SIC) serve to make the original point. You're smugly being condescending, dishonest, arrogant, while you claim that is what atheism tends to be. It's very easy to spot.
Were the rules of this forum not meticulously enforced by the Atheists In Charge, there would be screaming and profanity so typical of atheists most everywhere.
We have no rules against FUCKING CURSING! OR FUCKING SCREAMING!
Lovely. Absolutely brilliant. Scientific. Persuasive.
Q.E.D.
Then you appeal to the authority of Rook.
I quake. Will he too spew profanities and hatred and condescension? Like you?
Possibly bring something scientific, ya know falsifiable? Instead of asserting your proof for Christianity as your view that atheism is asinine, work on proving Christianity. You have yet to even reach the parking lot, let alone step on the battlefield.
You've cited your dismay at the Crusades. Something from the Twelfth Century, and still it galls you.
Rook is your hero. He'll "bite my head off."
What anger and hatred drives you people. No wonder you're suicidal. You're sick. Terminally.
- Login to post comments
Offline Then there is the profound scientific evidence of God.
such as?
1. Light is propagated through a vacuum, discretely, and at a prodigious velocity, which is independent of the motion of the source.
2. Light is also propagated through gases, such as our earth atmosphere.
3. Light is also propagated through liquids, such as our vitreous humor.
4. Light is incredibly propagated through solids, such as plastic, silicon dioxide, and fused quartz.
5. These incredible feats are necessary but far from sufficient.
Light is also slowed down only by passing through matter, not by motion of its source.
6. The change in velocity of light through liquids, solids and gases bends it without which we could not see.
7. The profound velocity of light enables us to communicate with radios in real time. Were light to be considerably slower, it would not only effect communications, but it would preclude our existence. For the energy we derive from the sun is a function of the velocity of light squared. Ask God Rook.
He might even know.
8. Photons of energy impinging on our retinas are the smallest amount of energy in the universe. Funny that a researcher at Stanford University found that the human eye is capable of discerning a single photon of light.
Ah, water dripping on rocks did ti all.
9. A photon of light hits a receptor, where a chemical changes structure and then conveys information flawlessly to a nerve where it is transmitted at 4 gigabaud per second to the human brain for interpretation. Your primitive internet is 1,000th as fast as your optic nerve.
10. Light transmits not only images and information, but prodigious amounts of energy as well.
11. The human eye can detect light over 13 orders of magnitude in intensity.
12. Likewise the ear hears sounds over about 13 orders of magnitude in intensity. Ask God Rook. Maybe he knows.
13. Human blood has ~592 amino acids, the insuperable probability of synthesizing which is one chance in 10^280 or thereabouts.
Your own god of Hatred, Richard Dawkins, has admitted that anything with probability of 10^40 or less is "impossible."
Human blood is not particularly complex compared to many enzymes, which number up to 2000 amino acids in length.
What is one in 20^2000?
It is really really really mega-impossible.
Unless you're an atheist who can't even spell "non-sequitur."
Time and again, one reads of scientists' fascination with nature's elegance, and nature's wonderful design. When confronted with the obvious inference of a Designer, all is waved aside, as if with the Atheists' Magic Wand.
so, umm, where's the part where you show us this profound scientific evidence?
You know, you must be right.
Were we to look backwards through some time warp, we would see that water dripping on rocks led to amino acids (name five essential amino acids, and explain what they do in aqueous solutions).
We would then see why the universe formed from the Singularity, and understand the origin of the Singularity.
I'm sure you can explain that too. Go ahead. I'm ready to learn from your profound wisdom. Perhaps God Rook will help you out.
It all just created itself, organized itself, and runs itself, don't you know. The Anthropic Principle is countered with the Utmost in Fantasy, Megaverses.
actually, you don't need megaverses. evolution has been proven. and the process of star systems like ours forming has been very well laid out. you should, you know, actually read some science books once in a while.
You cannot understand the first thing about the insuperability of physical constants to invoke evolution here.
Please learn how to spell Latin phrases of your own choosing before you order me to read science books, about which you clearly know next to nothing.
First, our own universe was too vast to comprehend
and when that didn't begin to explain away the insuperability of so many critical physical constants
The leap of faith to believe such an impossible fantasy as that is infinite.
oh, the irony.
Said the fellow who penned "ad nausium" followed by "non-sequitar."
ad nausium + non-sequitar [/quote1. You meant to say "ad nauseum."
2. You mean to say "non-sequitur."I know. When you make such mistakes, they're trivial and of absolutely no consequence.
But when I make any such mistake, it is conclusive proof of my stupidity and inferiority to all atheists here, most particularly God Rook.Incidentally, why would one of your jejune atheist friends capitalize "god"? That smacks of hypocritical worship of an invisible, imaginary being.
and........... that somehow makes christianity correct?
- Login to post comments
Offline Concerning eyes: the simplest form of eye is found in cnidarians, who lack a central nervous system. All it is capable of doing is detecting whether there is light and as a result, telling the jellyfish to go to the surface to find prey (plankton). As you progress through more and more complex organisms, you find eyes that are more and more complex.
This is the variety of eyes found in nature. Instead of having a single design for the eye, eyes become more and more complex throughout geological time. The human eye projects the image onto the retina upside down - a clear deficiency. The cephalopod eye is far more efficient than the human eye - AND simpler (because it eliminates the aforementioned upside-down projection)!
Now, all of this makes perfect sense in an evolutionary framework. Please explain to me how your god-hypothesis can make sense of it.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
- Login to post comments
Offline
Quote:Likewise the sociological and physical benefits of religious faith encourage belief and discourage atheism which tends to be cynical, arrogant, condescending, and particularly hateful.You're funny. Not only are your argument projections of the inadequacies of religion, but you've got this slick way of throwing an ad hominem at the end of sentences that don't serve to make the original point. You're smugly being condescending, dishonest, arrogant, while you claim that is what atheism tends to be. It's very easy to spot.
I hope that not every Christian comes across this way...I certainly hope I do not.
- Login to post comments
Offline I may be incorrect, but I think that Sapient was referring to Giordano Bruno, not Copernicus. And whether it was he who discovered that heliocentrism was true or not, he certainly made a big stink about it an was subsequently killed for it by Church--burned at the stake!--for his 'heresy.'
Bruno was a brilliant, courageous, and now well-respected and honored scientist, philosopher, and a significant person in the history of doubt.
I would respond to more of the "arguments" made in favor of theism, but frankly these points have been respinded to over and over, and I don't feel like repeating it all again. Look through the forums to find your same points again and again being responded to. if you have something new to say, say it. Otherwise, stop wasting the time you could be using to educate yourself more.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
- Login to post comments
Offline
Now, all of this makes perfect sense in an evolutionary framework. Please explain to me how your god-hypothesis can make sense of it.
Very cools stuff! and I explain it b/c I believe in God and evolution 
- Login to post comments
Offline Sapient wrote:They even murdered the man who proved the Church wrong on this issue.Just a little correction.
You mean Galileo or Copernicus?
Neither was murdered.
Copernicus had his bases covered and asked for his book to be released after his death, while Galileo from what I understand was given the ol' "turn or burn" choice. He didn't choose burn.
Just an FYI - http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/GalileoAffair.html
- Login to post comments
Offline Look through the forums to find your same points again and again being responded to. if you have something new to say, say it. Otherwise, stop wasting the time you could be using to educate yourself more.Shaun
I have been trying to look for some stuff from other posts that other say is around here..... Is there a search function somewhere that I am missing?
- Login to post comments
Offline Sapient wrote:
Quote:Likewise the sociological and physical benefits of religious faith encourage belief and discourage atheism which tends to be cynical, arrogant, condescending, and particularly hateful.You're funny. Not only are your argument projections of the inadequacies of religion, but you've got this slick way of throwing an ad hominem at the end of sentences that don't serve to make the original point. You're smugly being condescending, dishonest, arrogant, while you claim that is what atheism tends to be. It's very easy to spot.
I hope that not every Christian comes across this way...I certainly hope I do not.
No not all Christians come across that way obviously, and you seem to be trying civility. Paucorehominem is an ignorant fool who's best act is to call others the same, because it's what he's most familiar with.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline First of all I rest mostly on my previous points. Your ad homimem attacks and dishonesty is not welcome on this board and I'm not interested in entertaining it. Should you want to stay around these parts I suggest you attempt a higher level of discourse.
People of faith live longer, are happier, have a generally lower incidence of clinical depression, a lower incidence of alcoholism, a lower incidence of drug addiction, a lower incidence of suicide, a lower incidence of many untoward illnesses and maladies than their atheistic counterparts.
Present the studies, sounds like outright lies to me.
Were I to do so, you would deny them, as is the habit of atheists.
And that is a lie. Quite a predicament you put yourself in. You appear to be a liar if you don't show the report, so you lie about why you wont show the report.
Show the report, I'll accept good scientific evidence as is the habit of THIS atheist.
What was that about Copernicus being "murdered"?
An incorrect statement that was cleaned up over and over by the other people here. (thanks everyone)
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline 20vturbo wrote:Sapient wrote:
Quote:Likewise the sociological and physical benefits of religious faith encourage belief and discourage atheism which tends to be cynical, arrogant, condescending, and particularly hateful.You're funny. Not only are your argument projections of the inadequacies of religion, but you've got this slick way of throwing an ad hominem at the end of sentences that don't serve to make the original point. You're smugly being condescending, dishonest, arrogant, while you claim that is what atheism tends to be. It's very easy to spot.
I hope that not every Christian comes across this way...I certainly hope I do not.
No not all Christians come across that way obviously, and you seem to be trying civility. Paucorehominem is an ignorant fool who's best act is to call others the same, because it's what he's most familiar with.
I've just been reading some posts around here like the "how did you become atheist" and it seems Christians own worst enemies are ourselves. If that makes any sense....I don't know if i was just in a weird community or if I was just blind but I never had anyone in the church tell me to stop asking questions or tell me I was going to hell for XYZ...to my knowledge we are not supposed to be judging anyone.
- Login to post comments
Offline I've just been reading some posts around here like the "how did you become atheist" and it seems Christians own worst enemies are ourselves.
Yes it makes sense. Ironically often times we say that the bible is what showed us for sure that Christianity was false. So it seems there is a precedence there for not only Christians being their own worst enemies, but for the holy book itself to be an enemy of itself.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline but for the holy book itself to be an enemy of itself.
I'm not sure I follow?
- Login to post comments
Offline Sapient wrote:but for the holy book itself to be an enemy of itself.
I'm not sure I follow?
My point is that when many of us read the bible, that was our nail in the coffin that the bible was false.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline 20vturbo wrote:Sapient wrote:but for the holy book itself to be an enemy of itself.
I'm not sure I follow?
My point is that when many of us read the bible, that was our nail in the coffin that the bible was false.
ahhh got ya...I could see that if you read it as 100% literal you may come to that conclusion.
- Login to post comments
Offline
ahhh got ya...I could see that if you read it as 100% literal you may come to that conclusion.
I think for the most part we don't see why there's any reason to believe that an all powerful god would have any problem getting his works published in anything but a literal sense.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline And wouldn't he know how much harm would be done by people who did take it literally and/or misinterpret it?
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Offline 20vturbo wrote:
ahhh got ya...I could see that if you read it as 100% literal you may come to that conclusion.
I think for the most part we don't see why there's any reason to believe that an all powerful god would have any problem getting his works published in anything but a literal sense.
I don't think there would be a problem if he wanted it that way but I can tell you that the way scripture is written, In my case it forces me to ask questions, and think more critically than a list of do this, don't do this, and sometimes do this. I can't fully explain it b/c I am still not anywhere near an expert but from the "experts" that I hear from it is amazing the way that it is written.
- Login to post comments
Offline Sapient wrote:20vturbo wrote:Sapient wrote:but for the holy book itself to be an enemy of itself.
I'm not sure I follow?
My point is that when many of us read the bible, that was our nail in the coffin that the bible was false.
ahhh got ya...I could see that if you read it as 100% literal you may come to that conclusion.
The problem is that if we are not going to take it literally. then by what criteria do we decide which is to be taken literally, metaphorically, etc?
If we are to use a neutral standard to determine this, why not just use that neutral standard to determind truth in general? And if we can use that methodology to determine that much of what is in the Bible does not stand up to scrutiny (while other parts might), then we simply don't consider the Bible as the source for truth, but rather as an interesting book that might also happen to contain some good ideas and true facts.
Why not just use the faculty of intelligence that you employ to determine what sounds like it should be read as literal and what should be read as metaphor and use that to determine what seems to make sense.
If you do that and still believe in God, then by all means believe in God. But if your belief in God ultimately comes from the stories in the Bible (or any other stories from elsewhere), then you are not basing your belief on anything other than stories. And unless those stories stand up to the scrutiny of criticism, then they cannot be accepted.
You have to either accept all of the Bible as the true word of God or you have to accept parts of it by using some other standard of truth-gaining. I'm curious how you determine why one verse is metaphor and another is literal truth?
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
- Login to post comments
Offline 20vturbo wrote:Sapient wrote:20vturbo wrote:Sapient wrote:but for the holy book itself to be an enemy of itself.
I'm not sure I follow?
My point is that when many of us read the bible, that was our nail in the coffin that the bible was false.
ahhh got ya...I could see that if you read it as 100% literal you may come to that conclusion.
The problem is that if we are not going to take it literally. then by what criteria do we decide which is to be taken literally, metaphorically, etc?
If we are to use a neutral standard to determine this, why not just use that neutral standard to determind truth in general? And if we can use that methodology to determine that much of what is in the Bible does not stand up to scrutiny (while other parts might), then we simply don't consider the Bible as the source for truth, but rather as an interesting book that might also happen to contain some good ideas and true facts.
Why not just use the faculty of intelligence that you employ to determine what sounds like it should be read as literal and what should be read as metaphor and use that to determine what seems to make sense.
If you do that and still believe in God, then by all means believe in God. But if your belief in God ultimately comes from the stories in the Bible (or any other stories from elsewhere), then you are not basing your belief on anything other than stories. And unless those stories stand up to the scrutiny of criticism, then they cannot be accepted.
You have to either accept all of the Bible as the true word of God or you have to accept parts of it by using some other standard of truth-gaining. I'm curious how you determine why one verse is metaphor and another is literal truth?
Shaun
I will start off by saying that I do believe that the bible is the true word of God. I can not give you the best answer to all of the questions b/c I am not a bible scholar but from what I understand so far the church uses the bible and sacred tradition.
I have recently been looking at this site for more info.
http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/
From this site http://www.catholicapologetics.net/tbcb-10
"This is what we have in the Catholic Church — an authority to decide finally and forever all questions concerning the correct meaning, the exact force and value of the Bible which Christ committed to her keeping. The Church interprets the law of God much as the Supreme Court interprets the law of the nation.
Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would remain with the Church forever. As this same Holy Spirit inspired the Bible, there can be no doubt that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error in teaching the true meaning which the Holy Spirit intended the Bible to have.
God assures us that "the things that are of God, no man knoweth, but the spirit of God." (I Cor. 2:11). How then can every man be his own instructor and his own guide in the difficult and mysterious teachings of Holy Scripture?"
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:Then there is the profound scientific evidence of God.Apokalipse wrote:such as?1. Light is propagated through a vacuum, discretely, and at a prodigious velocity, which is independent of the motion of the source.
2. Light is also propagated through gases, such as our earth atmosphere.
3. Light is also propagated through liquids, such as our vitreous humor.
4. Light is incredibly propagated through solids, such as plastic, silicon dioxide, and fused quartz.
5. These incredible feats are necessary but far from sufficient.
Light is also slowed down only by passing through matter, not by motion of its source.
6. The change in velocity of light through liquids, solids and gases bends it without which we could not see.
7. The profound velocity of light enables us to communicate with radios in real time. Were light to be considerably slower, it would not only effect communications, but it would preclude our existence. For the energy we derive from the sun is a function of the velocity of light squared. Ask God Rook.
He might even know.
8. Photons of energy impinging on our retinas are the smallest amount of energy in the universe. Funny that a researcher at Stanford University found that the human eye is capable of discerning a single photon of light.
Ah, water dripping on rocks did ti all.
9. A photon of light hits a receptor, where a chemical changes structure and then conveys information flawlessly to a nerve where it is transmitted at 4 gigabaud per second to the human brain for interpretation. Your primitive internet is 1,000th as fast as your optic nerve.
10. Light transmits not only images and information, but prodigious amounts of energy as well.
11. The human eye can detect light over 13 orders of magnitude in intensity.
12. Likewise the ear hears sounds over about 13 orders of magnitude in intensity. Ask God Rook. Maybe he knows.
13. Human blood has ~592 amino acids, the insuperable probability of synthesizing which is one chance in 10^280 or thereabouts.
A series of arguments from personal incredulity/ignorance isn't a support for your 'god'. You're also committing a false dichotomy error - either science can explain X, or goddidit.
Your own god of Hatred, Richard Dawkins, has admitted that anything with probability of 10^40 or less is "impossible."
Human blood is not particularly complex compared to many enzymes, which number up to 2000 amino acids in length.
What is one in 20^2000?
It is really really really mega-impossible.
Unless you're an atheist who can't even spell "non-sequitur."
Leaving your own hatred and need to insult aside, you're making the old 'evolution is just randomness/impossibility' argument here, which 1) speaks to a fundamental ignorance of what evolution is and 2) typically depends on completely specious 'odds' that are usually given without any justification for them.... (because the attempt to do so would reveal the faulty thinking behind them...)
Seriously, take the advice given here by others: read up on the science you're attempting to criticize. If you do, you'll be able to refute your own arguments.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline God assures us that "the things that are of God, no man knoweth, but the spirit of God." (I Cor. 2:11). How then can every man be his own instructor and his own guide in the difficult and mysterious teachings of Holy Scripture?"
Just because the Bible says so does not make it so. By believing that the Bible is the word of God, you are simply admitting that you assume this to be the case. On what criteria do you believe this?
The teaching are mysterious in the sense that they are supposed to be beyond us. This is a nice way of avoiding answering the question. Saying that something cannot be understood is a good way to get people to stop asking questions. It doesn't always work, as you are here asking them.
It's just that you are still assuming everything you need to assume to conclude that God is real and that the Bible is God's words; namely, that the Bible is God's word. In other words, youa re assuming your conclusion.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
- Login to post comments
Offline I like for the O.P was, "Atheism fails, therefore christianity!"
No.
"Atheism fails, therefore ancient greek pantheon!"
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.
- Login to post comments
Offline 20vturbo wrote:God assures us that "the things that are of God, no man knoweth, but the spirit of God." (I Cor. 2:11). How then can every man be his own instructor and his own guide in the difficult and mysterious teachings of Holy Scripture?"
Just because the Bible says so does not make it so. By believing that the Bible is the word of God, you are simply admitting that you assume this to be the case. On what criteria do you believe this?
The teaching are mysterious in the sense that they are supposed to be beyond us. This is a nice way of avoiding answering the question. Saying that something cannot be understood is a good way to get people to stop asking questions. It doesn't always work, as you are here asking them.
It's just that you are still assuming everything you need to assume to conclude that God is real and that the Bible is God's words; namely, that the Bible is God's word. In other words, youa re assuming your conclusion.
Shaun
I agree, however I am using other "evidence" that points to there being a God and that the would lead me to believe the bible is true.
I would disagree about the mysteriousness is a way to keep us from asking questions and seeking answers. It does just the opposite for me and even in the Catholic Church's catechism it says that we are supposed to read and try to understand the bible.
You are correct that I am continuing to assume that there is a God (based on the evidence I have seen) because I have yet to find evidence that there is no God. I recently asked without God how do we get morals other than opinions but I am not sure if i just missed the search function or if there isn't one yet.
- Login to post comments
Offline
You are correct that I am continuing to assume that there is a God (based on the evidence I have seen) because I have yet to find evidence that there is no God. I recently asked without God how do we get morals other than opinions but I am not sure if i just missed the search function or if there isn't one yet.
I think this has been said, but it is a point that is critical enough that it needs to be said again. There is no absolute proof that God does not exist. It is not the burden of the atheist to prove that God does not exist. The Burden of proof is always on the one making a claim. We merely claim taht the "evidence" is not sufficient, so we lack belief do to the lack of evidence.
You claim there is evidence that God exists, so simply present it. I've heard many ways to demonstrate this, and have not been convinced that any of them are support for God's existence at all.
Concernign the question of morals, there are many things you could read. There is a search box at the top-left of the page. Here is one discussion about morality from teh forums. if you search yourself, you can find pieces of other threads that address it as well.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
- Login to post comments
Offline
I think this has been said, but it is a point that is critical enough that it needs to be said again. There is no absolute proof that God does not exist. It is not the burden of the atheist to prove that God does not exist. The Burden of proof is always on the one making a claim. We merely claim taht the "evidence" is not sufficient, so we lack belief do to the lack of evidence.You claim there is evidence that God exists, so simply present it. I've heard many ways to demonstrate this, and have not been convinced that any of them are support for God's existence at all.
Concernign the question of morals, there are many things you could read. There is a search box at the top-left of the page. Here is one discussion about morality from teh forums. if you search yourself, you can find pieces of other threads that address it as well.
Shaun
I understand your point but I believe in God and am searching for reasons/evidence not to believe. I have yet to find any evidence contrary to my beliefs. I didn't come here to "prove" God to you guys but if you are interested I will try to put all the evidenced I see in a clear and concise post in the future.
There is a search box at the top-left of the page.
Thank you!! apparently I am blind! I will go read the stuff you posted
- Login to post comments
Offline
While statistics are commonly used and argued in science, atheists tend to deny the patently obvious - that if atheism is so compelling and so true, then why are there so few atheists worldwide and throughout history?In fact, the most popular organization in history is Christianity.
I think human nature wants and in most times, needs the answers to the burning question of lifes origins and meanings. This is evident in the variety of mythology that has existed and still exist throughout the world. Christianity being the most popular of folklores.
Likewise the sociological and physical benefits of religious faith encourage belief and discourage atheism which tends to be cynical, arrogant, condescending, and particularly hateful.
Were the rules of this forum not meticulously enforced by the Atheists In Charge, there would be screaming and profanity so typical of atheists most everywhere.
I would disagree with you on some of these points. I would agree that religious faith can contribute to physical well being due to having a positive outlook. However one can also retain these benefits without a religious worldview, as long as they have a positive outlook as well.
In regards to hateful, if you cannot see how religion can create very hateful and combative situations then maybe you are willfully putting blinders on. Consider the turmoil between religious denominations, differing religions, and the contrast of worldviews. Fred Phelps should be enough to combat this notion.
We have too legal opinions, including one from Sir Luckloo, one of history's most brilliant attorneys. His careful review of the Scriptures revealed what Sir Luckloo found to be absolutely conclusive proof of Jesus Christ's Resurrection from the dead, an impossibility but for the Hand of God.
Could you illustrate this? Some of my objections to the bible are the claims made within it. One of which being discussed by Thomas Paine' s Age of Reason, Part II, Section 15. Also touched upon by former theist and minister Dan Barker as the Easter Challenge. I have to this day not read an consistent solution for this problem. All the solutions porposed have thus far been very different from one another. Maybe you can start a thread to tackle this, it would be much appreciated.
While I see your arguments for deism, to me I do not see how they qualify towards the God of the bible. Maybe you can touch upon this as well. Biblical inspiration is another topic I'd like to tackle eventually, which is yet another issue that I have not been able to get past. Thanks.
- Login to post comments
Wow, nice start. I can't admit they are fatuous, but I can give in to self serving. We all have beliefs because they are the beliefs that are right for us, I think an easy case could be made that most beliefs are self serving. Doing things for oneself is a good thing, doing things for an imaginary being is not.
I have yet to see a compelling basis for theistic belief, they certainly are varied and complex.
To start, the church murdered a good deal of them. Religion intimidates and strikes the fear of the unknown into people. Religion has tried to constrain science, philosophy, and the advancement of reason for thousands of years. Through a great many violent battles and not so violent battles (laws, burnings of libraries/books, bans on books, etc), religion has managed to stifle scientific progress for too long. Here is the danger of religion.
Today on a percentage basis and total number basis more atheists exist than ever before, and the numbers are on a continuous rise.
Who said that? I didn't. I know plenty of smart people who hold an irrational belief in god. Speaking of stupid, the fallacy you just set forth was called an argument from popularity, it's fallacious, and it was "stupid" to use. Not all theists are stupid, though.
I can maybe count 10 occurrences in my life when I've heard atheists say that. Considering I've seen hundreds of thousands of posts from atheists in the last 10 years, and I've met several thousand myself, I'm starting to think you're not interested in the truth, but more interested in setting forth fallacious rhetoric.
So? At one point virtually everyone on Earth agreed that the Sun orbited around the Earth, did that make it true? FYI: it was religion that taught us that. They even murdered the man who proved the Church wrong on this issue.
Present the studies, sounds like outright lies to me.
Notice, I actually link to verifiable documents....
As Sam Harris writes...
" The level of atheism throughout the rest of the developed world refutes any argument that religion is somehow a moral necessity. Countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on Earth. According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant mortality. Conversely, the 50 nations now ranked lowest in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Other analyses paint the same picture: The United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its level of religious literalism and opposition to evolutionary theory; it is also uniquely beleaguered by high rates of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, STD infection and infant mortality. The same comparison holds true within the United States itself: Southern and Midwestern states, characterized by the highest levels of religious superstition and hostility to evolutionary theory, are especially plagued by the above indicators of societal dysfunction, while the comparatively secular states of the Northeast conform to European norms. Of course, correlational data of this sort do not resolve questions of causality--belief in God may lead to societal dysfunction; societal dysfunction may foster a belief in God; each factor may enable the other; or both may spring from some deeper source of mischief. Leaving aside the issue of cause and effect, these facts prove that atheism is perfectly compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove, conclusively, that religious faith does nothing to ensure a society’s health.
Countries with high levels of atheism also are the most charitable in terms of giving foreign aid to the developing world. The dubious link between Christian literalism and Christian values is also belied by other indices of charity. Consider the ratio in salaries between top-tier CEOs and their average employee: in Britain it is 24 to 1; France 15 to 1; Sweden 13 to 1; in the United States, where 83% of the population believes that Jesus literally rose from the dead, it is 475 to 1. Many a camel, it would seem, expects to squeeze easily through the eye of a needle. "
I'll just stick with a factual explanation, which is that you've turned the facts upside down and presented an opposite world.
I'm not discouraged at all. There are perfectly good reasons why there are so many religious people in the world. I'll spend my life getting to further humanity to fix the atrocities religion has committed on mankind.
You're funny. Not only are your argument projections of the inadequacies of religion, but you've got this slick way of throwing an ad hominem at the end of sentences that don't serve to make the original point. You're smugly being condescending, dishonest, arrogant, while you claim that is what atheism tends to be. It's very easy to spot.
We have no rules against FUCKING CURSING! OR FUCKING SCREAMING!
FINALLY!
[scrolling down looking for the proof and I'm only finding more rhetoric....]
Finally, took me about 6 paragraphs to get to anything even remotely resembling an attempt at providing evidence for a God. Ok, so this is an appeal to authority. You claim that such and such thinks he has conclusive proof of something, so LuckLoo must be right. That's not how it works. Head over to the forum to prove that Jesus Christ even existed, and get to work. But bring better arguments than this because Rook is likely to bite your head off. When he doesn't have babies to eat, he eats the heads of people who provide poor argumentation.
Could you maybe bring something that doesn't hinge on you attacking another position? Possibly bring something scientific, ya know falsifiable? Instead of asserting your proof for Christianity as your view that atheism is asinine, work on proving Christianity. You have yet to even reach the parking lot, let alone step on the battlefield.
Me too. In my opinion, the two things that lead people to atheism most often is 1. reading the bible, and 2. reading theists poor arguments.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
schooled..... and thank you for it, it's tiring dealing with these bad arguments....
Just a little correction.
You mean Galileo or Copernicus?
Neither was murdered.
Copernicus had his bases covered and asked for his book to be released after his death, while Galileo from what I understand was given the ol' "turn or burn" choice. He didn't choose burn.
Thanks Todangst, and a bigger thanks to Ivan for correcting that point. I found these particulars upon further review:
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Do you have any actual data to back this up, or are you just wishfully thinking? As my boss at work always tells me: Show and Tell.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Nicely done Sapient!!
I love seeing you guys at work.
I would love to see them try and respond to what you say, but that's probably asking too much.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
This is not evidence of a supreme deity. Sin is what the Church deems wrong and many of the things it speaks out against(masturbation, cursing, etc.)are definitely not wrong. What men of faith claim is wrong is not evil and the fact that people submit to rules of such men is not proof of a God. If a person stops jerking off because the Church wags it's finger it does not mean he is redeemed from this particular sin or that there is a God. It only means he stopped jerking off because a guy has a rule against it and threatens him with eternal suffering.
Now, as far as peoples lives being changed by atheism? I think my life ,and also the lives of almost everyone here, has been changed for the better through atheism. It's nice to know I'm not going to burn for telling people to fuck off or because I'd hit the Virgin Mary and fill her with my own Holy Ghost(whoops, I'm being the typical dirty atheist! I'm a sinner! There must be a God!). I also find the world to be a more beautiful place and that I'm a much happier person now that I lack God belief.
I wish we were around when Bradlaugh and and Hughes were around. Oh well.
"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank."-Woody Allen
"Atheism is life affirming in a way religion can never be."-Richard Dawkins
Wow, what the fuck is this shit?
Geez, Sapient!
You were in particularly fine form. Nothing left for us lurkers to say except... DAMN!
What did the five fingers say to the face? SLAP!
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
all you've done is make really big assertions without backing them up.
so, umm, where's the part where you show us this profound scientific evidence?
the difficulty in building molecules has absolutely no bearing on the existance of any god.
2. http://www.wayofthemind.org/2005/08/26/how-ive-become-an-atheist/
Who among you will say this? Stand up and be counted.
check out this:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/pmurray/exchristian/Stories/0321.html
well I can make a book that says "the sky is pink"
that doesn't make it so.