How the athiest thinks
Offline Person A (we are figuratively speaking here cuz i know you will probably cry about something) gets a PhD in the field of scientific studies. Person B gets the SAME EXACT PhD, yet person B uses his education in the glory of God and finds ample evidence of creation. These two people go through the same schooling, get the same degree, yet work in different fields. Then some athiest comes along and automatically assumes Person B has a lesser education than person A.
The Athiest glorifys a man because he has a piece of paper framed on his wall. They criticize a christian for believing what they read in a book or heard from somebody. Yet the athiest does the same thing, they believe what they read in a book, or what somebody tells them, but because its written of told to them from a certain point of view they forget that they are just as religious and deem it "science". They don't think for a minute, "how accurate is this?, could Person A have fudged these results just so he could get the outcome he wanted?, could Person A have lied about his research?" Because you studied it in a book how do you know its true? Because your teacher told you how do you know its true?
"WELL PERSON A GOT HIS DOCTORATE IN "X STUDIES" SO IT MUST BE TRUE BECAUSE HE WROTE ABOUT IT"
Bias is not 100% eliminatable, to what extremes would a person go to obtain the result they wanted?
Lets take this example. John Doe is researching homosexuals, if they are born that way or influenced somehow. (which btw, regardless of popular OPINION nothing has been proven on that) Ok, so what is John Doe's background, is he gay? is he straight? is he for/against homosexuality regardless of his own sexuality? does he have homosexual children? what kind of result is he initially looking for?
these are the kind of questions one should really ask themselves before taking anthing anybody says about anything into consideration.
and before you go and whine to me, yes there are Christians that are guilty of the same, because they go against what the Bible says and try to please man instead of God.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
- Login to post comments
Offline It's becoming pretty apparent that you really don't have any reasoning behind your religious inclination at all. Thus far nearly every response you've given can be reduced to "Because it feels good", "Because the bible says so", and "Because it makes sense to me". When questioned you simply reiterate the same, and if pressed further you make accusations of "over analyzing".
It should really be noted that analysis really only becomes "over analysis" when you don't have any facts to make the thinking productive, to actually progress the line of thought/inquiry rather than just chasing your tail (so to speak).
Your apparent fear of reason and logic does go quite a ways towards explaining the aforementioned assertions. It's not too difficult to see why when considering your apparent inability to grasp abstract concepts, as evidenced by the fact that you have failed to comprehend any kind of example, analogy, metaphor, sarcasm, etc. that has been presented to you (instead getting lost in the details, even after it's spelled out). That's fine, you just shouldn't go accusing everyone else of over-analyzing just because they say something that's over your head. If you want to actually come up with any kind of evidence, nevertheless proof, of god it really will require quite a bit of analysis. If you're not prepared to do so, then you may as well leave the site now as you're really only sending "truth seekers" (as you call them) the message that you have to stop thinking entirely to be a theist.
Lastly, I would also note that I suspect that the sense of "negativity" mentioned earlier is mostly due to critical thinking. This is something that religion pretty much prohibits. It can seem negative when you're not used to it, but there's really nothing negative about it. A thiest approaches a subject critically and the theist takes it as an attack - something you can see in nearly every thread. I would say there's also a large part of it that's due to having it hammered into you that anyone that doesn't think like you has to do with the devil, evil, bad, etc. (depending on your denomination, but which all pretty much amounts to the same thing). They tell you that athiests are satanists, controlled by satan, negative, etc., and so of course you come here and you see that. Just look at the OP in this thread, the theist came here with pre-conceived notions of how we think, and refuses to take it from those that actually are atheists that they are not correct!
You're probably also looking at the black background of this website and thinking "boy, this site is DARK, but I don't know why".
- Login to post comments
Offline deludedgod wrote:
Such condescending arrogance! Honestly, for the hundred thousandth time, what evidence is there that the bible is valid which does not resort to you reasoning an a circle?1. I have pointed out it's timelessness. 2. The writings of the NT were completed in less than 150 years, which does not leave time for the type of complex mythical development you are suggesting. 3. Where is Jesus's tomb? 4. Why did the disciples attribute the first seeing of the resurrected Jesus to women when woman were viewed a subclass. Why didn't the disciples say THEY were the first to see him? Why didn't they take that opportunity to puff themselves up? 5. Why were the disciples so selfless? 6. Why did Paul immediately go from killing Christians to becoming it's most outspoken supporter? 7. How did the disciples manage to convert thousands in one day? (Has your atheist message ever done that?)
- Login to post comments
Offline Who might those 4 billion people be. I didn't catch that.
I believe that would be the world's non-christian population?
Umm, I don't think so. We support a couple missionaries over there and from what I hear they are quite fervent believers who risk going to jail for their faith.
Heard it from who, the missionaries? A COUPLE missionaries at that?
Well, yeah, Saudi is on the top of the offenders list for Christian persecution. There are Christians there. They believe at the risk of death. Yet they still believe. Why do you think that is?
The Heaven's Gate cult members believed what they believed to the point of killing themselves. Your point was????
1. I have pointed out it's timelessness. 2. The writings of the NT were completed in less than 150 years, which does not leave time for the type of complex mythical development you are suggesting. 3. Where is Jesus's tomb? 4. Why did the disciples attribute the first seeing of the resurrected Jesus to women when woman were viewed a subclass. Why didn't the disciples say THEY were the first to see him? Why didn't they take that opportunity to puff themselves up? 5. Why were the disciples so selfless? 6. Why did Paul immediately go from killing Christians to becoming it's most outspoken supporter? 7. How did the disciples manage to convert thousands in one day? (Has your atheist message ever done that?)
1) Your concept of time is out of whack. 2000 years isnt timeless, it's a blip on the earth's chronological spectrum. Certain Egyptian religious beliefs, for example, lasted much longer than 2000 years 2) What? 3) It, like Jesus, didn't exist. 4), 5), 6), 7) You're falsely assuming the bible stories are factual, for the 8 millionth time.
And, no we do not all know about Dionysius, care to share? Don't bother with Mithras, already looked into that one.
From Wikipedia:
It is possible that Dionysian mythology would later find its way into Christianity. There are many parallels between Dionysus and Jesus; both were said to have been born from a virgin mother, a mortal woman, but fathered by the king of heaven, to have returned from the dead, to have transformed water into wine, and to have been liberator of mankind. The modern scholar Barry Powell also argues that Christian notions of eating and drinking "the flesh" and "blood" of Jesus were influenced by the cult of Dionysus. Certainly the Dionysus myth contains a great deal of cannibalism, in its links to Ino (however, one must note that Dionysian cannibalism has no correlation with self-sacrifice as a means of propitiation). Dionysus was also distinct among Greek gods, as a deity commonly felt within individual followers. In a less benign example of influence on Christianity, Dionysus' followers, as well as another god, Pan, are said to have had the most influence on the modern view of Satan as animal-like and horned.[15] It is also possible these similarities between Christianity and Dionysiac religion are all only representations of the same common religious archetypes. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the story of Jesus turning water into wine is only found in the Gospel of John, which differs on many points from the other Synoptic Gospels. That very passage, it has been suggested, was incorporated into the Gospel from an earlier source focusing on Jesus' miracles.[16]
According to Martin A. Larson in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Osiris was the first savior, and all soteriology in the region borrowed this religion, directly and indirectly, including Mithraism and Christianity, from an Osirian-Dionysian influence. As with their common dying and resurrected saviors, they all share common sacraments, ostensibly grounded in their reliance on seasonal cereal agriculture, having adopted the rituals with the food itself; Larson notes that Herodotus uses the names Osiris and Dionysus interchangeably and Plutarch identifies them as the same, while the name was anciently thought to originate from the place Nysa, in Egypt (now Ethiopia).
The subject of Dionysus is complex and baffling. The problem is further complicated by the fact that he appears in at least four characters: first, as the respectable patron of the theatre and the arts; second, as the effeminate, yet fierce and phallic mystery-god of the bloodthirsty Maenads; third, as the mystic deity in the temples of Demeter; and fourth, as the divine savior who died for mankind and whose body and blood were symbolically eaten and drunk in the eucharist of the Orphic-Pythagorean celibates. Beyond this, almost all barbarian nations had their own versions of Dionysus under many names. And yet there is a simpler explanation: Dionysus, Bromius, Sabazius, Attis, Adonis, Zalmoxis, Corybas, Serapis, and Orpheus himself are replicas of their grand prototype Osiris; and the variations which appear among them resulted from the transplantation of the god from one country to another, and reflect simply the specific needs of his multifarious worshipers (37-38).
Perhaps he does not want to make it that easy for us. He has given us just enough information to separate those who truly wish to seek him from those who would rather rely on themselves.
I've brought this up in almost every thread in which you've mentioned something like this, and you haven't addressed my point once. Thatis, if god is omniscient then he already knows who will seek him and who wont. Thus, it would be completely pointless to make it difficult.
Given your worldview, it makes sense that you would say that. It seems you are a hardcore realist/literalist.
Realism can't have levels to it. If you believe in anything unreal, then you can't be a realist at all.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
- Login to post comments
Offline Who might those 4 billion people be. I didn't catch that.
The ones who arent Christian
Umm, I don't think so. We support a couple missionaries over there and from what I hear they are quite fervent believers who risk going to jail for their faith
Which region you talking? Up in Xi'an or far west in Xinjiang I wouldn't be suprised if the people were devout. But not in Chongqing, Beijing or the Eastern corridor.
Well, yeah, Saudi is on the top of the offenders list for Christian persecution. There are Christians there. They believe at the risk of death. Yet they still believe. Why do you think that is?
You cannot possibly argue out of the religion-geography relationship by citing a tiny minority! Born in Arabia=Muslim.
And don't you agree that these works have survived due to their timelessness? In other words, there is good to be learned from the Bible, contrary to what some of you might say, it is a worthy book to study if you want to learn about human nature.
But...what makes it any more valid than any of these other books?
1. I have pointed out it's timelessness
It's not the only one!
If God created the universe, I'm sure he knows how to raise a man from the dead.
The universe? It is almost consensus among theoretical physicists that there are a vast number of universes. Probably one being formed as I am typing. These universes are not generated by a God blowing little universe bubbles. They are generated by energy ultra-compression by an asymptotic gravitational singularity.
. The writings of the NT were completed in less than 150 years, which does not leave time for the type of complex mythical development you are suggesting
LOL. Talk to Rook about that. He'll show you otherwise. I'm a biologist, not an archeological historian. But I do know the Bible is plenty ripped off from other religions. There is no original story in it that wasn't meshed with some more ancient mythology. The book is the world's longest metaphor.
3. Where is Jesus's tomb?
That;s brilliant logic. Did you read anything I wrote about Occam's Razor? We can't find the guys tomb, so he must have been ressurrected.
4. Why did the disciples attribute the first seeing of the resurrected Jesus to women when woman were viewed a subclass. Why didn't the disciples say THEY were the first to see him? Why didn't they take that opportunity to puff themselves up? 5. Why were the disciples so selfless?
Um, because they had intense faith in Jesus. Is that rhetorical question. You're probably going to cite Paul on the road to Damascus, but no amount of belief makes something a fact. Here is what you are telling me: 2,000 years ago, four gospel writers had intense faith in a man who claimed to be the son of God therefore it is fact. In the first century, there were numerous small cults of people following so-called messiahs. The fact that Christianity succeeded over all of them does not reflect on it's truth.
7. How did the disciples manage to convert thousands in one day? (Has your atheist message ever done that?)
No. But we have reached 1.1 billion over the last few decades and continue to do so. I'd say that's more impressive.
Well, obviously if you do not believe in an all-powerful God, you would not believe a virgin birth was possible. And, no we do not all know about Dionysius, care to share? Don't bother with Mithras, already looked into that one.
Dionysius was said by Greek mythology to be the son of a mortal woman and fathered by the King of heaven. Records of this mythology indicate that he rose from the dead and turned water into wine. He was held as the savior of mankind by his disciples. It is even possible that the notion of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ is ripped off from the Cannibalism of the Dionysius cult. The religious archetype of Satan in Christian theology comes from the Dionysius archetype, the God pan, who was described as having hindquarters and horns of a goat
You cannot tell me that Christianity is not ripped off from that.
Creating the universe is a cheap trick? I would say you are hard to please then.
See previous comment about the unverse(s)
Perhaps he does not want to make it that easy for us. He has given us just enough information to separate those who truly wish to seek him from those who would rather rely on themselves.
The idea that God would care if we had faith in him is nonsense. I am absolutely sure that if he exists (something I am sure is not the case) he would surely hold reason in highest esteem, even if said reason caused his creations to reject his existence.
Well, yes, if you define God by the standards of this world, but he is not of this world.
That is a typical cop-out to avoid having to explain the impossible reconciliations of two similtaneously mutually exclusive ontologies which are ascribed to classical theism.
I believe that would fall into the crazy category
Which one?
Given your worldview, it makes sense that you would say that. It seems you are a hardcore realist/literalist
Literalist? A literalist of what!
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
- Login to post comments
Offline rexlunae wrote:So, when someone criticizes my faith saying, I use it as a crutch to make me more comfortable in this world...could, then, that same argument apply to you since you have said you picked only those that made you comfortable.Well, there are not absolute moral truths. I pick and have picked morals with which I am comfortable, specifically ones which emphasize compassion, based upon family, cultural influences, and personal desires.
No. My morality is not based on a delusion.
And how about this, a 50 year old man rapes a 4 year old girl. Is that not absolutely wrong in ALL situations, therefore making in non-relative? Can you give me a situation where that would ever be a "good" think, relatively speaking?
No, that would be bad in pretty much every case.
rexlunae wrote:I know they believe we will all one day be Gods, and that enough. That teaching is not supported by the Bible.And you know this how? By guessing? Have you read it?
That's not in the BoM. Mormons believe it, but the Book of Mormon doesn't say anything about it. In fact, I don't know that there's any evidence that Joseph Smith ever believed that. And, it isn't fair to judge other religions on the basis of the Bible. That doesn't count as examining the other possibilities.
rexlunae wrote:I have done what I feel to be an adequate amount of searching, after which, I made my decision.I have considered and rejected several theistic systems, as well as several non-theistic ones. Can you say the same?
What religions have you studied and rejected, and why?
rexlunae wrote:Thank you but I am not completely ignorant of Mormonism. They make some funny movies too.I really am serious about recommending the BoM. You can probably get it for free from a Mormon, and it's not nearly as dry and incoherent as the Bible. Who knows, maybe you'll even find something important in it. It's really quite satisfying to have a reason for rejecting a religion, other than ignorance.
Movies?
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
- Login to post comments
Offline JESUS.
Response from the argument of plurality:
Atheist: What made you choose that religion and not a different one?
Muslim: MUHAMMAD.
I did not mean to imply this. Other books contain some truth. The Bible contains the complete truth.
OK, we'll just have to see that for ourselves. The complete truth of the Bible seems to contain:
- the whole Universe being created in 6 days
- plants being created before the sun, having no UV rays to drive photosynthesis and vitamin generation processes
- bats being birds, hares chewing cud
- caucasian, black, red, asian human races coming from the same two ancestors (I guess Adam had a blue eye and a green eye, and Eve a black one and a brown one, or something...)
- the Earth is flat and square, as you can see all its corners from the top of a mountain
- there were giants and unicorns back then
- the woman is made of a man's rib...
- some people lived up to a millenia (Adam almost, Mathusal, ...)
- slaves should be beaten... and it's OK to drive a slave into a coma, if he wakes up a few days after that, you haven't done anything wrong (I'm not going to cite all rules in the OT, just this one, since I've heard many disputing that "we are no longer under law", but this one definitely is still on, even Jesus said something like that)
- all those who do not believe in Jesus are against him and therefore will go to heck (that, of course, will include the poor tribesmen in Africa, or the guys from Easter Island, or some guys in Nepal or Tibet who have never had the possibility to hear about Jesus; I can't imagine anyone there saying something like "I've got a feeling that I have to believe in something called Jesus." "What's that?" "I don't know, but I feel that I must believe in him."
And of course a lot more.
What can I say... a whole lotta' truth in there, brother...
It sounds as tho some of you here regret ever being a Christian. However, I do not feel that way.
Of course you don't. You wouldn't be a Christian if you had.
There is no way to prove this. However, there is no Jesus in Islam, as least, not the Jesus I know.
That was just the whole point, you know. But I can imagine you right in the middle of Saudi Arabia saying "Mom and dad, I know you worship Muhammad, but I think it would be better if we'd worship Jesus. Unfortunately, I can imagine you getting shot afterwards as well.
Which makes it is exclusionary.
It is exclusionary by definition...I didn't say it isn't. I only said it isn't exclusionary to philosophies, just to gods.
No other religion has a central figure like Jesus.
Oh is that so? Try this for size:
- Muhammad
- Dyonissos
- Mithras
- Ghilgamesh (not actually a religion, but you'll get my point)
- Jonestown and many many other such cults
Do you actually think your Jesus is unique? Rook Hawkins would easily show the contrary much better than me.
Unless you are wrong about God, which is the risk you have chosen to take.
You have just about as many chances to be wrong about the real god as I have. The difference is that I can be convinced through reason and evidence, but I'm not so sure about you.
Jesus' ressurection is just mythology. There is no way possible a body could survive rigor mortis for three days.
Hey, I didn't touch him, ok? (joking)
1. I have pointed out it's timelessness.
Same goes for many other holy books. If you invoke the argument of standing the test of time, christianity will lose simply and squarely.
2. The writings of the NT were completed in less than 150 years, which does not leave time for the type of complex mythical development you are suggesting.
Actually, the complex mythical developments are bound only to the person of Jesus. Jesus' biography only takes up 4 of the NT books, the rest are about completely different things. Considering that the 4 official gospels are almost indisputably copied and adapted one after another, well, there you have it.
3. Where is Jesus's tomb?
Good question... I'm sure that it'd be a place of worship, just as Mecca for Muslims, IF it had existed...
4. Why did the disciples attribute the first seeing of the resurrected Jesus to women when woman were viewed a subclass. Why didn't the disciples say THEY were the first to see him? Why didn't they take that opportunity to puff themselves up?
The four official gospels and other apostolic writings disagree on who was the first to see Jesus. Check http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/first_ap.html
5. Why were the disciples so selfless?
Were they? How did you come to that conclusion?
6. Why did Paul immediately go from killing Christians to becoming it's most outspoken supporter?
Well, you saw a burning bush talking to you. And you wouldn't know that it's a condition related to schizophrenia. Wouldn't you do the same?
7. How did the disciples manage to convert thousands in one day? (Has your atheist message ever done that?)
They didn't. Surely that kind of thing wouldn't have gone unnoticed.
Christianity was kind of an obscure cult until late.
Perhaps he does not want to make it that easy for us. He has given us just enough information to separate those who truly wish to seek him from those who would rather rely on themselves.
I only wish to ask why some (apostles, Mary Magdalene) had access to much better evidence of Jesus (because nothing beats direct evidence) than I have. And yet I'm held up to the same standards as them, receiving the same penalty for disbelieving.
The same I ask for all the people who have never had the possibility to even hear that there might be a "Jesus" (see a few paragraphs above).
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
- Login to post comments
Offline That's entirely circular because in order to accept the conclusons you have to accept the premise of the bible being true. As far as we're concerned it has no more validity than any other 'holy book', or even any other fiction book.
- Login to post comments
Offline I believe that would be the world's non-christian population?
Heard it from who, the missionaries? A COUPLE missionaries at that?
The Heaven's Gate cult members believed what they believed to the point of killing themselves. Your point was????
1. I have pointed out it's timelessness. 2. The writings of the NT were completed in less than 150 years, which does not leave time for the type of complex mythical development you are suggesting. 3. Where is Jesus's tomb? 4. Why did the disciples attribute the first seeing of the resurrected Jesus to women when woman were viewed a subclass. Why didn't the disciples say THEY were the first to see him? Why didn't they take that opportunity to puff themselves up? 5. Why were the disciples so selfless? 6. Why did Paul immediately go from killing Christians to becoming it's most outspoken supporter? 7. How did the disciples manage to convert thousands in one day? (Has your atheist message ever done that?)
1) Your concept of time is out of whack. 2000 years isnt timeless, it's a blip on the earth's chronological spectrum. Certain Egyptian religious beliefs, for example, lasted much longer than 2000 years 2) What? 3) It, like Jesus, didn't exist. 4), 5), 6), 7) You're falsely assuming the bible stories are factual, for the 8 millionth time.
From Wikipedia:
It is possible that Dionysian mythology would later find its way into Christianity. There are many parallels between Dionysus and Jesus; both were said to have been born from a virgin mother, a mortal woman, but fathered by the king of heaven, to have returned from the dead, to have transformed water into wine, and to have been liberator of mankind. The modern scholar Barry Powell also argues that Christian notions of eating and drinking "the flesh" and "blood" of Jesus were influenced by the cult of Dionysus. Certainly the Dionysus myth contains a great deal of cannibalism, in its links to Ino (however, one must note that Dionysian cannibalism has no correlation with self-sacrifice as a means of propitiation). Dionysus was also distinct among Greek gods, as a deity commonly felt within individual followers. In a less benign example of influence on Christianity, Dionysus' followers, as well as another god, Pan, are said to have had the most influence on the modern view of Satan as animal-like and horned.[15] It is also possible these similarities between Christianity and Dionysiac religion are all only representations of the same common religious archetypes. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the story of Jesus turning water into wine is only found in the Gospel of John, which differs on many points from the other Synoptic Gospels. That very passage, it has been suggested, was incorporated into the Gospel from an earlier source focusing on Jesus' miracles.[16]
According to Martin A. Larson in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Osiris was the first savior, and all soteriology in the region borrowed this religion, directly and indirectly, including Mithraism and Christianity, from an Osirian-Dionysian influence. As with their common dying and resurrected saviors, they all share common sacraments, ostensibly grounded in their reliance on seasonal cereal agriculture, having adopted the rituals with the food itself; Larson notes that Herodotus uses the names Osiris and Dionysus interchangeably and Plutarch identifies them as the same, while the name was anciently thought to originate from the place Nysa, in Egypt (now Ethiopia).
The subject of Dionysus is complex and baffling. The problem is further complicated by the fact that he appears in at least four characters: first, as the respectable patron of the theatre and the arts; second, as the effeminate, yet fierce and phallic mystery-god of the bloodthirsty Maenads; third, as the mystic deity in the temples of Demeter; and fourth, as the divine savior who died for mankind and whose body and blood were symbolically eaten and drunk in the eucharist of the Orphic-Pythagorean celibates. Beyond this, almost all barbarian nations had their own versions of Dionysus under many names. And yet there is a simpler explanation: Dionysus, Bromius, Sabazius, Attis, Adonis, Zalmoxis, Corybas, Serapis, and Orpheus himself are replicas of their grand prototype Osiris; and the variations which appear among them resulted from the transplantation of the god from one country to another, and reflect simply the specific needs of his multifarious worshipers (37-38).
I've brought this up in almost every thread in which you've mentioned something like this, and you haven't addressed my point once. Thatis, if god is omniscient then he already knows who will seek him and who wont. Thus, it would be completely pointless to make it difficult.
Realism can't have levels to it. If you believe in anything unreal, then you can't be a realist at all.
- Login to post comments
Offline Okay, thank for clarifying. Just because we don't all believe the same thing does not mean NOTHING is ultimate. You are basing what is true on what you observe to be true in the world. I am basing it on my studies, during which I have been searching for ULTIMATE truth, which I believe exists, and I believe knowledge of it is attainble. Just because everyone has not attained it does not mean it does not exist.
It's not just that some people don't get it, 2/3rds of everyone on earth doesn't get it. No, you're right, those muslims are all delusional. jesus is obviously the real ultimate truth.
Voice of the Martyrs, Moody radio.
And, of course, those accounts are from completely unbiased sources.
They all killed themselves and heavens gate is now no more. Same with the Jim Jones cult. People enter into Christianity in some countries, knowing this could be their fate, yet the enter anyway because of deep conviction which overrides their "survival instinct."
Exactly, which should tell you that those christians in Saudi Arabia are as deluded as the people at Jonestown.
Have you ever had a literature class? As an English major, I had several, and we talked about timeless truths all the time. Do you think all literary professors are wrong?
You're using literature professors to support the bible as truth? You can't be serious. Well, my brother's a medical equipment salesman, have you ever taken a medical equipment sales class? I talk about atheism with my brother, and the rejection of the bible as the word of god comes up all the time.
I can just as easily say you are falsly assuming the Bible is false, which puts us at a stalemate.
For the purposes of debate, yes. But, as always, the burden of proof lies with you.
You cannot get past this: if there is a God you feel you would be obliged to understand every nuance of his character. Since God is greater and smarter than us, we cannot always know why he does things, however, we make a choice to trust him or not regardless. A child doesn't always know why his parent is punishing him, doesn't understand how hard the parent works to take care of him, does not know how much his parent loves him, he is not yet mature enough to understand. When it comes to God, we are the children, he is the parent, so the same maturity issues get in the way of us fully understanding him. But, like the earthly child who trust his parents to take care of him, so to, do we trust our heavenly father to take care of us
The parent metaphor is so horrible, and has been obliterated so many times here that I'm not going to bother with it.
I don't get your point.
My point was, one cannot be a "hardcore realist." One can be a realist, or not, that's it.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
- Login to post comments
Offline Before I respond to any more posts, I wanted to tell you a little more about me. I gather, as you all seem to be intelligent people, that academic qualifications are important to you. I want you to know that even intelligent people can come to the conclusion that Jesus is real. So, read on....
I have a B.S. in English and a minor in Creative Writing. I attended the honors college at my university, and graduated summa cum laude, with Honors, and with Academic Honors in Writing. In order to graduate with honors I was required to take several humanities classes, genetics, and others. My humanites classes included comparative mythology and study of ancient literature. I also took several philosophy classes in college, and every time was singled out by my professor who suggested I adopt a philosphy major or minor but I declined to do so. I got a 720 on the analytical portion of the GRE, which is not perfect, but I believe it is respectable.
I have been a procedural database programmer for 5 years.
I test as a “whole brain” person. I do not favor the right or the left. I use both equally. In other words, I process the world both creatively and logically…the two sides of my brain work like a tag team. The logic/analysis is balanced with creativity and vice versa (which could be why it makes no sense to me when all you do is focus on logic, never giving the right brain a chance to pop its little head in and voice it’s opinion.)
The point is not to “brag” but to show you that I am no dummy. Odds are, academically, I am not that different than you folks. Odds are also, that I am in good company as far as computer programmers go.
I’ve been spending too much time here, immersed in the conflict which can be addicting and therefore unhealthy. When I drop off the radar, I hope other theists come here and pick up the baton, but like me, they will probably only stay for a short while, and then move on.
Anyway, hopefully you will read the things I have said in these forums within the context of what I just told you above about my academic and professional careers. I am not simple minded. I have been blessed with a gifted mind, as many of you have also. And my gifted mind has come to the thoughtful conclusion that it is in fact possible that there is a God, that that God did in fact walk this earth 2000 years ago, and that He continues to be our savior today.
I walked into the baptismal during college. I walked into it with doubts in hand. I did not discard them prior to, I took them into the water with me, and I walked out of the water with them. Accepting Jesus never once required me to wipe my mind clean of reason, logic, or knowledge. I came to that acceptance after much learning, much thinking, much observation, much comparison: all of which led me to this conclusion—Jesus is trustworthy. I can trust him with my life, I can trust him with my doubts, I can trust him to know the answers when I do not.
Finally, I will tell you this…you cannot find and understand God thru logic alone. You must also employ your understanding of the creative process. God is creative…he created this universe. Therefore, to understand him you must take creativity and the creative process into consideration. Your understanding of the creative process in humans can help you understand God, and his word…the Bible. In other words, use your whole brain when reading the Bible, not just the left, not just the right: Both.
- Login to post comments
Offline Muslim: MUHAMMAD
OK, we’ll just have to see that for ourselves. The complete truth of the Bible seems to contain: the whole Universe being created in 6 days- plants being created before the sun, having no UV rays to drive photosynthesis and vitamin generation processes - bats being birds, hares chewing cud - caucasian, black, red, asian human races coming from the same two ancestors.
slaves should be beaten... and it’s OK to drive a slave into a coma, if he wakes up a few days after that, you haven’t done anything wrong
I can’t imagine anyone there saying something like I’ve got a feeling that I have to believe in something called Jesus.
That was just the whole point, you know. But I can imagine you right in the middle of Saudi Arabia saying Mom and dad, I know you worship Muhammad, but I think it would be better if we’d worship Jesus. Unfortunately, I can imagine you getting shot afterwards as well.
Muhammad- Already addressed, not like Jesus.
Dyonissos- Will have to look into
Mithras- From what I understand we have text fragments explaining Mithras, however, not a comprehensive work to compare to the Bible. So, there was more speculation (and continues to be) required in order to piece together Mithras…So, it makes more since for me to trust the detailed text that has been around for centuries, correct? That would be the logical thing to do.
Ghilgamesh (not actually a religion, but you’ll get my point)- Don’t know this guy.
Jonestown and many many other such cults- Jonestown? Jesus didn’t kill his followers, so no valid comparison there.
Do you actually think your Jesus is unique?
The difference is that I can be convinced through reason and evidence, but I’m not so sure about you.
Actually, the complex mythical developments are bound only to the person of Jesus.
Jesus biography only takes up 4 of the NT books, the rest are about completely different things. Considering that the 4 official gospels are almost indisputably copied and adapted one after another, well, there you have it.
Well, wait a minute, you are saying the parts about Paul were not mythically adapted, so…Paul had knowledge of the gospels apparently. Which versions do you think he was reading from? How “adapted” were they, at that point. And…if he was reading from a different version…wouldn’t we notice more inconsistancies between his messages and the messages in the gospels?
Also, do you not believe people 2000 years ago had the ability to record history, or no? Were they just too dumb to do it successfully, without fudging all the details? Is everything we know, historically speaking, about humanity wrong, because…given your argument, ancient peoples just weren’t capable of passing on historical information without screwing up? Why are we bothering to study ANY ancient text, then, anyway? If the a given text wasn’t penned the exact time the author was thinking it…if it is not the author’s ORIGINAL text, can we not trust the text at all to provide any hint of historical accuracy?
They didn’t. Surely that kind of thing wouldn’t have gone unnoticed. Christianity was kind of an obscure cult until late.
I only wish to ask why some (apostles, Mary Magdalene) had access to much better evidence of Jesus (because nothing beats direct evidence) than I have. And yet I’m held up to the same standards as them, receiving the same penalty for disbelieving.
- Login to post comments
Offline I test as a “whole brain” person. I do not favor the right or the left. I use both equally. In other words, I process the world both creatively and logically…the two sides of my brain work like a tag team. The logic/analysis is balanced with creativity and vice versa (which could be why it makes no sense to me when all you do is focus on logic, never giving the right brain a chance to pop its little head in and voice it’s opinion.)
Unfortunately, we cannot use "both sides" in the same way to view reality. Reality isn't interpretable, unfortuinately, nor is it a matter of desire. It is pure fact. Do you dispute that we have two legs and two arms? Can you say "It's my interpretation of reality that we actually have three arms and one leg" ? There has to be a clear distinction between where the left hemisphere goes into action and where the right one takes over. And discussing about something that is supposed to be the basis of reality simply isn't the job of the right hemisphere.
On the same lines you can't say that men and women are perfectly identical from all perspectives, regardless of how pollitically correct you wish to be.
Anyway, hopefully you will read the things I have said in these forums within the context of what I just told you above about my academic and professional careers. I am not simple minded. I have been blessed with a gifted mind, as many of you have also. And my gifted mind has come to the thoughtful conclusion that it is in fact possible that there is a God, that that God did in fact walk this earth 2000 years ago, and that He continues to be our savior today.
We can't prove that there is "no god" as well. Frankly the only type of belief I am unable to combat is deism. What we're trying to do is take out those beliefs that are undoubtedly false.
I walked into the baptismal during college. I walked into it with doubts in hand. I did not discard them prior to, I took them into the water with me, and I walked out of the water with them. Accepting Jesus never once required me to wipe my mind clean of reason, logic, or knowledge. I came to that acceptance after much learning, much thinking, much observation, much comparison: all of which led me to this conclusion—Jesus is trustworthy. I can trust him with my life, I can trust him with my doubts, I can trust him to know the answers when I do not.
I'd really want an answer to my previous post, related to the reliability of Jesus and his holy book. I've reached the conclusion that the only way to keep both Jesus and logic is to reduce Jesus to a deist symbol (I never said it is impossible)... but that means that most biblical teachings are simply consultative, and that "salvation" is also a redundant concept.
Finally, I will tell you this…you cannot find and understand God thru logic alone. You must also employ your understanding of the creative process. God is creative…he created this universe. Therefore, to understand him you must take creativity and the creative process into consideration. Your understanding of the creative process in humans can help you understand God, and his word…the Bible. In other words, use your whole brain when reading the Bible, not just the left, not just the right: Both.
My creative process (see the thread named "Killing in the name of..." has reached the conclusion that religion as we have it today was simply a social tool. Also, checking my apocalyptic blog (http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com), which I admit is rather short, but promise to lengthen it, you will also notice that I did use creativity, as much as I have, to re-create different religion-related stories from a different perspective. A perspective which should be supposed to draw people AWAY from religion rather than towards it.
So your argument from creativity is duoble-edged.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
- Login to post comments
Offline I’m guessing you understand what I mean when I say, how about reading Genesis again, figuratively.
Why stop at Genesis, why not the whole thing?
slaves should be beaten... and it’s OK to drive a slave into a coma, if he wakes up a few days after that, you haven’t done anything wrong
What scripture are you citing here? I am unaware of it. God does not approve of everything that happened in the Bible, somethings are recorded so that we can learn from other’s mistakes.
Exodus 21:20-21
I believe your lack of imagination has led you to severely limit your worldview, because in your lack of imagination, you limit God. (And not, this does not mean God is imagined, it means, we can discover truths via the process of imagination…since you seem to be unwilling to do that, I believe you are missing out on some profound truths.)
That is the lamest answer I have ever heard. Sugarfree, I too have been tested and have the capacity to use both the right and left sides of my brain. This does not make me unique...it simply supports the findings that women are usually able to do this. I lack neither imagination nor creativity and I am perfectly capable of understanding both how and why you imagine your god to be real. Unfortunately, that still does not prove he/she IS real. I can imagine Santa Claus too; doesn't make him real. Truth is not proven by imagination.
- Login to post comments
Based on what grounds?
No, they don't. And the best proof for that is the existence of instincts: feeding, self-preservation, etc.
Children do not "assume" anything, and they are fully aware that they can get damaged beyond possible healing. What seems to you as "assuming" immortality is simply the fact that they have not yet learned to associate the term "death" with what their instincts tell them.
And you have reached that conclusion based on what evidence or example, exactly? Because judging by my life, or my sister's life (she is 7 years old now, and fully understands the concept of death), or by the life of almost all my friends or family, this is not the case.
What you say might happen if you force things to go through such a way that the "child" is only introduced to the concept of "death" when he's 15-16, or older. But the reason for which that happens is a bit different: it's not fighting against the concept of death, but fighting against the concept that the ones you trusted have deceived you.
Death doesn't/won't/didn't go against anything that feels right to me. And I'm sure I'm not the only such example on this site.
Response from the argument of plurality: You are far more deceived than any of us, for we can be swayed to believe in the one true god, Allah, through natural understanding and proof. You, however, are so caught in the lies of your false god, the one only the devil could have brought to the face of the Earth, that you will never be able to see that there is no salvation except Allah, through his prophet Muhammad.
There you have it. Another argument sent directly to the recycle bin through the power of Plurality(tm).
Response from the argument of plurality: But the one true god Allah had predicted long beforehand that there will be other, false prophecies. They will come to happen, as even the devil does some good from time to time in search for more adepts. Your puny and vague predictions do not sway us from the one true faith.
There you have it. Another argument sent directly to the recycle bin through the power of Plurality(tm).
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Generally when someone is cussing at me, there is negativity behind that. There is also usually negativity behind sarcasm. Neither of these have anything to do with so-called dogma.
Yet when some Christians condemn atheists (or other Christians) to hell for not believing in God (or not believing in God in the exact way they do), that's overflowing with positivity?
Sheesh.
"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
Okay, I am definitely sensing a double standard here. For starters, no one has called atheists satanic. Besides, if there is no satan, why does that offend you?
Second, is using the f-word and other cuss words in one's response to another not antagonistic? Because no one has come to my defense when I have been spoken to that way. Also, no one has come to my defense when I have been addressed with biting sarcastic, belittling remarks.
So, is it because I am a Christian that you do not care that I am being antagonized? Do you not see me as your equal?
This double standard speaks much more loudly to me than any logical argument you could ever throw at me. I am taught that all people are equal and deserving of respect regardless of our belief. The conduct on this site tells me we are not all in agreement on that point. You may profess that you believe we are all equal, but your actions say otherwise.
I don't recall cussing you out. How about the posters who have not cussed you out???
Sarcasm as negative?? Purely subjective and in the eye of the beholder. However, sarcasm is usually a response to something that is ridiculous, irrational, and just doesn't make sense. I find sarcasm quite humeroud and positive.
"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."
Sugarfree, I have seen you repeatedly resort to sarcasm and personally attacking your opponent when it appears you have been backed into a corner in a debate. Does this make you a negative person? Does it make you an atheist? Or does it simply make you human like the rest of us?
It does not do any of us any good if we simply run around and agree with each other. I commend you on your efforts to defend your belief, but I recommend that learn the rules of debate and take a critical look at your faith. If you truly believe as you say you do, then your debates should reflect the careful consideration that usually accompanies faith of that magnitude.
In my short experience here, you all seem to be no different...you have a logical argument to refute everything. Besides, if what you are saying is true, why has it been so easy for me to find negativity here? I have looked at many threads that I have not posted on, and I see the same negativity. If nothing else, you make a sport of bashing theists, Christianity in particular. Believe me, in church, we don't spend hours talking about how simple-minded atheist are. If anything, we may learn about how to share Christ's good message with you. We are not angry with you, we care about you.
You guys wish to change the world with your message just as much as we do, but I ask you, what do you offer behind the message? We offer the person of Jesus Christ, who wishes to offer you his quidance and love. As Christians, we have stumbled upon something life changing and great, and out of love, we seek to share it. His magnificent character illuminates the negativity here, which explains why some of us are able to see it, and others not.
First, we offer reason, logic, and humanitarianism. Compassion for life right now in this world and respect for knowledge and science. We offer what is true right now. We don't offer mysticism, myth, false hope, and dogma.
Second, Great job of sidestepping my points. Again, I could find negativity anywhere if I look hard enough. By telling me I have an answer to everything you easily avoid addressing the points I make. I think other posters on this thread have called this to your attention. This is just dishonest and you are stooping to what you are complaining about. All I did was point out to you a reasonable and scientifically supported reason for your thoughts about atheists being negative. I didn't label you or put you in a category. At not point have I cussed at you or called you a name. Sorry for having some type of explanation that is not based on mysticism. You can keep believing in the comfort that there is a being that will save you, while I will continue to deal with some of the uncertainties of life.
"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."
I am not sure if this applies to what you are trying to argue here, but I am not going to deny that Godly truth can be found in other religions. It’s just that, (no, I haven’t studied eeeeeeevery philosophy on earth) given the philosophies that have been presented to me throughout my life, Christianity, to me is the most complete truth. I have found that since I decided to put my full trust in Christ, he has continually and faithfully pieced together truths for me so that this experience called life has started make a whole lot more since.
It just seems funny that when an atheist examines a Christian's arguments and find them wanting, the Christian accuses the atheist of hating him or being negative. However, when the Christian comes off with statements that imply they're better than everyone else because they believe in a God in a certain way, the receivers of the message have to understand that the Christian is warning them because they love them so much.
I was unaware that condecension equaled love in the Christian mindset. I don't think it's Biblical but Paul may have rewritten things to let you off the hook .
"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
sugarfree, you continue to carp about what you perceive as atheists' negativity, as well as the sarcasm some of them employ. Yet you remain blind to your own negativity and sarcasm -- whether in addressing atheism, or other religions. Recall (once again!) your haughty attitude when I first asked you about islam and mormonism. What could be more negative than you blurting "false prophecies", then dodging the issue from that point onward?
Did jesus predict your hypocrisy?
There are no theists on operating tables.
"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."
sugarfree, I was a Christian for close to twenty years and studied the bible almost daily during that time. I had no choice. It was forced upon me by my parents and school.
In the last stage of my religious mental illness, I was a charismatic. My friends and I all thought we were "god warriors." We sensed Satan and his demons behind every bush. We prayed in tongues, discerned spirits and lived our lives according to our own reality, a reality which didn't exist.
Once I stopped believing, I stopped having paranormal experiences, many of which were negative and involved Satan and his minions. Now that I can be honest with myself, I never sensed or saw anything. I only interpreted natural occurrences or coincidences according to my worldview at the time. If I was sensing Satan and a curtain billowed, a demon was doing it. I never thought to look and see if the window was open or if there was a stiff breeze. Hell, I sensed and "saw" demons all the time.
When I came to my senses, these "paranormal" experiences stopped completely. This is one of my favorite quotes because it so epitomizes what happened to me:
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it doesn't go away."-- Philip K. Dick
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Why does me talking about hell make you think that I think I am better than you? Also, why do you find it hard to believe that I might care about you? Just curious.
Wow, you say that my answer is too simplistic, and yet you give an even more simplistic one as a reply. Essentially what you are describing here is your inability to imagine non-existence, as a kid. Well, I'm just fine with that, and I respect your condition, but that doesn't mean you should extend it to all the others. Once you have an opinion, first ask yourself whether that is an UNCOMMON condition, and do not go forth assuming that everyone else fits into it.
Why should that be your natural assumption? I have no idea. I wasn't raised in the same manner as you were. Perhaps you are the lucky one to develop mental faculties differently from others. Or perhaps that is common where you live. It surely isn't where I live, though. Parents here are not afraid to introduce children to concepts such as pain, bodily deterioration or death.
As a personal example: the first time that I remember to have witnessed death directly and uncensored was at age 4 (I can't remember anything that goes before that particular age), when my family was slaying a pig, at Christmas. Interestingly, though, at that time I remember having already developed the concept of death, and my questions were more regarding the process: why does blood drip out? where is blood stored? what does loss of blood cause? and why? etc.
Yes, of course, I have no certainty that my interpretation of what's going on through her mind is accurate. Through her questions and words, though, I reached that conclusion as the most plausible.
What you said, though, kind of supports my statements above. So does what you said later on:
Baffled I always am at people not noticing the obvious at all times: we are different, extremely different, both in physical and in mental respects (I will make an abstraction from the fact that mental finally reduces to physical as well). You didn't seem to take this into consideration a few paragraphs ago, but you do take it into consideration now.
By the way, I really don't like counsellors...
You have found relief only through belief in a crucified sky-daddy. I need no such fantasy.
Yes.
I'm not quoting the Qu'ran, but merely I'm using your own argument against you, from a different perspective. What I intend to prove is that almost any argument a theist brings in favor of/against a religion works just as well with/against any religion
No, it doesn't apply. It's completely unrelated.
But you do realize that for other people it's other religions that "make more sense", just the way christianity makes to you. That leaves us in the same dillemma as before, since we still have absolutely no way of determining which religion is the true one (the ONLY true one, since they are all mutually exclusive).
OK, back on topic now.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
...another example of how we atheists are supposed to take advice from christians that they don't follow themselves.
JesusLovesYou should follow his own advice and doubt the existence of Jesus. Back then the average life span was about 35. Odds are that if Jesus was not executed he would have died of ill health not long thereafter. So, in all likelihood, Jesus is dead and dead people are incapable of love and so Jesus does not love me or anyone else. Take your own advice and ask, how can I trust the bible when it says so many highly unlikely (to put it mildly)things?
Actually, this is generally untrue. "Person B", the creationist, often doesn't get the exact same PhD. He often gets a degree in engineering, or some other field that has nothing to do with biology.
Then fundies like yourself, who are unable to grasp the difference, try to equate an engineering degree with a biology degree.
Just because you have a degree doesn't mean that you are able to speak with authority on any field at all.
LOL
You really don't get it, do you?
When I have my PhD in psychology, will I somehow gain the power to be an engineer? Or a medical doctor?
Will I have the same knowledge as a PhD in history, or mathematics?
Think about what you're saying.
No, what the atheist does is point out that a biologist likely knows more about biology than an engineer.
I'm sure this is how it all looks to you, in your ignorance.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Wrong again. Evolution is a naturalistic explanation. Christianity involves a supernatural claim. They are not equitable for this reason alone.
Not really. You clearly don't know what you're talking about here, but that doesn't stop you from asserting, does it?
You still can't spell 'atheist' correctly, can you, even after being corrected?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Comments like this are so dishonest, and even you had to temper your statement because of your realization of this.
You simply do not know as much about other religions than you do about the religion you were raised in. You're really, honestly, not making a choice, but simply following a pre-programmed blueprint set up by your parents, your family and your culture.
If there were no correlation between religious belief and geography, then you could be taken seriously. Why not just admit that a very big part of the reason you are a christian is geographical?
This is more nonsense... you should say that your interpretations of the parts of the bible you pay attention to, are accurate predictors... and then you should realize how circular that is...
Right. And why is that?
Answer that, and then apply your answer to yourself.
Do you really, honestly, think that the Muslim doesn't come up with the same desparate rationalization?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Most atheists look to the real world for the truth, which is outside of us.
You should read the Book of Mormon some time. I have. It's a much more interesting story than the Bible, and it's clear that its author also has an understanding of human nature. However, that does not make it true.
Atheism is not a philosophy, it is the lack of certain philosophies. Nor does atheism inherently exclude all philosophies. For instance, Buddists are atheists.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
The discussion wasn't about whether or not we are immortal, but about how we come to understand and cope with death. I'm not assuming that my view is right, or the "normal" one, I'm only asking you to notice that yours has just about the same weight as mine. Once we agree with this, and it seems that we have, there's no need to push forward.
I did not assume your was uncommon, I was trying to negate your indirect claim that it should be common.
Nevermind. Same as before, it was an attempt to stop you from making that generalization that a child assumes immortality until proven mortal. Same goes for the other points you missed.
I'm not going to argue much on you here. After all it's your choice, and I cannot do anything but respect it. My question is what was the real reason for which you chose that particular religion and not another one? Since you yourself have indirectly implied that there's not much difference between different holy books.
So far you have had no regrets... is there any reason why you should regret choosing one religion over the other? Perhaps in a radicalist state, but definitely not in the US. Should you have been born in Saudi Arabia, I'm sure your posts would have been an identical copy, but with the words Allah, Islamism, Muhammad placed accordingly, hence my original "responses from the argument of plurality".
Atheists never said they exclude philosophies, they only said they exclude religions and gods.
In my opinion you are wrong about making a choice. Everyone is forced to make a choice out of simply the nature of religion. The only thing that most people aren't aware about is the fact that the choices aren't only religion and atheism. The choices are: religion 1, religion 2, religion 3, ..., religion n and only then atheism. Any religion until now is just as exclusive towards others as atheism is exclusive towards all of them. you say you'd rather take a risk, but what you don't realize (and what makes you confident in your choice) is that you have just as many chances to choose wrong as I as an atheist have. Your religion certainly doesn't stand out of the crowd by anything.
The problem that atheists identify with this is, and I will quote you directly: "commit to what I believe is right" - this commitment is the problem. You waste time and effort only for the chance of 1 in a few thousand that you are right (because that's how many religions are/were). An atheist doesn't waste that time (unless he's a debater like us here - joking).
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Well, there are not absolute moral truths. I pick and have picked morals with which I am comfortable, specifically ones which emphasize compassion, based upon family, cultural influences, and personal desires.
And you know this how? By guessing? Have you read it?
It is my positive rejection of Christian dogma that you are picking up on, not my atheism. That does effect my worldview, but it does not exclude me from considering other philosophies. I have considered and rejected several theistic systems, as well as several non-theistic ones. Can you say the same?
I really am serious about recommending the BoM. You can probably get it for free from a Mormon, and it's not nearly as dry and incoherent as the Bible. Who knows, maybe you'll even find something important in it. It's really quite satisfying to have a reason for rejecting a religion, other than ignorance.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
This is just more BS. You're a christian because you grew up in a christian culture... the justification for being a christian only comes after you grow up with the pre programming....
Muslims give the same arguments you give... they can even cite Jesus as a reason for being a Muslim....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Thank you! LOL.
Listen, what I'm here trying to tell you is that there is this man who was loving, kind, and just, who predicted his death beforehand, who died and came back to life, thus conquering death. Still, this is not enough evidence to you for God. Must God repeat the same scenario every generation to prove his existence? Then, might you believe? If you saw it with your own eyes? Or would you say, Jesus had a twin all along and we didn't know it, what a deceiver he was. A person can't believe in Jesus half way. You must either believe he was God incarnate, assume he was a crazy man, or think he was is fiction. I am placing my bets on the seemingly, most outlandish of them all, the first one. Why, because, ironically, after thorough study, it makes sense. Now, you can compare religions all you want, saying they're all the same and all that, but as for me, I have chosen to allow myself to look like a fool in front of people like you because of what Jesus has done for me.
I have more access to this type of knowledge than any other time in history, and even with that, I have still come to the obvious conclusion.
Christianity is the obvious conclusion? You can explain that to 4 billion people.
There are Christians all over the world. It is dying in places like Europe, but coming alive in places like China, so who are you to say I would or wouldn't be a Christian if I had been born somewhere else.
Over here in China, Christianity is sort of taking off because religion pisses off the government. I have been to Chinese churches, they are very nice. The people don't actually believe that a guy walked on water and turned water into wine and died for their sins.
Also, yes, geography has absolutely everything to do with religion. Admit it. In Saudi Arabia, Islam is law. To be a Saudi citizen, you have to be Muslim. So your parents would be Muslim, so well...you would pretty much have 100% chance of being Muslim, thus making it no suprise that the religious diversity in Saudi Arabia looks like this:
Sunni Islam-100%
I am backed up by scholars, teachers, other Christians. And isn't it true that good literature manages to keep itself alive while the stuff that's not so good ends up in the garbage heap. The Bible has proven it's relevance for thousands of years and will continue to do so regardless of what you or I say.
There are holy books that have outlasted the Bible for mellenia. The Vedic scripture predates even the Old Testament by a good few thousand years.
Listen, what I'm here trying to tell you is that there is this man who was loving, kind, and just, who predicted his death beforehand, who died and came back to life, thus conquering death.
Jesus' ressurection is just mythology. There is no way possible a body could survive rigor mortis for three days.
still, this is not enough evidence to you for God
Such condescending arrogance! Honestly, for the hundred thousandth time, what evidence is there that the bible is valid which does not resort to you reasoning an a circle? Ever heard of Occam's Razor? Standard principle in science: The simplest explanation is always correct. The simplest is not the simplest to understand, but rather the one with the least presuppositions. In this case, the Jesus story as posited by Christian theologians fails over and over again. Virgin birth? Forget it. That's been invalid for 300 years since the discovery of the egg cell in 1724. Resurrection...well, we all know that God's son dying for our sins is ripped off other mythology like Dionysius.
. Must God repeat the same scenario every generation to prove his existence? Then, might you believe? If you saw it with your own eyes? Or would you say, Jesus had a twin all along and we didn't know it, what a deceiver he was.
If I saw it before my own eyes I would probably believe. But such an elaborate scenario seems ridiculously unnecessary, in effect, reducing God to a pathetic conjurer of cheap tricks. Turning water into wine? What are you, fucking crazy? All he has to do is have his voice boom down from the heavens and everyone will believe. But this, of course, is ridiculous. The idea that God could speak is a non sequiter because speech requires air in one's lungs, and if God is not composed of matter, he cannot speak because that requires the conduction of sound, which is made of matter, which...
person can't believe in Jesus half way. You must either believe he was God incarnate, assume he was a crazy man, or think he was is fiction.
Mad, bad or God? A shitty trillema. What about an explanation that you would give to every other religious prophet in history. He was deluded. Muhammed recieved the revelations for the Quran for 23 years in Cave Hira from Jibreel. Now 1 billion people follow his message. We could apply the same trillema you set up for Jesus to him easily.
I am placing my bets on the seemingly, most outlandish of them all, the first one. Why, because, ironically, after thorough study, it makes sense. Now, you can compare religions all you want, saying they're all the same and all that, but as for me, I have chosen to allow myself to look like a fool in front of people like you because of what Jesus has done for me.
You haven't justified your religion in any way. You're right for once, it's by far the most outlandish, and it fails Occams Razor. Your statements about "we can compare religions all we want" is just a cop-out to weasal out of the fact that you cannot justify your religion from a rational epistimology.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism