Atheism is irrational, illogical and boring
And kudos to Jenny for enforcing them from the start
That's almost impossible. But you can try
We crossed posts. I thought you were done?
Also - this is the one and only proof they have.
And I am a little sick and tired of your semantics. A religionist such as yourself should have a least a modicum of respect and rather than accuse me of mis-quoting you - stand up and take ownership of your opinions rather than say "I did not say it, god did," or in this case some long dead scribe writing what his boss the head of his church told him to write.
Which is a typical argument from some one who wishes to shove an opinion out there with nothing to back it up.
Sorry, your religion has been proven a lie, there is no such thing as an external god and your semantics are not moving the discussion forward in the slightest.
Good night/morning.
Want to borrow my wooden spoon?
- sandra rinckposted 16 years ago
0The topic of the thread is Theism vs. Atheism.
From Ender's perspective that Atheism is illogical, irrational and boring.
You can site references or logically deduce it. The whole thing is based on perspective and the whole thing is a rabit hole so I wouldn't expect the thread would come to much.
Ender believes the bible is accurate, infallible and complete in its continuity.
-atheist say: The Bible itself is a compilation of eyewitness hearsay about a particular even that may or may not have ever happened but there is not other evidence to suggest that it did happen.
-theist say: but we have a written account from credible eye witnesses of the testimony of Christ resurrection and written in the bible and is true beyond a reasonable doubt.
-atheist says: how is it possible that these were eye witness testimonies of an account that was written at the earliest 45 years after Jesus' death. Giving some benefit of the doubt to it's accuracy of the witness.
-logically you would think that these Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were either about the same age or older ( I go with latter). So by this time these men were well into their 70-80's when recounting the event.
-logic says: it is a fact that most people who are in their 70's and 80's in modern days don't have the same mental capacity to recount the events from 50 years prior.
-logic also says that the life expectancy of people living then was about 50-55 if not earlier due to disease and famine. Even today with modern medicine the average life expectancy is about 65-70 and possibly more if you have access to medicine.
-logically: the mortality rate of women giving birth was remarkably high. Even today the death rate of women dying in child birth is high and only about 1% occur in devolved countries (meaning they have access to health care).
So the likely hood that Mary survived one birth is pretty amazing (I will go as far as to call it a miracle) let alone another 4-5 to top which seems highly improbable.
Theist say: that is because god performed miracles.
Atheist says: yes miracles happen every day but there is a logical explanation behind them and it does not include a magical god living in the sky.
Theist say: how do you account for the accuracy of the names of regions given in the bible and their current names being a match (or something like this)
Atheist say: because it doesn't take a genius to to know what river you live by. Ask any school aged child about rivers in their geography class, they are well equipped to understand it.
Theist says: how do you explain the amazing accuracy.
Atheist says: because even today most writers use actual geographic locations as reference points even in fictional stories to give the "real" appeal.
Theist says: how do you explain the flood that was well documented and been proven by science to have occurred around 6000bc?
Atheist says: given the fact that these people in the bible lived in Egypt. Moses grew up there...it is not a great mystery to understand that they took the story of the flood of the walls of the Egypt.
Theist says: Noah and his family were the only survivors of the flood because god got angry and destroyed them and Noah gave them a warning but they didn't listen and this happened 6000 years ago.
Atheist say: Not only is that illogical but it is not in anyways a fact. Science tells us that there were floods "great" floods occurring in the area and around the world but it did not happen all at one time because the sea level records indicate that there were fluctuations occurring everywhere but at different periods in time and most "great" floods occurred much, much longer the 6000 years ago.
Theist say: but I don't believe in science. Science is not a fact so you cannot use science as means to disprove the bible.
Atheist say: yes I realize you won't accept this as a fact because theism tell you that you cannot look at other sources other then the written documents of the Bible as reliable sources of gods infallible word.
-logic says: if using the bible is the only way to disprove the bible's historical accuracy and infallible word of god, then you might consider that 6000 years ago... how long it would have taken anyone to build those pyramids?
-facts: the pyramids of Egypt where not build in a day nor were many of them completed with in one persons lifetime and the work was passed on to the next generations until the whole of the pyramid was complete. So already we are going back at least another 500 years (and I am being generous to the believing community on this).
Then you would have to take into account how long it would have taken for them to even come up with the material to build even one. Let alone the "knowledge" of engineering as well as formulating mathematics the tools to engineer them and so on...
Theist says: that is because angels helped them and blah, blah, blah...
Atheist say: stop making up more fairytales to make it true when it is fallible in almost every way.
The only fact there is about the bible is that it a compilation of other stories (because we all know how the Jews loved to tell stories) told through the ages but with a banana phone twist...
Instead of it still being told as a story in which many people including myself can take a lot from in in the philosophy department, it is being taught as true and for that...
I quite literally am an Atheist. I think it is absolutely ridiculous and shameful that a fictional story is being taught to people as true and real.
I think that theist should shut their mouths about why the bible will not be taught in schools when it is because they have declared it to be the absolute truth about life and got people all sorts of fearful and causing all sorts of unnecessary harm to themselves and to each other and also the cause for strife and atheism.
What a shame too really because if it wasn't for that, it would be likely that the Bible would be part of the reading criteria in public schools.
But now it never will.He is right Sandra. Although there is some argument that it starts with the conception rather than birth.
Either way - it is designed to assume something that did not exist and yet another way the church seeks to control knowledge. But that is another argument.Actually I was waiting for that response just so I could give him more proof that Christianity is based off of pagan principals and astrology.
And common era being the age of pieces as depicted by the fish. BCE was the age of Aquarius and so on and so forth.
But I will agree with your final statement.
Well I got a bit of an awakening a couple years ago that I finally *think* I understand what Mark had been saying...
"It was not god." and I think Mark knows what I am referencing, if you could remember that far back.
It is sorta troublesome though because I know the expression yet oppression has its way again. Thanks Jewels. Thanks Mark I do indeed.
Prove it.
Way too many of these faith-based statements to have a sensible conversation with you people.
Christianists are funny, I will give you that. I think the anti BIKINI muslimists are probably funnier though.
You are so scared that your beliefs are wrong you will lie through your back teeth and thruth be told - if you read any history book - do just about anything to perpetuate your beliefs.
It is people such as yourself who have conclusively proven to me that the christian religion is garbage and a worthless belief system. No one follows the "rules," but they are very happy laying down those rules and insisting others follow them.
SO they will be saved.
Thank you.
Do you think there might be a slim chance that "christian sources," are a little biased?
The almost total lack of supporting evidence is a hint here.
OK, Just one more to make you more eager for what lies ahead
The Third and last in this series.
Thanks Eric, they were nice.
My Grandfather was a verger for several of the larger churches in London. Not sure what the equivalent word is in US churches, but this is a caretaker for the church property. Not clergy.
The wealth buried under these churches is pretty impressive. Gold chalices, jewel encrusted robes, gold bullion. Massive wealth - and this is apart from the wealth held in property. The wealth of the church is always a closely guarded secret, and this is why zeitgeist makes so much common sense.
The churches are very heavily involved in the banking system.
Edit - I am not talking about a rickety wooden church in a southern backwater - I am talking about the catholic and CoE churches. Wealth, power and politics dood.
Maybe it takes an irrational statement to get through to an irrational mind/minds that do not see truth. Possibly the grenade wasn't tactful, I agree. Maybe if you don't know how many enemies are on the other side of the wall, you toss the grenade "just in case". Afterall, the rules change in a grenade situation!
I realize what you wrote was a joke though have you ever considered not tossing the grenade just in case.
nite, nite.
Me too.
Good morning, all! I got up early and have just spent the last 2½ hours catching up with the thread. I think we did well to change the topic to the new and more interesting proposition. However, it also opened the flood gates to many of the old, tired, posturing arguments. Jenny - hurry back
Ender has several times quoted the argument that Jesus, to make such claims about himself, either had to be truly the son of God or a madman. This argument was used by CS Lewis in 'Mere Christianity' and it convinced me when I was about 17. It was also used by GK Chesterton in The Everlasting Man, another fine read. But there are two issues:
1. Both Chesterton and Lewis were addicted to paradox as a way to 'logically' force a position by showing its opposite to be untenable: He had to be mad or god. Clearly he wasn't mad. Therefore he was god. Neat.
2. But it only works in the immediate company of the man, for those who actually heard him make these claims. For everyone else, the question remains - did he really make these claims for himself, or were they bolted on by later reporters? I don't think we have established that yet.Horus. Welcome to the dark side.
But you have not offered any "facts," in your arguments and have, as far as I can tell, just walked away from them. Other than to offer yet another apology for Christians reference. You guys need to look up the word "sorry."
I have ruled the whole astronomy/Biblical prophecy/miracles conversation as off-topic for now.
If you want it to become on-topic, propose a statement which you want accepted as fact (a proposition) along with some supporting evidence for it. Both sides will have their say, and it will be accepted, rejected or amended during the debate.
I try to ignore posts on a particular topic once I have ruled it out of order, because the thread would be three times as long if I filled it with my posts saying "Cut it out - again! That's off topic - I told you already!"
People generally either pipe down on something or make it a proper part of the debate on their own once I mention it once or twice.
This one has just dragged on and on, for some reason.
I even suggested a proposition about prophecy, so that it could become part of the debate, but nobody has taken up the cause. Maybe it is easier to blast one another and not listen ... ?
Which is the point of having rules in the first place
Jenny
Hi Jenny,
Only had time to skim through - apart from work, we found an orphaned kitten, so have been busy.
We established that Jesus was a historical figure.
With the historical accuracy thing, it looks like we moved on from the OT, as a point that will never be agreed.
The NT, on the other hand, has been accepted as a good historical source, albeit without the divine aspect. Of course, this does not imply literal accuracy.
EDIT: Just seen PG's post - agreed - there has not been enough attention paid to whether the acts of Jesus occurred as he said they did.
I would like to suggest that the NT cannot be used as proof as prophecy for the NT - only OT is acceptable.
I also noticed that Glendon mentioned Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius as sources - they are very weak sources, and are based on hearsay. Josephus asserts that Jesus existed, but it is believed, even by biblical scholars, that the references to divinity were a later addition - I did provide a peer reviewed source earlier
We agreed it is a credible historical source only where it backed up by other documents. I think
One point to make here though:
If Jesus was a real person, and if he performed all the miracles he was supposed to have done. Bringing people back from the dead, turning water into wine etc.
Can we not agree that some one of this magnificence would have attracted a lot of popular attention.
So - does it not seem a little suspect that there are so few references to this person outside the religious texts.
All we have so far is a cup saying "Jesus the magician," and a bit of adulterated scribbling from Joshepus.
Seems a little fishy to me. So fishy, in fact, that it is reasonable to conclude that he (if he existed) did not do any of the things he is posthumously being credited for.Looks like we are pushing the boundaries, now - that is a major omission.
Maybe 6 and second 6 both have merit. Whilst there is a good case for the Gospels as good primary or secondary accounts, this does not mean that they are true - 30 or 40 years can be a long time when memory and Chinese whispers are involved.
Ask anyone, of a certain age, about Woodstock - apparently half of the world's population was there
Related Discussions
- 336
Atheism is a step of faith.
Why can't Atheists just admit that they have taken a step of faith?
- 2102
Why Do Christians Have Such A Problem With Atheism?
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people, immoral, or mean that we are going to hell. It just means that we think the...
- 28
Theists/Atheists: Can you compliment the opposite belief system?
Theists/Atheists: Can you compliment the opposite belief system?If you're a theist, what's something positive you could say about atheists? If you're an atheist, what's something positive you could say about theists? Please no sarcastic or passive-aggressive responses.
- 22
Can something be a known without belief or religion? Is to know a myth
Does belief require something to be a known (to know) to exist? Does to know something mean there is belief (rather than simply suggest) that it exists? If there are more than a singular known existing as truths, then does a belief system exist? If a belief system truly exists then can practicing...
- 155
Why do people insist on attacking Christianity?
I am a Christian, and an American. I believe in the freedom to believe in anything you choose to (or not). What I don't understand is why Christianity is under attack.I don't necessarily believe in everything the "Church" teaches, but I don't bash other religions, and frankly,...
- 44
Does God Exist? Proof of God from a Christian's Perspective
A lot of skeptics made the following logical fallacy:Skeptics: Can you prove that God exists? if not, then you are illogical if you believe in a God that you can't prove to be existing! This is the fallacy of "False Delimma" Just because you can't prove a theory or belief, doesn't mean...