The Folly of Atheism

[Left Coast]

Name the others, please.

A non-random force other than God.

 

[Left Coast]

Thee aren' "myth" whatever they may be.

They are true or false.

Then you don't know what myth is.

So do you assume all miracle claims are true until proven otherwise? You treat an account that claims a miracle happened on nearly every page as credibly as an account that describes completely mundane, ordinary events?

 

[Catholicus]

Not at all. Debate can reveal to people that their thinking is flawed or incomplete, thus compelling them to change their beliefs.

Only IF we choose our beliefs.

 

[Catholicus]

A non-random force other than God.

No such force exists. As of course you know.
.

 

[Catholicus]

...yes, a professionally vested interest. And more knowledge of the topic than either of us. Meaning if he makes absurd, unsubstantiated, or irrational claims, he loses credibility.





What a brilliant way to not address any of the content of what he says!

There isn't time.

He isn't unbiased.

I have the same opinion of militant / activist Atheists as I have of Nazi propagandists.

Though the Atheists are even crueller.

So, no - I won't "address" his content.

 

[blü 2]

A Real God is a god that can create a universe, then hold it in being.

No, that's a conceptual God, a god of imagination, not a real being. In the real world we have no reason to think any sentient being created the universe.

This distinguishes God from His creations (e.g. a neighbour, the weather) or our sub-creations (e.g a keyboard).

Let me play along with that for a moment.

First, how can I tell whether my neighbor created the universe or not?

And ─ whether or not we can establish that she created the universe ─ what real quality will she have that will show us she's God? Or what real quality will she lack that will shows us she isn't?

That's to say, even if she indeed created the universe, how can I tell whether she's merely a superscientist, or actually God?

 

[Catholicus]

No, implausible full stop. If equivalent claims were made in any other religious or allegedly "historical" text, you would correctly write them off as obvious myth not to be taken seriously as history. Or do you take every miracle claim you come across as plausible at face value?

"Myth" ? No - true or false.

Friends of Jesus died for their belief in His resurrection.

E.g. James (butchered by one of the Herods, see Acts of the Apostles) and Simon Peter (butchered by Nero - see oral Christian tradition, to some extent supported by the 1967 excavation of the bones of an elderly man - possibly Simon Peter - from beneath the high altar at St Peter's Basilica on Vatican Hill).

If Jesus did NOT rise from the dead, why did they die for an opinion they knew to be false ? How did they benefit from doing so ?

So perhaps Jesus did rise from the dead after all, eh ?

Of course you will deny their having died for their Christian beliefs.

But what grounds (other than your own bigotry, that masquerades as open-mindedness) do you have for denying the truth of the Acts of the Apostles and ancient oral tradition ?

None, in fact.

People like you have sneered much of the West into its current post-Christian state.

But as people without religious beliefs have low birth rates, much of the West (Western Europe especially) will soon be Muslim in consequence.

Allahu Akbar !

So be Happy, you wise and far-sighted person.

 

[Catholicus]

No, that's a conceptual God, a god of imagination, not a real being. In the real world we have no reason to think any sentient being created the universe.
Let me play along with that for a moment.

First, how can I tell whether my neighbor created the universe or not?

And ─ whether or not we can establish that she created the universe ─ what real quality will she have that will show us she's God? Or what real quality will she lack that will shows us she isn't?

That's to say, even if she indeed created the universe, how can I tell whether she's merely a superscientist, or actually God?

If a sentient being didn't create the universe, Chance did.

Almost as far-fetched as your neighbour having done so.

 

[JJ50]

If a sentient being didn't create the universe, Chance did.

Almost as far-fetched as your neighbour having done so.

Even if that is correct, the Biblical god character would be a very far-fetched sentient being.

 

[Catholicus]

Even if that is correct, the Biblical god character would be a very far-fetched sentient being.

How ?

In being much better and kinder than us ?

 

[JJ50]

How ?

In being much better and kinder than us ?

You are joking, the Biblical god character is evil and hasn't got a kind bone in its structure!

 

[Left Coast]

Only IF we choose our beliefs.

Wrong. Being compelled does not involve choice.

 

[Left Coast]

No such force exists. As of course you know.
.

I'd love for you to actually demonstrate that. Since I don't know that at all.

 

[Left Coast]

There isn't time.

He isn't unbiased.

I have the same opinion of militant / activist Atheists as I have of Nazi propagandists.

Though the Atheists are even crueller.

So, no - I won't "address" his content.

No one is unbiased. So if that's your standard, I dont know why you're on this forum at all. Or why you ever speak to any other humans.

He's a professional historian. You can respond to the substance of what he said, or ignore it and keep pretending there's equivalent evidence for your God as there is for Julius Caesar.

 

[Left Coast]

"Myth" ? No - true or false.

See my questions above. You don't know what myth is.

Friends of Jesus died for their belief in His resurrection.

E.g. James (butchered by one of the Herods, see Acts of the Apostles) and Simon Peter (butchered by Nero - see oral Christian tradition, to some extent supported by the 1967 excavation of the bones of an elderly man - possibly Simon Peter - from beneath the high altar at St Peter's Basilica on Vatican Hill).

Countless people have died for beliefs both you and I would agree are false. So what?

If Jesus did NOT rise from the dead, why did they die for an opinion they knew to be false ? How did they benefit from doing so ?

You assume the only options are that they lied or your myths are true. Like your other black and white thinking, this is also misguided. Isn't it possible they were just...honestly wrong?

So perhaps Jesus did rise from the dead after all, eh ?

Not looking like it.

Of course you will deny their having died for their Christian beliefs.

Not at all.

But what grounds (other than your own bigotry, that masquerades as open-mindedness) do you have for denying the truth of the Acts of the Apostles and ancient oral tradition ?

The grounds I have were already explained. Acts is just part II of the Gospel of Luke - obviously mythological propaganda that contains implausible BS throughout. Like all other myths of other faith traditions that you reject because you recognize they are obviously not to be taken seriously as history.

People like you have sneered much of the West into its current post-Christian state.

The words you're looking for are "reasoned" and "discovered."

But as people without religious beliefs

Read: higher education...

have low birth rates, much of the West (Western Europe especially) will soon be Muslim in consequence.

Allahu Akbar !

So be Happy, you wise and far-sighted person.

So to avoid the spread of one wrong-headed belief system, I should embrace another? What a weird apologetic strategy.

A better strategy would be continuing to spread critical thinking and secularism/liberalism in the Muslim world as we've done in the Christian one. Which is already starting to happen.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Very isolated - and very few in number. Hardly suggests a lifestyle and culture that can be replicated.

You theists and your penchant for argumentum ad populum.

Abortion is murder, whether God exists or not.

Abortion is literally the killing of an unborn child, yes. That much is a fact. It is premeditated, but it lacks the aggressive/malignant intent that I believe would need applied to label it "murder." Can you think of any other situations within which pre-meditated killing is permissible? How about many situations during war-time, or in defense of our country from invaders? Point being, our laws are not "immutable." We made them, and we decide when to break them. Some people don't like that idea, because it scares them to think things are so very fluid. So they dream up "higher powers" to whom everyone has to answer, no matter what happens to them during their Earthly life. It's imaginative, I'll give it that. Doesn't mean it's true or right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If a sentient being didn't create the universe, Chance did.

Almost as far-fetched as your neighbour having done so.

That is a false dichotomy. Not knowing why something occurred does not make it "chance". It also appears that you are trying to use a God of the Gaps fallacy. As we know more and more about our universe the needs of "God did it" get smaller and smaller.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Myth" ? No - true or false.

Friends of Jesus died for their belief in His resurrection.

E.g. James (butchered by one of the Herods, see Acts of the Apostles) and Simon Peter (butchered by Nero - see oral Christian tradition, to some extent supported by the 1967 excavation of the bones of an elderly man - possibly Simon Peter - from beneath the high altar at St Peter's Basilica on Vatican Hill).

If Jesus did NOT rise from the dead, why did they die for an opinion they knew to be false ? How did they benefit from doing so ?

So perhaps Jesus did rise from the dead after all, eh ?

Of course you will deny their having died for their Christian beliefs.

But what grounds (other than your own bigotry, that masquerades as open-mindedness) do you have for denying the truth of the Acts of the Apostles and ancient oral tradition ?

None, in fact.

People like you have sneered much of the West into its current post-Christian state.

But as people without religious beliefs have low birth rates, much of the West (Western Europe especially) will soon be Muslim in consequence.

Allahu Akbar !

So be Happy, you wise and far-sighted person.

People die for their religion quite often. That some early Christians is no more evidence for Jesus's resurrection than the deaths of the Hale-Bopp comet nuts:


Heaven's Gate (religious group) - Wikipedia

Were you convinced at all by their deaths? If not then why should others be convinced by the supposed deaths by some early Christians?

 

[QuestioningMind]

No - that's what Atheists do.

There is proof of God's existence - the universe.

Silly boy... the universe is proof of the UNIVERSE, nothing more. If you're going to make a fantastical claim then you need to provide actual verifiable evidence.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Most atheists fit the bill; though, very predictably, deny the fact !

It isn't the purpose of religion to discern how the universe works (which is why science and religion aren't in conflict, because they aren't in competition) - the purpose of religion is to discern whether the universe has any sort of purpose; and, even more, whether our lives have any sort of purpose.

Science can't do that; any more than it can give us a code of ethics.

No, science can't do that and was never intended to. As I said before, the scientific method is simply the most effective means we've ever found for figuring out how the universe works. If believing that the scientific method is the best method we've found for answering these question means that I follow 'scientism', then so be it. But doesn't that mean that EVERYONE also believes in scientism, unless of course they foolishly believe that there is a BETTER method for figuring out how the universe works? Are you NOT a believer in scientism? If not, what method do you claim has done a BETTER job of providing us with answers to how the universe functions?

As for religion's goal of figuring out if the universe has a purpose... from my perspective, it's done nothing to provide any answers. It seems to me that the only purpose the universe has is whatever purpose any individual chooses to assign to it.