The Folly of Atheism

[JJ50]

"God is compassion" (1 John).

All the bible needs to be read in the light of that statement.

There is nothing compassionate about the evil god character.

 

[Catholicus]

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



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



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?



Not looking like it.



Not at all.



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.



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


Read: higher education...



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.

Luke's Gospel and Acts - "obviously mythological" containing "implausible BS" ? - your mask of detached impartiality really has fallen off !

You need to stop thinking of everything in black and white.

Many people have died for beliefs that WE recognise as false - but who has ever died (voluntarily) for beliefs that THEY THEMSELVES regarded and knew to be false ? No one.

But that is what you are asking me to believe of Simon Peter and James.

Regarding Islam - I'm not asking you to believe in it; but merely to stop SPREADING it by attacking Christianity ! Many USA citizens have converted to Islam since 9/11, for example. To undermine Christianity is to create a gap which Islam is filling.

Is that too much to ask of you ? Of those like yourself - perched on fast-shrinking islands of Western hubris - it probably is.

Of course you're suffering from the weird delusion that because the world has become steadily more Westernised over five centuries, that process will necessarily continue in future. The West is no longer in the driving-seat, however much some people may imagine it still is.

Climate change by itself has wrecked the West's key feature and main selling-point; and the West as we have known it will very soon be gone (for that and social and political reasons).

The Muslim world generally has become more traditionalist and less liberal since the days of Nasser and the Shah of Iran.

The Westernisation of the rest of the world is happening far more feebly and slowly than the the takeover of the West by migrant cultures and beliefs; most notably Islam.

 

[Catholicus]

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.

But science has done ONLY that - namely to understand the functioning of the universe !

It hasn't got anything to say about ethics, philosophy or religion. Nor has it made anyone a better (as opposed to better-informed) person.

Science has also brought us to the brink of Destruction via WMD's and climate change.

 

[Catholicus]

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.

No - the universe has come into existence.

Ergo, has a creator.

QED.

 

[Catholicus]

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?

Fanatics often die fighting for their beliefs. E.g. Mohammed's earliest follows fought and died for their belief in his message - but they were warriors, seeking victory and power.

The earliest Christians died as peaceful, unresisting martyrs for their belief that Jesus, being God, had risen from the dead.

Some of them had known Him. Why should they have lied about His resurrection ? How could they have been mistaken about it ?

 

[viole]

No - the universe has come into existence.

Ergo, has a creator.

QED.

Maybe more than one, who can say?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Catholicus]

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.

The origin of the universe was due either to Chance or to God. And must have been.

Appealing to Science doesn't help you at all - since the question "Does God exist ?" is a philosophical one, on which science has precisely zero to say.

The questions "What created the universe ?" and (even more mysteriously) " How does it continue in existence ?" - are, likewise, philosophical questions on which science doesn't have, and never will have, anything whatever to say.

 

[Catholicus]

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?

Myth merely means "story."

It is often used, enthusiastically, by Fake Intellectuals in their attacks on Christianity.

 

[viole]

Fanatics often die fighting for their beliefs. E.g. Mohammed's earliest follows fought and died for their belief in his message - but they were warriors, seeking victory and power.

The earliest Christians died as peaceful, unresisting martyrs for their belief that Jesus, being God, had risen from the dead.

Some of them had known Him. Why should they have lied about His resurrection ? How could they have been mistaken about it ?

I know people who died, together with their families, because they believed a UFO hiding behind a comet would pick up their souls. Or some other nonsense.

How could have they been mistaken about It?

You underestimate the power of delusion, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fanatics often die fighting for their beliefs. E.g. Mohammed's earliest follows fought and died for their belief in his message - but they were warriors, seeking victory and power.

The earliest Christians died as peaceful, unresisting martyrs for their belief that Jesus, being God, had risen from the dead.

Some of them had known Him. Why should they have lied about His resurrection ? How could they have been mistaken about it ?

You really have no clue as to how the early Christians die. All there exists are church mythology in that regard.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The origin of the universe was due either to Chance or to God. And must have been.

Appealing to Science doesn't help you at all - since the question "Does God exist ?" is a philosophical one, on which science has precisely zero to say.

The questions "What created the universe ?" and (even more mysteriously) " How does it continue in existence ?" - are, likewise, philosophical questions on which science doesn't have, and never will have, anything whatever to say.

Once again that is a false dichotomy. But then you probably cannot properly define your terms. The sciences tell us how the universe started. It does not tell us if a make believe entity existed or not. Most theists do not realize that demanding something as complex as the universe needs a maker is a self defeating argument. Tell me, do you see the huge glaring flaw in that claim?

 

[Catholicus]

You theists and your penchant for argumentum ad populum.


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.

The premeditated killing of civilians in war (of babies in particular) is universally regarded as a war crime, or extremely close.

Laws are mutable. The principles on which they are largely based are not, however. What was wrong in the Stone Age is wrong now, and vice versa.

Each of us has a choice between good and evil - a choice which (at death) becomes a final, thus everlasting, one.

Good consequences flow from a final choice of good, evil consequences from a final choice of evil.

 

[Catholicus]

Maybe more than one, who can say?

Ciao

- viole

Mainly 32 or 1.5 million creators or any other number one plucks out of the air.

But there's only One Creator, in fact..

 

[viole]

Mainly 32 or 1.5 million creators or any other number one plucks out of the air.

But there's only One Creator, in fact..

And I am sure you have evidence of that. Which is ...

Ciao

- viole

 

[Catholicus]

I completely disagree. Both the sperm cell and the egg were 'alive' prior to joining and no one considers them to be individuals whose life must be protected. The simple fact that both cells have increased their potential to someday become an actual viable human beings still does not make them actual viable human beings. And attempting to claim that a pair of joined cells is somehow equal in value to an actual viable human being is an insult to what an actual viable human being is.

By your silly logic since a sperm cell is 'alive' and has the potential to someday become a living human being then not allowing a sperm cell to reach its potential is the same as murdering a child.

A sperm cell has no potential other than to be able to fertilise an egg.

It is alive, but is not a human being.

A foetus is.

On your basis, killing a few (living !) cells of someone's body by deliberately scratching that person, should be regarded by the courts as murder.

 

[QuestioningMind]

But science has done ONLY that - namely to understand the functioning of the universe !

It hasn't got anything to say about ethics, philosophy or religion. Nor has it made anyone a better (as opposed to better-informed) person.

Science has also brought us to the brink of Destruction via WMD's and climate change.

But science has done ONLY that - namely to understand the functioning of the universe

And you say that as if for some silly reason you EXPECT it to be able to do more. Determining how the universe works is what the scientific method DOES and it does it VERY well. Why do you have this silly need to try and elevate the method into some sort of magical religion that can answer every question imaginable?

You sound like someone complaining that "All mathematics does is allow us to evaluate data! It CAN'T help us to appreciate art!"

To which I would reply, "SO WHAT?" Just quit trying to use it for something it wasn't intended and then complain about it.

 

[Catholicus]

Yes, it is ALIVE. And guess what, every single cell in your body is ALSO alive! Now, tell me, do you actually considered every one of the billions of cells in your body to be an actual INDIVIDUAL, simply because it is ALIVE?

The difference between a cell (or any number of cells) and a foetus is too vast - and too obvious - for the question you raise to be worth discussion.

Or do you regard yourself as merely a collection of cells ?

Certainly no one else does or ever has done.

 

[Catholicus]

If your god was as evil as you have painted?

Then?

Being a **god** it would never be happy with any human progress.

Yet-- here we are. We, on average, live over twice as long as before. In most places on Earth, women need not fear childbirth-- it is no longer a nearly 50% chance of death, to have a baby.

We have gradually recognized what we call Universal Human Rights, over much of the planet.

These are a scant few things of PROGRESS-- that a monster god? Would have put a stop to, long ago.

That pretty much eliminates a maliciously evil deity.

We know there are no good deities-- for the list of Evil that a god would prevent if it was caring AND good, is quite long.

Leaving? What? Callous indifference? That's also evil. See above.

God took on human nature and died in agony on the Cross, not sparing Himself.

Why does God allow evil to exist ? - because He is Love and a libertarian, not a puppet-master.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No - the universe has come into existence.

Ergo, has a creator.

QED.

How silly... simply repeating what you said before adds nothing to the discussion.

YES, the fact that the universe has come into existence is evidence that the universe exists. However, your claim that it therefor had a CREATOR is STILL just a fantastical claim you've made with absolutely ZERO verifiable evidence to back it up. FIRST you need to provide verifiable evidence that this creator even exists THEN you need to provide verifiable evidence that it was this creator that actually created the universe.

 

[Catholicus]

Nope. You cannot use your ancient Bronze Age Book Describing An Evil God as evidence for said god.

Your book is your Claim. You cannot use your Claim to "prove" your Claim.

The New Testament dates from the highly-civilised and well-educated days of the Roman Empire.

Bronze Age ? - er, no.