theists attack atheism because they are insecure

[DavidFirth]

You have not provided any archaeological evidence that confirms the exodus story. You've merely provided that places named in the Bible actually existed. But, that in no way confirms the Exodus story. It merely confirms that places named in the exodus story existed.

Okay, I'll go along with that.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Romans 1:20 says it is obvious that God created. Why do you need evidence for something that is obvious? Is it because you just do not wish to believe God?

Peanut Butter 25:30 says that it is obvious that Blob created. Why do you need evidence for something is that obvious? Is it because you just do not wish to believe in Blob?

(If you have a problem with my logic here, and not with your own, then there's a serious cognitive issue that needs to be addressed.)

 

[Notanumber]

If theists have or ever had a robust belief in their faith they would not need now or never would have needed blasphemy laws.


Atheists do not need a similar law to support what they believe.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Without faith there is no truth.

Faith cannot be a path to truth. No epistemology that lets you believe any idea you like or its polar opposite with equal ease can possibly be a path to truth. Even if you happen to choose to believe something that is eventually shown to be correct, you can't know that until reason and evidence demonstrate that you were right.

• "Can you explain why there are several hundred thousand gods accepted by different religious people, but only one periodic table accepted by different scientists?" - anonymous Internet poster

Can you? I can.

The former are faith based, the latter reason and evidence based.

 

[Polymath257]

I already have. Didn't you read it?

That was only evidence that styles of the names of Egyptians were known and that a legend developed with an Egyptian name.

That is NOT evidence for the exodus.Not even close.

The problem with the whole account is that Egypt controlled most of the 'lands of Israel' during the time periods discussed. So there could not have been a 'exodus' out of Egypt.

Furthermore, there is no evidence of Israeli slaves. There *is* evidence of a time period when the Hyksos rules Egypt. Since they were originally from Canaan, this is a plausible origin to the legend.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, atheism is also based on faith that no god exists since they can't see one, hear him, etc.

Nope, there is no faith there. The lack of belief is supported by the lack of evidence. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive existence claim, which means the theists.

The Spirit reveals truth. Without faith there is no truth. If the Holy Spirit reveals the truth to you then you will know the truth. If you do not have faith you will never know truth.

Clearly, you don't even know what it means to be 'true'. No spirit reveals a truth: instead observation and testing are what reveal truths. Spirits are either fictional or alcoholic.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is plenty of evidence for it. Archaeological finds confirm the Exodus account and there are no archaeological finds that contradict the Bible.

Archeology contradicts or fails to support multiple claims in Exodus, including an Egyptian captivity, forty years in the Sinai desert, the Hebrews immigrating to Canaan from far away, and the battle of Jericho.

Prophecies that came true and the fact that no man has ever proven an inconsistency in the Bible lends credence.

The Bible has too many inconsistencies to count. I've already enumerated the categories:

internal contradictions, failed prophecies, moral and intellectual errors attributed to a god that is logically impossible for having been ascribed mutually exclusive and therefore logically impossible pairs of qualities, unkept promises, bad advice, ambiguity and vagueness, and errors in science and history.
​

Biblical prophecy is what is called low quality prophecy. High quality prophecy needs to be specific, detailed and unambiguous. Optimally, the time and place are specified. It also needs to prophecy something unexpected, unlikely or unique - something that was not self-fulfilling and could not have been contrived. The prophecies must be verified that they came before the event predicted, and that they were fulfilled completely, and the prophecies must be unaccompanied by failed prophecies.

Scientific prophecies meet these criteria, but the Bible does not.

• "Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?" - Carl Sagan

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

archaeological evidence for the exodus - Google Search

This came from the first link in your Google search:

• "Archaeologists from the 19th century onward were actually surprised not to find any evidence whatsoever for the events of Exodus. By the 1970s, archaeologists had largely given up regarding the Bible as any use at all as a field guide." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Peanut Butter 25:30 says that it is obvious that Blob created. Why do you need evidence for something is that obvious? Is it because you just do not wish to believe in Blob?

(If you have a problem with my logic here, and not with your own, then there's a serious cognitive issue that needs to be addressed.)

If theists have or ever had a robust belief in their faith they would not need now or never would have needed blasphemy laws.


Atheists do not need a similar law to support what they believe.

Faith cannot be a path to truth. No epistemology that lets you believe any idea you like or its polar opposite with equal ease can possibly be a path to truth. Even if you happen to choose to believe something that is eventually shown to be correct, you can't know that until reason and evidence demonstrate that you were right.

• "Can you explain why there are several hundred thousand gods accepted by different religious people, but only one periodic table accepted by different scientists?" - anonymous Internet poster

Can you? I can.

The former are faith based, the latter reason and evidence based.

Can't remember when there were 3 posts in a row that I wished I could "like" more than once.

 

[Desert Snake]

I do, and I don't agree with it. I was just trying to point out what the people who call non-believers liars think.

Your a mind reader now?

 

[Desert Snake]

Because people believing in his existence impacts the world.



I'm not 'anti-religious', I am an atheist, and I'm here.
You'll never see me start an anti-government thread, but I post against certain religious beliefs. Or anti-atheist beliefs.
Not sure how I fit with your hypothesis?

As for Abrahamaics...it's the devil you know, so to speak. I can't remember posting anything remotely 'anti-jewish', since Judaism has no impact on my life, and more loosely doesn't impact on other atheists worldwide in a meaningful way. Hinduism similar. I suspect if I lived an an overwhelmingly Hindu or Jewish country my posting habit might be different.

Pagans, deists, panentheists, pantheists...I have nothing to debate with them, near as I can tell.

Christians and Muslims are a different story, although to be clear it's only a subset.

Still vague. I dont know what you mean by "christian"ideas, so it seems like trolling to me.

 

[Desert Snake]

Lately I've seen a **** ton of posts attacking atheism, with screwy logic at best, but usually incoherent either way.

Now, I get why atheists attack religion. They see it as a threat, and sometimes they are right. But not always. But at least their reasoning has some basis in fact. Now when theists attack atheists... usually it's accusing them of being liars, or saying that somehow it "doesn't make sense". I dunno, it seems if I had to place a bet, I'd probably side with atheism 4 out of 5 times.

I've seen a lot of the old classic arguments, a lot of them even I didn't dare touch when I was a theist myself. but nowdays it seems as if the fundamentalist christian rhetoric is now too mainstream. People accusing atheists of being atheists so they can sin, that they only are atheists because something bad happened to them or that somehow they are just in denial.

But it seems to me, that if your religion is so apparent (let's ignore that you were probably brought up to believe in it or at least it's the dominant spiritual force where you live) then it wouldn't have all these atheists around. Maybe, just maybe, them being so open about it, the fact that many left religion because they learned more about it, maybe that scares you. Because you realize deep down you've had doubts yourself, and are often just going through the motions. It seems that some types of theists are obsessed with the atheist. Their fixation on how wrong they are, is a reflection of their own projection. Kind of like how the strongest homophobic preachers were often caught with other men.

I dunno, just my two cents. It isn't particularly my fight, I'm not an atheist or theist, but still. You can't really disprove atheism, other than to prove theism. Theism can't be disproved because there is always another possible way for there to be a god, but that doesn't mean it's correct, and at a certain point it's not reasonable to believe anymore when enough versions of it's been disproven (as have many in the past). Where you draw that line is subjective, and there will always be some who are theists and atheists.

And I don't see anything wrong with that. What I do see wrong, is people attacking each other with strawmen.

Wall of incoherent suppositions.

Try editing?

 

[Sha'irullah]

This has been the case for many theists who have taken years to become atheists. I use to mock theists yet at the same time hold utter vitriol toward atheists when I was a deist. As nonsensical as that is it is a norm for many theists and even more important is that it takes severe mental gymnastics to even come to terms with theism in the modern era without severe doubt.

I mostly blame indoctrination for the unreasonability of many theists and more specifically the religious.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Still vague. I dont know what you mean by "christian"ideas, so it seems like trolling to me.

Oh please, get over yourself. Trolling. Sheesh. This from the master of a one line response that indicates no investment in a topic.

As I clearly stated, it's a SUBSET of Christian and Muslims.
The ones who want to put creationism in science classes. Or kill apostates, if that's really so hard to understand.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This has been the case for many theists who have taken years to become atheists. I use to mock theists yet at the same time hold utter vitriol toward atheists when I was a deist. As nonsensical as that is it is a norm for many theists and even more important is that it takes severe mental gymnastics to even come to terms with theism in the modern era without severe doubt.

I mostly blame indoctrination for the unreasonability of many theists and more specifically the religious.

I remember your deist phase, I seem to recall. Wasn't aware you were vitriolic towards me...

 

[Sha'irullah]

I remember your deist phase, I seem to recall. Wasn't aware you were vitriolic towards me...

HAHA! I am surprised you recall it actually . I will be honest and say that I restrained myself and kept my mouth shut in most cases. If you look at one of my posts aimed toward atheists you can tell I was getting very irritated because I knew I couldn't play cognitive gymnastics over a the mountain known as Atheism!

Pretty hilarious looking back at it but I was coming off of Islam at that time and I just wasn't prepared to accept that you heathens were nice chaps. You have know idea how quick you guys shattered my mind.

. . . I thank you

 

[Jumi]

Your a mind reader now?

You hear it often enough there's no surprise. If your view is different, you can correct.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

We are told that these people spent 40 years wandering around in the desert — they escaped, as slaves from Egypt, and so forth.

They walked for 40 years to a location that, according to google maps, is a walk that should take less than a week. Maybe we shouldn't be told to google stuff after all ...

It does support the places in the text, though.

Historical fiction takes place in real places. It's revealed in the first classic Planet of the Apes that it takes place in NY, but that doesn't make it real because NY is real, does it?

You are cherry picking out the parts that you know aren't there. What about what is there? Were it not for the Biblical text those places would have never been identified or even thought to have existed at all.

We have no extrabiblical sources to say Egypt exists? Huh?

 

[Desert Snake]

You hear it often enough there's no surprise. If your view is different, you can correct.

Most non theists, atheists, or anti theists arent lying.

Some are. Some are satanists, occultists, and its better to pretense atheism.

 

[Desert Snake]

Then there are of course the theists that are merely angry at deity, so they pretense atheism.