Atheism-o-Phobia

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
561

[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
I am always struck by how pedantic arguments on this forum become. I was reading the Feynmann lectures yesterday and uncovered a lovely quote that describes it quite well…

  • We can’t define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophersâ?¦ one saying to the other: “you don’t know what you are talking about!”. The second one says: “what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?” -[/quote]

I lol’d

562

[quote]ephrem wrote:
by all means keep the good parts…[/quote]

We have, and because we’re supposed to.

563

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Speaking at the most recent EG conference, author, philosopher, prankster and journalist A.J. Jacobs talks about the year he spent living biblically – following the rules in the Bible as literally as possible.

http://www.ted.com/talks/a_j_jacobs_year_of_living_biblically.html[/quote]

I gotta admit, this was interesting. He verified what I said before, there is no such thing as a Bible literalist. It’s impossible.
As to the rituals of yore, the purpose for those rules was to get uneducated people to do the right thing, really. That’s it. Washing hands? Keeps dirt and germs out of food. Circumcision, Keeps dirt off the pee pee. If you don’t wash all that much, it’s problem. Why circumcise on the 8th day? Because that is when the clotting factors are most prevalent in the human infant. Most of those ancient rituals had a purpose for the time and place where they were.
The punishments, for instance, were harsh because your dealing with basically a grungy uneducated motorcycle gang. They may not understand good reasoning or what makes a healthy family, but they know a big rock cracking your skull hurts. These ancient Jews were not exactely easy to deal with…[/quote]

…i welcome the day when the Jewish, Muslim and Christian people of this earth and all demoninations realise that much of their religious ideology is outdated and non-applicable. By all means keep the good parts: be kind; live well; do no harm. What the rest is concerned: it’s archeology…
[/quote]

“Imagine all the people…”

564

2 Timothy 4:1-4 ESV

565

…i guess i am an immoral bleeding heart godless liberal commie swine. A badge i’ll wear with pride :slight_smile:

566

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i guess i am an immoral bleeding heart godless liberal commie swine. A badge i’ll wear with pride :)[/quote]

At least for a while.

567

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Huh? Paul did to have contact with Jesus…In Acts? Jesus knocked him off of his horse and blinded him? [/quote]

You’re confusing Pauls. Saul, who became Paul, never met Jesus, and was picked up by Peter after Jesus has already died.[/quote]

lol[/quote]

So, if you change your name, what happened under your previous name is not longer applicable to you??[/quote]

Nope. Different people. Lots of Pauls walking around. Paul of Tarsus, the Paul we’re talking about, who made up all that Christian dogma, never met Jesus. He merely claimed he had a vision of him on his way to Damascus.

568

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Nope. Different people. Lots of Pauls walking around. Paul of Tarsus, the Paul we’re talking about, who made up all that Christian dogma, never met Jesus. He merely claimed he had a vision of him on his way to Damascus.[/quote]

This is a pointless argument. If you’re viewing the bible from that perspective, you might say that all who claimed to have met Jesus (pre or post resurrection), or claimed to recount the words of those who had, fabricated it all. But, the Paul thing is a peculiar act of singling out.

569

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Nope. Different people. Lots of Pauls walking around. Paul of Tarsus, the Paul we’re talking about, who made up all that Christian dogma, never met Jesus. He merely claimed he had a vision of him on his way to Damascus.[/quote]

This is a pointless argument. If you’re viewing the bible from that perspective, you might say that all who claimed to have met Jesus (pre or post resurrection), or claimed to recount the words of those who had, fabricated it all. But, the Paul thing is a peculiar act of singling out.[/quote]

That silly.

You’re right, there are different levels of skepticism that could be applied. But, for example, the four separate Gospels basically confirm the events in each other, and the presence and interactions of most of the people involved. There are differences, and you could argue them, but the stories in and characters in both Mathew and Luke are basically the same.

That is of a different level of certitude than a single character, with otherwise no relation to Jesus, claiming a vision. I think you can acknowledge that.

If we believe everyone who says they have a vision, as much as we believe in events independently verified, we’d be living in a pretty crazy place.

570

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Nope. Different people. Lots of Pauls walking around. Paul of Tarsus, the Paul we’re talking about, who made up all that Christian dogma, never met Jesus. He merely claimed he had a vision of him on his way to Damascus.[/quote]

This is a pointless argument. If you’re viewing the bible from that perspective, you might say that all who claimed to have met Jesus (pre or post resurrection), or claimed to recount the words of those who had, fabricated it all. But, the Paul thing is a peculiar act of singling out.[/quote]

That silly.

You’re right, there are different levels of skepticism that could be applied. But, for example, the four separate Gospels basically confirm the events in each other, and the presence and interactions of most of the people involved. There are differences, and you could argue them, but the stories in and characters in both Mathew and Luke are basically the same.

That is of a different level of certitude than a single character, with otherwise no relation to Jesus, claiming a vision. I think you can acknowledge that.

If we believe everyone who says they have a vision, as much as we believe in events independently verified, we’d be living in a pretty crazy place.[/quote]

You will also find his vision recounted in Acts. You’re talking about men (the apostles) who claim to being lead by the Spirit. If you accept that, if only for the sake of argument, then no, Saul/Paul could not decieve them with a fabricated account. Of course, you can discount the entire thing, but singling out Paul’s conversion account as ‘deception’ seems odd.

571

[quote]pat wrote:
Why circumcise on the 8th day? Because that is when the clotting factors are most prevalent in the human infant. [/quote]

reference please?

572

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Nope. Different people. Lots of Pauls walking around. Paul of Tarsus, the Paul we’re talking about, who made up all that Christian dogma, never met Jesus. He merely claimed he had a vision of him on his way to Damascus.[/quote]

This is a pointless argument. If you’re viewing the bible from that perspective, you might say that all who claimed to have met Jesus (pre or post resurrection), or claimed to recount the words of those who had, fabricated it all. But, the Paul thing is a peculiar act of singling out.[/quote]

That silly.

You’re right, there are different levels of skepticism that could be applied. But, for example, the four separate Gospels basically confirm the events in each other, and the presence and interactions of most of the people involved. There are differences, and you could argue them, but the stories in and characters in both Mathew and Luke are basically the same.

That is of a different level of certitude than a single character, with otherwise no relation to Jesus, claiming a vision. I think you can acknowledge that.

If we believe everyone who says they have a vision, as much as we believe in events independently verified, we’d be living in a pretty crazy place.[/quote]

You will also find his vision recounted in Acts. You’re talking about men (the apostles) who claim to being lead by the Spirit. If you accept that, if only for the sake of argument, then no, Saul/Paul could not decieve them with a fabricated account. Of course, you can discount the entire thing, but singling out Paul’s conversion account as ‘deception’ seems odd.[/quote]

Not to mention the following

  1. Acts is written by luke.
  2. all of the churches that "Paul the apostle " wrote to, were many of the same places that were visited by the “Paul” in acts.
  3. "Paul the apostle interacts with the same mark in his letters that is also talked about in his missionary journey’s in acts.
  4. None of the early church fathers describe there being two differnt influential Pauls.
  5. The NT in many places tried to seperate two people that had similar names but were not the same.
  6. Paul in acts is setup as an apostle by the standards of the 11.
  7. Paul in 2 corinthians 12 describes many of the things he under went, and many are like the ones described in acts.

just to name a few.

573

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Speaking at the most recent EG conference, author, philosopher, prankster and journalist A.J. Jacobs talks about the year he spent living biblically – following the rules in the Bible as literally as possible.

http://www.ted.com/talks/a_j_jacobs_year_of_living_biblically.html[/quote]

I gotta admit, this was interesting. He verified what I said before, there is no such thing as a Bible literalist. It’s impossible.
As to the rituals of yore, the purpose for those rules was to get uneducated people to do the right thing, really. That’s it. Washing hands? Keeps dirt and germs out of food. Circumcision, Keeps dirt off the pee pee. If you don’t wash all that much, it’s problem. Why circumcise on the 8th day? Because that is when the clotting factors are most prevalent in the human infant. Most of those ancient rituals had a purpose for the time and place where they were.
The punishments, for instance, were harsh because your dealing with basically a grungy uneducated motorcycle gang. They may not understand good reasoning or what makes a healthy family, but they know a big rock cracking your skull hurts. These ancient Jews were not exactely easy to deal with…[/quote]

…i welcome the day when the Jewish, Muslim and Christian people of this earth and all demoninations realise that much of their religious ideology is outdated and non-applicable. By all means keep the good parts: be kind; live well; do no harm. What the rest is concerned: it’s archeology…
[/quote]

Eph, explain yourself please. This does not make any sense to me. If the Church speaks the truth, and since truth is absolute, it does not change over time. So what shall we throw away because it is archaic?

574

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…i welcome the day when the Jewish, Muslim and Christian people of this earth and all demoninations realise that much of their religious ideology is outdated and non-applicable. By all means keep the good parts: be kind; live well; do no harm. What the rest is concerned: it’s archeology…
[/quote]

Eph, explain yourself please. This does not make any sense to me. If the Church speaks the truth, and since truth is absolute, it does not change over time. So what shall we throw away because it is archaic?[/quote]

…good != truth. An absolute truth is that we’re all bound to this planet by gravity, because it’s true for all of us. What you believe is true is not absolute truth…

575

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…i welcome the day when the Jewish, Muslim and Christian people of this earth and all demoninations realise that much of their religious ideology is outdated and non-applicable. By all means keep the good parts: be kind; live well; do no harm. What the rest is concerned: it’s archeology…
[/quote]

Eph, explain yourself please. This does not make any sense to me. If the Church speaks the truth, and since truth is absolute, it does not change over time. So what shall we throw away because it is archaic?[/quote]

…good != truth. An absolute truth is that we’re all bound to this planet by gravity, because it’s true for all of us. What you believe is true is not absolute truth…[/quote]

Pretty sure it is. I mean there are scientist that are working on disproving gravity as we know it. Maybe they will disprove it maybe they won’t. However, the issue here is faith and reason. You have to have both, some folks idolize reason. The only thing they’ll use. They make a god out of it, and won’t believe anything (which is funny because you have to have faith in your own reason to believe reason is the only thing that you can use) without reasoning it out.

576

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
who made up all that Christian dogma, never met Jesus. He merely claimed he had a vision of him on his way to Damascus.[/quote]

Yeah, most people I know would gladly take 39 lashes with a whip, be shipwrecked, jailed multiple times and live in abject poverty just for a lie - No, really why would he go on such a crusade if it was all a lie? That makes no sense, think about it.

577

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
who made up all that Christian dogma, never met Jesus. He merely claimed he had a vision of him on his way to Damascus.[/quote]

Yeah, most people I know would gladly take 39 lashes with a whip, be shipwrecked, jailed multiple times and live in abject poverty just for a lie - No, really why would he go on such a crusade if it was all a lie? That makes no sense, think about it. [/quote]

That is a selection problems.

He is not most people, he is people who need the lie enough to endure all this, which is why we know about him in the first place.

You are assuming that you pick randomly when it reality they crowd you can choose from has already preselected itself.

578

Any worldview that desires to be seriously considered within the marketplace of ideas must address 4 essential questions…

  1. Origin

  2. Meaning (purpose)

  3. Morality

  4. Destiny

  5. Atheism can not give explanation for a first cause. Any physical object within the universe cannot explain its own existence. This seems to be the reason top level physicists adhere to an open agnosticism in reference to some ‘Creator’ or ‘Mind.’ Although Einstein was not a committed theist by any means, he has been quoted as to the ‘old one’ as not playing dice, thus some believe his beliefs lie closer to some form of pantheism.

  6. Atheism fails to address the purpose of life, it cannot capture the true essence, for without a Creator, there is no law with which to differentiate between true purpose and perversion. How can one pervert something that has no essential purpose? This leads into the 3rd point of morality…

  7. At best, all morality of an atheist can fall into one of several categories… they are either pragmatic, utilitarian, subjective, or emotive. If we are truly products of Time + Matter + Chance = MacroEvolution, then we have come to where we are today through Natural Selection, or better known as Survival of the Fittest. Those that are strong must survive at the expense of the weak. This directly contradicts the morality of many ‘good atheists,’ although Hitler took this notion directly from Nietzsche (the concept of the Superman) and exterminated those that he saw unfit for life.

Another point, Atheists will often call the ‘Christian’ intolerant, bigoted, etc. The question I pose to the atheist is this, “What’s wrong with being intolerant?” There is no absolute moral law within the universe, thus the statement of ‘Christians’ being intolerant itself is meaningless, for it implies that intolerance itself is ‘bad,’ while atheists deny the means with which to differentiate between ‘good’ and ‘bad.’

Let us take a quick look at an excerpt from a debate between a Jesuit Catholic Priest Fr. Copleston and Bertrand Russell

====
R: You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I don’t say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness.

C: Yes, but what’s your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them?

R: I don’t have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different.

C: Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty?

R: By my feelings.

C: By your feelings. Well, that’s what I was asking. You think that good and evil have reference simply to feeling?

In some countries people love their neighbors, in other countries they eat them, all based on the faculty of feeling, do you have a personal preference?

  1. "When I die, worms will devour my body and I will commit myself to the ‘Great Perhaps’. - Thomas Hobbes. This is the fate of the atheist. But…perhaps he turns out to be wrong? This was the point Pascal was making in his famous wager, which is often mistakenly presumed to be some sort of argument for theism over atheism. Pascal’s wager was strictly an existential argument. If by chance the Christian has lived his life believing in God, and he dies, and he’s wrong, he has lost nothing, because dust does not regret. Also, the Christian has met the only test of the humanist, which is to find happiness in the moment, albeit in something that was not true. But if the atheist is to find out he is wrong, he has made such a catastrophic error that there can be no recovery.
579

[quote]chobothx wrote:
Any worldview that desires to be seriously considered within the marketplace of ideas must address 4 essential questions…
[/quote]

Says you, but the very fact that it exists in the market place of ideas shows that this is not so.

It only shows that you are not willing to buy, but your subjective desires are not an objective truth.

580

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…i welcome the day when the Jewish, Muslim and Christian people of this earth and all demoninations realise that much of their religious ideology is outdated and non-applicable. By all means keep the good parts: be kind; live well; do no harm. What the rest is concerned: it’s archeology…
[/quote]

Eph, explain yourself please. This does not make any sense to me. If the Church speaks the truth, and since truth is absolute, it does not change over time. So what shall we throw away because it is archaic?[/quote]

…good != truth. An absolute truth is that we’re all bound to this planet by gravity, because it’s true for all of us. What you believe is true is not absolute truth…[/quote]

Pretty sure it is. I mean there are scientist that are working on disproving gravity as we know it. Maybe they will disprove it maybe they won’t. However, the issue here is faith and reason. You have to have both, some folks idolize reason. The only thing they’ll use. They make a god out of it, and won’t believe anything (which is funny because you have to have faith in your own reason to believe reason is the only thing that you can use) without reasoning it out.[/quote]

…come again? Disprove gravity? But this comes back to your misconceptions about what relative and absolute actually means, Chris. Gravity affects us all equally; this is an absolute…

…that we need to breath air to live; this is an absolute. Beliefs however differ from person to person; they are subjective, and can’t be absolute. Reason does not need faith like religious beliefs require faith: 1+1=2. No faith needed here…

…in religion you’d say: 1+1+an undefined entity=2 otherwise 1 wouldn’t even be possible. An atheist simply does not accept “+an undefined entity” as true because there is A: no evidence to support that assertion, and B: there’s no reason to…