Contradiction in Atheism?

Why you mad, brah?

 

This is true. So, what's your response to the oft used comparison to belief in various other apparently obviously unreal things (ghosts etc)? Is it illogical to group the likelihood of God's existence along with the likelihood of existence of other supernatural things?

 

Then you are not listening. You deny based on a standard rather than affirm and simply assume that denial is better. Its not.

People can separate the claims of Jesus's miracles from the man. They do. And the same standards that allow us to probe antiquity confirm Jesus. ONLY atheists deny him.

No, they assume that Jesus was real because they apply modern standards of objectivity, weighing of evidence, peer review, and schoasrhip, which does far more to confirm than deny.

It can neither be confirmed nor denied based on evidence. It is a claim, and one that has many witnesses. Either we conclude that Christianity is farce made up by conspiracy, or that the people who witnessed it are telling the truth, a supposition buttressed by the reality that Jesus was indeed real, as were his followers.

Which is more likely? A grand conspiracy that has bamboozeled everyone (except atheists until about a hundred years ago), or the Jesus was real and there is something to him?

Which is more likely? That we spent billions faking the moon landing, or that we went to the moon? Its literally the same logical construct.

And yet, for some reason, I don;t see atheists denying the possibility of alien life? Odd.

And when the claims deal with something as simple as eating dinner and sharing a parable with a moral lesson? Why would we doubt them when there are multiple accouonts that confirm this simple, common thing.

Well, lets just say to lean one way or another is an act of faith. Evidence itself is inconclusive. And when you eschew faith even as you use it? Perhaps examination is required.

Even as you violate it?

Tell me is a massive conspiracy that fabricates evidence all over the historical record a simple explanation? Or one nearly impossible? But that is the alternative to accepting that Jesus was a historical figure. Occam's Razor does not support Jesus denial.

Please see the response to Null.

Once again, I am continually surprised when atheists see anger only in one side of a debate. Perhaps, constantly being branded a troll and insulted by your peers who deem it appropriate to attack posters rather than debate is just frustrating? Perhaps, when rejecting those antics in the strongest terms possible, the claim of anger is simply a way of rationalizing the poor behavior? Its not actually happening, "he's just angry".

Perhaps.

 

I don't think ghosts and spirits are unreal. I do think Leprechans are however. Once again, it comes with evidence. With documentaries like "Ghost adventures", etc. the evidence is obviously not conclusive, but does seem to indicate something.

Now, for mellenia those stories of ghosts presisted. Were they wrong then? When honest men confirmed them? Were they to be shunned and rediculed?

Not everything is in books.

 

Who is mad? The whiner screaming liar?

 

Lol. No, it also a claim that there were many witnesses since we don't have any writings from these supposed eyewitnesses. There are only four books which describe the actual event (five if you include the quick mention in Corinthians), all are the Gospels, all are written anonymously decades after his death, and all of them are contradictory.

 

Yeah, we do, we have the writting of teh Apostles. Once again, your circular denial at any cost just creates a massive conspiracy theory fed by ignorance and egoism.

Well, I am glad atheists are more keen on agreeing with a time traveling conspiracy of massive dimensions, rather than conceed that Jesus was real.

Oh yes, one of your peers who made the same silly arguements, "Think One Count One Toe," adopted the same antics you do, made the same denial. And when she actually examined the evidence ... her last post on this forum was to confirm that Jesus was real.

And that is what atheists like you fear. If Jesus was real, so was his message ... and if his message is real? You have some explaining to do about your antics. Hence the utterly illogical scorched earthe denial and rigid adherence to propoganda. Its simple desperation.

 

Larf. Even if Jesus was a real person, that would still be far from confirming the veracity of the accounts written about him and the message attributed to him.

Then there are the apocryphal materials also attributed to that character. If the canonical stuff is true, are the apocryphal bits true as well?

 

That it does. There are things I believe that are not backed up with conclusive evidence but whose evidence I find compelling enough to believe it, at least for now. The big bang for one obvious example.

So if I said that I found evidence of god no more compelling than evidence of leprechauns, would it not be just as logical for me to assume god is not real as it is for you to assume leprechauns are unreal?

 

Its far better and more simple explanatuion than random time travelling conspiracy theory - Occam's Razor and all - but you seem to indicate your acceptance of later. Or, if you deny that one as well, perhaps maybe you are simply engaging in scorched earth denial? Ya think?

Just remember, academia is on our side. Your arguement ... is the atheist version of fundamentalist Creationism. Enjoy.

 

Well, I would ask you to lay it out. Because the information on Jesus, his Prophets, the archeology, and Leprechans are not even in the same category. You have the belief in testimony of billions on one side, and the acknowledgement of fairy tale status on the other.

Again, I cannot prove it with science, but I asked for and got the proof I need - just as, before I even knew it, the Bible predicted thousands of years ago would be fulfilled by the Holy Spirit.

 

I'm assuming you mean you "rebuke" them. There are certain atheist posters who I won't mention that I have occasionally tried to take down a notch because of their arrogance, although I will admit that I don't do it as often as I maybe should.

If it's any consolation, I essentially live as an agnostic. My general take on religion isn't so much that there isn't a god -- it's more that it's incredibly unlikely that a religion has accurately defined what this god really is. Nearly every religion anthropomorphizes god or gods, which seems to be taking a lot of poetic license in how we perceive this higher being or force.

Logically, it would seem that this being would be very unlike ourselves. With the universe being as large as it is, religion seems to place more significance on humanity than can reasonably be assumed.

I also find it very unlikely that this being would care if we were to take its name in vain. Emotions would be a rather primitive thing for a divine being to have, and a consciousness separated from time and space would have no need for the concept of patience, since it has the ability to view all of time all at once. The concept of nirvana seems to summarize this level of consciousness in a more realistic manner.

Then I will simply amend my statement by saying that it's highly improbable that any religion comes anywhere close to accurately describing what this being is. A lot of religion in general fixates on the unknowable -- the afterlife in particular. Rather than worry about the next life, I'd rather try to enjoy this one, just in case there is no other one beyond it. And if my lack of commitment to a religion results in my eternal (*)(*)(*)(*)ation, I can at least say that my decision wasn't made out of spite -- although one has to wonder if the deity's decision on my own fate was spiteful.

A large portion of my friends are atheists. Many of them act more consistently in terms of morality and compassion than some of the conservative Christians I know. Granted, I also have friends that are conservative Christians that practice what they preach. So, I have a wide variety of social circles that I communicate with.

As far as love goes, the strongest relationship I ever had was with an atheist. I loved this woman more than I've ever loved anyone else, but due to circumstances beyond our control, we had to end things. It was very painful, but I can honestly say my life has been better as a result of knowing what that felt like. So yes, atheists are definitely as capable of true love as anyone else.

I see the glorification of Hebrews as false. I don't see them as being significantly more moral than their contemporaries.

Well, it's more than that. It's been empirically proven. It can safely be regarded as a fact.

There have been case studies to document these effects, and we're in the process of figuring out the exact mechanics of how the human mind can psychosomatically improve healing rates.

Thanks, same to you. I know it can be discouraging at times, but I try to keep things civil.

 

Which apostles' writings do you claim we have?

 

So what point are you really trying to make? You admit that you lack sufficient evidence, yet you make a conclusion based upon that lack of evidence. Not very logical on your part.

 

Look up the Synoptic Gospels please.

Again, you atheists claim you already know these things .... odd that you have to ask for them.

So in turn, while asking for basics in theological history, its only natural to assume that atheists arrived at positions like Jesus Denial through pain staking research? Sorry CK, but I don;t buy that - and I at least acknowledge that the supernatural is possible. But the idea that atheists arrived at the conclsuion of the Jesus Myth through study rather than bland indoctrination? That is beyond supernatural.

 

And again, we're hitting the same dilemma. There are plenty of documents to support Islam by the same standard. I have no more reason to believe Christians than to believe Muslims. Technically, I could believe both and still be a Muslim (to an extent).

Well, there is the possibility that God was an alien. The Prometheus movie touches on that subject, but the general idea is that a life form advanced enough to reach our planet from light years away might be powerful enough to seem like a god to us. The odds of intelligent life existing outside of our solar system are quite high, but who knows... maybe that's what this god figure is.

I don't necessarily doubt that part. There are events in the Bible that can be cross-referenced with other sources to justify their believability. They've even figured out a scientific explanation for the parting of the Red Sea. It's something that happens periodically.

Only the more supernatural elements are where I'm skeptical. Another area where I'm skeptical is regarding ghosts and spirits. So far, I have no reason to believe that a consciousness can exist without a physical form.

Again, if we're using that standard, then Mohammed was a real prophet.

 

Well, that's why I'm more of an agnostic. Atheist comes from the Greek - theos = God, the 'a' before it means "no", so atheist literally means "No God". With agnostic, gnostos means "to know", so put the 'a' before it, and agnostic means "Don't know".

So... an atheist specifically says there is NO God. I don't know how exactly they know that, however. They always say "You can't prove a negative", so I don't know how they can turn around and say without a doubt that there's no God.

Now, there are two types of agnostics. One type effectively says, "It may be possible for people to know God, to see evidence of his existence, but I personally haven't seen it or haven't been convinced of it yet." Another type says, "No one can ever know if there is a God."

 

Would it clarify things if I simply said that my only interest in religion is purely academic?

I come here sometimes to debate the metaphysical, but I realize that it's largely intellectual masturbation. I don't presume to be able to change anyone's mind on this topic, nor do I expect others to do the same for me. I simply question the certainty some people have in assuming their religion is the one irrefutable truth.

The more I discuss this with Neutral, the more I realize that I've probably been calling myself an atheist when I'm really more of an agnostic.

 

No, we rebut them. We show, for example, how the Westboro Baptist Church and its antics are not in keeping with our traditions and teachings. In short we PROVE that they are an extremist element.

Now contrast that to atheist rebuking of atheists constantly calling their adversaries trolls? Only SOME atheists do it, eh? Its hard to rebut such antics when you have no doctrinal set of standards and behavior to fall back on - because they can indeed, and indeed they do, claim that it is atheism.

THe problem is that agnosticism is stagnation. Its a shoulder shrug and that causes one to simple give up their search for God. An atheist, and this I can testify, can explore all that atheism ihas written, but at some point you realize its all balogne. So if atheism is balogne, and you are trained as a historian ... what happens when you start examining the broad history of religions? Why in the end, did I wind up as a member of church that the Holy Spirit directed me too? As predicted thousands of years ago?

I cannot be that there is just nothing to to it.

Indeed that is exactly what the Bible says. But, here is something to ponder, and one I do not think that many atheists get. Our existence is eternal. THat means we fulfil roles and responsibilities once we cross the veil. We continue to live. The entire point of humanity is to live an existence without the direct knowledge of God - to experience the reality of followng his commandments or the consequences of failing to do so.

Tell me, if you follow the commandments, live a virtuious life where you avoid lying, tomfollery, dark situations, are you likely to wind up dead in a botched drug raid? Now why is that do you think?

If a being expended this much energy and time to create this, to impart our spirits with a body in a very deliberate plan, to offer us atonement to be able to return to him after we make our larning mistakes ... I find it equally unlikely that such a creative and compassionate being would NOT care about us.

We don't. We say he is all powerful, all knowing, but that to even look upon him is impossible. So, as you predict with logic, so has religion beaten you to the punch.

Humans are humans. And I would ask that you look at your own biases. Things that are done to us tend to be noticed. Thing that we met out tend to be ignored. I work for perhaps teh most secular institution in the world. Tomfollery knows no faith bound. THe main difference is what to do when one is wrong.

What does atheism tell you? (I am sure you have an opinion, but its just that) Nothing. Atheism offers NO recourse. No pardon. No forgiveness. It directs you to simply figure it out.

What does religion tell you? Apologize. Repent. Attempt to correct the wrong to the max extent possible. Seek forgiveness, and strive to sin no more. That seems ... worse to you?

No one deny's that atheists are capable of love (you are human after all). What we critcize is that, most often, love is an after though to atheists screaming about the Jesus Myth, Evolution and finding rapists and trolls everywhere.

Love is the center of our doctrine. So if its important to you, why do you follow a code that treats something that powerful and meaningful as an afterthought?

You do realize what they did? The being a tiny people smashed between powerful Empires, they fought and they fought and they fought to retain their patch of dirt long enough for the Messiah to come. That is the power of faith, while empires around them were literally monkey stomped ... they perservered. Its a remarkable tail of human triumph as you are likely to find.

Even Lance Armstrongs seven tours after cancer story is not quite so epic

Prayer yes, mere good feelings? No.

I know, and that is exactly why I made the statement. I have often provided them to atheists on this forum who scoff at them.

It is. And, to be blunt, the world needs more atheists like you - who can agree yto simply disagree.

 

Perhaps, but the lack of a standardized doctrine is what allows individualism to take precedence. Some atheists are of the secular humanist persuasion, while others are of the internet troll persuasion.

It's just a matter of judging people as individuals, although that applies to any religious group as well. Sometimes, the standardized code actually makes it harder to view a group as individuals, however.

Anything can happen, I guess. I'd say the odds are higher that I would convert to Buddhism. That made the most sense to me out of the religions I studied.

I could follow just the ones that don't involve God and accomplish the same. I basically follow that kind of lifestyle now.

Well, what is a significant amount of energy to a being of infinite energy? The vastness of the universe is something that maybe I fixate a little on, but it's simultaneously fascinating and sobering.

A supernova could happen tomorrow, and the destruction of our planet would be utterly insignificant. Yet, we claim to have a connection to the universe's creator. It is a tad arrogant, I think.

Perhaps, but it's also hard to trust something you can't relate to.

Well, the part about Christianity that bothers me has more to do with the basic premise. I don't understand the point of seeking a divine being's forgiveness. In my own experience, I only need forgiveness from the ones I love and from myself.

Because the love I seek is from humanity, not a higher being. I can't relate to a deity. It's just kind of an odd concept.

It's like an ant trying to love the human about to step on it.

From what I remember, there were some entertaining parts, but it's also worth considering that all narratives are written from the perspective of the culture involved. It's like the saying "history is written by the victors."

What I've read shows a connection to both prayers and a general positive attitude. Some people have a much stronger will to survive, regardless of their piousness.

Thanks

 

#1 - are you telling me that it is worse to have disagreement about what exactly doctrine means then it is to have no doctrine whatsoever?

#2 - even aming individuals there are principles and ideas that combine. We seek out the fellowship and support of like minded people who can hold us accountable to our understanding of standards. If we treat everyon as an individual, totally devoid of agreed upon standards, what we have is chaos, rationalization, and lord of the flies.

You think that emraceing of suffering is the way to spiritual and physical enlightenement?

Many sects of Buddhism have Gods and Goddesses. Do you buy that portion of the belief? Then how would you follow it correctly? Buddhism has soem strict restrictions as well, are you aware of them, prepared to adopt them? Are you indeed doing so now?

Yep, all this was created for us. We exist for a reason beyond accident. That is not arrogance its purpose.

And you are wrong. Our Sun will not go Super Nova, and we know ... roughly, when it will go Nova. If a star went super nova tomorrow in a way that would destroy the earth, it would take years for those effects to reach us.

And tell me, how is deciding that life is purposeless any less arroagnt than assuming that there is purpose?

Well, you just changed your goal post. He is aour creator, our heavenly father. WHo made us in love. And you find that hard to relate to?

Its all in God's plan of salvation. Itgoes back to that purpose. Why are we here? To learn and grow, to make mistakes. To Sin and see the consequences of them. Now, en all this is over, how do we return to God? Especially if sin, the very acts we learned from, are what separate us from him? Grace, forgiveness.

Besides, you know love. Can you imagine a relationshgip working with someone you love, knowing that they are human and imperfect, working without forgiveness? And our heavenly father teaches us this very thing in our relationship with him.

And what does atheism say about these things? Nothing.

You love puppies right? You will someday love your children right? And even if you have a lot of them, you will love them right? Will children sometime grow away from their parents? Would you, as a father stop loving them?

We are, all of us, children of God. And if you desire love, think it is important? Why would you claim that you have no dsire to be loved by a being that created all of this ... for you?

The Jews were not the victorsin the end, and often during their own narrative they failed. Yet, they, not mighty Rome, have shaped the world. Odd don't you think?

A positive attitude helps, but prayer helps even more. Why abandon additional help simply because it conflicts with your non-religious belief?

No problem.

I will say this Serf, you are not some random dude. You are here on this Earth with prupose and to serve. You are not meant to simply sit idolly. You were meant to serve. You understand the power of love, and, what many atheists miss entirely, is that the more you pursue God, the more you desire to serve his children. Mark my words Serf, you have purpose.

 

1 - What I'm saying is that a doctrine is something that is often used to simplify perceptions of groups. This can be applied to religions, political parties, or anything really. As you said, Christians do disagree on matters of principle (which explains the variety of denominations), but because there is a common general doctrine involved, sometimes that encourages people to lump all Christians together into a single stereotype. It's not that having a common doctrine is a bad thing.

2 - I somewhat agree. Society does require a certain amount of common ground to function.

The Eightfold Path encompasses more than just suffering, although it does teach that life itself is suffering. It's a relative thing, however.

Well, like I said, I don't buy into it now. You were leaning towards discussion of conversion, so I brought up Buddhism. We could probably spend an entire thread on a discussion of Buddhism and its complexities, but I was just talking about how I agreed with more of its general concepts.

The pursuit of nirvana appeals to me more than a lot of what the Abrahamic religions propose, because Buddhism is more internally oriented. The Abrahamic religions seem more external in focus. While there are some sects of Buddhism that focus on deity worship, the version of it that I prefer is more focused on clarity of mind. "Siddhartha", by Hermann Hesse, is one of my favorite books. While Buddhism encompasses a lot more than just the story of Buddha, that book was my introduction to Buddhism. After that, I read parts of the buddhavacana (translated into English, of course) and even dabbled a bit in the research tying Jesus to Buddhism. There are notable similarities between the two faiths.

Maybe a supernova was a bad example, but I could have just as easily used a meteor hitting the earth instead. And yes, I'm aware that we'd likely have a lead time of a few days or weeks before the impact.

My suggestion isn't that life is purposeless but that we each decide for ourselves what our purpose is. If you choose to define your purpose in terms of the belief that the creator of the universe gave you that purpose, then you're making the same decision we all have to make -- although the justification for that purpose seems a bit ostentatious. I'm defining my purpose just in terms of what I'd like to accomplish with my life.

I do actually. I don't quite understand what love would be to something that is technically everything all at once.

Well, I don't believe atheism was designed for that. Atheists decide for themselves what their guidance comes from. It's completely dependent on the individual. My guidance combines elements of rational skepticism and secular humanism.

Hypothetically, I would love my children, although I don't plan on having any. That's another discussion though.

I don't have the desire to be loved by this being if it exists, although I would desire to not be tortured or abused by it.

I'd say the Romans have had a pretty strong hand in things as have the Ancient Greeks. Our system of government is definitely more Greco-Roman than Hebrew. Some of our laws have Christian influences, but the Founding Fathers seemed more Classical in their orientation.

Now, it is true that Jews have a lot of wealth and influence in banking, media, and elements of foreign policy.

I suppose that would be a matter of choosing what to pray to.

Thanks for the kind words. I know we still differ on religion, but I can see where you're coming from. You seem to have a compassionate basis to your faith which seems to often be drowned out by the fire and (*)(*)(*)(*)ation types in political affairs, but I'm glad Christians like you exist. I've been fortunate enough to befriend several of the compassionate ones.

 

No doctrine is used for many things, mostly, in professions it streamlines meanings and communication. Do you know what the difference is between a raid, a clearence, a siezure, attack, and destroy are? They all have specific military meaning that allow us to convey intent between leaders in battle quickly and clearly. But you must learn the professional doctrine first. Same goes for medicine and legal terms. Now, when it comes to standards, doctrine are things likes law, a professional code of ethics, statements of goals, etc. Every organization out there uses them, because to NOT HAVE Standards is a really bad thing. If you cannot accept corporate standards of ethics and dress ... you need not apply - your Metallica T-Shirt can remain outside the professional bounds of the board room.

Atheism has none of these, and, to highligh the problem, Satantists routinely pass themselves off as atheists - even though that are not atheists, for surely they believe in God as the worship his adversary ... but it does make you look at the nihilistic tendancies such a Jesus denial with a keener eye knowing that this element is active in atheism.

It requires a lot.

Well, you may want to address the Problem of Evil and concepts of suffering with your atheist peers.

Well, I would say that this tends from the atheistic desire to call anything atheist that is even remotely close. An examination of Buddhism quickly reveals that it is incompatible with atheism. Hence, you do not adopt it, even though it gives you those desired spiritual blessing sans God .... which you are already doing in practice now?

So you seek wisdom from within by reading books from without, gotcha I have no problem with Buddhism, but if I were to sum it up, its about discipline. My problem with the internal approach to wisdom is we are not infinitely wise. The history of humanity, of scholarship ... its reading these things that and seeing the commonalities of man, the truth of what is written in the Bible as wisdom that is amazing. History is filled with examples of people violating God's commandments, even if they do not accept God, and having bad things happen - the opposite is equally true.

As for similiarities, there are similarties between all faiths. The idea that Christianity is more similar to Buddhism than Juddaism from which it arises is silly. There is simply no reason or even means for Jesus to have visited the far East. You can find many similarities between apples and oranges too, but they are still different and came from different trees. Wisdom is not the sole property of Christianity, and what I have found most true about it ... is that no matter where it is practices, God's commandments and guidance brings benefit - whether you accept God or not. His prediction rings true.

That is two different things. What we do when we get here is subject to free agency. Why we are here at all? That is another question altogether. You were brought here specifically so you could exercise that agency and discover what your purpose is - what you will do without Heavenly Father to guide you and hiold your hand.

The love of a father for his son is difficult to grasp? A child does understand that his father has a job, but the other thinsg daddy is don't seem to bother a child ... not when he knows his parents love him.

And that is the problem. It what YOU want, not necessarily what is right. The dangers of rationalization, of peer pressure, or even anger and exploitation, are manifest in such an approach. And the real problem is, you have no set of standards upon which to guide yourself. You have not spelled out ten simple rules and given yourself accountability to them ... yet you want your approach to be treated as if it is equally as effective as the other? It isn't.

Well, every child wanders his own path.

We worship Pluto and Jupiter do we? We have orgies after the latest Congressional sessions do we? We are ruled by a fuedal elite? Hold slaves? Gladitorial games? No, the morality of Rome died a long time ago, and for that I am glad. We would not rule of law to be enforced by legions breaking into neighborhoods and torturing and killng people until the neighborhood agreed to submit would we?

Please do not go there. If your nonlisted moral code allows you to make such a claim, then perhaps you should examine it. The idea that 'Jews' have more influence on banking then Wall Street is silly.

Only one gets you actual answers.



[quote[Thanks for the kind words. I know we still differ on religion, but I can see where you're coming from. You seem to have a compassionate basis to your faith which seems to often be drowned out by the fire and (*)(*)(*)(*)ation types in political affairs, but I'm glad Christians like you exist. I've been fortunate enough to befriend several of the compassionate ones.[/QUOTE]

All I can say is be quick about your journey, others need you. And the happiest I am is when I am helping others. I doubt that you are far from the path.

 

No, you are claiming that you have the writings of the Apostles without any evidence to back that statement up. If you have evidence that the Synoptic Gospels were written by the men whose their names bear, provide it.

 

And you are doubting with absolutely no basis for doubt. Paul provides it. As does Eusebius.

But I see how atheism works, if you cannot absolutely 100% beyond a doubt, positively in your face identify something ... then it means its false. You, espcially when you ahve done zero actual study, have no basis to doubt it ... save what random atheist web sites have told you ... and they are wonderful sources of scholarship routinely listed in teh biliographical refrrences you are having so much trouble finding, eh?

Again, why bother treated the hooligans as learned men rather than fools?