|
8/6/2010 3:25:15 AM
|
topic:
Common arguments against atheism?
reddragon
Posts 1
|
I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this. but essentially you belief system is just as idiotic as religion (idiot used in clinical sense, not pejorative)
http://keytoann.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/the-g-word/
walt
|
|
4/20/2010 7:03:18 PM
|
topic:
What's your opinion of the term "Bright"?
Skelvgaar
Posts 1
|
I'm not a huge fan of Bright, but I understand the point. I prefer the term Humanist, but there are many others who think that term should carry specific points of view just as some atheists think you have to "believe" certain things to be considered a true atheist. That's no better than what religion does. I must admit, however, I do kind of like the term Enbrightenment as a modern movement which further progresses from what the Enlightenment achieved. Unfortunately when it comes to rational, logical thought and freethinking, the majority of the US populace is slipping into a modern day Dark Ages.
|
|
3/9/2009 4:30:45 PM
|
topic:
Common arguments against atheism?
The_Swindall
Posts 5
|
I have been accused of having no faith in anything BECAUSE I dont have faith in a God. Which provoked me giving this face...  lol
When debating against a friend, he argued that 1. because the religion had been around for so long, it must be right.
2. because so many follow the religion, they cant ALL be wrong.
3. and the real winner.. Its obvious that christianity is real, because of the Bible 
Who can name the logical fallacies? lol
|
|
3/9/2009 4:17:32 PM
|
topic:
Why You Should Care - March 5 Edition
The_Swindall
Posts 5
|
JustTheKidNextDoor wrote:
I would say:
* A theist is someone who believes nothing made a God that made everything else with zero evidence.
...and..
* an atheist is someone who doesn't know whether the universe was made or came to be, but is still searching, for he hates using the the «god of the gaps argument» for things he cannot understand --by now--.
A Theist is someone who believe's in a God. A God which had no creator, and created everything. (They wont see it as 'zero evidence')
A Atheist is someone with a lack of belief in God/s.
|
|
3/9/2009 5:54:25 AM
|
topic:
Why You Should Care - March 5 Edition
JustTheKidNextDoor
Posts 3
|
I would say:
* A theist is someone who believes nothing made a God that made everything else with zero evidence.
...and..
* an atheist is someone who doesn't know whether the universe was made or came to be, but is still searching, for he hates using the the «god of the gaps argument» for things he cannot understand --by now--.
|
|
3/8/2009 11:07:14 PM
|
topic:
Things Every Christian Should Know
hatsoff
Posts 3
|
Alexander wrote:
My $0.02.
I would have the first one read as "1) The Gospel stories (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were not written until anywhere from 20-40 years after the time of Jesus' alleged death."
After reading jesusneverexisted.com, I'm unconvinced there was a single person the gospel godman is based on. Instead, the story was based on several individuals, Jewish myths, earlier pagan religions, and outright fabrications.
Be careful of websites like that, which have clear agendas, and do not give citations by which to readily verify their claims.
Wikipedia usually makes a decent primer for this sort of thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
|
|
3/8/2009 7:38:00 AM
|
topic:
Things Every Christian Should Know
Alexander
Posts 5
|
My $0.02.
I would have the first one read as "1) The Gospel stories (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were not written until anywhere from 20-40 years after the time of Jesus' alleged death."
After reading jesusneverexisted.com, I'm unconvinced there was a single person the gospel godman is based on. Instead, the story was based on several individuals, Jewish myths, earlier pagan religions, and outright fabrications.
|
|
3/7/2009 1:44:06 PM
|
topic:
What's your opinion of the term "Bright"?
Dionysus
Posts 2
|
I don't care for it either, and I believe that it's really a cancer to the movement itself if for no other reason that, as others have mention, it's antithesis "dim". You don't win a person over by telling them they have an ugly baby, whether their baby really is ugly or not.
|
|
3/7/2009 6:39:29 AM
|
topic:
Swin
The_Swindall
Posts 5
|
Hi all... I was advised to sign up here by Zhav- I mean Alexander.
Looks good... Should be cool when more posters sign up.
By the way, I love the smiley's you have. Me >>  <<Christianity
|
|
3/7/2009 6:36:18 AM
|
topic:
Why You Should Care - March 5 Edition
The_Swindall
Posts 5
|
Tyrrho wrote:
I like that. An atheist is someone who believes that nothing made everything.
And a theist is someone who believes that God made everything and nothing made God.
|
|
3/7/2009 6:34:17 AM
|
topic:
Why You Should Care - March 5 Edition
The_Swindall
Posts 5
|
Tim A wrote:
Why should atheists be willing to be more outspoken? See the billboard picture, and this article.
I think the stigma that surrounds atheism (Although, I feel it is decreasing) is ridiculous.
There was a bus ad campaign over here in England, where christians started 'advertising' christianity... "Jesus said: I am the resurrection, the life and whoever believes in me will live" *With a picture of 'Jesus' on the side.
There was no uproar about this, no news coverage, everyone just went about their life... Oh look there's another Jesus ad, and so on.
The atheist community then made their own ad (The money was raised by atheist's around the country and was matched by Dawkins)... "There's probably no God, So stop worrying and get on with your life"...
Suddenly it was on the BBC news, 'how can atheist's do this' etc. Christians were livid.
It's for these kind of reactions, that I feel atheists aren't more outspoken. They should be or.. we should be more outspoke.
|
|
3/6/2009 1:57:22 AM
|
topic:
Why You Should Care - March 5 Edition
JustTheKidNextDoor
Posts 3
|
they cannot even get rid of the word «made», which implies purpose and planning. they cannot think outta the purpose idea. Things cannot happen without somebody making them happen to them.
|
|
3/5/2009 4:36:57 PM
|
topic:
Why You Should Care - March 5 Edition
Tyrrho
Posts 2
|
I like that. An atheist is someone who believes that nothing made everything.
And a theist is someone who believes that God made everything and nothing made God.
|
|
3/5/2009 4:17:55 PM
|
topic:
What's your opinion of the term "Bright"?
Tyrrho
Posts 2
|
I don't like it either. People are likely to hear "I am a Bright" as "I am bright", and think, "Well, aren't you full of yourself?"
I don't have a problem with agnostic, freethinker, and the like, but I think atheist says it best.
|
|
3/5/2009 11:41:28 AM
|
topic:
Why You Should Care - March 5 Edition
Tim A
Posts 10
|
Why should atheists be willing to be more outspoken?
See the billboard picture, and this article.
|
|
3/5/2009 11:41:24 AM
|
topic:
Why You Should Care - March 5 Edition
Tim A
Posts 10
|
Why should atheists be willing to be more outspoken?
See the billboard picture, and this article.
|
|
3/5/2009 11:10:13 AM
|
topic:
Things Every Christian Should Know
hatsoff
Posts 3
|
Tim A wrote:
Here's my list of the things I wish every Christian knew about their religion and the Bibl, but few of them do. Got any others?
You're on the right track, here, but this list needs some corrections. If I may...
Tim A wrote:
Most modern scholars (both Christian and non-Christian) agree to the following points:
Christian/Biblical scholarship is almost evenly divided between conservative and liberal camps. The conservatives, naturally, defend issues like eyewitness authorship of the Gospels and authenticity of the general Epistles. Only liberals (many of whom are Christians) acknowledge the following facts.
Tim A wrote:
1) The Gospel stories (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were not written until anywhere from 20-40 years after the time of Jesus' death.
2) The Gospels were not written by apostles or other eyewitnesses. The names of the Gospels do not refer to the names of the authors. The real authors are unknown. The names were assigned by the early Christian church as a matter of "tradition".
3) The Gospels were not written in the order they appear in the Bible. Mark was actually written first, followed by Matthew and Luke, then John.
All this is very probably true. But of course a "probably" needs to be added to each point.
Tim A wrote:
4) Mark, the earliest Gospel, says nothing about a virgin birth, nor of a resurrection.
The Resurrection is mentioned in Mark 16:6. You seem to be thinking of post-Resurrection appearances, stories of which the Gospel of Mark lacks.
Tim A wrote:
5) Matthew and Luke, the later Gospels, copy a great deal of their source material directly from Mark.
As before, a "probably" needs to be added here.
Tim A wrote:
They then augment (or embellish) the story with additional details, including the birth and resurrection.
They embellish the story with infancy narratives and stories of post-Resurrection appearances. The Resurrection, as mentioned above, is indeed discussed in Mark.
Tim A wrote:
6) There were numerous accounts of Jesus, with many conflicting stories.
This is true exactly as stated.
Tim A wrote:
In 325 at the Council of Nicea, early church elders voted on which gospel stories would be included in the New Testament.
This is completely false. It's an unfortunate misconception which has been around for many years.
Tim A wrote:
7) Early Christian sects were regarded as little more than cults for almost 300 years. It wasn't until the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine that this changed. He not only ended persecution of Christians, but declared it the official state religion.
This too is false--another common misconception. Constantine made Christianity legal with the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, but it was not made the state religion until 380 AD, when Theodosius I declared it to be so.
As for early Christians being considered cultists, I'm not sure what you mean by that. The concept of a cult is modern idea.
Tim A wrote:
8) The teaching the Jesus and God are one and the same was not decided upon until the council of Nicea. Everyone in attendance agreed – because they were threatened with excommunication and exile otherwise. In typical church fashion, they then burned all known writings that were contradictory to this teaching.
This is somewhat true, but needs to be clarified. A belief in the divinity of Jesus dates back at least to the late first century, with the Gospel of John. This doctrine grew in popularity such that by 325 AD, it was widely dominant. That year, thanks to the freedom granted by the Edict of Milan, hundreds of Bishops from around the Christian world were able to come together in Nicea and codify a creed of orthodoxy. Chief among the issues was Arianism (AKA the divinity of Jesus). Arius taught that Jesus was of similar substance as God the Father, but not the same substance. The Nicene Bishops almost unanimously disagreed, and issued their creed. At the time, they were under no threat of exile or excommunication, whether or not they held to Arianism. Only after the Council had ended was affirmation of the Nicene Creed made compulsory. Arian supporters were given opportunity to recant, and although a few bishops were exiled, some reports suggest they were later recalled. Arius' books (not all books in conflict with Christian orthodoxy) were ordered burned.
Tim A wrote:
9) The only books of the New Testament whose authorship is not in doubt is a handful of the epistles written by Paul. What's interesting about Paul's writings is that he doesn't seem to hold the view that Jesus lived in human form.
This is false. Paul does not talk about Jesus' life very much, but what he says is not at all unusual. For example, in 1 Co 11, he talks about the betrayal and last supper. In 1 Cor 15, he mentions Jesus' death and burial (and his Resurrection, though of course that bit is not historical).
Tim A wrote:
Feel free to comment on my list, or add your own!
The number one thing for Christians to keep in mind is this: There is no good evidence that a supernatural disembodied mind exists, much less that it cares about humans, and sent itself in human form to perform ritual sacrifice to atone for human disobedience.
edited by hatsoff on 3/5/2009
|
|
3/5/2009 9:17:32 AM
|
topic:
Blasphemy Day!
Tim A
Posts 10
|
Anyone heard of this yet? There is a new Facebook group:
Blasphemy Day International is an international campaign seeking to establish September 30th as a national day to promote free speech and stand up in a show of solidarity for the freedom to mock and insult religion without fear of murder, violence, and reprisal. It is the obligation of the world's nations to safeguard dissent and the dissenters, not to side with the brutal interests of thugs who demand "respect" for their beliefs (i.e., immunity to being criticized or mocked or they threaten violence).
So if you support free speech, and the rights of those who disagree with religious views to voice their opinions peacefully, support our group and join the cause!
|
|
3/5/2009 9:07:15 AM
|
topic:
Intelligent Design - Philosophical Problems
Tim A
Posts 10
|
Obviously the biggest problem with so-called "Intelligent Design" is that the science simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
But for those who are too lazy to investigate and understand the actual science involved, I'll point out a couple of simple, philosophical problems with the whole concept of an intelligent designer.
The Perfect Designer
First, ID makes God out to be a bit of a nincompoop. ID theorists claim that every so often, God comes along and re-directs the natural order… sort of a "directed" evolution. But God is supposed to be perfect, all-powerful, and unchanging. Wouldn't such a God just have created everything once, and designed it from the beginning in such a way that he wouldn't need to intervene? This notion that he comes along every so often and makes course corrections suggests he's a bit of an incompetent, and he isn't quite sure what he is doing. It makes no sense. In fact, it makes much more sense to assume that Darwin's theory of evolution was exactly how God intended things to work: he put all the pieces in place, and then let it carry out naturally according to His plan!
On this point alone, I don't understand why any theist would support Intelligent Design. But wait… there's more!
The Design Timeline
Most ID proponents hold that evolution happens on a small scale within species, but it can't create new species. They term this "micro-evolution" vs. "macro-evolution". This differentiation exists only within the ID community. The only thing that limits the changes in "micro-evolution" from creating a new species is the imagination of those who put forth this theory. They forget how long the geological timescale is. How many small changes, when compounded over millions of years, does it take to get to a large change?
The Perfect Design
If the designer was intelligent, he appears to have been far from perfect. Many creationists look at the human body in awe and say, "How could something so complex NOT have been designed?" But there is hardly a part of the human body that we can look at and not think of a way that it could have been designed better.
Some would argue that we humans are not qualified to judge. Since we could not create something as complex as the human body, who are we to judge such a creation? But just because we might not be capable of creating a better design (at least not yet), this does not mean we should be prohibited from pointing out flaws in the existing design. We do this as individuals all the time. We regularly see design flaws in buildings, in computer software, in home appliances. Most of us aren't capable of building these things ourselves, but it doesn't mean that our critique of the design isn't perfectly valid, along with our ability to notice the problems in the design.
|
|
3/5/2009 9:01:54 AM
|
topic:
Techniques for keeping a straight face
Tim A
Posts 10
|
When you are debating a theist, I find it is of the utmost importance to maintain your cool, and remain polite. Sure, you can get into a screaming match, but where does it get you? You'll never convince anyone of anything by yelling, or by putting them down or making fun of them.
Sometimes this is easier said than done, especially when talking about religious fantasies.
Other than biting your tongue, any good recommendations for staying positive in your conversations?
|
|
pages:
1 2
|