Preaching Atheism

[peter grimes]

So would that make us Agnostics neutral (insert Futurama reference)?



When you push a viewpoint, regardless of what it is, you inevitably are claiming you are right and the other view is wrong, regardless of intent. If you find their view incorrect, you have no choice but to not make an opinion on it, unless the blind teaching is about something you agree with.

This us why I hold the view that I am right: there are no gods, and all people who think there might be are wrong.

Also, I don't think gods are possible. I see no room in the fundamental structure of the universe to allow them. Perhaps my understanding of what's possible is wrong, but that would require reformulation if some extremely successful models that explain matter and energy.

Simply put, this universe has no space in which gods may work.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Who says God is in our universe? Christian theology, in fact, says he is in Heaven, although also spiritually everywhere, but not really "Physically" in our universe.

 

[Traitorfish]

I know that, the point there was a clear black and white being set on something not so black and white.

No, there wasn't, it was just being wilfully misinterpreted as such. Saying that a person is a theist or an atheist is no more "black and white" than saying that they are either inside or outside. When the description leaves abundant room for specification- "inside" can mean standing in the doorway or it can mean tucked away in bed- it's just affection to insist upon an unnecessary fence to sit on.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Belief in God is an active decision. If you have not made that decision, you're an atheist. Same as someone who simply doesn't care or is ignorant of the question.

I can see why someone would rather emphasize the gnostic part though.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Belief in God is an active decision. If you have not made that decision, you're an atheist. Same as someone who simply doesn't care or is ignorant of the question.

I can see why someone would rather emphasize the gnostic part though.

I think it still deserves a distinction though. "People who believe there is no God", "People who don't believe there is a God" and "People who have never thought about it before" make three distinct categories to me, and "People who believe there is a God" and "People who believe they are absolutely certain there is a God" are also two separate categories to me.

 

[Traitorfish]

How can they constitute distinct categories when some of them exist wholly within the others? You may as well claim that "red things" and "bright red things" constitute distinct categories.

 

[peter grimes]

Who says God is in our universe? Christian theology, in fact, says he is in Heaven, although also spiritually everywhere, but not really "Physically" in our universe.

Who says that? You guys do!

What does that mean - spiritually everywhere? Is he a nematode? (I jest).

Are you claiming that your god is able to influence events here? Remember - the term 'events' refers to energy/mass interactions in space/time. There is, as of now, ZERO evidence that any gods have ever interacted with this universe. Evidence, by definition leaving a physical trace, is impermanent and my be destroyed. But how is it possible that a grand creator has left NO imprint of his/her/their hand in sculpting our world?

My claim is that no evidence will ever arise. No, it's not provable - since it's a universalist claim. But the corollary is that I could be proven wrong by 1 instance of a god effecting an interaction in this universe.

If you're claiming the existence of a soul, is that something that your god interacts with?

 

[Traitorfish]

He could get around that by adopting a position of ideal realism, in which all seemingly-material processes are in fact thoughts in the mind of god. It's really either that or atheism; dualism simply doesn't fly these days.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Who says that? You guys do!

What does that mean - spiritually everywhere? Is he a nematode? (I jest).

Are you claiming that your god is able to influence events here? Remember - the term 'events' refers to energy/mass interactions in space/time. There is, as of now, ZERO evidence that any gods have ever interacted with this universe. Evidence, by definition leaving a physical trace, is impermanent and my be destroyed. But how is it possible that a grand creator has left NO imprint of his/her/their hand in sculpting our world?

My claim is that no evidence will ever arise. No, it's not provable - since it's a universalist claim. But the corollary is that I could be proven wrong by 1 instance of a god effecting an interaction in this universe.

If you're claiming the existence of a soul, is that something that your god interacts with?

I think the idea of using science to disprove God is absurd. Genesis, sure? But God in general? That's completely implausible to me.

Jesus' miracles. There are four witnesses of them, and of the four, at least one was killed for the claim that Jesus rose again, and at least one was exiled to Patmos for it. Why give up so much for a lie? Heck, why did ALL of the disciples claim to have seen Jesus rise again, and all but John give their lives for it, if it didn't happen?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think it still deserves a distinction though. "People who believe there is no God", "People who don't believe there is a God" and "People who have never thought about it before" make three distinct categories to me, and "People who believe there is a God" and "People who believe they are absolutely certain there is a God" are also two separate categories to me.

Sure, there are differences. And as I said, I can see why people want to emphasize a different view. But the fact of the matter is, it's all atheism.

As you for instance want to emphasize you're an Evangelical Christian, but you're still a Christian, as is someone who isn't Evangelical.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Jesus' miracles. There are four witnesses of them, and of the four, at least one was killed for the claim that Jesus rose again, and at least one was exiled to Patmos for it. Why give up so much for a lie? Heck, why did ALL of the disciples claim to have seen Jesus rise again, and all but John give their lives for it, if it didn't happen?

So the stuff in the Bible is supported by stuff in the Bible.

Not that strong evidence is it?

 

[Traitorfish]

I think the idea of using science to disprove God is absurd. Genesis, sure? But God in general? That's completely implausible to me.

Why's that, then?

Jesus' miracles. There are four witnesses of them, and of the four, at least one was killed for the claim that Jesus rose again, and at least one was exiled to Patmos for it. Why give up so much for a lie? Heck, why did ALL of the disciples claim to have seen Jesus rise again, and all but John give their lives for it, if it didn't happen?

If we're going by that logic, then the Heavenly Kingdom movement was approximately two million times truer than Christianity.

 

[peter grimes]

I think the idea of using science to disprove God is absurd. Genesis, sure? But God in general? That's completely implausible to me.

Jesus' miracles. There are four witnesses of them, and of the four, at least one was killed for the claim that Jesus rose again, and at least one was exiled to Patmos for it. Why give up so much for a lie? Heck, why did ALL of the disciples claim to have seen Jesus rise again, and all but John give their lives for it, if it didn't happen?

No, sorry, you don't get off the hook that easily. Are you claiming that your god can influence events in this universe?

As for your offered evidence of Jesus, I'm sure you realize that it's not stronger than the evidence that Arthur pulled Excalibur from the stone, right? The 'evidence' you're invoking is nothing more than an allegation.

Allegations are not admissible in courts. Is that really the best you have? If so, your best is most peoples' worst.

 

[El_Machinae]

If you think the evidence for Jesus is impressive, wait until you see the evidence for UFOs! There's a cornucopia of evidence on that front; yet you'll find that most people don't really think any of it is nearly sufficient to believe something so extraordinary.

 

[GhostWriter16]

So the stuff in the Bible is supported by stuff in the Bible.

Not that strong evidence is it?

As I've said, the Bible isn't just a book. Its several books, twenty seven in the NT to be exact. The gospel accounts are all by different writers, and all of the writers except John died for the testimony of what they saw. Thus they were either all psycho, which is unlikely based on the number of people who died for the same thing, or they were blatant liars who died SO that we would believe them, or they simply told the truth about what they really saw.

Why's that, then?


If we're going by that logic, then the Heavenly Kingdom movement was approximately two million times truer than Christianity.

Did his followers SEE their Messiah rise for the grave and give their lives for such testimony? Is there any written testimony that they did? There is for Christianity. And normal historical scholarship verifies the disciples' deaths.

 

[Crezth]

No, I vote every election.

I thought you said you don't vote for atheists?

 

[MobBoss]

I thought you said you don't vote for atheists?

I dont.

 

[Crezth]

I dont.

Then who do you vote for? I doubt there are very many running for office who aren't an atheist of some belief or beliefs at least.

 

[Traitorfish]

Did his followers SEE their Messiah rise for the grave and give their lives for such testimony? Is there any written testimony that they did? There is for Christianity.

They claim to have done, yes.

And normal historical scholarship verifies the disciples' deaths.

The Taiping Rebellion is at least as well recorded as the lives of the Apostles.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

As I've said, the Bible isn't just a book. Its several books, twenty seven in the NT to be exact. The gospel accounts are all by different writers, and all of the writers except John died for the testimony of what they saw. Thus they were either all psycho, which is unlikely based on the number of people who died for the same thing, or they were blatant liars who died SO that we would believe them, or they simply told the truth about what they really saw.

Oh wait, this is the preaching atheism thread.

Are you suggesting that everyone who ever died for their believes must be right?

Ok.

There's a lot of people who died during the middy-ages for not converting to Christianity. These cases are better documented. So, Christianity loses to paganism.

And paganism is silly bonkers, so atheism is superior to Christianity by at least the power of 2.

Did his followers SEE their Messiah rise for the grave and give their lives for such testimony?

Nope, that's all madey up. As can be witnessed by your reaction, it's a great pr-campaign. 2000 years ago. By now we should be a little wiser and a little more critical.

Should.

Is there any written testimony that they did? There is for Christianity.

I hereby testify I am riding a blue dragon with built-in lap-top.

There. Written testimony. Worthless.

And normal historical scholarship verifies the disciples' deaths.

Well, yeah. Obviously.