Atheist ethics, atheist values

[rosenherman]

Acts 1, 18: With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

tyvm

 

[tanzanos]

Acts 1, 18: With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

Wow! Some fall he had! Actually the physics do not add up! Even if he was 3 metres tall still it would take more than that height to cause his belly to burst open! This is what happens when Bronze age authors write fiction as fact!

 

[Peterthepebble]

Just wanted to quote this rather sensible question posed by a fellow Christian;

Why do so many atheists post on this forum? Is this a ridiculous question? If I were an atheist the last place I would want to be is on a Christian forum, right? Just like if I were a vegetarian I wouldn't go to a steakhouse.

So why are so many atheists drawn here and seemingly wanting to 'have a pop' at Christianity? What is to be gained?

Indeed, why?

 

[Shane Roach]

I've been checking out other Christian forums lately, and there are two things that contribute. One is size. Anti-Christian posters are not too keen on small boards with limited numbers of people. The second is moderation. Many Christian forums simply do not tolerate a lot of anti-Christian bashing, and most anti-Christians get bored with them fairly quickly.

CF provides an environment that is conducive to letting people who hate Christians vent their spleen right into the face of orthodox Christians. It's a rare gem of a place if you happen to hate orthodox Christian views.

Where else can you call the Bible a "bronze age fiction" right under the nose of hapless Christians who just have to suck it up? And that is the norm here, not the exception.

 

[b&wpac4]

I've been checking out other Christian forums lately, and there are two things that contribute. One is size. Anti-Christian posters are not too keen on small boards with limited numbers of people. The second is moderation. Many Christian forums simply do not tolerate a lot of anti-Christian bashing, and most anti-Christians get bored with them fairly quickly.

CF provides an environment that is conducive to letting people who hate Christians vent their spleen right into the face of orthodox Christians. It's a rare gem of a place if you happen to hate orthodox Christian views.

Where else can you call the Bible a "bronze age fiction" right under the nose of hapless Christians who just have to suck it up? And that is the norm here, not the exception.

Shane, report posts that call it such. The rule on blasphemy is quite clear in THAT regard:

Blasphemy
In the interests of informed debate, members will not speak in a disrespectful way of The Christian God, The Trinity, or The Holy Scriptures (The Bible) . A similar respect is expected towards the faith and sacred texts of other religions.
Expressing disbelief in God is acceptable, referring to Him as a 'fairy tale' or 'mythical being' is not.

 

[Shane Roach]

So there is at least one error in the Bible?

You'd be surprised how many very Bible reverencing Christians nevertheless are well aware of the various problems with the text. It's sort of funny, but I hang out and post in the fundamentalist forums here, where the rules seem to dictate you have to believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. No one seems to notice the difference.

After centuries of people trying to poke holes in it, what errors there are never seem to strike at the heart of the matter. I am not aware of a single possible error in the Bible that has been found that affects orthodox Christian beliefs.

Most of the attempts to discredit the Bible are actually faith affirming to me. Why anyone would go to the trouble of sifting through to find a handful of the most inconsequential errors imaginable, and a load of "errors" that are in actuality plain, old fashioned mis-readings of the text, is beyond me. It borders on the miraculous.

The fury aimed at portions of the Bible encouraging decent, clean living is also especially faith affirming. I will never understand the focus of energy by anti-Christians on trying to encourage behaviors with demonstrably damaging consequences.

 

[Psudopod]

Just wanted to quote this rather sensible question posed by a fellow Christian;

Why do so many atheists post on this forum? Is this a ridiculous question? If I were an atheist the last place I would want to be is on a Christian forum, right? Just like if I were a vegetarian I wouldn't go to a steakhouse.

So why are so many atheists drawn here and seemingly wanting to 'have a pop' at Christianity? What is to be gained?

Indeed, why?

Because it's boring having a discussion with people who all agree with you. I came for the creation / evolution forums, as you can't get that discussion without religious people (not just Christians though). There weren't really enough creationists, so I came over here. It's nothing to do with having a pop at Christians, as there are many Christians I agree with, and athiests I disagree with.

 

[Shane Roach]

Shane, report posts that call it such. The rule on blasphemy is quite clear in THAT regard:

Blasphemy
In the interests of informed debate, members will not speak in a disrespectful way of The Christian God, The Trinity, or The Holy Scriptures (The Bible) . A similar respect is expected towards the faith and sacred texts of other religions.
Expressing disbelief in God is acceptable, referring to Him as a 'fairy tale' or 'mythical being' is not.

Don't worry b, you'll be rid of the evil fundie who has trouble remembering not to so much as mention anything that goes wrong here soon enough.

CF will be back to normal in no time.

 

[quatona]

Just wanted to quote this rather sensible question posed by a fellow Christian;

Why do so many atheists post on this forum?

Can´t say anything about this. Can only speak for this atheist.

Is this a ridiculous question?

Yes. You asked.

If I were an atheist the last place I would want to be is on a Christian forum, right?

I take your word for it. Then again, quite apparently you yourself leave the Christians Only section in order to discuss with people who aren´t Christians.

Just like if I were a vegetarian I wouldn't go to a steakhouse.

Poor comparison. This is a discussion forum, and discussion requires diverging opinions.
If I went to attend preachings, prayers and services your comparison would be more accurate.

So why are so many atheists drawn here and seemingly wanting to 'have a pop' at Christianity?

What does "have a pop" mean?

What is to be gained?

Personally, I find exchange of thoughts gain enough from a discussion.
On a side note: What I definitely don´t want is to have my threads derailed by distracting questions such as "why are you even here?".

 

[ragarth]

I've been checking out other Christian forums lately, and there are two things that contribute. One is size. Anti-Christian posters are not too keen on small boards with limited numbers of people. The second is moderation. Many Christian forums simply do not tolerate a lot of anti-Christian bashing, and most anti-Christians get bored with them fairly quickly.

CF provides an environment that is conducive to letting people who hate Christians vent their spleen right into the face of orthodox Christians. It's a rare gem of a place if you happen to hate orthodox Christian views.

Where else can you call the Bible a "bronze age fiction" right under the nose of hapless Christians who just have to suck it up? And that is the norm here, not the exception.

Really depends on what you call christian-bashing. I don't consider what I do christian-bashing, otherwise I'd consider what y'all do to me as atheist bashing- and I don't (unless it's just hatefilled monologue on either side). It's all the exchange of ideas, and this is healthy. The owners and moderators recognize the dangers of quelling dissenting opinions- it tends to produce inbred thought, and so the discussion they allow is balanced to allow healthy discourse.

If you notice, the atheists on this board are happy to tell christian-bashing posters 'shutup, douche'. http://www.christianforums.com/t7370994/

Just wanted to quote this rather sensible question posed by a fellow Christian;

Why do so many atheists post on this forum? Is this a ridiculous question? If I were an atheist the last place I would want to be is on a Christian forum, right? Just like if I were a vegetarian I wouldn't go to a steakhouse.

So why are so many atheists drawn here and seemingly wanting to 'have a pop' at Christianity? What is to be gained?

Indeed, why?

The problem with posting on atheist boards (I've tried!) is that everyone agrees with you. I've poured my heart into posts on those boards and gotten 'yup' 'that's true' 'sho-nuff' and felt heart broke over it. What's the purpose! It's hollow, patting each other on the back, and doesn't change or advance anyone's ideals. It's mental masturbation to keep agreeing with each other.

So I come here. There's a large, lively community with a really great mix of people from all kinds of opinions and origins. I learn things by being here, and I hope those who read my posts learn something as well. I'm not agreed with because people don't hold my opinions and are happy to post their disagreement, and I also expose myself to another culture- christianity, and exposure to other ways of thought, living, and cultures is always a good thing.

I personally am not here to 'have a pop' at christians. I'm here to learn more, to challenge my ideas, and practice key debate skills. These goals are all much more difficult to accomplish on forums where everyone's in agreement.

 

[rosenherman]

Wow! Some fall he had! Actually the physics do not add up! Even if he was 3 metres tall still it would take more than that height to cause his belly to burst open! This is what happens when Bronze age authors write fiction as fact!

It's more likely that since it was written approximately 30 years after Jesus' death and resurrection that someone was repeating something they heard, who heard it from . . . game of telephone, anyone?

 

[Wyzaard]

I don't even see what relevance that is, you accept your phenomenology at the physical level ... if you want to deny that is a metaphysical belief than that is your mistake, because you cannot verify your phenomenology within that phenomenology [men have tried with good reason, and found, proved, it is impossible ]

What need do I have to verify my phenomenology at all? I have made no metaphysical naturalist claims, nor do I suppose my frameworks are absolutes (their authority is likewise unverifiable); as I have said before, you can chuck all of this as you wish, but the absence of any verified system of verification puts both of us in the metaphysical dark. You're attacking a straw-man of Logical Positivism rather than my main point, which is that regardless of what is metaphysically possible, such matters are inaccessible to non-absolute means of discernment.

Well,as I said, that is rather inevitably how you see it from inside your phenomenological 'box' that you made around yourself out of things you found that others had abandoned as scrap... but it is not my problem, since I have an absolute framework to use, I do not need a relative one cos' I have one that is not paradoxical, not dependent upon arbitrary [and disputed, and pardoxical] unverifiable axioms

Balderdash. You exist inside of a box as well, as you have not only not shown that you possess any sort of absolute framework, but you have not shown that you could discern or use such a framework in the first place. Your framework is INDEED relative to the limited delineations of your brand of christianity and its own unverifiable axioms.

Like Bertrand Russell pointed out, even skeptics get out of the building when the firebell rings... we all believe in something ... claiming you do not have no metaphysical claims is simply denial,

Firebells as well as fire are NOT METAPHYSICAL ENTITIES. They are empirical contingencies that may be provisionally modeled using limited conventional systems according to our proximate needs... like not getting burned. I have no need to discern if the fire 'really' exists to understand I do not like the sensory results of getting burned.

you do assert your phenomenology , and whilst you think it is obvious to do so, others have shown that it is not only not obvious, but is inconsistent , pardoxical , thus it is not only an [implicit] metaphysical claim of belief in axioms,

And your straw-man rips a seam... what "axioms" have I expressed an absolute belief in? You're misrepresenting my assertions, or might I say lack thereof.

it is also one which has been extensively and thoroughly disproven within itself, within its own axioms [yet many like yourself still cling to it , like grasping at straws as one drowns inside one's imagined relative box ,

If you're also nodding to the effect of Incompleteness on the limitations of sufficiently complex frameworks, might I remind you that you ALSO suffer the same limitations, as your framework (or perceptions) cannot be verified by itself (or themselves.)

instead of leaving it by the unlocked door and searching for and climbing aboard the life-raft of the absolute..

None of which has been shown to be possible, much less possesed by yourself.

On that one must meditate to escape the box created by thoughts acquired from the world ... simply stop thinking, and after a week or so of practice the mind naturally meditates and expands its consciousness through all the gates that restrict it, including relative beliefs about phenomenologies ... else take the slower [I think much harder] route that I first took of going through the formal disproofs of all relative phenomenologies ... that is harder because it is perhaps harder to open the mind that way...

... or just learn to meditate [by prectising ceasing from thought for say ten minutes twice a day for a week] , in which case the barriers tumble naturally and more quickly and easily.

So you're answer to all of this is... bald-faced mysticism? Now you're REALLY starting to get boring.

Agreed, but your argument for conventionality is an argument from plurality, [as well as having been disproven already within its own framework]

You've relied upon the claim that lots of people have "disproven" this straw-Positivism... one that I have not made. So who is acting more foolishly?

As I said , there is no way to show you anything at present except that you do implicitly accept [metaphysically, unverifiably] your own phenomenology

Unshown, and indeed...

and it is disproven , it does have paradoxes at its roots, contradictions upon which it is built ... once you see the flaws you may decide to open the scary door and look for the absolute outside this 'box' of falsified relative beliefs...

... these paradoxes related to Incompleteness completely preclude the opening of ANY such doors, as the frameworks for "opening" them or "looking for the absolute" are themselves bounded and limited, unable to support the verification of extra-conventional claims.

This is the fatal flaw of your unfounded beliefs, and no misuse of Godel will save you here.

... so you may wait for the physical evidence to bite home ,or if you prefer then you can seek the absolute sooner [through logic, by observing the contradictions proven instead of ignoring them through faith in convention/tradition... or by 'radically' and bravely expanding consciousness by allowing your mind to meditate , by stopping thinking occasionally]

The authority of these over matters of the absolute has not been shown, nor has it been shown that their authority could ever be authenticated.

Another fatal flaw.

...and I did not come here to 'play games' my friend, this is a serious discussion about the depth of T-Truth and the shallowness of t-truth.

You have demonstrated no such depth...

... that does not excuse your unverifiable implicit innuendo against my personal veracity...

... thus I am under no such obligation to believe your claims.

that is truly to retreat into your denial of anything outside the box and the gaping holes in it which must eventually claim your life [and many billions of others ]

I do not feel the need to deny anything that has not been shown to be accessible, much less real.

... I cannot do that because you will refuse to acknowledge that can see outside and see the holes that you cannot, even though I tried living in a similar box myself once and got out and tell you that the absolute is far better , incomparably better, than the paradoxical relative ...

Claims, claims, claims... and no substance; does this mystical self-denial actually work on other people?

Yeah, again I sympathise, but you failed to notice that your beliefs are not verified either,

Of course not, as all claims to the metaphyscial are shrounded in uncertainty, including matters pertaining to the shroud itself.

in fact they are proven contradictory at root, without foundations...

What says I need these "foundations"?

by refusing to look outside them and refusing to look at their roots,

How are these roots accessible at all? You have failed to adequately explain this.

yes, denial is the problem , I know that...

No, you don't... and that's the problem.

Well I understand how you got there, but you forgot that how you got there is unverifiable and that that statement is unverifiable

EXACTLY. All matters pertaining to the absolute lie outside of the limited conventions we use to puzzle out the 'world', which includes not knowing whether or not knowledge is possible of extra-conventional "Truths"... being uncertain about uncertainly doesn't mean that we can magically be certain... indeed, such quandaries only lead to a DEEPER level of uncertainty, not Truth.

Indeed, uncertainty might be the only metaphysical truth we can muster... but I'd rather consider it a response to incommensurables rather than an assertion.

 

[JediMobius]

False.

Bears, beets, Battlestar Galactaca

Lets use one of my favorite: In one book Judas hangs himself and dies, in another he throws himself down onto the rocks and dies.

Simply put by no twist of logic can both be true.

From the commentary of Barnes:

(Act 1:18) Now this man ... - The money which was given for betraying the Lord Jesus was thrown down in the temple, and the field was purchased with it by the Jewish priests. (See Mat_27:5, Mat_27:10), and the notes on that place. A man is said often to do a thing when he furnishes means for doing it. (Compare Mat_27:60), “And laid it (the body of Jesus) in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock.” That is, had caused to be hewn out. Joh_4:1, “when, therefore, the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus “made and baptized” more disciples than John.” Through his disciples, for Jesus himself baptized not, (Joh_4:2.) The same principle is recognized in law in the well-known maxim, “Qui facit per alium, facit per se.” The reward of iniquity - The price which he had for that deed of stupendous wickedness - the betraying of the Lord Jesus. And falling headlong - The word here rendered “headlong” - πρηνής prēnēs (Latin “pronus,” whence our English word “prone&#8221 - means properly “bent forward, head-foremost”; and the idea is, that his position in hanging himself was such that when the cord broke he fell headlong, or fell forward on his face. This can easily be supposed if he threw himself from a rock or elevated place. He first hanged himself, and then fell and was burst asunder. (See the notes on Mat_27:5.)

Certainly not by a twist of logic, but by understanding what archaic phrases meant in the context they were written, including original language, audience, culture, colloquialism, etc. Whether the actual cause of death was from hanging himself and suffocating, or hanging himself and cracking his body open on some rocks is unclear. The account in Matthew is a simple fact of his death, as Judas attempted it, while the account in Acts seems either more specific of the result, or of legend based on the history of the field purchased by Judas's money, which he threw to the floor of the temple.

Contradictions in scripture only exist in the minds of those who wish or expect such contradictions to be there. Care to try again?

 

[tanzanos]

Just wanted to quote this rather sensible question posed by a fellow Christian;

Why do so many atheists post on this forum? Is this a ridiculous question? If I were an atheist the last place I would want to be is on a Christian forum, right? Just like if I were a vegetarian I wouldn't go to a steakhouse.

So why are so many atheists drawn here and seemingly wanting to 'have a pop' at Christianity? What is to be gained?

Indeed, why?

Very simple! Most people in a debate forum like to debate. Personally I debate here to support science and to try to show people the inherent hypocrisy contained within religion as a whole. I dare say I in some ways am trying to stop Witch burnings from coming back! Have a nice day!

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Contradictions in scripture only exist in the minds of those who wish or expect such contradictions to be there. Care to try again?

You actually think that commentary is plausible???
Honestly, I've rarely seen a more convoluted rationalization. It's one of the most ridiculous and strained efforts at mental gymnastics conceivable.

The problem is not people wanting to see contradictions - after all, neither the veracity of the Bible nor Christian theology stands and falls with the most simplistic literalist approach. The problem is people who cannot even remotely admit the possibility of the same, seeking to find whatever far-fetched explanation they can come up with, rather than facing the most simple, straightforward and obvious explanation:
In this case, that the author of the gospel of Matthew and the author of the Acts of the Apostles wrote two independent accounds, based on different traditions that were in circulation among the early Christians. None of that undermines the authority of Christianity or the Bible - it just acknowledges the heterogeneous nature of the Biblical writings, inspired or not.

 

[annrobert]

This is what God says.

Acts 17-30
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent

It is dangerous to not retain God in your knowledge.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

 

[rosenherman]

I dare say I in some ways am trying to stop Witch burnings from coming back! Have a nice day!

You are aware, of course, that no one was burned in Salem. There is some thought that part of this was to obtain land from old ladies who had no family.

btw Thanks for the reps.

 

[b&wpac4]

You are aware, of course, that no one was burned in Salem. There is some thought that part of this was to obtain land from old ladies who had no family.

btw Thanks for the reps.

Nobody was burned, but nineteen people were put to death.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

This is what God says.

Wrong. This is what the unknown author of Acts (commonly assumed to be the same as the author of the gospel of Luke) wrote. He did so with "divine inspiration", as Christianity has it, but that's a long way from equating these words with "God says".
Oh, and by the way: even if we merely look at the text, it isn't God who speaks in this passage, but Paul (inspired or no).

 

[rosenherman]

Nobody was burned, but nineteen people were put to death.

18 hung and one pressed.