Question to Atheists

[RomanSoldier]

Wow long time no visit . I was/am here mostly to spread reason.

 

[candle glow]

I'm actually here to be as arrogant as possible. Sorry if this sounds means, but being the only atheist in my family and one of the few in my town, I often am attacked and attempted to be converted.

I will definitely convert you!

Are you a part of the same missionaries group that teaches condoms are sinful?

errrr...no. I really wish people here would use condoms more often. There are so many orphans and street kids here. The childrens department can't keep even with the huge amount of outside help in the form of NGO's and societies etc. The Catholic church has quite a large presence here with orphanages. Though I am not a Catholic (the pope's clothes really make me sick) I thank God that they are here doing so much in a practical way.

, I think the majority of disbelievers concluded their way to disbelief by evaluating religion, society, science, philosophy, history.

Awww c'mon, Christians study those things too.

 

[razeontherock]

I will definitely convert you!

Meeting arrogance with arrogance; an experienced warrior!

Is your outreach associated with a denom?

 

[candle glow]

Nope, no particular denomination; just trying to show love. It's so much easier that way.

 

[candle glow]

btw,

Q: when is an atheist all dressed up with nowhere to go?

A: at their funeral!

 

[driewerf]

But anyways, back to my original question, why are you guys here?

Okay, here is my go.
Firdt you need to know that I 'm from Belgium, Europe and that religion isn't a big issue here. Most people have grown indifferent to religion.

Some years ago, I was reading some books of Stephen Jay Gould, and it was there that I first learned that there is something as "creation science". I was appalled that people still can be that stupid to believe the bible literally and went on the internet looking for some creationist sites (Kent Hovind, who wasn't jailed yet, AIG etc). What I read there was even bellow my expectations. These sites have really nothing to offer.
Then i was wondering if people would believe this stuff. I thaught that the average American is smart enough to see the scam, the rubish these sites propose. A second deception came. Indeed quite a lot of people believe that.

I consider my presence here as a walk in the zoo: to see the creationists.

 

[LostWarrior]

btw,

Q: when is an atheist all dressed up with nowhere to go?

A: at their funeral!

I lol'ed.
Even tho it's scientifically wrong because we believe that when you die, you simply cease to exist. You don't go anywhere, you don't see darkness, you don't experience anything. You simply stop existing.

It's a good joke anyways

And I look forward to your attempt to convert me.


Btw:

Awww c'mon, Christians study those things too.

Yeah. And then they become anti-religion writers and/or hosts of atheist shows (e.g. Richard Dawkins ; Dan Brown ; and pretty much everyone from the Atheist Experience cast)

 

[candle glow]

Yeah. And then they become anti-religion writers and/or hosts of atheist shows (e.g. Richard Dawkins ; Dan Brown ; and pretty much everyone from the Atheist Experience cast)

The exception doesn't prove the rule.

Even tho it's scientifically wrong because we believe that when you die, you simply cease to exist. You don't go anywhere, you don't see darkness, you don't experience anything. You simply stop existing.

I said you have no where to go, and you say you don't go anywhere. What's the difference?

And I look forward to your attempt to convert me.

 

[LostWarrior]

Awww c'mon, Christians study those things too.

The exception doesn't prove the rule.

It's hard to find someone who studied logical flaws and actually studied the Bible not to become an atheist. The About site for Atheism was writen by and ex-Catholic, the portuguese writer José Rodrigues dos Santos is in the same situation as Dan Brown, me, one of my local priests became atheist about 1 month ago while studing other religions, LaVey (the founder of Santanism - and no, it has nothing to do with the Devil). Point being that it's easier to find those than the opposite situation.

I said you have no where to go, and you say you don't go anywhere. What's the difference?

When someone asks "What are you doing in the street" and I reply "I have nowhere to go", I'm still on the street.

 

[SentWest]

But anyways, back to my original question, why are you guys here?

Because I'm a conservative, and most other atheists not only tend to be liberal, but are also openly hostile to conservatives.

I find that Christians have values closer to mine, though they may not originate from the same place.

 

[candle glow]

It's hard to find someone who studied logical flaws and actually studied the Bible not to become an atheist. The About site for Atheism was writen by and ex-Catholic, the portuguese writer José Rodrigues dos Santos is in the same situation as Dan Brown, me, one of my local priests became atheist about 1 month ago while studing other religions, LaVey (the founder of Santanism - and no, it has nothing to do with the Devil). Point being that it's easier to find those than the opposite situation.

I think you could find many examples of the reverse happening, too; people who decide not to be atheist anymore as a result of study.

When someone asks "What are you doing in the street" and I reply "I have nowhere to go", I'm still on the street.

The question "what are you doing on the street" acknowledges that you are, in fact, on the street. Why would I think you were somehow not on the street because you say you have no where to go?

Once again, I'm not getting why you say it is significantly wrong to say you have "no where to go" but that it is okay for you to say you don't go anywhere.

I consider my presence here as a walk in the zoo: to see the creationists.

Jesus didn't teach anything about creation so, what about his teachings on loving one another? Is there any of them you can agree with?

 

[LostWarrior]

I think you could find many examples of the reverse happening, too; people who decide not to be atheist anymore as a result of study.

I do found them. Actually the show I talked about once had as a guest someone like that. And for those people, I consider they weren't that skeptical in the first place. Because if you see someone growing without being educated into a certain religion, and let that person go study, by the time he's 14 he will never be converted.

The question "what are you doing on the street" acknowledges that you are, in fact, on the street. Why would I think you were somehow not on the street because you say you have no where to go?

Once again, I'm not getting why you say it is significantly wrong to say you have "no where to go" but that it is okay for you to say you don't go anywhere.

Yea, my fault there. Bad anology. It's kinda hard to explain what I mean. But, for example, if I'm leaving home and someone asks "Where are you going" and I say "I've nowhere to go. I'm going to take a walk" that means I'm still going somewhere, just not somewhere specific, whereas if I say "I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to take a walk", the person who asked me that is probably going to take me to the madhouse.
Going back to the original context, if someone asks "What happens after you die", and I say "I go nowhere", it implies somekind of movimment. It implies that you are going some place but not expecific. It may be just in my mind tho, as english isn't my main language. But if I say "I'm not going anywhere", all that ilusion of moviment is no longer in my mind. If I don't go anywhere, I stay quiet.

Jesus didn't teach anything about creation so, what about his teachings on loving one another? Is there any of them you can agree with?

Jesus didn't teach such a thing. I mean, are you talking about Matt 7:1,2 where the judging of other is forbiden? Or are you talking about 1 Cor 6:2-4 where it's allowed?
Are you seeing the problem with the Bible's teachings? They kinda contradict themselves. Christ also told his followers that they should not fear being killed (Luke 12:4) and then he fears being killed (John 7:1). Not to talk about all the unbased descrimination (that in some cases go as far as torture and killings by order of God) against gays, prostitutes and whiches. Or am I supposed to ignore that?
And I know I'm kinda mixing both books here, but John 10:30 says it's ok, since Jesus and God are equals. Oh wait, if I keep going until John 14:28, it's no longer ok

 

[RoadWarrior]

Wow long time no visit . I was/am here mostly to spread reason.

Wow, you should have attended the "Reason Rally" in Washington, DC. They could have used more reason up there.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7645246/

http://www.christianforums.com/t7645956/

 

[candle glow]

I do found them. Actually the show I talked about once had as a guest someone like that. And for those people, I consider they weren't that skeptical in the first place. Because if you see someone growing without being educated into a certain religion, and let that person go study, by the time he's 14 he will never be converted.

I don't get your logic here.

I mean, are you talking about Matt 7:1,2 where the judging of other is forbiden? Or are you talking about 1 Cor 6:2-4 where it's allowed?

Judgment is not forbidden in Matt 7. It is an instruction to use fair judgment. After we've taken the speck out of our own eye, then we will see clearly to take the spec out of others' eyes.

Christ also told his followers that they should not fear being killed (Luke 12:4) and then he fears being killed (John 7:1).

The verse from John 7:1 does not say Jesus' reason for avoiding a particular place was fear. There is a difference between fear and wisdom. Jesus was not afraid to die (since he eventually allowed himself to be captured anyway), but he was the one to choose when and where that time would happen. I see no contradiction.

And I know I'm kinda mixing both books here, but John 10:30 says it's ok, since Jesus and God are equals. Oh wait, if I keep going until John 14:28, it's no longer ok

Now you sound like just another zealot arguing about the trinity. They are one and separate at the same time. I don't know how it works but that does not lead me to conclude that it is a contradiction. Is that how your science works?

Not to talk about all the unbased descrimination (that in some cases go as far as torture and killings by order of God) against gays, prostitutes and whiches. Or am I supposed to ignore that?

I'm not asking you to ignore anything, but in the three examples you've used, which I just responded to, it appears that you've not fully though through the logic. I don't believe the Bible is the infallible or complete word of God, but I don't need to believe that in order to appreciate what it teaches.

If you want to bring up other examples which you believe to contradict the loving spirit contained in Jesus' teachings, I'm fine to listen, but I do hope you will think those arguments out a bit better than what you've already done with these other examples.

 

[LostWarrior]

I don't get your logic here.

Yea me neither guess what I meant is that when a skeptic goes back into religion (especially Christianity - it's the only religion whose God can't actually exist. All the other ones have some kind of doubt) then that person wasn't a skeptic in the first place. I've heard one of these persons saying that women who take lots of control pills have lots of sex and should go to Hell. Well, the number of the bitth control pills one takes has nothing to do with how much sex that person has. Moving on...

Judgment is not forbidden in Matt 7. It is an instruction to use fair judgment. After we've taken the speck out of our own eye, then we will see clearly to take the spec out of others' eyes.

The verse from John 7:1 does not say Jesus' reason for avoiding a particular place was fear. There is a difference between fear and wisdom. Jesus was not afraid to die (since he eventually allowed himself to be captured anyway), but he was the one to choose when and where that time would happen. I see no contradiction.

Now you sound like just another zealot arguing about the trinity. They are one and separate at the same time. I don't know how it works but that does not lead me to conclude that it is a contradiction. Is that how your science works?

I'm not asking you to ignore anything, but in the three examples you've used, which I just responded to, it appears that you've not fully though through the logic. I don't believe the Bible is the infallible or complete word of God, but I don't need to believe that in order to appreciate what it teaches.

If you want to bring up other examples which you believe to contradict the loving spirit contained in Jesus' teachings, I'm fine to listen, but I do hope you will think those arguments out a bit better than what you've already done with these other examples.

There. All the changes I wanted to do are done. I went re-check; replied: and I brought some more issues.
-> I avoid a certain place out of fear and fear only. If it was widsom, the same widsom could be used to ally whoever was in there. It's fear. "After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him". It's pretty clear. It's fear.
-> "Do not judge, or you too will be judged". Sounds like judging isn't allowed to me. The following verse is used to justify this, but this is the underlying premise of Matt.
-> And yes, my science says there are no things that can be one and separated at the same time. It hasn't been logically/phyisically proven possible. So your trinity is still a contradiction. And "not knowing how it works" doesn't support it is possible. If you don't know how it works, and it can't be proven real, it can't be considered real.
-> I do know more things that actually are against the Bible: for example, the lack of historical records about Jesus besides the Bible ; the lack of the original Bible's documments ; the reported mistranslations and man-made stories in the Bible.
-> Matt, Mark (not sure I'm getting the names right, as I don't owe an english bible version. I'm searching the Internet one but I'm not sure if I'm getting this right) and Lucas agree that Jesus died in a Friday. John says it was in the day before.
-> Lucas and Matt don't agree about Jesus' birth; both the town where he was born and the town to which his family ran are different in both cases.
-> All the four disagree when they talk about who was with Mary when she left the empty Tomb.
-> All the sexual abuse; child abuse and slavery in the Old Testament.
-> The historical facts behind the Bible's writing are also doubtful: a group of Jesus' followers hides in a cave. They don't know how to write so they start sharing Jesus' stories between them, orally, while waiting for Him to come back. After a while, seeing He wouldn't come back, they start writing those stories (who were already altered several times while oral tradictions). Then they divide themselves in groups and spread around the globe, selecting only those stories that matched their groups.
The group that was most organized went to Rome and became know as "Rome Christians". These are historical facts.
-> Matthew 10:10 says Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. Mark 6:8-9 says Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.
-> In Matthew 6:5-6 Jesus says there can be no public prayer. In 1 Timothy 2:8 Paul suggests otherwise.

 

[candle glow]

but I guess that your interpretation of the verses can actually be acurate

yeah, I think the explanations I gave are accurate.

But, you really should not need to take my word for it. If you say one verse forbids judgment, all you need to do is do what I did; read the verse.

It's not clear to me why you would question the verse, but not read it for yourself to understand if your conclusion is accurate with what the verse actually says. Claiming that you are not familiar with the material you are challenging is not good enough to continue making the accusations. You still have a long way to go in your debating skills.

I avoid a certain place out of fear and fear only. If it was widsom, the same widsom could be used to ally whoever was in there. It's fear).

Yes, I accept that is how you react to fear. But it is not reasonable to claim that someone MUST react the same way you do, based on your own personal experiences.

Different people react differently to different situations. Once again, your argument does not stand.

I do know some things that actually are against it tho:

Yeah, being "against" something seems to be the core foundation of atheism. It's hardly scientific.

for example, the lack of historical records about Jesus besides the Bible

According to the science which leads you to be an atheist, how many historical records (besides the one you actually have) does it take for you to no longer be against "it"?

the lack of the original Bible's documments ; the reported mistranslations and man-made stories in the Bible.

The "original" bible? Can you elaborate? What "reported mistranslations"? Who made the reports and what were the mistranslations? What "man-made" stories? Is that anything like court testimony and witness statements? Would you call those "man-made" stories, too?

Matt, Mark (not sure I'm getting the names right, as I don't owe an english bible version) and Lucas agree that Jesus died in a Friday. John says it was in the day before.
-> Lucas and Matt don't agree about Jesus' birth; both the town where he was born and the town to which his family ran are different in both cases.
-> All the four disagree when they talk about who was with Mary when she left the empty Tomb.

All of which are minor details in the bigger picture. Sure, people misremember details. So? Can you come up with something a bit more significant than days of the week or locations?

When you consider all the unity regarding issues like love, hate, greed, hypocrisy, fear, loyalty, compassion, courage, respectability, pride, impatience, judgment, forgiveness, etc...it really does start to sound petty when people ignore all of that for the sake of arguing about a discrepancy over how many times a rooster crowed or which town a person came from.

I see no reason to argue that witness statements recorded by human beings MUST be perfect before we can learn from what those witnesses recorded. While it may be reasonable to question discrepancies, it is also reasonable to weigh up the significance of those discrepancies vs all the other information available, too.

To conclude that all the information is invalid because some of the details conflict is not reasonable.

All the sexual abuse; child abuse and slavery in the Old Testament.

Wha?

 

[LostWarrior]

First off, I wanted to say I re-eddited my post several times while I was re-searching the on-line and my live Bible, so it's understandable you caught me while doing that sorry.

Claiming that you are not familiar with the material you are challenging is not good enough to continue making the accusations. You still have a long way to go in your debating skills.

I still have a long way to go, indeed. But I don't need to be familiar with the Bible to disprove any God.

Yes, I accept that is how you react to fear. But it is not reasonable to claim that someone MUST react the same way you do, based on your own personal experiences.

Different people react differently to different situations. Once again, your argument does not stand.

It does when that person says that she shall not fear death, but avoids a town because there are people there to kill him.

Yeah, being "against" something seems to be the core foundation of atheism. It's hardly scientific.

No. You need to search "atheism" and the differences between "Weak Atheism" and "Strong Atheism". And I'm a 16 years old kid. I've never taken a debate course or finished reading the Bible (I went past the Old Testament tho). So you can't even take my case as a whole.

According to the science which leads you to be an atheist, how many historical records (besides the one you actually have) does it take for you to no longer be against "it"?

The "original" bible? Can you elaborate? What "reported mistranslations"? Who made the reports and what were the mistranslations? What "man-made" stories? Is that anything like court testimony and witness statements? Would you call those "man-made" stories, too?

Well, there were at some point original doccuments before people took them and began copying them. Those copies have reports of errors and mistranslations. The doccument Codex Vaticanus is the oldest copy of the Bible and has some reports of errors on its pages. It's safe in the Vatican safe.

All of which are minor details in the bigger picture. Sure, people misremember details. So? Can you come up with something a bit more significant than days of the week or locations?

I'm not saying that they only forget details. I'm saying they invent details too. For example, the death of Jesus happened about 50 copies after the Codex Vaticanus. It's fake.

When you consider all the unity regarding issues like love, hate, greed, hypocrisy, fear, loyalty, compassion, courage, respectability, pride, impatience, judgment, forgiveness, etc...it really does start to sound petty when people ignore all of that for the sake of arguing about a discrepancy over how many times a rooster crowed or which town a person came from.

All of what you've said has been traced to the brain. It's proved.

I see no reason to argue that witness statements recorded by human beings MUST be perfect before we can learn from what those witnesses recorded. While it may be reasonable to question discrepancies, it is also reasonable to weigh up the significance of those discrepancies vs all the other information available, too.

To conclude that all the information is invalid because some of the details conflict is not reasonable.



Wha?

When it's divinely inspired, everything must be perfect. Otherwise either your God isn't perfect or He doesn't exist.

Slavery is allowed in:
-> Exodus 21:1-11
Child Abuse in:
-> Judges 11:29-40
-> Isiah 13:16
Baby Murderer in:
-> Hosea 13:16
-> Psalms 137:9

 

[candle glow]

I still have a long way to go, indeed. But I don't need to be familiar with the Bible to disprove any God.

As part of your case to disprove God, you are using bible verses. Now you say you don't even need to know what you are talking about to prove your point?

This is certainly not the science you boasted about earlier.

I'm confused, is this strong atheism or weak atheism?

And I'm a 16 years old kid. I've never taken a debate course or finished reading the Bible (I went past the Old Testament tho). So you can't even take my case as a whole.

I don't know what you mean by "taking your case as a whole". Age is not something you should hide behind if you say something irrational.

Those copies have reports of errors and mistranslations. The doccument Codex Vaticanus is the oldest copy of the Bible and has some reports of errors on its pages. It's safe in the Vatican safe.

I strongly suspect these are not your own conclusions, but the conclusions of others which you agree with. I don't have a problem with that, except when I ask you for more details, you are not able to give them, because they are not your conclusions.

For example, who made these "reports"? If the documents are locked away in the vatican, how could someone report them? Is it okay to question these reports as "man-made stories" since they are also the witness of men, much like the bible?

What are the reported errors? Do these errors go beyond anything more significant than the difference between Thursday and Friday or what someone had for breakfast as opposed to lunch 2000 years ago?

I'm not saying that they only forget details. I'm saying they invent details too. For example, the death of Jesus happened about 50 copies after the Codex Vaticanus. It's fake.

This is vague, to say the least. What does "50 copies after the codex" mean? HOW does that prove the death of Jesus to be fake? Can you see how you've given nearly zero details?

Sure, I could race off to search for all these details on the net, but why should I try to make your point for you?

All of what you've said has been traced to the brain. It's proved.

I was not questioning where our thoughts come from. I was questioning why you overlook huge issues like greed and love, so that you can focus on minor details like days of the week in order to discredit the teachings of Jesus.

For example, lets say I agree to give a donation to a specific charity on Thursday. Afterwards, it is reported in the charity's newsletter that I gave the donation on Friday. Is it a lie? Should people logically conclude that the donation never actually happened?

Should people reasonably conclude that I don't exist?

When it's divinely inspired, everything must be perfect. Otherwise either your God isn't perfect or He doesn't exist.

Ahh, how delightfully ironic; God is not allowed to exist unless he meets the requirements of a person who doesn't acknowledge his existence anyway!

If I tell you my life story, and you later feel inspired to write it into a book so that you can share it with others, but you get a few of the details wrong, does that mean I failed to inspire you, or that you were never inspired by me?

"Inspired" does not mean "infallible". I sometimes feel inspired when I post on this forum, but that does not mean I do so perfectly, without any mistake. Sometimes I am unclear, or impatient, or proud, or foolish, but I can still be inspired, too.

 

[razeontherock]

I consider my presence here as a walk in the zoo: to see the creationists.

So is AV in the tiger cage, or is he more of a koala?

 

[razeontherock]

It's hard to find someone who studied logical flaws and actually studied the Bible not to become an atheist.

Patently absurd! Some of the greatest works on the subject are written by Christians. I gave one of them to my Sister, who is a PhD. She's never dared to argue religion with me again