The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[jpcedotal]

I read "not worthy".

Why are you using words with already specific connotations, meanings and definitions (supernatural, etc) and applying them to things that are not compatible with those specific connotations, meanings and definitions?

This seems rather dishonest.

Why did Jesus, the Son, come to earth and die on that Cross?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Why did Jesus, the Son, come to earth and die on that Cross?

Non-believers obviously don't believe he did.

Oh, and by the way, I'm one of those non-believers that would never say "There is not god."

Just so you know...

 

[Non sequitur]

Why did Jesus, the Son, come to earth and die on that Cross?

First, I want to point out that you didn't address the question of using non-secular words for secular things. A good example would be "spirit burrito". It's nonsensical.

To answer your question, probably because someone gave birth to him and being crucified most likely kills the person.

 

[Gracchus]

So according to your definition, everything that exists is God; You and I included. The rocks on the ground, the stray dogs that roam the neighborhood, trees, cars, garbage, everything that exists is God which makes the term God meaningless. Obviously you know that nobody else has such a definition of God but if that’s where you want to take it; knock yourself out my friend!

Peace
Ken

Actually, you might want to look up "pantheism" and "panentheism". Hinduism is a pantheistic religion. It is thousands of years older than Christianity or even Judaism. Or read "The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are", by Alan Watts.

I am repeatedly amazed at the ignorance of Christians about religion, even their own. Then I remember: Thinking is difficult, and it tires the brain, so most people think only to the point where they get tired, and then stop thinking. They form an opinion, decide that it is true, and never have to think again. The opinion they form is nearly always one that is useful to them, emotionally or economically. (Now Jesus said that you can't serve both God and money, but most Christians know that you have to be practical.)

 

[Belk]

no, I presume to know, by Holy Scripture, why every non-Christian is a non-Christian...atheists are no different than Buddhists in this concept.

Worshiping the statue of the fat man or the fat man in the mirror is really the same worship when you strip off the worthless self rationalization.

Then I would humbly suggest that your interpretation is wrong since I have direct experience that refutes it. I know this will not faze you but perhaps it will help a lurker.

 

[Redac]

Why did Jesus, the Son, come to earth and die on that Cross?

How do you know he did?

 

[Dave Ellis]

no, I presume to know, by Holy Scripture, why every non-Christian is a non-Christian...atheists are no different than Buddhists in this concept.

Worshiping the statue of the fat man or the fat man in the mirror is really the same worship when you strip off the worthless self rationalization.

Wow..... This is one of the most willfully ignorant posts I've ever seen.

So you're actually trying assert that we believe things that we have repeatedly told you we do not believe, because you have an old book that says so?

Did you ever stop and think that the best place to learn what Atheists believe might not be the Christian Holy Book?

How about listening to what we're actually telling you, rather than you trying to impose what you think we believe onto us?

Apart from that, if you knew anything about Buddhism, you would know by and large they don't worship "the fat man" as a God. Instead he's viewed as a respected spiritual teacher or philosopher of sorts. (I should note I am not a Buddhist either)

 

[Dave Ellis]

Why did Jesus, the Son, come to earth and die on that Cross?

Who's to say he did? Do you have evidence to show he:

A) Existed at all
B) Was the son of God
C) Died on a cross

I'm not aware of any, Please enlighten me if you have some.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Actually, you might want to look up "pantheism" and "panentheism". Hinduism is a pantheistic religion. It is thousands of years older than Christianity or even Judaism. Or read "The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are", by Alan Watts.

I am repeatedly amazed at the ignorance of Christians about religion, even their own. Then I remember: Thinking is difficult, and it tires the brain, so most people think only to the point where they get tired, and then stop thinking. They form an opinion, decide that it is true, and never have to think again. The opinion they form is nearly always one that is useful to them, emotionally or economically. (Now Jesus said that you can't serve both God and money, but most Christians know that you have to be practical.)

True, however a Pantheistic interpretation of God would be fatal to the Christian worldview.

Describing the Christian god in a pantheistic light is indeed meaningless.

 

[Elioenai26]

Who's to say he did? Do you have evidence to show he:

A) Existed at all
B) Was the son of God
C) Died on a cross

I'm not aware of any, Please enlighten me if you have some.

I will start a thread on the Historicity of Jesus if it is necessary. To speak on it here would be to detract from the OP.

Suffice it to say, in light of the available evidence, there is very good reason to accept that Jesus was an actual historical figure.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I will start a thread on the Historicity of Jesus if it is necessary. To speak on it here would be to detract from the OP.

Suffice it to say, in light of the available evidence, there is very good reason to accept that Jesus was an actual historical figure.

Historical figure, perhaps. I don't think it's unreasonable to say there was a first century preacher in Israel named Jesus, or someone who the Jesus character was based on. We don't even have any evidence for this, however I don't think it's an unrealistic idea.... Much along the same lines that Robin Hood may have been based on a real person as well.

However, I do think it's unreasonable to assume that person walked on water, turned water into wine, fed the masses with a loaf of bread, healed lepers and rose from the dead three days after he was crucified. Claims like that will certainly require solid evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfortunately for Christianity, those are the claims that matter.... and there's nothing to back them up.

 

[Elioenai26]

Historical figure, perhaps. I don't think it's unreasonable to say there was a first century preacher in Israel named Jesus

However, I do think it's unreasonable to assume that person walked on water, turned water into wine, fed the masses with a loaf of bread, healed lepers and rose from the dead three days after he was crucified. Claims like that will certainly require solid evidence to be taken seriously.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you have just said!

Yes indeed it is very unreasonable to assume that a person could do all that you just listed. For the simple fact that these things are impossible for a person to do. (I am saying this based on the general observations of human ability with regards to the acts in question. I have never seen anyone walk on water or rise from the dead, nor do I know anyone who has seen anyone do these things.) Now I confess that my knowledge is not all-encompassing, nor do I admit to having empirical evidence to prove my assertion that it is impossible for a mere man to do all of these things is true.

I am simply saying that from my experience as a human, I have never seen anyone perform any of these miracles or supernatural manifestations of power over nature. And I believe I am justified in making this assertion despite being able to categorically prove it to be true.

To just assume that He did without seeking to better understand why it is maintained that He did, is a dangerous position to take because when taking this position, one could also end up believing anything!

 

[Dave Ellis]

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you have just said!

Yes indeed it is very unreasonable to assume that a person could do all that you just listed. For the simple fact that these things are impossible for a person to do. (I am saying this based on the general observations of human ability with regards to the acts in question. I have never seen anyone walk on water or rise from the dead, nor do I know anyone who has seen anyone do these things.) Now I confess that my knowledge is not all-encompassing, nor do I admit to having empirical evidence to prove my assertion that it is impossible for a mere man to do all of these things is true.

I am simply saying that from my experience as a human, I have never seen anyone perform any of these miracles or supernatural manifestations of power over nature. And I believe I am justified in making this assertion despite being able to categorically prove it to be true.

To just assume that He did without seeking to better understand why it is maintained that He did, is a dangerous position to take because when taking this position, one could also end up believing anything!

I agree completely with everything you just said

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you have just said!

Yes indeed it is very unreasonable to assume that a person could do all that you just listed. For the simple fact that these things are impossible for a person to do. (I am saying this based on the general observations of human ability with regards to the acts in question. I have never seen anyone walk on water or rise from the dead, nor do I know anyone who has seen anyone do these things.) Now I confess that my knowledge is not all-encompassing, nor do I admit to having empirical evidence to prove my assertion that it is impossible for a mere man to do all of these things is true.

I am simply saying that from my experience as a human, I have never seen anyone perform any of these miracles or supernatural manifestations of power over nature. And I believe I am justified in making this assertion despite being able to categorically prove it to be true.

To just assume that He did without seeking to better understand why it is maintained that He did, is a dangerous position to take because when taking this position, one could also end up believing anything!

YOU'RE FREAKING ME OUT

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I will start a thread on the Historicity of Jesus if it is necessary.

I think you should.

 

[Ken-1122]

nope...that isn't what I am saying at all. There is only one God, the great I AM. Anything or anyone an individual puts above the one God is idol worship...the worship of a false god

Well I put everything that exists above the worship of your God which according to your definition, means I worship the dirt I walk on, the stray dogs that roam the neighborhood, the garbage cans they knock over, plus everything else I mentioned. So according to your definition, the term worship has no meaning at all; the word might as well not even exist.

You obviously have an extremely flawed definition of the word worship.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Actually, you might want to look up "pantheism" and "panentheism".

Why?

K

 

[KCfromNC]

no, I presume to know, by Holy Scripture, why every non-Christian is a non-Christian

Then this is yet another example of a mistake in the Bible. Strange that believers are so anxious to point these out to people, but whatever makes them feel good I guess.

Worshiping the statue of the fat man or the fat man in the mirror is really the same worship when you strip off the worthless self rationalization.

Then it's a good thing most people don't do any of these.

Again, you're making up what you think other people must think and then pretending other people are bound by it. That's bordering on false witness - from which side of the line I'm not sure.

 

[Skavau]

no, I presume to know, by Holy Scripture, why every non-Christian is a non-Christian...atheists are no different than Buddhists in this concept.

You presume incorrectly. Your sweeping assertions are wrong regardless of how you claim to know and by what source. You do not know why I am an atheist. You have not asked. It has nothing to do with selfishness, worshipping something else or any other such rot.

 

[Tnmusicman]

I cannot speak for atheists as if it's some sort of bloc with a shared belief system. The only thing atheists have in common is lack of belief in a deity or deities. One could call many Buddhists "atheists" and you'd be technically correct. Atheism in and of itself does not imply any particular metaphysical belief; heck, I've met atheists who believe in ghosts and all that.

Yes,and don't you just chortle deep inside when you hear that someone is atheist but believes in ghosts or aliens???