Ignorance and the Bible

Ross Dolan said:
One...I am not one of those people who hate atheists.

Two...I think of them the way I think of theists...people who are unwilling to acknowledge that we do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence. They, like theists, have to "believe" things about the REALITY...which is to say that they make essentially blind guesses about the REALITY.

The bullshit about explicit and implicit atheism is just that...BULLSHIT. It is almost certain that all people who choose to use the self-descriptor "atheist" do so because of "belief" (guesses). It is time for atheists to stop the pretense and acknowledge that they use "atheist" because of "beliefs"...NOT BECAUSE OF A LACK OF BELIEF.
Click to expand...
or they don't know what agnosticism means.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Which explains why so many atheists belong to atheist organizations. :)

www.trianglefreethought.org

National Atheist and Related Organizations — Triangle Freethought Society

Triangle Freethought (TFS) is a chapter of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and an affiliate of American Atheists and the American Humanist Association. For your convenience in locating organizations on the national level, we provide these links. (Not an endorsement or affiliation.)
www.trianglefreethought.org www.trianglefreethought.org
Click to expand...
How many is “so many”? The same percentage as theists belonging to a church?

Dubious
 
Cypress said:
Not my words.
The words of theoretical physicist Aleksandr Valenkin, one of the authors of the BGV theorem.

The answer to the question, “Did the universe have a beginning?” is, “It probably did.” We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives us reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.​
Aleksandr Valenkin​
​
That leaves a question for atheists like you, and agnostics like me: how could a lawfully ordered and finely-tuned universe blink into existence by inanimate random chance?

"But my own view is that the theorem does not tell us anything about the existence of God. But a deep mystery remains."​
Aleksandr Valenkin​
Click to expand...
We went over this already. The BGV is only classic spacetime and makes no statement on the origin of the universe. It would behoove you to not keep trying the same failed references.
 
Cypress said:
If they don't belong formally to an organization, they are still reading the same books and watching the same atheist podcasts, so there definitely is a clubby-nature to atheism. That's why Dawkins and Hitchens sold millions of book, and why message board atheists consistently have the exact same litany of complaints about stories in the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
We often comment on the same stories in the OT because the true believers keep harping on the inerrant nature of their holy book. The childish mentality and blatant discrepancies in Genesis make it such low hanging fruit. Not to mention the virgin birth with the two entirely different stories or the equally impossible and differing resurrection myths. You can also toss in the absurd notion of the Trinity as an afterthought.
 

domer76 said:
How many is “so many”? The same percentage as theists belonging to a church?

Dubious
Click to expand...

It really seems that there is this general "gotcha" approach to how they deal with atheism. First none of them so far has even hinted that they understand the various strains of atheism, but then they expend all their time building strawmen about "most atheists do this" and "most atheists do that".

Note how they never actually engage with atheism as it is presented. They are ONLY interested in debating their cartoon version of it. But that's understandable. If they don't understand the subtlety of implicit atheism then they are going to want a handle of some sort to beat up on atheism.

I'm actually surprised because some of them on here actually seem like they would be sharper than that.
 
gmark77 said:
There is literally no one on here who insults Christians to even half the level that atheists are attacked.

Weird isn't it? Atheists terrify believers. So much so that none of them can even understand atheism it is so anathema to them.
Click to expand...
Atheists tend to have a better understanding of the Bible than the true believers.
 
domer76 said:
We often comment on the same stories in the OT because the true believers keep harping on the inerrant nature of their holy book.
Click to expand...

Cypress seems to prefer to simply ignore the OT. Which is fine insofar as it goes. But it isn't a defense of Christianity because Christians are not allowed to simply "ignore" the OT when it doesn't suit their point.

I like the OT because it represents our FIRST meeting of God. And it establishes some features of God. But the most important aspect to me is the jarring difference between how God behaves in the OT and the NT.

An all-powerful God who changes that dramatically over just a few years???? That doesn't make theological sense.

And then some on here espouse "Universal Objective Morality" as coming from this variable God. That just seems absurd on its face.


domer76 said:
The childish mentality and blatant discrepancies in Genesis make it such low hanging fruit.
Click to expand...

But it's not just low hanging fruit here in the US. We've had to actually work to keep Creationists from pushing this stuff into science classes! Yikes!

domer76 said:
Not to mention the virgin birth with the two entirely different stories or the equally impossible and differing resurrection myths. You can also toss in the absurd notion of the Trinity as an afterthought.
Click to expand...

I like the story of the Johannine Comma as well. Very interesting peek behind the curtain.
 
gmark77 said:
It really seems that there is this general "gotcha" approach to how they deal with atheism. First none of them so far has even hinted that they understand the various strains of atheism, but then they expend all their time building strawmen about "most atheists do this" and "most atheists do that".

Note how they never actually engage with atheism as it is presented. They are ONLY interested in debating their cartoon version of it. But that's understandable. If they don't understand the subtlety of implicit atheism then they are going to want a handle of some sort to beat up on atheism.

I'm actually surprised because some of them on here actually seem like they would be sharper than that.
Click to expand...
An intellectually curious Christian has got to suffer immense cognitive dissonance. To consider themselves true Christians, they have to jump through so many theological hoops that it must weigh heavily on their minds.

- The physical impossibility of the virgin birth.
- The physical impossibility of the resurrection.
- The absurdity of the Trinity
- The problem of unnecessary suffering with an omni-everything god.

Those are merely NT problems without addressing the additional bullshit the OT throws into the works. Christianity, as it is today, is not for those with a rational mind.
 
Last edited:
domer76 said:
We often comment on the same stories in the OT because the true believers keep harping on the inerrant nature of their holy book. The childish mentality and blatant discrepancies in Genesis make it such low hanging fruit. Not to mention the virgin birth with the two entirely different stories or the equally impossible and differing resurrection myths. You can also toss in the absurd notion of the Trinity as an afterthought.
Click to expand...

gmark77 said:
Note how they never actually engage with atheism as it is presented. They are ONLY interested in debating their cartoon version of it. But that's understandable. If they don't understand the subtlety of implicit atheism then they are going to want a handle of some sort to beat up on atheism.
Click to expand...
Two of the people who claim the only reason they have chosen "atheist" as a descriptor is because they lack a "belief" in any gods. They have no other reason for choosing "atheist." They are not "believers" with regard to the question of whether any gods exist. They claim they have no "beliefs" with regard to gods.

And they get angry when I suggest they are full of shit in that regard.

Tsk, tsk!

I suspect the reason they chose "atheist" is because they "BELIEVE" there are no gods...or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I suspect mostly their choice of "atheist" is motivated by their scorn and contempt for Christians...and the Hebrew god.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Two of the people who claim the only reason they have chosen "atheist" as a descriptor is because they lack a "belief" in any gods. They have no other reason for choosing "atheist." They are not "believers" with regard to the question of whether any gods exist. They claim they have no "beliefs" with regard to gods.

And they get angry when I suggest they are full of shit in that regard.

Tsk, tsk!

I suspect the reason they chose "atheist" is because they "BELIEVE" there are no gods...or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I suspect mostly their choice of "atheist" is motivated by their scorn and contempt for Christians...and the Hebrew god.
Click to expand...

Yawn
 
Ross Dolan said:
Two of the people who claim the only reason they have chosen "atheist" as a descriptor is because they lack a "belief" in any gods. They have no other reason for choosing "atheist." They are not "believers" with regard to the question of whether any gods exist. They claim they have no "beliefs" with regard to gods.

And they get angry when I suggest they are full of shit in that regard.

Tsk, tsk!

I suspect the reason they chose "atheist" is because they "BELIEVE" there are no gods...or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I suspect mostly their choice of "atheist" is motivated by their scorn and contempt for Christians...and the Hebrew god.
Click to expand...
We are only one god different in our atheism than Christians.

When anyone can provide a sliver of credible evidence that a god exists, I’ll abandon my atheism immediately.

The Christian god is the one we’re most familiar with, the one we are surrounded by and the one that is constantly trying to be inserted into our public lives. It follows that it would be the main target.
 
gmark77 said:
Cypress seems to prefer to simply ignore the OT. Which is fine insofar as it goes. But it isn't a defense of Christianity because Christians are not allowed to simply "ignore" the OT when it doesn't suit their point.

I like the OT because it represents our FIRST meeting of God. And it establishes some features of God. But the most important aspect to me is the jarring difference between how God behaves in the OT and the NT.

An all-powerful God who changes that dramatically over just a few years???? That doesn't make theological sense.

And then some on here espouse "Universal Objective Morality" as coming from this variable God. That just seems absurd on its face.




But it's not just low hanging fruit here in the US. We've had to actually work to keep Creationists from pushing this stuff into science classes! Yikes!



I like the story of the Johannine Comma as well. Very interesting peek behind the curtain.
Click to expand...
We Are living in Old Testament times, since Israel returned in 1948
 
Margot said:
Not
Click to expand...
Were you aware of the polytheistic nature of the Old Testament?
Were you aware of the discrepancies in the Jesus birth stories?
Were you aware that your god was originally a mere second tier storm god?
Were you aware that the idea of the Trinity came a couple hundred years or so after the crucifixion?
Were you aware that the Messiah was not supposed to die?
Were you aware that the deification of Jesus was in response to the death of the Messiah?
Were you aware that the Trinity was a theological fix for the problem created by the deification of Jesus?

Of course not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top