Religious Dialogue

I agree and I'm not trying to say religions are the same but that they aim to solve similar problems. Also by syncretism I don't mean to imply that I'm devaluing Islamic concepts and philosophy.

Never heard of Mullah Sadra before. Thanks for the tip.

EDIT: Al-Haq is the best name for Allah ever.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Point to where anything I said claims religion has a monopoly on anything? It doesn't even have a monopoly on theism.

Religion necessarily needs to have a monopoly on something to make it anything of worth.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Why would we build mosques without Islam?

For the same reason we still build things without dedicating them to Zeus and Allah.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Yeah what about it? Religious concerns still ended up forming the material.

Religious concerns is what religion has to offer? Sounds quite circular.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Sure did, largely thanks to the organization of the disparate and rival Arab tribes into Islam. Organization was monotheism's greatest strength.

Organization was religion's evolutionary advantage, not just monotheism, which is now a disadvantage because it's blunting internationalism.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

I was right to call you a fundamentalist.

If it wasn't obvious to you, I said that in parody of what religionists have said throughout this thread.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

I like how we're referred to as a intertwined cabal of anti-human forces when atheists talk about big ol bad religion and how it's the crux of all our issues, but the second I speak of theists in general some atheist will immediately point to internal divisions. Which is a hallmark of anticommunist/imperialist rhetoric to boot.

Because all religions provide, and essentially are, the same thing but religionists are so ardently certain that it isn't that they'll go to war over this sort of shit. That's where I think your dilemma is coming from.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Humanocentrism was far more progressive than any pagan religion which entirely sublimated human existence to the wavering whims of the Gods.

Except your religion is theocentric with a focus on humanity being one of god's best creations whose purpose it is to simply worship this god.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Yes we are. We're the strongest species to ever exist. Oh and you're embarrassing yourself with your accusations.

Not really. There were other hominids around as well who may still have been here if not for the material conditions in which they found themselves, most notably the Neanderthals.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

No it isn't theocentric. Allah is not the center he is the whole. Creation is the center and we are the center of creation.

Okay I think that basically proves what I said.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Oh really? Thats why Islam covered the entire middle east and north Africa in under two hundred years? That would be an amazing feat of organization even today.

Yeah, it's called capitalism. That's not really anything special to Islam when considering that Alexander "the Great" created one of the largest empires in the world by the time he was thirty.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

The Christians actually incorporated the north something the pagans never achieved.

Cool.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

You stand on the advances of monotheism as much as they stood on the advances of paganism. Such is the fate of progressive peoples. Also nice usage of "cult" which only has a negative connotation because of Christian propaganda.

I stand on the advances of humanity, not of cults.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

I didn't say it did. You were the one bringing up a numbers argument.

It was actually Das who brought it up when he was attempting to use "sheer numbers" to prove religion was true.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Okay? Genocide was a trivial matter in antiquity. We (America alone) killed thousands of people last year.

It's not a trivial matter when you're trying to prove the truth of a god who ordered large-scale genocides whereas America is killing people in the service of imperialism. Big difference.

Quote:

Also, have you ever read Mullah Sadra? It would be a curious exercise, since many consider him basically as Islam's Hegel.

yes omg please read that guy and explain him.

Quote:

Dude please stop. You're making us rational theists look bad. I get you want to defend your Answer but you've got to pick your battles. Acting as though atheists are just anti-religious is as insulting as the atheist claim that we don't believe in God either. My point is you're getting nowhere fast.

No, I haven't met a single genuine atheist in my entire life. They probably exist, but every single one I encounter just hates God and religion for their own idiotic reasons, all of them I've met are dogmatic and hide behind the stupidity of being a "free thinker". They fail to analyze almost anything correctly, and they just look to Dawkins and Hitchens for a crutch when they cry. It all boils down to pride and just the feeling that they somehow have a one up on everybody. I also find it interesting that the atheists I know have never ever had anything bad happen to them, while many theists I know have perservered and endured terrible circumstances and became better theists than ever before.

Quote:

Das, Your type of fundamentalist view of Christianism as self-evident is exactly the type of parasitic latching that is taking it down. Spirituality should never be abtract and self-evident. Also, it shouldn't be a consolation that you "fall into" because of apathy or because of the desire to rest as you get older. It should be a pretty hard task.

No. I don't have a fundementalist view, all I'm saying is that the argument here is really just about ignorance. You have to be a complete idiot to say that religion doesn't or hasn't contributed to society. You have to be a brainless nitwit to think that religion is just evil and no smart person can believe it.

Quote:

Christianity, and religion in general, was progressive at one time and is now regressive. It is going to be replaced by science, reason and Marxism.
The Nazis didn't really love paganism, I'm not sure where you pulled that from. The Wehrmacht had Gott mit uns (God with us) written across their belt, Hitler constantly invoked god in his speeches and if you've ever read Mein Kampf you'll never mistake him for a pagan; his monotheistic religious beliefs come through very clear.

CALLED IT!
Anyways, monotheism won't die, it has stood proudly through the test of time and still continues to dominate.

Quote:

If it has contributed anything to humanity ex nihilo, instead of something that isn't easily copied or inspired by something else and which isn't easily explained by dialectics, then I would be religious. So I don't think it's too much to claim that religion has contributed zero to humanity.

Yes, it is far too much to claim. It has given us varieties of art, culture, and continues to inspire the lives of billions today.

Quote:

Don't worry, I've read many books.

Picture books and newspaper funnies don't count.

Quote:

Did I say that? Nope... But yeah they are prominent in that area too.

See this is why I can't take you seriously.

Quote:

You're either trolling or your intelligence just fell below zero because this isn't a very well-thought response to what I wrote.

Either you're trolling, or you never had any intelligence. What you wrote wasn't even worth my time, really.

Quote:

And they all tell each other that "We're right and you're wrong".

Sure, and there are tons of different leftist groups that disagree too. Doesn't make leftism wrong.

Quote:

I've actually read the entire Bible, cover to cover, unlike the overwhelming majority of Christians.

I highly doubt you have.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

No, I haven't met a single genuine atheist in my entire life. They probably exist, but every single one I encounter just hates God and religion for their own idiotic reasons, all of them I've met are dogmatic and hide behind the stupidity of being a "free thinker".

Have you never met one of those people who go like "oh I wish I could believe it, it's such a nice story"? They actually seem to be more common than antitheists like Exoprism and me. Atheism isn't always coupled with hate. It only is when you have to get over a bunch of religion-induced traumas, like I do.

Why is it stupid to think free?

Quote:

They fail to analyze almost anything correctly, and they just look to Dawkins and Hitchens for a crutch when they cry. It all boils down to pride and just the feeling that they somehow have a one up on everybody. I also find it interesting that the atheists I know have never ever had anything bad happen to them, while many theists I know have perservered and endured terrible circumstances and became better theists than ever before.

lol one of my top reasons to become an Atheist was because Christianity never managed to help me with the terrible circumstances I've had to endure. It has never made me happy or confident, it has never given me comfort or anything. I pretty much gave up on it because it just doesn't work. It only ever made me feel like a worthless piece of shit. As a kid I was afraid of going to heaven because I was really scared that I'll have to sing boring worship songs for all eternity. I know that it sucks to be a Christian because I've been one for 19 years.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

No, I haven't met a single genuine atheist in my entire life. They probably exist, but every single one I encounter just hates God and religion for their own idiotic reasons, all of them I've met are dogmatic and hide behind the stupidity of being a "free thinker". They fail to analyze almost anything correctly, and they just look to Dawkins and Hitchens for a crutch when they cry. It all boils down to pride and just the feeling that they somehow have a one up on everybody. I also find it interesting that the atheists I know have never ever had anything bad happen to them, while many theists I know have perservered and endured terrible circumstances and became better theists than ever before.

Ever met a 3 year old child?

If religion is natural, why does it have to be taught?

Quote:

No, I haven't met a single genuine atheist in my entire life. They probably exist, but every single one I encounter just hates God and religion for their own idiotic reasons, all of them I've met are dogmatic and hide behind the stupidity of being a "free thinker". They fail to analyze almost anything correctly, and they just look to Dawkins and Hitchens for a crutch when they cry. It all boils down to pride and just the feeling that they somehow have a one up on everybody. I also find it interesting that the atheists I know have never ever had anything bad happen to them, while many theists I know have perservered and endured terrible circumstances and became better theists than ever before.

Thank you for that useless piece of anecdotal evidence. You know the world is twisted upside down when those who question religions which are inherently dogmatic (hence the term religious dogma) are accused of the same intellectual crime. Your pathetic attempt to put atheist into a small box and claim they haven't endured hardships proves you have no perspective. I have endured much more beyond the typical person, and instead of taking the easy route and taking shelter in religious myths I found my own personal strength and created my own meaning in a meaningless universe apathetic to your suffering. I have seen many friends lose loved ones and be manipulated by others with promises of utopian paradise.

You would do well to learn the meaning behind this statement. "The concept of an afterlife was created out of mans fear of his own mortality." Humans prefer any answers as opposed to no answers at all. Knowing this and knowing our fear of the unknown they create religion to substitute the pains of reality. If you need religion as a crutch to move forward and find meaning I feel sorry for you.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

No, I haven't met a single genuine atheist in my entire life. They probably exist, but every single one I encounter just hates God and religion for their own idiotic reasons, all of them I've met are dogmatic and hide behind the stupidity of being a "free thinker".

So are you an agnostic about the existence of atheists now?

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

They fail to analyze almost anything correctly, and they just look to Dawkins and Hitchens for a crutch when they cry. It all boils down to pride and just the feeling that they somehow have a one up on everybody.

There is this hysterical misconception among theists that we all sit around talking about Dawkins and Hitchens in the same way theists sit around talking about Jesus and Mohammed. It's pretty stupid really - they just happen to be some outspoken and articulate holders of a similar views. We don't hang off their every word like some divine utterance.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

I also find it interesting that the atheists I know have never ever had anything bad happen to them, while many theists I know have perservered and endured terrible circumstances and became better theists than ever before.

There are plenty of people I am aware of who were brought up with religion and were happy with it until fate threw something dreadful in their lives. The theological explanations as to why a benevolent god allows such things to happens just don't really suffice for many people in such circumstances.

Exoprism wrote:

Religion necessarily needs to have a monopoly on something to make it anything of worth.

No it doesn't. Why would it?

Exoprism wrote:

For the same reason we still build things without dedicating them to Zeus and Allah.

I don't expect you to understand me but that we built a building for one purpose makes it different from another we built for a separate purpose. If we did no have the latter purpose we would not have the latter structure. If you're so hung up on everything about religion being inherently negative you could conceptualize these religious alterations to our cultures as scars.

Exoprism wrote:

Religious concerns is what religion has to offer? Sounds quite circular.

Are you reading what I write at all? Religious concerns are simply a factor of form in explicitly religious structures.

Exoprism wrote:

Organization was religion's evolutionary advantage, not just monotheism, which is now a disadvantage because it's blunting internationalism.

Organization is never a disadvantage. It's what you do with it that matters.

Exoprism wrote:

Because all religions provide, and essentially are, the same thing but religionists are so ardently certain that it isn't that they'll go to war over this sort of shit. That's where I think your dilemma is coming from.

No my dilemma comes from atheist double-think.

Exoprism wrote:

Except your religion is theocentric with a focus on humanity being one of god's best creations whose purpose it is to simply worship this god

Who receives nothing for this worship. It is the vanity of man to think our prayers are meaningful to Al-Haq. Affirmation of our smallness relative to the universe is a sobering and powerful force. Islam's focus is clearly humanity. It is for us.

Exoprism wrote:

Not really. There were other hominids around as well who may still have been here if not for the material conditions in which they found themselves, most notably the Neanderthals.

Yes we were and still are. We survived and thrived they died. The case for the better species has been long settled.

Exoprism wrote:

Okay I think that basically proves what I said.

No it doesn't because the Muslim obsessed with God while scorming mankind will burn in hell next to Hitler.

Exoprism wrote:

Yeah, it's called capitalism. That's not really anything special to Islam when considering that Alexander "the Great" created one of the largest empires in the world by the time he was thirty.

Which fell apart in under two centuries. It took over a thousand years for Imperial Islam to falter.

Exoprism wrote:

Cool.

It was cool since it was a massively progressive move for Europe.

Exoprism wrote:

I stand on the advances of humanity, not of cults.

Denying that you stand on grass does not stop it from being grass. History and Marxism stands with me.

Exoprism wrote:

It's not a trivial matter when you're trying to prove the truth of a god who ordered large-scale genocides whereas America is killing people in the service of imperialism. Big difference.

We outpaced the so-called genocidal God in under a year. And will do it again next year. For someone arguing so hard for the idea that God effects nothing this seems pretty weak.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

No it doesn't. Why would it?

Because otherwise religion is a useless abstraction offering nothing except its bad side effects.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

I don't expect you to understand me but that we built a building for one purpose makes it different from another we built for a separate purpose. If we did no have the latter purpose we would not have the latter structure. If you're so hung up on everything about religion being inherently negative you could conceptualize these religious alterations to our cultures as scars.

Even accepting your idealist account of history this ignores the fact that great buildings and art were dedicated to Zeus; a god you would deny even exists. This simply proves that humans are capable of finding inspiration from a variety of things. If this is all religion has contributed, and if we are able to draw inspiration from elsewhere, what other reason is there to keep religion if it's other purposes are useless and if its bad outweighs the good? I'm surprised you're devolving your god to the point of "inspirer of architecture" considering this isn't the purpose of religion at all. None of the things that religion is supposed to do for humans can be proved and now he's simply become the guiding hand for the building of mosques dedicated to his own ego. Cool.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Are you reading what I write at all? Religious concerns are simply a factor of form in explicitly religious structures.

My question was about what religion has to offer.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Organization is never a disadvantage. It's what you do with it that matters.

Except it can be. Tribal organization was good up to the point it became a disadvantage. A nation of warring, but organized, tribes was detrimental when they were attacked by foreign empires. Religion has at its core a principle of exclusion of all non-believers, gentiles, kafirs or infidels, which may have been an advantage at one point but is now simply backward in comparison to internationalism. This type of organized religion becomes a disadvantage in the modern world, a prime example being Afghanistan after the Saur Revolution when the fundamentalist religionists didn't like the reforms being made by Communist kafirs.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Who receives nothing for this worship. It is the vanity of man to think our prayers are meaningful to Al-Haq. Affirmation of our smallness relative to the universe is a sobering and powerful force. Islam's focus is clearly humanity. It is for us.

If such a being exists he would receive the affirmation of his own ego. I haven't prayed to god for several years and I'm still doing fine.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Yes we were and still are. We survived and thrived they died. The case for the better species has been long settled.

Neanderthals lived in caves due to the climate, blunting the spread of any technological advance they could have made, and that makes us a better species? That is simply foolish. Neanderthals actually had larger brains than modern humans and if they had have evolved in Africa maybe they would be the ones claiming to be the "better species".

Dagoth Ur wrote:

No it doesn't because the Muslim obsessed with God while scorming mankind will burn in hell next to Hitler.

Where did I mention anything about scorning mankind? Islam is a god-thumping religion which claims our very purpose in life is to worship god.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Which fell apart in under two centuries. It took over a thousand years for Imperial Islam to falter.

But it did falter. Did your god abandon the muslims? No, empires arise and fall due to material conditions no matter how long they last. You're an idealist ne plus ultra.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

It was cool since it was a massively progressive move for Europe.

Cool.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Denying that you stand on grass does not stop it from being grass. History and Marxism stands with me.

It actually doesn't. Your tribal cult didn't advance humanity, humanity advanced humanity. History and Marxism stands with me.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

We outpaced the so-called genocidal God in under a year. And will do it again next year. For someone arguing so hard for the idea that God effects nothing this seems pretty weak.

Because we live in a globalised world with denser populations and better weaponry. This is just standard information which you don't seem to understand. And people aren't dieing in the service of the sky father but because of blindly fighting for, or against, imperialism. And it wouldn't matter a single bit because playing the numbers game is meaningless. If god committed even a 1-person genocide it stands as a testament to the imperfection of your god. But as it's written he supposedly carried out mass-genocides.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

CALLED IT!

Something false was said and you pointed out that I would correct the falsity; presumably just so you could say you called it out. You're a hero.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

Anyways, monotheism won't die, it has stood proudly through the test of time and still continues to dominate.

A couple thousand years isn't really the "test of time" considering humans have been here for a lot longer than that. It's as if we were running around the earth for tens of thousands of years until god eventually made up his mind and decided he wanted us to worship him. Of course, since you're a Christian you supposedly believe the earth is only around 6,000 years old unless you're an Old Earth Creationist.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

Yes, it is far too much to claim. It has given us varieties of art, culture, and continues to inspire the lives of billions today.

All of which are replicable and easily explained by the use of dialectical and historical materialism.

Even the fake religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has inspired some impressive artwork. If we were to use this as serious evidence of the validity of Pastafarianism you would be in a laughing fit. Unfortunately, this is what the religionists are doing here. It was funny at first but now it's just pathetically sad.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

Picture books and newspaper funnies don't count.

I usually prefer non-fiction books as opposed to novels such as the Bible. Although I've read that too.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

Either you're trolling, or you never had any intelligence. What you wrote wasn't even worth my time, really.

How am I the troll here? I'm sorry but your response was simply childish. This is what you said, and I quote:

"WAH WAH WAH afeeists r soooo kewl and religun is bad and nobodies never benfited frum itttt!!"

That is not anything worth responding to because it shows the level of your trollishness.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

Sure, and there are tons of different leftist groups that disagree too. Doesn't make leftism wrong.

We try our best to use evidence to back up our claims whereas religionists fight over non-existent sky gods and spirits with not a tittle of evidence for their tales.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

I highly doubt you have.

Except I have. Reading it is what made me drop Christianity like it did for a lot of other Atheists. No one can read that objectively and say it's god's word; it isn't even very good as fiction or history but is a terrific account of the beliefs of the Jewish tribal cult.

Quote:

Have you never met one of those people who go like "oh I wish I could believe it, it's such a nice story"? They actually seem to be more common than antitheists like Exoprism and me. Atheism isn't always coupled with hate. It only is when you have to get over a bunch of religion-induced traumas, like I do.

No, I haven't. Either there aren't very many (or any at all here), or people aren't that condescending in my country.

Quote:

lol one of my top reasons to become an Atheist was because Christianity never managed to help me with the terrible circumstances I've had to endure. It has never made me happy or confident, it has never given me comfort or anything. I pretty much gave up on it because it just doesn't work. It only ever made me feel like a worthless piece of shit. As a kid I was afraid of going to heaven because I was really scared that I'll have to sing boring worship songs for all eternity. I know that it sucks to be a Christian because I've been one for 19 years.

Cool, reverse almost everything you just said, and you have the story of the rest of the happy Christian population.

Quote:

Thank you for that useless piece of anecdotal evidence. You know the world is twisted upside down when those who question religions which are inherently dogmatic (hence the term religious dogma) are accused of the same intellectual crime. Your pathetic attempt to put atheist into a small box and claim they haven't endured hardships proves you have no perspective. I have endured much more beyond the typical person, and instead of taking the easy route and taking shelter in religious myths I found my own personal strength and created my own meaning in a meaningless universe apathetic to your suffering. I have seen many friends lose loved ones and be manipulated by others with promises of utopian paradise.
You would do well to learn the meaning behind this statement. "The concept of an afterlife was created out of mans fear of his own mortality." Humans prefer any answers as opposed to no answers at all. Knowing this and knowing our fear of the unknown they create religion to substitute the pains of reality. If you need religion as a crutch to move forward and find meaning I feel sorry for you.

Thank you for your useless reply. But good for you, you could be one of the few who aren't just smug fools. But I retain my knowledge that the weakest of cowards I know are hot-blooded atheists and the strongest of people I know are devout Christians. Plus, I could just as easily tell you that we invented Atheism just to try and escape God, because the weak will always try to escape morals, order and truth. Thank you come again.

Quote:

Ever met a 3 year old child?
If religion is natural, why does it have to be taught?

I've never met a 3 year old that hasn't at least known the concept of God. Even so, there are plenty of things natural that 3 year olds don't know. By that logic you used, human reproduction shouldn't even ever happen, because kids wouldn't get it.

Quote:

So are you an agnostic about the existence of atheists now?

Genuine ones, more so and more so.

Quote:

There is this hysterical misconception among theists that we all sit around talking about Dawkins and Hitchens in the same way theists sit around talking about Jesus and Mohammed. It's pretty stupid really - they just happen to be some outspoken and articulate holders of a similar views. We don't hang off their every word like some divine utterance

I know, that was partly just a joke. But still, you understand the point here.

Quote:

There are plenty of people I am aware of who were brought up with religion and were happy with it until fate threw something dreadful in their lives. The theological explanations as to why a benevolent god allows such things to happens just don't really suffice for many people in such circumstances.

That may be true, but clearly they didn't understand that God gave everybody free will and not only that, but he gave them the courage to perservere.

Quote:

Something false was said and you pointed out that I would correct the falsity; presumably just so you could say you called it out. You're a hero.

No, something was correct and I predicted that you would whine and complain about it, but thanks for the hero part.

Quote:

A couple thousand years isn't really the "test of time" considering humans have been here for a lot longer than that. It's as if we were running around the earth for tens of thousands of years until god eventually made up his mind and decided he wanted us to worship him. Of course, since you're a Christian you supposedly believe the earth is only around 6,000 years old unless you're an Old Earth Creationist.

I love how atheists think they know what happened God only knows how long ago. We don't know exactly what happened, maybe Adam and Eve were metaphorical, who knows, but of course you atheists will just white blanket it and go your merry way. Anyways, religion has been around for a very very very very long time, and it will continue to be here forever as well.

Quote:

All of which are replicable and easily explained by the use of dialectical and historical materialism.

You mean "all of which are not explained at all by me, and I can use diamat to hide behind while my atheist friends make more illogical attacks on religion."

Quote:

Even the fake religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has inspired some impressive artwork. If we were to use this as serious evidence of the validity of Pastafarianism you would be in a laughing fit. Unfortunately, this is what the religionists are doing here. It was funny at first but now it's just pathetically sad.

Really? I don't see any Spaghetti Vatican, or anything worth looking at all. The whole spaghetti stupidity is just a trolling way for atheists to pretend they're superior to everybody else.

Quote:

I usually prefer non-fiction books as opposed to novels such as the Bible. Although I've read that too.

I'm sorry, the Bible is non-fiction. You must be thinking of the God Delusion.

Quote:

That is not anything worth responding to because it shows the level of your trollishness.

pish posh I was just pretending to be a knowlegdeable atheist.

Quote:

We try our best to use evidence to back up our claims whereas religionists fight over non-existent sky gods and spirits with not a tittle of evidence for their tales.

You have no evidence for your lack of beliefs, either. We have tons of evidential and philosophical reasons for believing in God.

Quote:

Except I have. Reading it is what made me drop Christianity like it did for a lot of other Atheists. No one can read that objectively and say it's god's word; it isn't even very good as fiction or history but is a terrific account of the beliefs of the Jewish tribal cult.

That's funny, even though it's recognized by tons of scholars as literary masterpiece. I read it objectively, and I think it's God's word. If this God exists, then he say whatever the hell he wants. Coincidentally, what he says is beautiful and inspires billions every day.

No.

Das_A_Love_Story -

Quote:

That's funny, even though it's recognized by tons of scholars as literary masterpiece. I read it objectively, and I think it's God's word. If this God exists, then he say whatever the hell he wants. Coincidentally, what he says is beautiful and inspires billions every day.

So you find these passages to be a beautiful literary masterpiece? http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html There are a number of passages I find to be attrocious, namely pertaining to children. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/children.html I ,like a number of other persons on this site, at one time regarded myself as being a Christian, growing up. But then after finding out more about it's teachings, plus actually reading the entire Bible, and not just select passages, I personally renounced it. One does not even have to be an all out atheist to be opposed to the Judaeo-Christian religion, in general,either. I've since become a deist, and I feel that Thomas Paine, in his treatise "The Age of Reason" expressed the best apologetics in favour of deism, and polemics against the Bible. I really don't know why anyone wouldn't want to decide to be a deist after reading it. Though I suppose that there will be a number of people on this site who will critique it, theists, and atheists alike. I look foward to their response.

Quote:

I've never met a 3 year old that hasn't at least known the concept of God. Even so, there are plenty of things natural that 3 year olds don't know. By that logic you used, human reproduction shouldn't even ever happen, because kids wouldn't get it.

They know the concept because it was taught to them. When europeans began colonising the world, why did they have to teach their religion to people they found? If there is a god, why would this not be immediately evident to every human in existence?


As far as reproduction, kids don't understand it because they aren't biologically ready yet. Instinct kicks in soon enough, as evidenced by us multiplying before the existence of biology as a science.

Quote:

I'm sorry, the Bible is non-fiction. You must be thinking of the God Delusion.

Non-fiction? You're a biblical literalist?

Quote:

You have no evidence for your lack of beliefs, either. We have tons of evidential and philosophical reasons for believing in God.

Proof of divine existence to be provided please.

Quote:

We have tons of evidential and philosophical reasons for believing in God.

No. When I became an atheist, a big part of that was that I let go of everything I'd been taught and had a good look at the world as it presents itself to me, without presupposing anything at all. Nothing whatsoever indicates the existence of a creator God. You can only come to the conclusion that he exists if you let others persuade you of that. But nature by itself would never ever lead you to that conclusion.

runequester wrote:

Non-fiction? You're a biblical literalist?

He is one minute and the next he'll say something like this when he's in a corner:

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

We don't know exactly what happened, maybe Adam and Eve were metaphorical, who knows, but of course you atheists will just white blanket it and go your merry way.

Quote:

No.

Yes.

Quote:

So you find these passages to be a beautiful literary masterpiece? http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html There are a number of passages I find to be attrocious, namely pertaining to children. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_ ... ldren.html I ,like a number of other persons on this site, at one time regarded myself as being a Christian, growing up. But then after finding out more about it's teachings, plus actually reading the entire Bible, and not just select passages, I personally renounced it. One does not even have to be an all out atheist to be opposed to the Judaeo-Christian religion, in general,either. I've since become a deist, and I feel that Thomas Paine, in his treatise "The Age of Reason" expressed the best apologetics in favour of deism, and polemics against the Bible. I really don't know why anyone wouldn't want to decide to be a deist after reading it. Though I suppose that there will be a number of people on this site who will critique it, theists, and atheists alike.
I look foward to their response.

Oh no, you renounced it, what ever will we do? Ahhhhhhhhh. It's a masterpiece. Some passages may seem odd or difficult to understand the morality behind in this era, but whether you like it or not, it is wonderfully well written and a beautiful book.

Quote:

They know the concept because it was taught to them. When europeans began colonising the world, why did they have to teach their religion to people they found? If there is a god, why would this not be immediately evident to every human in existence?

Ridiculous. I remember thnking on my own before I had a clear idea of what God was that something must have created the universe. Plus, please, I beg you to not suggest that the Native Americans weren't religious already.

Quote:

As far as reproduction, kids don't understand it because they aren't biologically ready yet. Instinct kicks in soon enough, as evidenced by us multiplying before the existence of biology as a science.

Sure. I still think kids know what God is naturally, because they do. Even so, everybody eventually, probably at a very very young age, knows what God is.

Quote:

Non-fiction? You're a biblical literalist?

Just because a book's words are true doesn't mean that there is no interpretation. There may be parts of it which are merely allegorical but the message of the bible and these stories is what is really important, not the stories themselves.

Quote:

Proof of divine existence to be provided please.

Proof of non-existence of divine evidence please. Well, I could give you a bunch of evidential arguments which don't necessarily prove God exists but make very good points. It's very difficult to prove his existence, but we have plenty of logical reasons to believe in him. One such argument I like is that there are universal, unchanging immaterial laws to the universe. Why? Atheists cannot account for these unless they take some stupid idealistic approach.

Quote:

He is one minute and the next he'll say something like this when he's in a corner:

Because if you believe in the bible, you have to take every single passage literally.
This white blanket nonsense is getting repetitive.

Quote:

Ridiculous. I remember thnking on my own before I had a clear idea of what God was that something must have created the universe. Plus, please, I beg you to not suggest that the Native Americans weren't religious already.

"something creating the universe" has no relevance to a invisible man in the sky. Why did you not instinctively know the christian religion, if its literally true?

And yes, the native americans had systems of faith. Why weren't they christians?

Quote:

Sure. I still think kids know what God is naturally, because they do. Even so, everybody eventually, probably at a very very young age, knows what God is.

Why doesn't my 4 year old?

Quote:

Proof of non-existence of divine evidence please. Well, I could give you a bunch of evidential arguments which don't necessarily prove God exists but make very good points. It's very difficult to prove his existence, but we have plenty of logical reasons to believe in him. One such argument I like is that there are universal, unchanging immaterial laws to the universe. Why? Atheists cannot account for these unless they take some stupid idealistic approach.

Burden of proof is on the extraordinary claim.
Or in simpler terms: You can't prove a negative.

Can you prove that Thor and Zeus aren't the ones creating the weather?
Can you prove my cat isn't creating volcanoes when he sleeps?

Throughout history we have had literally thousands of deities, spirits and ancestors we've worshipped. Now you tell me that this specific version is the right one, and every single human before your book was written was wrong? That demands evidence.


As far as unchanging immaterial laws, well, sure. Physics. Chemistry. We can chart them out and calculate them. Doesn't require a gravity-making man in the sky.

And again, even if it did, what makes your particular man in the sky the right one?
You scoff repeatedly at atheists for being "idealistic" but what gives you the insight and wisdom to say that thousands of years of humanity was wrong about their invisible men?

The romans built an empire. The greeks laid the foundations of modern philosophy. They believed in entirely different invisible men.
You haven't built an empire or contributed vast sums of knowledge to human development. Why should I believe in your specific invisible man?

Oh God that is SO ridiculous.

Quote:

Sure. I still think kids know what God is naturally, because they do. Even so, everybody eventually, probably at a very very young age, knows what God is.

The Piraha people in Brazil are not used to thinking about anything that they cannot see. Missionaries have tried to convert them for 30 years, and they failed to even evoke interested in God and Jesus because the concepts make no sense at all to these people. And they're by far not the only atheist tribe. There are lots of them. Atheist civilizations - entire peoples who have never heard of the concept of God before - definitely wouldn't exist if kids naturally knew what God is. In fact, before the Judeo-Christian idea of a creator God became popular, consensus was that the world has always existed. This is still what everybody thinks in India or China. You are patently wrong.

Quote:

Oh no, you renounced it, what ever will we do? Ahhhhhhhhh.

Under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, there is nothing you can do.

Quote:

It's a masterpiece. Some passages may seem odd or difficult to understand the morality behind in this era, but whether you like it or not, it is wonderfully well written and a beautiful book.

See, I have always believed that ethics are of timeless value. That what's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong. Then, now, and forever more. Otherwise, moral convictions are just as subjective as your personal opinion of the Bible being a "masterpiece". Also, just imagine for a moment that instead of such passages being in the Bible, they were instead found in the Quran. Would you accept a response, such as the one you just gave above, from a Muslim apologist?