vacuous rhetoric about atheists

[Derek]

Atheists can never seem to do better with their argument than say something as ridiculous as: "It is more amazing for a universe to come from nothing rather than a being, therefore God does not exist."   

In addition, they only ever attack the weakest factions of christianity out there, namely pure unadulterated fundamentalism. This is easy to attack, because biblical literalism takes everything in it as a historical fact as though it is a printout of God's census bureau or something.

On the other hand, I haven't seen too many atheists make a measured attack or argument on Christians who choose to view the old testament as myth or allegory communicating moral truth, and who choose to view Jesus Christ in the new testament as "the son of God" but who are open enough to consider the question: "What on earth does 'son of God mean? Is it some kind of hocus pocus thing or is it something else entirely?"

Come on atheists---let's see some real THOUGHT going on. Vast, vast numbers of arrogant posts aren't going to sway Christians to think in a different way. Satan has failed at using you as tools. That's right. tools. Failed. broken...  tools.  (note the last paragraph is meant to be incendiary, the previous paragraphs should be used as a source for further discussion, if any is inspired)


... 

[prometheus]

Ignoring the fact that this is a blunt troll I will respond.

Atheists can never seem to do better with their argument than say something as ridiculous as: "It is more amazing for a universe to come from nothing rather than a being, therefore God does not exist."

Atheists shouldn't say this.


Theists believe that the universe has to have had a cause. The universe is quite complex so this justified an explanation. The universe couldn't have come from nothing becauyse of that reason, they say.
They explain this by claiming that god is the cause of the universe, god created the universe. But god is more complex and requires more explanation than the universe.

But if the universe can't come from nothing because it is complex then surely god, who is more complex than the universe, couldn't have come from nothing either. So instead of explaining the causality of the universe they only made it worse.



Atheists should say that we don't know how and why the universe came forth out of the big bang process. But they should also say that the universe coming from nothing is much much much more probable than god coming from nothing.

Because for the universe to come from nothing one only needs to trigger the big bang process. God is a complex system, an intelligent being, more amazing than the universe itself. If the complexity of the universe demands a designer then surely god demands a designer even more.

In addition, they only ever attack the weakest factions of christianity out there, namely pure unadulterated fundamentalism.

Fundamentalists only betray reason. They are loyal to their faith. Liberals on the other hand, their betray reason and their faith equally. Surely the liberal's position is more absurd. Faith doesn't support their position and neither does reason.

The atheist's position is supported by reason. The fundamentalists position if supported by faith. But liberals have no arguments in favour of their position.

On the other hand, I haven't seen too many atheists make a measured attack or argument on Christians who choose to view the old testament as myth or allegory communicating moral truth,

If the OT is myth then the story of Jesus Christ is meaningless. Jesus died for nothing.

Also, the OT has only one or two good moral lessons to offer. Some books of the OT don't contain a praiseworthy moral teaching at all eventhough they are filled with moral teaching; all of it primitive morality that would end you up in jail if applied today.

Come on atheists---let's see some real THOUGHT going on. Vast, vast numbers of arrogant posts aren't going to sway Christians to think in a different way.

How can a skeptical position be arrogant? Religious people make all kinds of claims about humans and gods without evidence. And not even that, their claims also make humans one of the most important things in the entire universe. Some even claim the universe was created for us exclusively. Surely this is much much more arrogant than most secular world views where we are just a tiny irrelevant but special particle of dust on a huge beach.

Surely reasonable arguments won't sway Christians. You can only influence those who haven't decided yet. That's the nature of religion. Now I am willing to change all of my views. All of them. But only if the evidence justifies it.

Satan has failed at using you as tools. That's right.  tools. Failed. broken...  tools.

Haha, not funny.

[nicco]

I think God came from a big bang.

[ramseytheii]

I think God came from a big bang.

Judging from what it takes to make a child, most of us did as well, and after all we were made in his image...?

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

Vast, vast numbers of arrogant posts aren't going to sway Christians to think in a different way.

It always pops up: "arrogance."  Anyone who doesn't believe in God is arrogant.  Anyone who doesn't subscribe to anti-evolution arguments is arrogant.  Why is it always this word?

I believe there are two main reasons: arguments for God are usually tied in to arguments against evolution, for whatever reason.  These arguments tend to come from a more emotional source, rather than intellectual insight - no offense to anybody in particular - and therefore aren't founded as strong as if they were able to combine both heart and mind.  When a person makes a case for God (which is usually a personal God), and against the idea of species evolving from other species (the implications of which are obivous), it is almost always based in a strong feeling which the person is unable to let go of.

Arrogance implies a person unwilling to hear the emotional side of things: scientists who dismiss anti-evolution arguments as having little to no science are called arrogant because they refuse to respond to the inherent emotional plea.  Atheists who present their beliefs calmly and rationally are called arrogant, because they seem to be causing emotional distress, and don't care.

The second reason is that religious people believe they speak for the disenfranchised, and no accusation pleases the disenfranchised (or the self-styled disenfranchised) like that of arrogance. 

Salman Rushdie believes the current trend towards fundamentalism is due to people lost in a world where they cannot recognize values.  I just read an interesting article about AIDS in Africa, and how many leaders of African countries are urging their people not to take Western drugs, which they say are poisonous, in favor of "natural" healing, or healing from plants and herbs, that comes from the people rather than a laboratory.  The implication is trust the people over the scientists, just like in this case.  The article is clever enough to point out that practically all of the drugs we take originated (dare I say evolved?) from herbs and plants, but are synthesized to be much more effective.

This article to me confirms Rushdie's point: the people are in a world where a lethal virus is rampant, and they must rely on strangers' chemical concoctions to survive.  It is only natural to feel insecurity; the leaders play on it shamelessly, the people take "natural" concoctions (one of which was dictated to a healer in a dream) and then continue to die.

It's much more tragic than the situation we have here, of people who even after more than a century of this science's existence, cannot accept the values it seems to proclaim, or betray, and thus become disenfranchised: science seems to be against them and their values, and therefore it is arrogant, willfully destroying the things they thought they knew in this life.

Luckily, religion is not powerful enough these days to stop science, though it tries in every way possible to obstruct science from improving our every day lives.

You will find it is always the same word being used - arrogant, like a talking point, or a refrain, or like a broken record really. 

Walter Ramsey

[thalbergmad]

Luckily, religion is not powerful enough these days to stop science.

Well, thank God for that and i rejoice the fact that children in our state schools can no longer be force fed this nonsense as completely positive. No longer can people like Giordano Bruno be burned at the stake and no longer can a bunch of bead juggling Spaniards almost wipe out an entire civilisation and all of its history in the name of God.

The anything but piano board appears to be infested with religion and its blinkered adherents.

Thal

[ramseytheii]

Atheists can never seem to do better with their argument than say something as ridiculous as: "It is more amazing for a universe to come from nothing rather than a being, therefore God does not exist."   

You haven' been reading my dear!

In addition, they only ever attack the weakest factions of christianity out there, namely pure unadulterated fundamentalism. This is easy to attack, because biblical literalism takes everything in it as a historical fact as though it is a printout of God's census bureau or something.

Those aren't the weakest "factions" of Christianity that are being criticized, it's the weakest "sections" of the Bible.  Any fanatic out there doing harm to others, or trying to police their beliefs, has a 9/10 chance of being supported by whatever Holy Book he is reading.  Please don't blame fanatics for doing what they are told; rather blame the others for not denouncing passages that inspire fanatics.

On the other hand, I haven't seen too many atheists make a measured attack or argument on Christians who choose to view the old testament as myth or allegory communicating moral truth, and who choose to view Jesus Christ in the new testament as "the son of God" but who are open enough to consider the question: "What on earth does 'son of God mean? Is it some kind of hocus pocus thing or is it something else entirely?"

You really haven't been reading, because such attacks are the bread and butter of practically all my posts.  For me there is a binary system: is the Holy Scrit the unaltered, infallible Word of God and everything he finds Holy, or is it not?  Those who put this in category of myth, that in category of metaphor, this in category of mistranslation, and that in category of "time-context," are essentially denial artists.  They cannot bring themselves to say: yes, this is God's Word and it is Good; or no, this cannot be God's Word, because it is not Good.  They prattle on and on about how God is full of mercy and compassion, but cannot disown the cruel and inhumane passages - so they pull a trick from the bag of denial. 

But who can blame them?  To confess a thing evil to our eyes, but described in the Holy Scrit as the will of God, is to confess evil.  To confess that thing is not true, is to confess a weakness in faith.  It is an impossible moral position.  I have more respect for those that say, yes, the Bible says that, but we choose not to believe it, then those who try and gloss over the messy parts.  I also have more respect, in an ironic way, for those that subscribe to everything.  It is those who fall in-between, those for whom Dante reserved the last circle of Hell, that I hold my contempt.

Come on atheists---let's see some real THOUGHT going on. Vast, vast numbers of arrogant posts aren't going to sway Christians to think in a different way. Satan has failed at using you as tools. That's right. tools. Failed. broken...  tools.  (note the last paragraph is meant to be incendiary, the previous paragraphs should be used as a source for further discussion, if any is inspired)

Arrogance again.  If you have an argument, make it; don't resort to weak ad hominem.  The "arrogance" foils pops up when no counter-statements exist other than trying to 1) induce guilt in the debate opponent, or 2) gain sympathy from bystanders.  Let's hear what you really have to say.

Walter Ramsey

[soliloquy]

Atheists can never seem to do better with their argument than say something as ridiculous as: "It is more amazing for a universe to come from nothing rather than a being, therefore God does not exist."

I don't believe I've ever heard someone say something like that, particularly not an atheist.  I DO hear Christians say that all the time, but simply reverse it, saying that there is no way such a perfect universe could be created without a God to govern it.  So apparently, that Christian argument is false; thank you for clearing that one up for us.  I'm glad you can admit your mistakes.  Also, if you think that's the argument atheists use, then your problem is obviously not the lack of intelligence in the atheists but your own lack of intelligence, because you are obviously having huge problems understanding anything that comes out of someone's mouth in contradiction to what you quaintly believe, because no atheist would ever say that.  Are you in denial or are you just that stupid?  Also, before we go further, I'd like to ask you something.  What exactly is the point of this thread?  It's obviously to incite some reaction from the people that disagree with you, but don't you think it would have worked out more to your own advantage if what you wrote wasn't so blatantly and incomprehensibly stupid that we would at least have some mild difficulty in making you look like an idiot?  Also, you obviously not only are a complete jackass, you also, hilariously but unsurprisingly, don't even seem to know what an atheist actually is.  A REAL atheist isn't someone who will simply refuse to believe in God; it's someone who only believes in that which there is proof of.  Think of us as skeptics waiting to be turned   The reason we don't believe in God is that there is currently no scientific proof, and there is an abundance of scientific proof, not to mention the most basic laws of foundational human knowledge and logic that also refute this, that is in direct contradiction with the Bible such as carbon dating.  Also, the idea of people being made from sand and ribs and shooting tornadoes of fire and parting seas and filling boats with 100x more animals than they can hold while drifting for over a month don't exactly ring true in the mind of anyone even partially sane.  If you were watching on the news and suddenly there came a headline "Bill Gates travels to the Red Sea today and parts it, making it divide in half using only his mind."  would you believe that trash?  Of course not.  So why believe it just because it was written in some old book?  It's obviously some form of fear-inspired denial.  And according to you we're the illogical ones.  Get a reality check, buddy.

In addition, they only ever attack the weakest factions of christianity out there, namely pure unadulterated fundamentalism. This is easy to attack, because biblical literalism takes everything in it as a historical fact as though it is a printout of God's census bureau or something.

So you are saying that Christian Fundamentalism is stupid?  Why is that?  Tell me, how is it different than the form of Christianity you follow?  Also, how is one supposed to know which parts of the bible are fact and which are fiction?  Who is to say?  To be honest, I have read the bible and most of it is pretty ridiculous.  Almost the entire book is just a huge collection of moral fables; who's to say God isn't just a character in these fables like a fox or stork is in one of Aesop's?  You can't pick and choose here just to suit whatever pathetic argument you have.  What exactly is your argument, anyway?  Oh yes, that atheists are "pathetic".  Could you please elaborate specifically on what makes us "pathetic"?  Oh right, you said it was because our debatorial skills are weak.  Ok, fine.  Please, give us your logical and scientific reasoning FOR BELIEVE IN GOD.  I'm sure you can do much better than our reasons for not believe in him.  Please specifically cite anywhere you get scientific evidence from.  Do not use creationwiki or other "christian-science" websites, as they are biased.

On the other hand, I haven't seen too many atheists make a measured attack or argument on Christians who choose to view the old testament as myth or allegory communicating moral truth, and who choose to view Jesus Christ in the new testament as "the son of God" but who are open enough to consider the question: "What on earth does 'son of God mean? Is it some kind of hocus pocus thing or is it something else entirely?"

That's because atheists don't really attack people unless they're provoked by some fanatical 14 year old retard who has nothing better to do than waste his pathetic little time by eating puffed cheetos and writing trash on forums   Any attack we have does not discriminate between how illogical a religious person is.  If you believe in God, we think that's silly because there's no proof or evidence whatsoever.  We don't care if you believed in Methusula too.  You obviously have absolutely no comprehension as to what an atheist is, does, or believes, yet you feel yourself qualified to start a thread commenting on their intelligence and moral behavior, which i find a bit ironic considering I don't think you have shown a bit of either in this post.  Tell me, what do you mean by "hocus pocus"?  Are you saying he wasn't the son of God?

Come on atheists---let's see some real THOUGHT going on.

Come on Derek, let's see any thought whatsoever going on.  And I'm not sure we're required to think, when the burden of proof is on your shoulders.  That is one thing idiots forget when they're arguing; if they're telling us there is something but they don't have proof, it's THEIR responsibility to prove their side of the argument, not the other way around.

Vast, vast numbers of arrogant posts aren't going to sway Christians to think in a different way.

Do you think vast vast numbers of arrogant+hilariously brain-dead posts are going to sway us?  But yes, Christians definitely think in a different way.  No logic, just blind, random faith.  It's ridiculous.

Satan has failed at using you as tools. That's right. tools. Failed. broken...  tools.

On the drama meter, that registers... *drumroll*... 0/10.  Atheists don't care what you think.  We just can't believe you wrote something that stupid.  If anyone's being a tool right now it's you, and you're being a tool for us, because considering how illogical everything you just wrote was, I think a lot of Christians are reading your post and deciding that they're on the wrong team.  Also, let's not hear about who's intolerant later on if you don't mind; we don't have a "Christianity is Pathetic" thread.

[opus10no2]

True, atheists are taking as much of a leap of faith as theists are.

Agnostics are hotter though.

[mcgillcomposer]

True, atheists are taking as much of a leap of faith as theists are.

Agnostics are hotter though.

I agree. They [agnostics] are good in bed too!

[opus10no2]

Didn't wanna boast too much 

[Derek]

Also, let's not hear about who's intolerant later on if you don't mind; we don't have a "Christianity is Pathetic" thread.

Yes, I recognize that "tolerance" is the religion of today, but I do not hold it as a greater virtue over others.  Actually, there is a "Christianity: Plague of the MIND" thread. That isn't all that different.

Damn, I sure pissed you guys off. The most arrogant, bloviating, full of themselves, pompous windbags of this entire forum have graced my thread with their omniscient presence.  I am truly humbled.

[opus10no2]

But christians come to their 'conclusion' because it is written out for them, a book of answers for those who believe.

Atheists at least have some independance of thought.

Neither atheists nor theists are pathetic, but organised religion is.

Mythologies cloud the issue by giving 'answers' to the many questions a theist still should have.

[Derek]

I have known atheists and christians alike who have independence of thought. It is only those who declare that they adhere to one set of beliefs and one set of beliefs only that are truly cut off from serious thought about these issues. One could say that organized religion causes people to become narrow in their thinking, and point out that it has been responsible for mass murder in the past, but then so have atheistic religions such as communism. Religious zeal and blindly following a leader in general is what causes this violence. I see it as separate from the actual issue: what do we believe and why? The only reason I believe in God is not for an answer to how the universe was created, but for a kind of spiritual augmentation. Atheists I suppose would call it a crutch: However I choose to see it as an augmentation. I was strong before, but with God, I am even stronger.

[thalbergmad]

The most arrogant, bloviating, full of themselves, pompous windbags.

Excellent description of some Christians, could not have put it better myself.

Well done.

Thal

[opus10no2]

Atheists are the opposite of theists, christians are only 1 religous branch of theists.

The reason I think atheism is not stupid, and that christianity is - is because it follows the same patterns as other major theistic religions and uses people's inclination toward theism as a way of spreading moral and various other propaganda.

I can safely say 'jesus is a c**t' and fear no wrath.

If a christian were brought up in a different place in the world, they would still be predisposed, perhaps, to become theistic, but they would be influenced by the common and accepted branch of theism in that region.

I can't seriously see how christians can have independance of thought in light of this.

[Derek]

Excellent description of some Christians, could not have put it better myself.

Well done.

Thal

Quite true Thal, Christians are also humans.

[Derek]

Atheists are the opposite of theists, christians are only 1 religous branch of theists.

The reason I think atheism is not stupid, and that christianity is - is because it follows the same patterns as other major theistic religions and uses people's inclination toward theism as a way of spreading moral and various other propaganda.

I can safely say 'jesus is a c**t' and fear no wrath.

If a christian were brought up in a different place in the world, they would still be predisposed, perhaps, to become theistic, but they would be influenced by the common and accepted branch of theism in that region.

I can't seriously see how Christians can have independence of thought in light of this.

you know what? I agree with you. I think a healthy amount of skepticism is important for a truly civil society. if we all blindly believed one religion, then fear would probably govern our judgment of others, hence the atrocities committed by Christianity in the past, and the atrocities committed by Islam today. It is important for everyone with faith to keep it to themselves. For it to become part of the power structure is disastrous, as has been proven many times in the past. so..I'm actually glad we have atheists among us. as long as they don't start a communist uprising, and Christians don't try to start a Christian constitutional democracy, everything will be fine.

some Christians have told me that I can't call myself a Christian because I hold these views. But like you said, we mostly live in free countries these days. I can call myself what I want. I believe in God, and I believe Jesus Christ died for my sins. I strive my hardest to live as Jesus taught us to live. Thus, I find it reasonable to call myself a Christian, though I am skeptical about a 6000 year old earth, or 600 year old men (as examples of things in the Bible which I do not believe).

[opus10no2]

Discussion is fun though, and if we don't learn about ourselves from it, we certainly learn about other people.

We should learn to tolerate that which we cannot change, and not become angry unnecessarily.

Anyway, the main 'answer' I find worthy of consideration besides theism - and other related 'intended creation' branches of belief - is randomness.

In all the infinite possibilities of randomness, our world is one, humanity is one.

Maybe this isn't an answer, but it's certainly justifiable to stop asking 'why' and just think 'why not?' 

[thalbergmad]

It is important for everyone with faith to keep it to themselves.

I am right behind you on this one.

Should be part of the forum rules.

Thal

[prometheus]

We all have an idea about what is right and what is wrong. And we all have a hard time doing that what we know is best. And if we feel we feel guilty about it.


Isn't religion just a construction to help us do what we already have decided on what is right.

So in a sense we project our morality on god and god projects it back to us. And then we can do what we already want to do more easily.

But is this really true or does it only seem so? I have heard some people that turned away from religion say that it is actually much easier that it seemed to be.



And isn't this a corrupting idea? You do things, not because something is good, but because god will reward you for it.



I don't think I would be a better person if I had belief in god helping me to do that what I think is right.

And this while I perfectly realize that there is no justice in this world. And it really bothers me. But still I recognize the benefit of 'good' behavior.

[prometheus]

As for tolerance. I tolerate people. But I don't tolerate ideas that can't stand intolerance. I mean, I can't stand ideas that cannot be defended against criticism because that implies the idea is a bad idea.


I think no one should be tolerant to ideas just because. I think ideas don't deserve respect just because. Ideas should be examines and criticized. Now most religious people would like their religion to get a free pass from this, and even atheists somehow agree with them, but I think it's bad. Religious ideas aren't 'holy'.

[richard black]

I'm an atheist and I regard Jesus, Mohammed etc. as political leaders and, from what I can discover about them, good people. Most of the great religious figures like them went about the place saying 'Hey people, be nice', which I can't argue with as an outlook - unfortunately they felt for whatever reason that they had to invoke God and as such became themselves tainted with alleged 'godness'.

As for God, at least the one worshipped by Judaism/Christianity/Islam (they're all sects of the same theist religion, after all), I find the very idea plain silly. Apparently this omnipotent being created us in his own image so that we could for ever after walk the face of the earth worshipping him and singing his praises. If we don't do that, we get punished. What an incredibly vain, arrogant twit he must be! That, to me, seems the basic contradiction that undermines religion - because a plausible deity obviously is incompatible with a vain, arrogant twit.

I find the idea of pagan gods rather sweet, though. I grew up with Norse legends and spend a lot of my working life playing vocal scores of Wagner operas, and I rather like the deities you find there. I must admit I feel little urge to worship them, though...

[rimv2]

Ahahhaahah

This topic is awesome.

It makes no sense what so ever.

The very premise of the first post was nothing more than an example of what the poster intended to argue against.


Making assumption about Atheists while making arguing about making assumptions about Christians.

 

Haven't we all learned yet that assumption and generalization leads no where.

Hell arguing against anything yields nothing.

Instead acting as if one belief hold merit over another,

why not recognize that a belief is what it is.

A belief is personal.

To have a belief in itself is irrational, regardless of what the belief is.

So instead of arguing againsts another belief,

why not strive to find the common answer.

Forty two pages of "atheist are lamers, christians are bible thumpers does nothing but further isolate individuals.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

[nicco]

Why not find a forum dedicated to religious talk to write all this crap and let this be a piano forum?

[thalbergmad]

Whilst this is the "anything" board, i do think it is time to give religion its own seperate board.

Thal

[ramseytheii]

As for tolerance. I tolerate people. But I don't tolerate ideas that can't stand intolerance. I mean, I can't stand ideas that cannot be defended against criticism because that implies the idea is a bad idea.


I think no one should be tolerant to ideas just because. I think ideas don't deserve respect just because. Ideas should be examines and criticized. Now most religious people would like their religion to get a free pass from this, and even atheists somehow agree with them, but I think it's bad. Religious ideas aren't 'holy'.

Well put.  Why should anyone refrain from asking the tough questions just because it would make someone feel bad about their choices? 

Now that there is a Mormon running for President, the public should take the opportunity to educate itself on that "particular American religion," as Tolstoy called it, Mormonism, and ask the tough questions about his religion.  How much do they police your every-day life?  What is their stance on people of different skin color?  What are the moral guidelines of the church, and the punishments for not following them?  If this person is going to be our President, we have a right and a duty to know the moral environment he surrounds himself with.

Religious people in general, backed by twenty years of political power gains, have acquired a strong sense of pride that seems to preclude any sort of criticism.  If anyone suggests anything anathema to the religious, one always hears the accusation of "arrogance": a bullying tactic which leaves one wondering, what's their argument?  Seriously, these people have such a thin skin, their feelings get hurt by being disagreed with.  It suggests a certain lack of exposure with life.  In everyday life, you will meet people that are arrogant and rude and unpleasant - get over it.  If you have an idea, fight for your idea, not against people you don't like (or who can out-maneuver you in argument).

Walter Ramsey

[Derek]

Why not find a forum dedicated to religious talk to write all this crap and let this be a piano forum?

This is an "anything but piano" board, and there happen to be a lot of members of this website who are religious, atheist, or just enjoy bashing one or the other. Under the guise of measured or intelligent argument, a lot of these people really just enjoy bashing. I like starting threads like this because I was getting sick of so many anti christian threads. I don't have a black belt in "making myself feel good at the expense of others by wasting my time for hours every evening writing arrogant posts about everything," so I don't bother responding to most of this filth, but I enjoy watching it seep out of the cracks of the piano street. Call it morbid curiosity. Kind of like lifting up a stone and seeing a colossal colony of maggots. only, replace maggots with posts. you know the feeling: "EWW! LOOK AT THAT! DISGUSTING!" but it's actually kind of fun? 

[cmg]

Methinks you protesteth too much.

If you, as a Christian, feel you have the market cornered on Truth, then relax and go work on a Beethoven Sonata.  You have nothing to prove, right?  Or do you?

[soliloquy]

Yes, I recognize that "tolerance" is the religion of today, but I do not hold it as a greater virtue over others.  Actually, there is a "Christianity: Plague of the MIND" thread. That isn't all that different.

Derek, why don't you try to answer the other and obviously more important questions I asked you.  Key word: try.



Here I'll even make it convenient and put that post down here again so you don't have to scroll all the way back up

Atheists can never seem to do better with their argument than say something as ridiculous as: "It is more amazing for a universe to come from nothing rather than a being, therefore God does not exist."

I don't believe I've ever heard someone say something like that, particularly not an atheist.  I DO hear Christians say that all the time, but simply reverse it, saying that there is no way such a perfect universe could be created without a God to govern it.  So apparently, that Christian argument is false; thank you for clearing that one up for us.  I'm glad you can admit your mistakes.  Also, if you think that's the argument atheists use, then your problem is obviously not the lack of intelligence in the atheists but your own lack of intelligence, because you are obviously having huge problems understanding anything that comes out of someone's mouth in contradiction to what you quaintly believe, because no atheist would ever say that.  Are you in denial or are you just that stupid?  Also, before we go further, I'd like to ask you something.  What exactly is the point of this thread?  It's obviously to incite some reaction from the people that disagree with you, but don't you think it would have worked out more to your own advantage if what you wrote wasn't so blatantly and incomprehensibly stupid that we would at least have some mild difficulty in making you look like an idiot?  Also, you obviously not only are a complete jackass, you also, hilariously but unsurprisingly, don't even seem to know what an atheist actually is.  A REAL atheist isn't someone who will simply refuse to believe in God; it's someone who only believes in that which there is proof of.  Think of us as skeptics waiting to be turned   The reason we don't believe in God is that there is currently no scientific proof, and there is an abundance of scientific proof, not to mention the most basic laws of foundational human knowledge and logic that also refute this, that is in direct contradiction with the Bible such as carbon dating.  Also, the idea of people being made from sand and ribs and shooting tornadoes of fire and parting seas and filling boats with 100x more animals than they can hold while drifting for over a month don't exactly ring true in the mind of anyone even partially sane.  If you were watching on the news and suddenly there came a headline "Bill Gates travels to the Red Sea today and parts it, making it divide in half using only his mind."  would you believe that trash?  Of course not.  So why believe it just because it was written in some old book?  It's obviously some form of fear-inspired denial.  And according to you we're the illogical ones.  Get a reality check, buddy.

In addition, they only ever attack the weakest factions of christianity out there, namely pure unadulterated fundamentalism. This is easy to attack, because biblical literalism takes everything in it as a historical fact as though it is a printout of God's census bureau or something.

So you are saying that Christian Fundamentalism is stupid?  Why is that?  Tell me, how is it different than the form of Christianity you follow?  Also, how is one supposed to know which parts of the bible are fact and which are fiction?  Who is to say?  To be honest, I have read the bible and most of it is pretty ridiculous.  Almost the entire book is just a huge collection of moral fables; who's to say God isn't just a character in these fables like a fox or stork is in one of Aesop's?  You can't pick and choose here just to suit whatever pathetic argument you have.  What exactly is your argument, anyway?  Oh yes, that atheists are "pathetic".  Could you please elaborate specifically on what makes us "pathetic"?  Oh right, you said it was because our debatorial skills are weak.  Ok, fine.  Please, give us your logical and scientific reasoning FOR BELIEVE IN GOD.  I'm sure you can do much better than our reasons for not believe in him.  Please specifically cite anywhere you get scientific evidence from.  Do not use creationwiki or other "christian-science" websites, as they are biased.

On the other hand, I haven't seen too many atheists make a measured attack or argument on Christians who choose to view the old testament as myth or allegory communicating moral truth, and who choose to view Jesus Christ in the new testament as "the son of God" but who are open enough to consider the question: "What on earth does 'son of God mean? Is it some kind of hocus pocus thing or is it something else entirely?"

That's because atheists don't really attack people unless they're provoked by some fanatical 14 year old retard who has nothing better to do than waste his pathetic little time by eating puffed cheetos and writing trash on forums   Any attack we have does not discriminate between how illogical a religious person is.  If you believe in God, we think that's silly because there's no proof or evidence whatsoever.  We don't care if you believed in Methusula too.  You obviously have absolutely no comprehension as to what an atheist is, does, or believes, yet you feel yourself qualified to start a thread commenting on their intelligence and moral behavior, which i find a bit ironic considering I don't think you have shown a bit of either in this post.  Tell me, what do you mean by "hocus pocus"?  Are you saying he wasn't the son of God?

Come on atheists---let's see some real THOUGHT going on.

Come on Derek, let's see any thought whatsoever going on.  And I'm not sure we're required to think, when the burden of proof is on your shoulders.  That is one thing idiots forget when they're arguing; if they're telling us there is something but they don't have proof, it's THEIR responsibility to prove their side of the argument, not the other way around.

Vast, vast numbers of arrogant posts aren't going to sway Christians to think in a different way.

Do you think vast vast numbers of arrogant+hilariously brain-dead posts are going to sway us?  But yes, Christians definitely think in a different way.  No logic, just blind, random faith.  It's ridiculous.

Satan has failed at using you as tools. That's right. tools. Failed. broken...  tools.

On the drama meter, that registers... *drumroll*... 0/10.  Atheists don't care what you think.  We just can't believe you wrote something that stupid.  If anyone's being a tool right now it's you, and you're being a tool for us, because considering how illogical everything you just wrote was, I think a lot of Christians are reading your post and deciding that they're on the wrong team.  Also, let's not hear about who's intolerant later on if you don't mind; we don't have a "Christianity is Pathetic" thread.

[rimv2]

Big Blocks Of Text With No Paragraph Breaks


Everyone seems have missed it

[soliloquy]

Big Blocks Of Text With No Paragraph Breaks


Everyone seems have missed it

Welcome to any internet forum.  Btw, try Joyce.

[rimv2]

Joyce? what's joyce?

[prometheus]

Are there more than one?

Joyce is just dead weight on my bookshelf. But it's excellent for that.

[rimv2]

Are there more than one?

Joyce is just dead weight on my bookshelf. But it's excellent for that.

I confuse

[timothy42b]

Come on atheists---let's see some real THOUGHT going on.

... 

I am coming to suspect that your "facts" about atheists come not from internet forums but actually from your own imagination.

We can easily check this. 

I'll give you some homework.  Go to the library and check out Dawkin's The God Delusion and Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian and The End of Faith.  They are both best sellers any library will have, you won't have to spend a dime. 

They present the case more eloquently than anyone here.  More eloquently than I can, for sure, as I am not an atheist. 

It is my belief that every True Christian needs to read the Harris books and come up with a position on them.  There is logic contained that cannot be refuted easily. 

Come on, at least skim these.  Read the first chapter of Letter to a Christian and let us know what you think. 

[pianolearner]

Atheists can never seem to do better with their argument than say something as ridiculous as: "It is more amazing for a universe to come from nothing rather than a being, therefore God does not exist."   

In addition, they only ever attack the weakest factions of christianity out there, namely pure unadulterated fundamentalism. This is easy to attack, because biblical literalism takes everything in it as a historical fact as though it is a printout of God's census bureau or something.

On the other hand, I haven't seen too many atheists make a measured attack or argument on Christians who choose to view the old testament as myth or allegory communicating moral truth, and who choose to view Jesus Christ in the new testament as "the son of God" but who are open enough to consider the question: "What on earth does 'son of God mean? Is it some kind of hocus pocus thing or is it something else entirely?"

Come on atheists---let's see some real THOUGHT going on. Vast, vast numbers of arrogant posts aren't going to sway Christians to think in a different way. Satan has failed at using you as tools. That's right. tools. Failed. broken...  tools.  (note the last paragraph is meant to be incendiary, the previous paragraphs should be used as a source for further discussion, if any is inspired)


... 

I am an Atheist, thank GOD for that!

[pianogeek_cz]

AHAHAHAHAHA rimv2's and Thal's are the most sensible contributions so far...

...although I would like a slight clarification from rimv2.

Hell arguing against anything yields nothing.

Instead acting as if one belief hold merit over another,

To have a belief in itself is irrational, regardless of what the belief is.

Arguing against things helps to dig out arguments and to keep thinking sharp. If the arguing are reasonable people, sometimes arguments do lead to solutions - that is, if the participants in the discussion are willing to take arguments of the others seriously.

Beliefs do hold merit over one another. Wahhabism simply -is- worse than Buddhism, for instance. Of course, differentiating better/worse is not always possible without objections - that doesn't mean that you can't compare things that -are- distinct enough from one another.

As to the third part... do we agree that irrationality isn't always bad? 

[thalbergmad]

AHAHAHAHAHA rimv2's and Thal's are the most sensible contributions so far...

Me, sensible?

Where?

I hope i have not been.

Thal

[bearzinthehood]

Keep posting Derek, Christianity is starting to look real attractive now.  If only atheists could be as lucid, logical and informed as you...

[wotgoplunk]

Whilst this is the "anything" board, i do think it is time to give religion its own seperate board.

Thal

"Anything but Piano and Religion"

[jlh]

Do not use creationwiki or other "christian-science" websites, as they are biased.

Just be careful of your wording... "Christian Science" is a cult that has sprung up in the last century, and not science.

You've heard of that cult, right?  They have no clergy, instead, the ordained pastors are the Bible and a book written a century ago by a lady with 5 names.  It's against their religion to see a doctor for any reason.  God will heal them, so they say.

[rimv2]

Just be careful of your wording... "Christian Science" is a cult that has sprung up in the last century, and not science.

You've heard of that cult, right?  They have no clergy, instead, the ordained pastors are the Bible and a book written a century ago by a lady with 5 names.  It's against their religion to see a doctor for any reason.  God will heal them, so they say.

Really?

Hmmmmm.....


Sounds interesting. Where can I join

[ahinton]

Just be careful of your wording... "Christian Science" is a cult that has sprung up in the last century, and not science.

You've heard of that cult, right?  They have no clergy, instead, the ordained pastors are the Bible and a book written a century ago by a lady with 5 names.  It's against their religion to see a doctor for any reason.  God will heal them, so they say.

It "sprang up" earlier than that, actually. Its founder, Mary Baker Eddy (1821-1910) came from New Hampshire (is anyone surprised?!); she had only three names, as far as I know, at any given time (she was married three times). She claimed to have "discovered" Christian Science in 1866, published its principal text Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures just 9 years later and founded the Christian Science "church" 4 years after that and Boston, MA is its headquarters just as Rome is for the Roman Catholic Church. For almost a century now, the movement has published a daily newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor which, when I saw a few editions once, seemed to possess the saving grace (if you'll pardon the expression!) of being remarkably free from plugging of Christian Science itself, although I have no idea whether or not that is typical of it.

Here are just three examples of the kind of thing to be found in Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures:

To those leaning on the sustaining infinite – today is big with blessings.
...(it doesn't warn you that you might fall over if you do this and be "blesssed" with injuries that God won't heal)...
Clad in the panoply of Love, human hatred cannot reach you.
...(one presumably risks exposing oneself to human hatred while in the shower)...
...and, clamouring for first prize for glutinous sentimentality...
Love supports the struggling heart until it ceases to sigh over the world and begins to unfold its wings for heaven.
...(so is love - sorry, "Love" - like a bat or an albatross, then?)...

Many (though not enough) years ago, I was asked if I would mind playing for some services at one of their UK "churches" (known as "First Church of Christ, Scientist"). I was reluctant but endeavoured to oblige. It proved to be the kind of experience that I had feared; a bunch of people with some very fixed and inflexible, bizarre and potentially dangerous "ideas" and the use of only two text sources, the Christian Bible and the one mentioned above, the latter of which required a brown paper bag in front of one at all times. OK, I admit that I am not a Christian of any kind, but after two of these affairs I felt so sickened by the whole thing that I politely declined to do any more of them and felt impelled to go straight to Mass (in a non-participatory capacity, of course) at Brompton Oratory (London) as though to wash away this experience, rather like the oft-quoted notion of "washing away the sins of the world".

Its "practitioners" are no doubt well-meaning people but, to the extent that they encourage people with genuine physiological as well as psycholoogical ailments to rely solely on "God's love" as catch-all treatment rather than pursuing conventional or alternative medicine, they represent a danger to humanity, in my 'umble opinion.

Not for the sane, then.

Other than the common factor of madness, it has no connection with Scientology, by the way.

Avoid.

Best,

Alistair

[rimv2]

AHAHAHAHAHA rimv2's and Thal's are the most sensible contributions so far...

...although I would like a slight clarification from rimv2.

Arguing against things helps to dig out arguments and to keep thinking sharp. If the arguing are reasonable people, sometimes arguments do lead to solutions - that is, if the participants in the discussion are willing to take arguments of the others seriously.

Beliefs do hold merit over one another. Wahhabism simply -is- worse than Buddhism, for instance. Of course, differentiating better/worse is not always possible without objections - that doesn't mean that you can't compare things that -are- distinct enough from one another.

As to the third part... do we agree that irrationality isn't always bad? 

What I mean is:

A belief is personal. It's from an individual frame of reference. Each reference is subjective. Therefore, the only place one belief can hold merit over another is within the mind of the individual. People often use thing like social proof as validation of a belief and its merit, however what is acceptable socially is subjective, as it's based on the reference of the society.

I'd go more into this but I have to sleep (not doing another 24).

From what I can tell, the discussion on this forum (regarding religion) are not simply comparisons, but arguments and chess poundings. Discussion leads to progress. Arguing is what apes do when they shout at each other.

[prongated]

Theists believe that the universe has to have had a cause. The universe is quite complex so this justified an explanation. The universe couldn't have come from nothing becauyse of that reason, they say.
They explain this by claiming that god is the cause of the universe, god created the universe. But god is more complex and requires more explanation than the universe.

But if the universe can't come from nothing because it is complex then surely god, who is more complex than the universe, couldn't have come from nothing either. So instead of explaining the causality of the universe they only made it worse.

Quick thought: if Gary Graffman tells you your technique is horrible, are you going to question his credibility?

So if god says he created the universe, are you going to ask god his credibility?

...I think anyone who thinks Lang Lang's got terrible technique is either delusional or arrogant...

[rimv2]

Quick thought: if Gary Graffman tells you your technique is horrible, are you going to question his credibility?

So if god says he created the universe, are you going to ask god his credibility?

...I think anyone who thinks Lang Lang's got terrible technique is either delusional or arrogant...

You know, you just might be right

[prometheus]

Quick thought: if Gary Graffman tells you your technique is horrible, are you going to question his credibility?

So if god says he created the universe, are you going to ask god his credibility?

...I think anyone who thinks Lang Lang's got terrible technique is either delusional or arrogant...

If Taliban-like people from the bronze age tell me what god supposedly told them to tell me then yes. Obviously. Especially if that what they claim is the word of the creator of the whole universe reads the exact opposite; as the myth of bronze age Taliban-like people trying to get a divine justification for the cruelties they committed.

Wouldn't be hard to differentiate between those. I mean, can you get even more extreme differences?

I don't need Gary Graffman to tell me my technique is crap.

[timothy42b]

Many (though not enough) years ago, I was asked if I would mind playing for some services at one of their UK "churches" (known as "First Church of Christ, Scientist"). I was reluctant but endeavoured to oblige. Alistair

I must admit to some curiousity about the quality of the music.  I hate to admit it, but I might give a church with questionable theology a second look if it had good taste in music. 

[jlh]

Wow, I just looked up Scientology... yes it's completely different than Church of Christ, Scientist.  Wow, some strange beliefs out there.