Why are you an atheist? - Page 12

WeenieWarrior23 · #**111** (**permalink**) 03-25-2008

To tell you the truth, I don't know if i'm Atheist.

I went to sunday school/ church way back when, and now I just don't really believe or understand anything that happened.

Smell what i'm cooking?

E Nomini Patri · #**112** (**permalink**) 03-26-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by WeenieWarrior23

To tell you the truth, I don't know if i'm Atheist.

I went to sunday school/ church way back when, and now I just don't really believe or understand anything that happened.

Smell what i'm cooking?

If your position on the existence of deities is neutral or negative you are atheist.

ROG chuhkee · #**113** (**permalink**) 03-26-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by E Nomini Patri

There can be none but in agreement, welcome to the rational world.

Sorry, bud. The rational world is not necessarily made by not believing in God. In fact, only atheists will say its the rational world because that is their beliefs. Christians like myself will call you all irrational because your not in tune with our beliefs.

E Nomini Patri · 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROG chuhkee

Sorry, bud. The rational world is not necessarily made by not believing in God.

It is made by not believing in irrational things. Your god is one of them, sorry bud.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROG chuhkee

In fact, only atheists will say its the rational world because that is their beliefs.

Not believing in god isn't a belief.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROG chuhkee

Christians like myself will call you all irrational because your not in tune with our beliefs.

You pretend to know things you do not know. You are by definition irrational and self-delusional, as is the entirety of theism. My claims are entirely falsifiable as well unlike yours, what you need to do is provide one logical piece of evidence indicating the existence of any deity.

Let's examine some definitions before you attempt substantiation of your claim that I am irrational, for the record, I reject all theistic claims on basis of lack of evidence to support them. Now, definitions:

FAITH- of which Christianity not only demands, but also requires...
I say that faith can be either trust, confidence, or belief, but that there are two qualifiers required for any of them to be called "faith". These are that the belief must be a complete confidence, meaning that it is stoic, rigid, not gonna change no matter what anyone says. The other is that faith is not dependant on evidence. Its not based on evidence; evidence wasn't required to assume it, and it will still be defended against evidence to the contrary.

Every definitive source agrees with me on each of these points, beit a from a consistent agreement among religious sources or a consensus of English dictionaries. Every one provides a different definition for trust than they give for faith -in that their definitions include qualifiers and they are either one or both of the ones I listed.

Faith:

"Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing, that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
--Bartleby.com, Dictionary.com

"complete trust or confidence. 2 strong belief in a religion. 3 a system of religious belief."
--AskOxford

"Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony."
--Accurate and Reliable Dictionary.

"a firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
--Merriam Webster Online Dictionary.

"Belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof,."
--Encarta

"For quite a lot of people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their identities. E.g. a person will identify him or herself as a Muslim or a skeptic. Many religious rationalists, as well as non-religious people, criticise implicit faith as being irrational. In this view, belief should be restricted to what is directly supportable by logic or evidence."
--Wikipedia

Then of course, we have the words of the clergy:

"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of god.
Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but – more frequently than not – struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
--Sermons of Rev. Martin Luther, founder of Protestant Christianity

"Faith is the acceptance of the truth of a statement in spite of insufficient or contradictory evidence. …Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits.”
--Dan Barker, "Losing Faith in Faith; From Preacher to Atheist", 1992

Then we have other Christian sources like:

“To hear with my heart, to see with my soul, to be guided by a hand I cannot see, that's what faith must be.”
“So we follow God's own Fool For only the foolish can tell. Believe the unbelievable, And come be a fool as well”
--hymns of Michael Card

According to all these sources and even the Bible itself, faith is not synonemous with trust. It is a stoic conviction independant of evidence.

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." [Hebrews 11:1] ”We look not at things seen, but at things not seen” [2 Corinthians 4:18] "for we walk by faith, not by sight." [2 Corinthians 5:7] "The faith which you have, have as your own conviction--"[Romans 14:22]”how blessed are they who have not seen but yet believe”
[John 27:29]

So tell me what exactly is more irrational charles:

You believing in a deity with magic powers without logical evidence, based on sources and authorities who not only offer no logical evidence to substaniate their claims, but demand belief without logical evidence from their followers?

OR

Me choosing not to believe in things that have no evidence that not only acknowledge they have no evidence, but demand uncritical blind belief as well?

Just because I disagree with you does not make me irrational, you accepting claims in spite of a lack of any consistent logical evidence for them makes you irrational.

Brother Kania · 12:06 PM

Holy. f..king. sh.t.

Just wow...
Now I just want to see how he tries to respond to that...this will be good.

Nothing · #**116** (**permalink**) 03-27-2008

Holy f..king sh.t....

ROG chuhkee · #**117** (**permalink**) 03-27-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by E Nomini Patri

It is made by not believing in irrational things. Your god is one of them, sorry bud.

Not believing in god isn't a belief.

You pretend to know things you do not know. You are by definition irrational and self-delusional, as is the entirety of theism. My claims are entirely falsifiable as well unlike yours, what you need to do is provide one logical piece of evidence indicating the existence of any deity.

Let's examine some definitions before you attempt substantiation of your claim that I am irrational, for the record, I reject all theistic claims on basis of lack of evidence to support them. Now, definitions:

FAITH- of which Christianity not only demands, but also requires...
I say that faith can be either trust, confidence, or belief, but that there are two qualifiers required for any of them to be called "faith". These are that the belief must be a complete confidence, meaning that it is stoic, rigid, not gonna change no matter what anyone says. The other is that faith is not dependant on evidence. Its not based on evidence; evidence wasn't required to assume it, and it will still be defended against evidence to the contrary.

Every definitive source agrees with me on each of these points, beit a from a consistent agreement among religious sources or a consensus of English dictionaries. Every one provides a different definition for trust than they give for faith -in that their definitions include qualifiers and they are either one or both of the ones I listed.

Faith:

"Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing, that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
--Bartleby.com, Dictionary.com

"complete trust or confidence. 2 strong belief in a religion. 3 a system of religious belief."
--AskOxford

"Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony."
--Accurate and Reliable Dictionary.

"a firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
--Merriam Webster Online Dictionary.

"Belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof,."
--Encarta

"For quite a lot of people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their identities. E.g. a person will identify him or herself as a Muslim or a skeptic. Many religious rationalists, as well as non-religious people, criticise implicit faith as being irrational. In this view, belief should be restricted to what is directly supportable by logic or evidence."
--Wikipedia

Then of course, we have the words of the clergy:

"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of god.
Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but . more frequently than not . struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
--Sermons of Rev. Martin Luther, founder of Protestant Christianity

"Faith is the acceptance of the truth of a statement in spite of insufficient or contradictory evidence. …Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits.”
--Dan Barker, "Losing Faith in Faith; From Preacher to Atheist", 1992

Then we have other Christian sources like:

“To hear with my heart, to see with my soul, to be guided by a hand I cannot see, that's what faith must be.”
“So we follow God's own Fool For only the foolish can tell. Believe the unbelievable, And come be a fool as well”
--hymns of Michael Card

According to all these sources and even the Bible itself, faith is not synonemous with trust. It is a stoic conviction independant of evidence.

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." [Hebrews 11:1] ”We look not at things seen, but at things not seen” [2 Corinthians 4:18] "for we walk by faith, not by sight." [2 Corinthians 5:7] "The faith which you have, have as your own conviction--"[Romans 14:22]”how blessed are they who have not seen but yet believe”
[John 27:29]

So tell me what exactly is more irrational charles:

You believing in a deity with magic powers without logical evidence, based on sources and authorities who not only offer no logical evidence to substaniate their claims, but demand belief without logical evidence from their followers?

OR

Me choosing not to believe in things that have no evidence that not only acknowledge they have no evidence, but demand uncritical blind belief as well?

Just because I disagree with you does not make me irrational, you accepting claims in spite of a lack of any consistent logical evidence for them makes you irrational.

May I remind you of my "Jesus" post?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROG chuhkee

JOSEPHUS-Jewish Historian

Josephus, Jewish historian (AD 37-100) wrote of Jesus:
"About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 )
Most scholars agree that the statements in italics were added later by others, most likely Christians. However, there has not been any dispute regarding the accuracy of his statement regarding the crucifixion of Jesus, which means he had to have been born.

TACITUS-Gentile Historian

Tacitus, a Roman historian, in his Annals, c. AD 115, describes the Roman
Emperor Nero's actions after the great fire of Rome, c. AD 64:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
Annals 15 -44
” Mischievous Superstition”.
Exitiabilis is the latin word for mischievous. It means destructive, fatal, deadly. So it would seem that what tacitus actually said was it was “a destructive or fatal or deadly superstition”. He was calling Christianity evil. So, it is obvious that he was not a Christian, thus he would not be sharing about the death of Jesus to support the fact that there was a historical Jesus that was killed by Pontius Pilate. Note that Tacitus is not referring to the death of the Jesus as supersititon but the practice of Jesus’ followers.
A famous historian, reputed in his own days as being extremely careful and factual, Tacitus would not have been prone to writing about a movement without first checking the Roman archives to see if he could not get the most accurate report possible. He wrote his history of Rome covering the death of Augustus to the death of Domitian, that's 14-96 AD. He used earlier works by historians cross checking them with each other. He sought to verify his facts, something unusual in the writing of the time. He clearly has bias as he hated Domitian and wasn't a great fan of Tiberius, but this would have no bearing on mentions of Christ.
Some say that Tactitus also wrote about Hercules so his works are not valid. Read our response to this accusation.

Suetonius-Gentile Historian

Another Roman writer who shows his acquaintance with Christ and the Christians is Suetonius (A.D. 75-160). It has been noted that Suetonius considered Christ (Chrestus) as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54): "Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Roma expulit" (Clau., xxv).

Phlegon-Gentile Historian

"Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus and no other (eclipse); it is clear that he did not know from his sources about any (similar) eclipse in previous times . . . and this is shown by the historical account of Tiberius Caesar." Origen and Philopon, De. opif. mund. II21
"And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place ...” Origen Against Celsus

The historical character of Jesus Christ is also attested by the hostile Jewish literature of the subsequent centuries. His birth is ascribed to an illicit ("Acta Pilati" in Thilo, "Codex apocryph. N.T., I, 526; cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 35), or even an adulterous, union of His parents (Origen, "Contra Cels.," I, 28, 32).
References
There are many Jewish writings that show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents (Wagenseil, "Confut. Libr.Toldoth", 15; Eisenmenger op. cit., I, 116; Schottgen, op. cit., II, 667), with the flight into Egypt (cf. Josephus, "Ant." XIII, xiii), with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve (Schottgen, op. cit., II, 696), with the call of the disciples ("Sanhedrin", 43a; Wagenseil, op. cit., 17; Schottgen, loc. cit., 713), with His miracles (Origen, "Contra Cels", II, 48; Wagenseil, op. cit., 150; Gemara "Sanhedrin" fol. 17); "Schabbath", fol. 104b; Wagenseil, op.cit., 6, 7, 17), with His claim to be God (Origen, "Contra Cels.", I, 28; cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., I, 152; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699) with His betrayal by Judas and His death (Origen, "Contra cels.", II, 9, 45, 68, 70; Buxtorf, op. cit., 1458; Lightfoot, "Hor. Heb.", 458, 490, 498; Eisenmenger, loc. cit., 185; Schottgen, loc. cit.,699 700; cf."Sanhedrin", vi, vii). Celsus (Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 55) tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, while Toldoth (cf. Wagenseil, 19) repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulchre.
So significant is Jesus in man's history that the Encyclopedia Britannica has 20,000 words in describing this person, Jesus. His description took more space than was given to Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed or Napolean Bonaparte. Why would there be so much material on a man who was never born?
Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica concerning the testimony of the many independent secular accounts of Jesus of Nazareth:
These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.
Jesus is recorded as a fact, as is His death, burial and missing body in the Reader's Digest Book of Facts, 1989.
http://www.creatingfutures.net/birth.html

You know, back in the beginning of the Modern Era, a missing body from a tomb covered by a 2-ton rock is pretty amazing. Since Jesus is the main figure behind Christianity, and secular scholars have stated he lived as well as he visited the places the Bible states, then that is some pretty good support. Even Jewish scholars talked of the "magical powers" he had. And also, tell me why people back then would want Jesus crucified, if he honestly meant nothing to this world?

E Nomini Patri · #**118** (**permalink**) 03-27-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROG chuhkee

May I remind you of my "Jesus" post?

You know, back in the beginning of the Modern Era, a missing body from a tomb covered by a 2-ton rock is pretty amazing. Since Jesus is the main figure behind Christianity, and secular scholars have stated he lived as well as he visited the places the Bible states, then that is some pretty good support. Even Jewish scholars talked of the "magical powers" he had. And also, tell me why people back then would want Jesus crucified, if he honestly meant nothing to this world?

Okay ignore my many points. I will do the same, so here, look at MY Jesus post:

Quote:

So how have we Jews, who invented the term, always defined the term Messiah?

1. The Messiah is born of two human parents, as we said.But Jesus, according to Christian theology, was born of a union between a Human woman and God, rather than two HUMAN parents, as was Hercules, and Dionysis, as well as many other pagan gods.
2. The Messiah can trace his lineage through his human biological father, back to King David (Isaiah 11:1,10; Jeremiah 23:5; Ezekiel 34:23-24; 37:21-28; Jeremiah 30:7-10; 33:14-16; and Hosea 3:4-5). But Jesus's lineage cannot go through his human father, according to Christian theology, as Jesus's father was not Joseph the husband of Mary. According to Christian theology, Jesus's father was God.
3. The Messiah traces his lineage only through King Solomon (II Samuel 7:12-17; I Chronicles 22:9-10). But according to Luke 3:31, Jesus was a descendant of Nathan, another son of King David, and not a descendant of King David through King Solomon.
4. The Messiah cannot trace his lineage through Jehoiakim, Jeconiah, or Shealtiel, because this royal line was cursed (I Chronicles 3:15-17; Jeremiah 22:18,30). But according to both Matthew 1:11-12 and Luke 3:27, Jesus was a descendant of Shealtiel.

According to the Jewish definition of the term, the Real Messiah will make changes in the real world, changes that one can see and perceive and be able to prove because these changes take place in the real world. It is for this task that the real messiah has been anointed in the first place, hence the term, messiah -- one who is anointed. These changes, that one will be able to see and perceive in the real world, include:

1. The Messiah is preceded by Elijah the prophet who, with the Messiah, unifies the family (Malachi 4:5-6), which is contradicted by Jesus in Matthew 10:34-37.
2. The Messiah re-establishes the Davidic dynasty through the messiah's own children (Daniel 7:13-14). But Jesus had no children.
3. The Messiah brings an eternal peace between all nations, between all peoples, and between all people (Isaiah 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-4; Ezekiel 39:9). Obviously there is no peace. Furthermore, Jesus said that his purpose in coming was to bring a sword, and not peace (see Matthew 10:34, as referenced above.)
4. The Messiah brings about the universal world-wide conversion of all peoples to Judaism, or at least to Ethical Monotheism (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Zechariah 8:23; Isaiah 11:9; Zechariah 14:9,16). But the world remains steeped in idolatry.
5. The Messiah brings about an end to all forms of idolatry (Zechariah 13:2). But the world remains steeped in idolatry.
6. The Messiah brings about a universal recognition that the Jewish idea of God is God (Isaiah 11:9). But the world remains steeped in idolatry.
7. The Messiah leads the world to become vegetarian (Isaiah 11:6-9). It isn't.
8. The Messiah gathers to Israel, all of the twelve tribes (Ezekiel 36:24). Many of the ten lost tribes remain lost.
9. The Messiah rebuilds The Temple (Isaiah 2:2; Ezekiel 37:26-28). It hasn't been rebuilt.
10. There will be no more famine (Ezekiel 36:29-30). People starve to death every day.
11. After the Messiah comes, death will eventually cease (Isaiah 25:8). People die every day.
12. Eventually the dead will be resurrected (Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2; Ezekiel 37:12-13; Isaiah 43:5-6);
13. The nations of the earth will help the Jews, materially (Isaiah 60:5-6; 60:10-12;
14. The Jews will be sought out for spiritual guidance (Zechariah 8:23);
All weapons will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9,12);
15. The Nile will run dry (Isaiah 11:15)
16. Monthly, the trees of Israel will yield their fruit (Ezekiel 47:12);
Each tribe of Israel will receive and settle their inherited land (Ezekiel 47:13-13);
17. The nations of the earth will recognize that they have been wrong, that the Jews have been right, and that the sins of the Gentile nations, their persecutions and the murders they committed, have been borne by the Jewish people (Isaiah 53)

These Biblically based changes in the world are very real, very perceivable, very noticeable, and knowable. But the changes that Christianity claims were made by Jesus are not perceivable at all. They must be accepted on faith, and faith alone. How can one know that Jesus died for their sins, except by faith? How can one know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, except by the faith in the historical truth of the Christian's New Testament? There is no birth certificate. The changes made by the Messiah according to Judaism are very provable, but the changes made by the Messiah, Jesus, according to Christianity can only be taken on faith.
http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation03.html

The existence/non-existence of Jesus with/without magical/zombie powers is not evidence that God exists or that the Bible is true. Sorry but you need to evidence every claim. Jesus can't save you from my previous post, sorry bud.

Brother Kania · #**119** (**permalink**) 03-27-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROG chuhkee

May I remind you of my "Jesus" post?
You know, back in the beginning of the Modern Era, a missing body from a tomb covered by a 2-ton rock is pretty amazing. Since Jesus is the main figure behind Christianity, and secular scholars have stated he lived as well as he visited the places the Bible states, then that is some pretty good support. Even Jewish scholars talked of the "magical powers" he had. And also, tell me why people back then would want Jesus crucified, if he honestly meant nothing to this world?

Ok, say you're the leader of some country; just imagine, this should be easy for you to do.
Anyways, you're the leader of this country and have near complete control of the government in place. You along with your friends are the most powerful and whatever you want is pretty much done.

Now, this guy comes along and says, "Hey, I don't like what you're doing. You're corrupt and wrong. Follow me instead, and.." yadda yadda yadda...

Ok, so what? One guy right? But over time more and more people start following this guy, and now you want to do one thing: get rid of him. You can't just kill him outright because that doesn't set a very good example.

What do you do? Charge him as a heretic and sentence him to death as many other political extremists were dispatched.

THAT is why Jesus was crucified. The Jewish elders/leaders saw him as a thorn in their foot and got rid of him. They told their Roman suppressors that this guy was a bad egg and was threatening to overtake them. (Of course if this really even happened).