"no, I'm actually an athiest"

Saganist

PAULWATSON wrote: »

The facts are irrelevant in a lot of cases. Sometimes it can be frustrating to see people crying out for their own enslavement! There is a much bigger picture to be seen.

Show me. I read the creation site long ago. Its tosh..

TalkOrigins provide ample evidence to show the facts of evolution.

Sam Vimes

PAULWATSON wrote: »

The facts are irrelevant in a lot of cases. Sometimes it can be frustrating to see people crying out for their own enslavement! There is a much bigger picture to be seen.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Well as Jesus Himself never wrote anything down all we have is the words of others on what He said. The earliest word being 30 years after his death. (Generous estimate)

Not quite if one takes into account Paul and 1st Corinthians being written circa 54AD. (54 - 33 = 21 years).

Greentopia

MarcusFenix wrote: »

The worst moment for the atheist is when he(or she) is really thankful and has nobody to thank.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.
I'm an atheist and I'm thoroughly thankful and grateful for many things without the feeling that I suffer some loss because there's no deity to give thank's to.
I'm enormously thankful that despite the immense improbability of out of millions of my father's sperm the one that found it's way to my mothers ova conceived the feotus that would eventually result in me being born.

I'm grateful to the medical team that saved my mothers life and myself (literally) because she almost haemorrhaged to death whilst giving birth to me.

I'm grateful for having a healthy body, having a generally happy and optimistic disposition, having plenty of food on the table, shelter and to be able to use my brain and hands to earn the money to support myself.

I'm grateful for the love I give and receive from my Mum and all my friends (and I tell them so).

I give thank's where it's due, to the people and institutions that matter.
This in my view is more respectful and appropriate than giving thank's to some god who in all probability does not exist.
Just because someone doesn't believe in a god doesn't mean thankfulness is somehow made impossible.

Perhaps I'm missing something though, would you care to expand on what you mean?

OutlawPete

Come on Liah, an apology would be the decent thing, don't you think?

You said:

liah wrote: »

Eh, MrStuffins was fine with anyone who was actually respectful.

.. and that my replies to him were ..

liah wrote: »

.. for no apparent reason at all.

I have since however shown with quotes, that MrStuffins was NOT "fine" with other posters, here are those quotes:

MrStuffins wrote: »

Have you ever... i dunno... like...... learned about Evolution?

MrStuffins wrote: »

You can show these people over and over but they remain ignorant.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Yore Ma

MrStuffins wrote: »

My beliefs are right and if you don't agree with them, you're a poopy head!

MrStuffins wrote: »

.. (got it this time Stu) that you are wrong, you pig-headedly refuse to take it back.

MrStuffins wrote: »

And you may be insulted by mt pig-headed remark, but it stands!

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'm sorry, you have to be trolling! There is no way i'm having THIS conversation hahaha!

Trolls used to be so much better back in the day!

MrStuffins wrote: »

It's ok, God is supposed to forgive us is he not?

Sure he loves me.

AND i have loads of creationists praying for me since they heard i don't believe in God!

So, any chance of taking back that nonsense that he was "fine" with all other users on the thread and that there was "no apparent reason why he received the replies he did?

As I think from the above quotes, it was quite "apparent" why he received the replies that he did.

I won't even mention the fact that you accused me of saying someone was "sad" when I didn't, sure we'll just put that down as misunderstanding.

If that apology is forthcoming, I'd be more than happy to discuss the rest of the questions you raised in your post regarding evolution and just precisely what it is that I take issue with and also which parts of it that I do not believe has been proven, despite evolutionists worldwide declaring them as fact.

Marcus.Aurelius

Jakkass wrote: »

Not quite if one takes into account Paul and 1st Corinthians being written circa 54AD. (54 - 33 = 21 years).

And Paul never places Jesus on Earth, or directly quotes from him. Mark was written long after Paul, and his text was probably used by the others.

Also, Herod died in 4 BC, Quirinius was not governer, and Augustus did not order a census until 6 AD, during which he did not require people to return to the city of their birth.

It is evident from real history, that Jesus was written into a time frame after the time had passed, and badly at that. There are other absurdities, but there is little reason to play all night.

Greentopia

PAULWATSON wrote: »

I thought it went a bit out of hand.

Some of what I "believe" (as an irrational, non scientific clown?) ;

http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/index.htm

Sorry, what a load of bunkum. :steps away from that link::

KeithAFC

Should check out The day before disclosure. Our world as we know it will change forever.

philologos

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

And Paul never places Jesus on Earth, or directly quotes from him. Mark was written long after Paul, and his text was probably used by the others.

He does. In respect to the Last Supper in 1st Corinthians, and in respect to his teaching in respect to loving the Lord with all our heart with all our soul and with all our might, and loving our neighbour as ourselves. This fulfilling the law, and the prophets.

I've heard this from quite a few people recently. However, one also has to consider what 1st Corinthians was. A pastoral letter. It's not intended to be a retelling of the Gospels, but rather a letter to assist a troubled church keep going, stop bickering, focus on the truth, and to live in holiness.

If this is what 1 Corinthians is, then I can quite happily expect that Paul won't retell the Gospels. Particularly when it is a follow up letter after his visit to Corinth, where more likely than not he did preach the Gospel to them.

As for Quirinus' and Luke (Nothing to do with Paul), I'll need to check up on this, but I am fairly sure they have found coins with Quirinius Governor of Syria dated to the period. I find most of the claims rubbishing the historical data are eventually proven false. This is the trend thus far. For example, scholars argued that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus. Within the last two years they have now found 1st century ruins to that town.

Marcus.Aurelius

Jakkass wrote: »

He does. In respect to the Last Supper in 1st Corinthians, and in respect to his teaching in respect to loving the Lord with all our heart with all our soul and with all our might, and loving our neighbour as ourselves. This fulfilling the law, and the prophets.

Where does Paul acknowlege Jesus being on Earth? Last supper can still be in some ethereal neverland.

I've heard this from quite a few people recently. However, one also has to consider what 1st Corinthians was. A pastoral letter. It's not intended to be a retelling of the Gospels, but rather a letter to assist a troubled church keep going, stop bickering, focus on the truth, and to live in holiness.

If this is what 1 Corinthians is, then I can quite happily expect that Paul won't retell the Gospels. Particularly when it is a follow up letter after his visit to Corinth, where more likely than not he did preach the Gospel to them.

Exactly, Paul has no idea of Jesus' life, he just makes it up as he goes along, and Mark confirms Paul's lies by writing a story of an earthly Jesus after becoming a Christian. It's quite odd that Paul knew so little.

philologos

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

Where does Paul acknowlege Jesus being on Earth? Last supper can still be in some ethereal neverland.

See below. By the by, it's woeful reasoning to say that "it can be in neverland". Dare I say, can you provide textual evidence that it is in neverland, or is it just commonly assumed that people eat in heaven? Again, the leap is on your part not mine!

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

Exactly, Paul has no idea of Jesus' life, he just makes it up as he goes along, and Mark confirms Paul's lies by writing a story of an earthly Jesus after becoming a Christian. It's quite odd that Paul knew so little.

I honestly don't know how you're jumping to this conclusion?

There's plenty of evidence throughout Paul's letters that Jesus came bodily. There's plenty of evidence that early Christians believed that Jesus came bodily. This topic is almost worthy of another thread, but Philippians 2 is one example which says that Christ clearly came into the world, and died for our sake.

What there is no evidence of? - That Paul believed that the Crucifixion was a metaphor. Yet such a notion is apparently abundant in some criticism of the Bible.

The most scathing criticism that people can actually come up with about Paul is that he doesn't recite the whole Gospel again. This is true, and there is good reason for this. The same reason why John does not recant every single piece of information in his Gospel again when he writes in Revelation or 1st John for example.

OutlawPete

Thought this was a good laugh, O'Reilly's a master at moving the goalposts and so goes about the whole interview doing just that.

The funniest part is when Dawkins can't quite believe that O'Reilly accuses Atheists of being guilty of 'Fascism' and also too just love Dawkins line, "that's a remarkable piece of illogic"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Ald5f_nao

Marcus.Aurelius

Jakkass wrote: »

See below. By the by, it's woeful reasoning to say that "it can be in neverland". Dare I say, can you provide textual evidence that it is in neverland, or is it just commonly assumed that people eat in heaven? Again, the leap is on your part not mine!

If you can show me a definitive Pauline scripture that speaks of Jesus being on earth, then I'll happily retract and go research it again.

Jazzy

i want something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeboqg4t9vs

liah

OutlawPete wrote: »

Come on Liah, an apology would be the decent thing, don't you think?

You said:



.. and that my replies to him were ..



I have since however shown with quotes, that MrStuffins was NOT "fine" with other posters, here are those quotes:

















So, any chance of taking back that nonsense that he was "fine" with all other users on the thread and that there was "no apparent reason why he received the replies he did?

As I think from the above quotes, it was quite "apparent" why he received the replies that he did.

I won't even mention the fact that you accused me of saying someone was "sad" when I didn't, sure we'll just put that down as misunderstanding.

If that apology is forthcoming, I'd be more than happy to discuss the rest of the questions you raised in your post regarding evolution and just precisely what it is that I take issue with and also which parts of it that I do not believe has been proven, despite evolutionists worldwide declaring them as fact.

Why on earth are you expecting me to apologize for calling you out on being equally as childish as the people you were chastising? Who do you think you are? Not to mention how flippant you were in your original reply.

It's all well and good you're changing your tune now, but there's no way I'm apologizing, I was nothing but respectful throughout the entire thread, not just to you but to each and every person.

You've absolutely no right to ask for me, of ALL the people in this thread, to apologize.

Like I said before, I'm done. I will not be responding in this thread, so if you have a problem don't bother derailing the thread further. PM whatever you want. I don't care. I'm out.

storm2811

OutlawPete wrote: »

Come on Liah, an apology would be the decent thing, don't you think?

So, any chance of taking back that nonsense that he was "fine" with all other users on the thread and that there was "no apparent reason why he received the replies he did?

As I think from the above quotes, it was quite "apparent" why he received the replies that he did.

I won't even mention the fact that you accused me of saying someone was "sad" when I didn't, sure we'll just put that down as misunderstanding.

If that apology is forthcoming, I'd be more than happy to discuss the rest of the questions you raised in your post regarding evolution and just precisely what it is that I take issue with and also which parts of it that I do not believe has been proven, despite evolutionists worldwide declaring them as fact.

Meh, it's not worth it Pete.
*Walks out of thread casting evil eye*
:pac:

philologos

Caesar Augustus: I've just cited one. Although admittedly, I find the assumptions that you are choosing to place on the text more worthy of question.

Marcus.Aurelius

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

If you can show me a definitive Pauline scripture that speaks of Jesus being on earth, then I'll happily retract and go research it again.

I was just thinking, if you can show me a Pauline verse that acknowledges the virgin birth, that would do just fine.

Let me know.

Marcus.Aurelius

Jakkass wrote: »

Caesar Augustus: I've just cited one. Although admittedly, I find the assumptions that you are choosing to place on the text more worthy of question.

No you didn't, the last supper does not place jesus on earth. Show me a text from Paul's writings that refers to some fixed location on earth, say, the entry to Jerusalem, the party where he turned water into wine, or say his sermon on the mount of olives.

Any of that stuff would be fine if you can't find others.

philologos

^^ Changing the criterion. I've already provided numerous cases where Paul refers to incidents which took place in Jesus' lifetime.

If you wish to add your own assumptions to the text that is up to you. I can cite numerous passages from Pauline texts that would challenge your assumptions. Again, the unreasonable assumptions that you are applying to the text in this case are much more the position I'm actually arguing from the text.

Marcus.Aurelius

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ Changing the criterion. I've already provided numerous cases where Paul refers to incidents which took place in Jesus' lifetime.

If you wish to add your own assumptions to the text that is up to you. I can cite numerous passages from Pauline texts that would challenge your assumptions. Again, the unreasonable assumptions that you are applying to the text in this case are much more the position I'm actually arguing from the text.

Look man, just post a scripture.

philologos

I did!! Read my posts please

My point is, this just isn't a good argument. It requires more mental gymnastics than what you are accusing me of.

bleg

www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-10-11-column11_ST_N.htm

Religion in America is on the defensive.
Atheist books such as The God Delusion and The End of Faith have, by exposing the dangers of faith and the lack of evidence for the God of Abraham, become best-sellers. Science nibbles at religion from the other end, relentlessly consuming divine explanations and replacing them with material ones. Evolution took a huge bite a while back, and recent work on the brain has shown no evidence for souls, spirits, or any part of our personality or behavior distinct from the lump of jelly in our head. We now know that the universe did not require a creator. Science is even studying the origin of morality. So religious claims retreat into the ever-shrinking gaps not yet filled by science. And, although to be an atheist in America is still to be an outcast, America's fastest-growing brand of belief is non-belief.

But faith will not go gentle. For each book by a "New Atheist," there are many others attacking the "movement" and demonizing atheists as arrogant, theologically ignorant, and strident. The biggest area of religious push-back involves science. Rather than being enemies, or even competitors, the argument goes, science and religion are completely compatible friends, each devoted to finding its own species of truth while yearning for a mutually improving dialogue.

As a scientist and a former believer, I see this as bunk. Science and faith are fundamentally incompatible, and for precisely the same reason that irrationality and rationality are incompatible. They are different forms of inquiry, with only one, science, equipped to find real truth. And while they may have a dialogue, it's not a constructive one. Science helps religion only by disproving its claims, while religion has nothing to add to science.

Irreconcilable

"But surely," you might argue, "science and religion must be compatible. After all, some scientists are religious." One is Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health and an evangelical Christian. But the existence of religious scientists, or religious people who accept science, doesn't prove that the two areas are compatible. It shows only that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time. If that meant compatibility, we could make a good case, based on the commonness of marital infidelity, that monogamy and adultery are perfectly compatible. No, the incompatibility between science and faith is more fundamental: Their ways of understanding the universe are irreconcilable.

Science operates by using evidence and reason. Doubt is prized, authority rejected. No finding is deemed "true" — a notion that's always provisional — unless it's repeated and verified by others. We scientists are always asking ourselves, "How can I find out whether I'm wrong?" I can think of dozens of potential observations, for instance — one is a billion-year-old ape fossil — that would convince me that evolution didn't happen.

Physicist Richard Feynman observed that the methods of science help us distinguish real truth from what we only want to be true: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

Science can, of course, be wrong. Continental drift, for example, was laughed off for years. But in the end the method is justified by its success. Without science, we'd all live short, miserable and disease-ridden lives, without the amenities of medicine or technology. As Stephen Hawking proclaimed, science wins because it works.

Does religion work? It brings some of us solace, impels some to do good (and others to fly planes into buildings), and buttresses the same moral truths embraced by atheists, but does it help us better understand our world or our universe? Hardly. Note that almost all religions make specific claims about the world involving matters such as the existence of miracles, answered prayers wonder-working saints and divine cures, virgin births, annunciations and resurrections. These factual claims, whose truth is a bedrock of belief, bring religion within the realm of scientific study. But rather than relying on reason and evidence to support them, faith relies on revelation, dogma and authority. Hebrews 11:1 states, with complete accuracy, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Indeed, a doubting-Thomas demand for evidence is often considered rude.

And this leads to the biggest problem with religious "truth": There's no way of knowing whether it's true. I've never met a Christian, for instance, who has been able to tell me what observations about the universe would make him abandon his beliefs in God and Jesus. (I would have thought that the Holocaust could do it, but apparently not.) There is no horror, no amount of evil in the world, that a true believer can't rationalize as consistent with a loving God. It's the ultimate way of fooling yourself. But how can you be sure you're right if you can't tell whether you're wrong?

The religious approach to understanding inevitably results in different faiths holding incompatible "truths" about the world. Many Christians believe that if you don't accept Jesus as savior, you'll burn in hell for eternity. Muslims hold the exact opposite: Those who see Jesus as God's son are the ones who will roast. Jews see Jesus as a prophet, but not the messiah. Which belief, if any, is right? Because there's no way to decide, religions have duked it out for centuries, spawning humanity's miserable history of religious warfare and persecution.

In contrast, scientists don't kill each other over matters such as continental drift. We have better ways to settle our differences. There is no Catholic science, no Hindu science, no Muslim science — just science, a multicultural search for truth. The difference between science and faith, then, can be summed up simply: In religion faith is a virtue; in science it's a vice.

But don't just take my word for the incompatibility of science and faith — it's amply demonstrated by the high rate of atheism among scientists. While only 6% of Americans are atheists or agnostics, the figure for American scientists is 64%, according to Rice professor Elaine Howard Ecklund's book, Science vs. Religion. Further proof: Among countries of the world, there is a strong negative relationship between their religiosity and their acceptance of evolution. Countries like Denmark and Sweden, with low belief in God, have high acceptance of evolution, while religious countries are evolution-intolerant. Out of 34 countries surveyed in a study published in Science magazine, the U.S., among the most religious, is at the bottom in accepting Darwinism: We're No. 33, with only Turkey below us. Finally, in a 2006 Time poll a staggering 64% of Americans declared that if science disproved one of their religious beliefs, they'd reject that science in favor of their faith.

'Venerable superstition'

In the end, science is no more compatible with religion than with other superstitions, such as leprechauns. Yet we don't talk about reconciling science with leprechauns. We worry about religion simply because it's the most venerable superstition — and the most politically and financially powerful.

Why does this matter? Because pretending that faith and science are equally valid ways of finding truth not only weakens our concept of truth, it also gives religion an undeserved authority that does the world no good. For it is faith's certainty that it has a grasp on truth, combined with its inability to actually find it, that produces things such as the oppression of women and gays, opposition to stem cell research and euthanasia, attacks on science, denial of contraception for birth control and AIDS prevention, sexual repression, and of course all those wars, suicide bombings and religious persecutions.

And any progress — not just scientific progress — is easier when we're not yoked to religious dogma. Of course, using reason and evidence won't magically make us all agree, but how much clearer our spectacles would be without the fog of superstition!

Marcus.Aurelius

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ Changing the criterion. I've already provided numerous cases where Paul refers to incidents which took place in Jesus' lifetime.

I have asked you to show me a text where Jesus is definitively placed on Earth. Is there one there?

Marcus.Aurelius

Jakkass wrote: »

I did!! Read my posts please

My point is, this just isn't a good argument. It requires more mental gymnastics than what you are accusing me of.

Do I have to pour over meaningless chapters or have you actually got scriptures in mind?

Marcus.Aurelius

I can see Philippians 2 refers to Jesus as a man, but does not place him on earth. 1 Cor talks about the last supper, but does not mention it taking place on earth. Have you or have you not got a scripture from Paul that definitively places Jesus on earth?

TPD

OutlawPete wrote: »

If that apology is forthcoming, I'd be more than happy to discuss the rest of the questions you raised in your post regarding evolution and just precisely what it is that I take issue with and also which parts of it that I do not believe has been proven, despite evolutionists worldwide declaring them as fact.

Lol, you won't explain your side of the argument unless Liah apologises? :P

Also, saying:

OutlawPete wrote: »

I won't even mention the fact that you accused me of saying someone was "sad" when I didn't, sure we'll just put that down as misunderstanding.

is still mentioning it.

Very childish methods of argument Pete.

AudreyHepburn

Helix wrote: »

it NEEDS to be fought until it is only something that people do in private

But why should anyone have to hide away their beliefs as though they are something to be ashamed of?

The problem I have is where does secularisation end?

You want religion removed from the public sphere so you start by taking religion from schools, from the media but what next? If religion should be a private thing should the churches, cathedrals, monasteries, abbies and chapels both modern and old be gotten rid of? What about catholic grave yards? Or any building that bears any kind of religious mark?

Should we be forced to remove any religious emblems from our homes just in case a non-religous person sees it and becomes offended?

Do you exact punishment whenever some-one says in public things like 'Oh my god' 'For god's sake' or 'Jesus, Mary and Joseph'. How about 'Bless you' when some-one sneezes

Do you deny people the right to have religious weddings, funerals and christenings? Do we stop celebrating Easter, Christmas etc? Do we remove wedding/funeral/christening annoucements from the media if they are religious in nature?

Do we stop pilgrimages to places like Knock or Croagh Patrick?

Do we stop people wearing crosses around their necks?

Do you ban religous greeting cards, books, paintings?

Do you make mass illegal? Do you force priests, brothers and nuns away from their vocation? Do we ban chaplains in hospitals, colleges etc.

Do we get rid of any relics of Saints both modern(in churches etc) and old (in museums etc)

Do you make stating your religion outside your front door either verbally or on paper a crime or something at the very least to be sneered at?

Maybe you could even go as far as stopping religious people having any involvement in public life if they make the mistake of making their faith known outside their homes?

Let's face it, as extreme as it sounds you would need to do all of these to completely remove religion from the public sphere.

philologos

Caesar Augustus - The issue isn't with the actual text, it's with your assumption. What gives you credence to think that Paul actually thinks that Jesus never existed on earth or ate with the disciples in heaven? That's the question that needs to be answered rather than making demands of the text based on unreasonable assumptions.

As I said already, it is the mental gymnastics that you are applying to construct an argument that is the gaping problem. Nothing else.

It's even more ludicrous when we know that Paul met Peter, and James (Christ's brother) before even writing 1st Corinthians. (See Galatians chapter 1). Do you think Peter and James said that Jesus didn't exist? Or do you think they explained what happened in full?

Marcus.Aurelius

Jakkass wrote: »

Caesar Augustus - The issue isn't with the actual text, it's with your assumption. What gives you credence to think that Paul actually thinks that Jesus never existed on earth or ate with the disciples in heaven? That's the question that needs to be answered rather than making demands of the text based on unreasonable assumptions.

As I said already, it is the mental gymnastics that you are applying to construct an argument that is the gaping problem. Nothing else.

It's even more ludicrous when we know that Paul met Peter, and James (Christ's brother) before even writing 1st Corinthians. (See Galatians chapter 1). Do you think Peter and James said that Jesus didn't exist? Or do you think they explained what happened in full?

Don't be silly, I only said Jesus didn't exist. I knew you had no Pauline scripture to put Jesus definitively on earth. And who cares what Paul said he did, or who he met, they were all telling the same lies.

Muwahhahaha



EDIT: I wasn't making some big argument for or against Christianity, I was just pointing out a very real possibility.