5 reasons atheism is irrational

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm sure Theophilus can straighten you out, Ani.

As a starting point it is worth thinking about who each of the Gospels were written for. What was the starting point of each audience?

Wrong starting point. The claim is that the Gospels are "Gospel". The Gospels contradict each other. Which absolute truth is absolutely true?

I see no contradiction in the message (the gospel) being presented; just different presentations of that message. That's why we have four Gospels chosen to be in the canon rather than one (which would be simpler, but more restricted).

You are ignoring the contradictions, not dealing with them. That's the flaw in your thinking. The Gospels were "chosen" by humans, who selected the ones they wanted in the Bible and excluded the ones they didn't. So the Gospel is the Words some human being decided you should read. Hence it's not the Word of God, but the Word of some person or persons. And believers pick-and-chose among the scraps they're given, further filtering the Word of God. Convenient that you can ignore the parts you don't like. It also renders the question of whether the Bible if "Gospel" moot.

[Theophilus]

I'm sure Theophilus can straighten you out, Ani.

As a starting point it is worth thinking about who each of the Gospels were written for. What was the starting point of each audience?

Wrong starting point. The claim is that the Gospels are "Gospel". The Gospels contradict each other. Which absolute truth is absolutely true?

I see no contradiction in the message (the gospel) being presented; just different presentations of that message. That's why we have four Gospels chosen to be in the canon rather than one (which would be simpler, but more restricted).

What's the message?

Reconciliation of God's people with God through the life, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus (the incarnation and embodiment of God).

That is how I would sum it up anyway.

[Theophilus]

I'm sure Theophilus can straighten you out, Ani.

As a starting point it is worth thinking about who each of the Gospels were written for. What was the starting point of each audience?

Wrong starting point. The claim is that the Gospels are "Gospel". The Gospels contradict each other. Which absolute truth is absolutely true?

I see no contradiction in the message (the gospel) being presented; just different presentations of that message. That's why we have four Gospels chosen to be in the canon rather than one (which would be simpler, but more restricted).

You are ignoring the contradictions, not dealing with them. That's the flaw in your thinking. The Gospels were "chosen" by humans, who selected the ones they wanted in the Bible and excluded the ones they didn't. So the Gospel is the Words some human being decided you should read. Hence it's not the Word of God, but the Word of some person or persons. And believers pick-and-chose among the scraps they're given, further filtering the Word of God. Convenient that you can ignore the parts you don't like. It also renders the question of whether the Bible if "Gospel" moot.

Perhaps it would help to explore a specific contradiction you have in mind? Do you want to pick one and we can discuss it if you like (I'll probably have to come back to it tomorrow in detail as I'm just on an iPhone now).

[JimC]

'Tis our way...

Yes, I know. And on the one hand I can sympathise when faced with people who won't engage properly. But on the other hand I don't think pornography, even in mild forms, adds to the credibility of the atheist cause (at least to the humanist side of that cause, though sadly that seems to be a minority part of atheism these days). Rather, in my opinion, it reinforces a stereotype of atheist being male and a little socially immature.

Let me help to dispel your stereotype

Nice norks, Charlou.

And yet there are clearly more people reinforcing that stereotype than challenging it. Sexism (through portraying women as just sex objects for men) seems to abound as much, if not more, in atheism than it does in does in religion. Which is a little sad, especially considering the promising state humanism was in 30 years ago.

We are licentious, ribald and heavily into mingling humour and sex, in all its magnificent variations. If you had read some of the things the forum hussies have said about our poor, defenceless male bodies, you would know that our dirty talk is entirely free of discrimination...

And then there is our delightful collection of gays, cross-dressers and full-on transexuals!

Paul sure stuffed up christianity big time, didn't he...

[Animavore]

Reconciliation of God's people with God through the life, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus (the incarnation and embodiment of God).

How does one reconcile with God through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus? And reconcile what anyway?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Perhaps it would help to explore a specific contradiction you have in mind? Do you want to pick one and we can discuss it if you like (I'll probably have to come back to it tomorrow in detail as I'm just on an iPhone now).

Perhaps you could just admit the Bible comes from the mind of Men, not the mind of God. Then we wouldn't have to play this game. You're "devinely inspired book" is just a bunch of tales told by guys.

[Theophilus]

Paul sure stuffed up christianity big time, didn't he...

Just a quick response on Paul. Don't forget that he also wrote....There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Catch y'all tomorrow and I'll try and pick up some of the other threads. 'night all.

[Tigger]

I just watched a TV programme where scientists were talking earnestly about Terraforming Mars. They think it’s actually plausible and feasible to alter a planet so dramatically that it will support life within a few hundred years.

Correct me if I’m wrong – don’t as I’m not – but this sort of thing would not have happened (nor would we have had such scientific advances as we have had) had the original ethos of The Bibble been adhered to as it was intended. i.e. do fuck all else but worship the sky fairy. Same applies to all the other nonsense in its various guises. Stop talking about it: it’s an irrelevant, meaningless waste of time.

Religion has stymied progress for millennia, and it’s about time that it was sloughed off like the useless dried husk of skin that a reptile discards when it has outgrown it. Humans don’t need this woo anymore; we have outgrown it. It’s ludicrous to base your life, the one life you’ll get, on the contradictory nonsense that is in the “good” book (of your personal choice, for other equally vapid valid religions exist), even if you do cherry pick out the best bits. For goodness’ sake, WAKE THE FUCK UP and get a life while you still have one. I am firmly of the opinion that people with irrational beliefs like this are actually ill, and there are, iirc, links to the feelings of the personal sensation of God's presence and temporal lobe epilepsy. Have some ECT or something. But sheesh...

However, I really, really must add that I am glad of religion for it brought me to this place and I have met and made some excellent friends, and boinked people because of it. I have “come out” as bisexual, committed adultery, sodomy and many sins of the flesh and I’m really having a ball, thanks to your non-existent sky man.

God moves in mysterious ways, but as I understand, he’s not overkeen on puffs (even semi-puffs), so why did he help me?

[Animavore]

Paul sure stuffed up christianity big time, didn't he...

Just a quick response on Paul. Don't forget that he also wrote....There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Catch y'all tomorrow and I'll try and pick up some of the other threads. 'night all.

Yeah but he also said

1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

The underlined bit means homosexuals

[MrFungus420]

Theophilus, why don't you believe in Zeus?

Why should I? If someone who believes in Zeus wants to talk to me about it I'll try and keep an open mind.

You can see, though, to an outside observer, the evidence for both Jeheova AND Zeus is about the same (Very Old Documents)
and let's not forget the Muslims either, they say their book is their final word, no takey backies cross me heart and kill you if you don't believe. You're not worried you've bet on the wrong dog?

Well I'm not aware of claimed eye witness reports for Zeus in the same way that the Gospels make claims about Jesus.

What part of "very old documents" do you not understand?

Besides, you can go to Mount Ida (in Crete) and see the cave in which Zeus was born. You can even see the stone that Cronus was tricked into swallowing in lieu of the infant Zeus.

[MrFungus420]

You atheists have been shown the evidence you just don't want to see.

27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; (27:50-51) "The veil of the temple was rent."
27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

See? When Jesus died the graves opened and the dead walked amongst the living. Only Jesus could have made that happen. Only he has the power to do such things not mere mortals.
Do you now believe?

(from ThinkGeek.com )

[Theophilus]

Reconciliation of God's people with God through the life, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus (the incarnation and embodiment of God).

How does one reconcile with God through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus? And reconcile what anyway?

That is a good question, and you will find differing theologies. It is indeed good you start with asking what are we reconciling. In brief....If you have some familiarity with the bible then I point you towards the covenantal relationship between Israel and God which is continually broken by Israel (God's chosen people) and has been broken since the earliest days of mankind. I would say that the new covenant (or new testament) should be seen as a continuation and fulfillment of this old covenantal relationship. Jesus is establishing a new covenant with Israel, and establishing a new way of being Israel - not through land ownership or familial linkages but through putting our entire life in the hands of Jesus himself (and this was his main conflict with the Pharisees; he was challenging the very core of their belief of what Israel was). How does he do that? Well I'd say on a natural level he shows the way through words (especially the sermon on the mount) and action (healing and sacrificing all for the Kingdom). On a supernatural level those words and actions open and create the new covenant so that in a way we can't fully understand (but are told) we may share with him in his death and resurrection (salvation being essentially through being in and with Christ - one cannot be with God and not with Christ as that is contradictory in Christian theology; but I'm not sure how useful theology is to non-believers, as it is essentially "faith seeking understanding").

Anyway, I hope that is a start. I'm off to see Alice in Wonderland now, so catch you later.

[FBM]

Thanks for the clarification FBM. I think we would both agree that truth is not about what we do or don't like. We can say we don't like something; but that is a very different statement from saying something is not true. In atheism (as with religion) I think that sometimes "I don't like it" and "I don't think it is true" get a little muddled.

I largely agree. Thing is, in my experience, theists tend to believe because it makes them feel good, i.e., they like or prefer it, rather than because there's any evidence for it. People who use reason see belief in something for which there is no evidence as a profound error. If we could just go around saying that whatever we liked was true without providing and supporting evidence for it, there would be no basis for knowledge at all, would there? I mean, look at your avatar. It's full of idealistic, warm-fuzzy, romantic dreams. It reflects what you want to feel, what you want to be true, despite lack of any evidence that it actually is. (I don't mean that to sound harsh or insulting, btw.)

I hasten to add that non-theists also have unfounded beliefs, and some of them cling stubbornly to them. In my case, my fundamental ontology was deeply challenged by the fact that the Saints went to the Superbowl, and completely shattered when they actually won.

Yes, I think the emotional side can attract people to faith. I'm not sure how well it keeps them there though, especially if they start to dig deeper. Sooner or later I think people come across theology which is quite discomforting, counter-cultural and can be quite difficult to accept because it can be difficult to like or difficult to put into practice. As Timothy Radcliffe put it "the point of being a Christian is not because of what it does and doesn't do for us or for society, the only ultimate point of being a Christian is that it's true". There is a lot of evidence (in prime place would be the Gospels), but I would say not enough for conclusive proof.

Uhm. The Bible can't be used as its own evidence. I'm sure you're smart enough to know circular reasoning when you make it. What is the other evidence? If you've got any evidence at all for the existence of a god, please share it with us. I think that, after review, whatever you have will be shown to not really be evidence at all, but biased, fabricated, flawed reasoning, cobbled together in an ad hoc manner in order to justify - or cover up - your glaring error in reasoning.

I'll concede my avatar presents the comforting side of Christianity (which is an important part of Christianity).

If emotional comfort isn't sufficient, as you claim, what, then, keeps you there? I don't see why anything more is required, i.e., I don't see why emotional comfort isn't sufficient for most, given that most theists don't do a whole lot of questioning, as they're told by their leaders that it's a sign of weak faith. Why do you, personally, believe in something so outlandish, so obviously fabricated for use as a tool of political control over the credulous, superstitious masses? There's no more evidence for a supreme deity than there is for Santa Claus. So why persist, if emotional comfort isn't sufficient for you? A touch of certainty bias, perhaps?

[Tigger]

@Theophilus: it might be good if you address some of the points people have raised by way of argument to your stance, rather than ignoring their valid criticisms and continuing on your (predictable, I'm sorry to say) religious track.

[Animavore]

That is a good question, and you will find differing theologies.

Proving that Christianity is incoherent, fragmented and contradictory within its own adherents (what was it?30,000 denominations.

It is indeed good you start with asking what are we reconciling. In brief....If you have some familiarity with the bible then I point you towards the covenantal relationship between Israel and God which is continually broken by Israel (God's chosen people) and has been broken since the earliest days of mankind. I would say that the new covenant (or new testament) should be seen as a continuation and fulfillment of this old covenantal relationship. Jesus is establishing a new covenant with Israel, and establishing a new way of being Israel - not through land ownership or familial linkages but through putting our entire life in the hands of Jesus himself (and this was his main conflict with the Pharisees; he was challenging the very core of their belief of what Israel was).

So Christians reconcile a "covenant" that the Jews broke with their God on various occasions? I'm sure they're grateful to you. Why did God choose them over everyone else though? Seems to me they chose themselves. Quite like the Nazis. But why should I put my life into the hands of a dead man? What can a dead guy possibly do for me?

How does he do that? Well I'd say on a natural level he shows the way through words (especially the sermon on the mount) and action (healing and sacrificing all for the Kingdom).

Do you really sacrifice all for the Kingdom? Do you sell all your possessions and leave your family like commanded?

On a supernatural level those words and actions open and create the new covenant so that in a way we can't fully understand (but are told) we may share with him in his death and resurrection (salvation being essentially through being in and with Christ - one cannot be with God and not with Christ as that is contradictory in Christian theology; but I'm not sure how useful theology is to non-believers, as it is essentially "faith seeking understanding").

So basically only Christianity is the one true faith and every other faith is wrong and probably going to hell.