Feed on Posts or Comments 21 September 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism &Rationals Thomas on 30 Nov 2010 12:17 am

The folly of atheism

An interesting thread from the forums:

Looking for atheist responses to “the folly of atheism”

Example of the “Folly”:

5. Atheists believe that blind, unintelligent forces of nature, via genetic mutations and the process of natural selection, produced the myriads of delightful creatures that inhabit Earth’s environment. The skeptic can see that a simple pair of pliers, with only four components, must have been designed by an intelligent being, yet he argues that the human body, with its 100 trillion constituent elements (cells), organized into ten magnificent systems, is merely the result of a marriage between Mother Nature and Father Time. How very stupid such ideology is!

The rebuttals in the forum thread are excellent. And this video helps answer #5:

Also interesting:

Why “Creation Sicence” is doomed

As scientific progress continues at a rate faster than any in human history, the evidence for evolution will continue to increase at a faster and faster rate, while creationists will continue to appear more and more wrong every year. The idea of a scientific challenge to evolution will die with time, if it could be said to have ever been alive. Creationism will be forced to fester in ignorance, as it cannot compete in a modern world where information is increasingly open, and the science of our past becomes increasingly clear.

58 Responses to “The folly of atheism”

  1. on 01 Dec 2010 at 1:39 pm 1.Tedder said …

    “while creationists will continue to appear more and more wrong every year.”

    Interesting observation however IF evolution is proven to be fact sometime in our future, it only increases the folly of atheism and bolster the position of the theist. That is EXACTLY what the first post points out so well.

    It has been detrimental to the process that atheist become so infuriated to any criticism of Natural selection rather desiring to bury their head and pretend no criticism may be put forth.

  2. on 01 Dec 2010 at 5:15 pm 2.MrQ said …

    …atheist become so infuriated to any criticism of Natural selection rather desiring to bury their head and pretend no criticism may be put forth.

    Can’t speak for anyone else, but I think questioning science, in general, is a good thing. The problem arises when one comes from a predetermined viewpoint and tries to fit the science to their agenda. Example: If you’ve come to the conclusion that the biblical genesis account or Noah’s Ark are historically correct -that they are absolute truths- then there is no choice but to engage in pseudo-scientific thinking. One must go by blind faith, or treat these stories as allegory.

  3. on 01 Dec 2010 at 7:53 pm 3.Rostam said …

    I agree Mr Q although I bet you have no problem, however, when a scientist comes to the table with an atheist presupposition? So, if there is a God as so many believe, how could you recognize the existence if you come to the table with an atheist mindset?

    There is no alternative other than a Campbells lightning soup theory.

  4. on 01 Dec 2010 at 8:15 pm 4.MrQ said …

    ..when a scientist comes to the table with an atheist presupposition?

    Such as what presupposition(s)? That there is no god? I like scientists that are atheists, aunicronists, afaeries….Makes me believe that they need proof prior to committing to a position.

    how could you recognize the existence if you come to the table with an atheist mindset?

    Evidence. Proof. Curious how one gets from your soup idea to Jesus, or Allah, Zeus, Ra, Buddah?

  5. on 01 Dec 2010 at 9:19 pm 5.Rostam said …

    I like scientist who come to the table with a theist view. Francis Collins, Max Planck. Make me believe they have enough common sense to carry on their work effectively.

    I have a better idea. How do you come up with a soup idea with zero proof and claim to only believe in ideas that can be proven?

  6. on 01 Dec 2010 at 10:10 pm 6.MrQ said …

    Rostam,
    Speaking of Francis Collins, since you bring him up, I take it that you subscribe to the Biologos.com website view that the Earth is billions of years old and that evolution of humans and all other life forms has occurred?

  7. on 01 Dec 2010 at 10:30 pm 7.Rostam said …

    I would say that is a legitimate theory and it is quite possible.

    So, I guess by jumping to another subject, you really don’t have a problem with scientist bringing in their presuppositions?

  8. on 01 Dec 2010 at 10:50 pm 8.MrQ said …

    I don’t know anything of Francis Collins god. But I don’t think he’s as much against abiogenesis as you are.
    I don’t believe he’s trying to scientifically explain the biblical genesis account or Noah’s Ark. So, he is able to leave those stories behind as he endeavours to seek answers. I have no problems with that.
    What about you, Rostam? Genesis is accurate; the world and humans were created in a week? Noah’s Ark, did that boat float? Collins says no. And you?
    Are we back on topic now?

  9. on 01 Dec 2010 at 10:59 pm 9.Rostam said …

    No wait a minute. Your atheist guru, Dawkins, states Collins is not capable of being a real scientist because of his beliefs. Which is it Q?

    What about Planck and Pascal? They were Creation believers along with many other great scientist. How could they practice science with such beliefs? Do you disregard their discoveries? How does a boat story and a creation story stop the fulfillment of science?

    You are quite perplexing here. We cant run past this.

  10. on 01 Dec 2010 at 11:13 pm 10.Simbot said …

    So, if there is a God as so many believe, how could you recognize the existence if you come to the table with an atheist mindset?

    The claim is that God exists, that he wrote the Bible, that he flooded the earth, that he sent his son, etc.

    We would therefore recognize his existence if he would appear. Simple as that.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUj8hg5CoSw

  11. on 01 Dec 2010 at 11:14 pm 11.Joe said …

    Of course, believing in the boat story and in creation does not necessarily stop you from being a good scientist. Unless, and this is important, your research happens to be about the boat story or about how life came about on earth. In this case, you will not be a good researcher on the boat story or on the genesis of life.

    Science has been so successful in the past centuries because science is primarily about questioning(!) current knowledge and seeking to advance knowledge on the basis of evidence(!).

  12. on 02 Dec 2010 at 1:03 am 12.MrQ said …

    Rostam, #9

    We cant run past this.

    OK, let’s go over it again.

    A scientist who LITERAL believes in a bible story (such as Noah’s Ark) and thinks of it as an absolute truth and then sets out to use scientific principles to “prove” the story is going about it wrong. Science works when it’s open ended and the conclusion of the research is not known beforehand. As we all know, sometimes relying strictly on common sense is not good enough.

    I think it would be reasonable to for the scientist of faith to ask “Is Noah’s Ark possible?” and then investigate the likelihood of that boat ever floating. Researching the possibilities. Weighing the evidence and data. And reaching a conclusion.
    Get it?

    Your atheist guru, Dawkins…

    Since when did I get an atheist guru? Like Collins, I don’t agree with everything Dawkins states. I like to think for myself. You should try it.
    Why is all this so confusing to you?

  13. on 02 Dec 2010 at 2:08 am 13.dxt said …

    MrQ,

    If God raised Jesus from the dead, then He acted in history. If God acted in history, then why would the miraculous seem hard to believe? I believe God acted in history and raised Jesus from the dead. Even skeptics put Pauls conversion no later than 35AD. Thats within 5 years of the crucifiction. You dont need to believe the Bible is inspired to subtract some dates. All you need to agee on is that the Bible is an ancient document. I can get you back to 38AD by the text alone. We have fresh eye-witness testimonies who testify to the resurrection of Christ. Also the radical change in belief and behavior of Paul (former pharasees “zeaous for the Law” and a leading persecutor of the Christian church) and James the brother of Jesus(former skeptic and unbeliever who thought his brother Jesus was “besides Himself”, in other words, nuts). You have these 2 men radically changed, by what I believe, because they saw the risen Christ. They believed so strongly that they suffered martyrdom along with the rest of the disciples except John who was exiled to Patmos. I could go on, but tell me your naturalistic explanation why you dont believe this? Because if Jesus is raised from the dead then therefore, God must exist.

  14. on 02 Dec 2010 at 2:54 am 14.Rostam said …

    “scientist who LITERAL believes in a bible story (such as Noah’s Ark) and thinks of it as an absolute truth and then sets out to use scientific principles to “prove” the story is going about it wrong.”

    Do you even understand the definition of science? You never answered the question???

  15. on 02 Dec 2010 at 3:42 am 15.MrQ said …

    Rostam, #14

    Do you even understand the definition of science?

    Where did I get it wrong?

    You never answered the question???

    Sorry. What was the question?

  16. on 02 Dec 2010 at 3:48 am 16.MrQ said …

    dxt #13

    If God raised Jesus from the dead,

    That is a big “IF”. Are you saying Jesus was a zombie?
    Hey what if Muhammed rode on a white horse into the skies? Or the flight of the Valkyries for the bravest warriors?
    Legends, fables, stories….Re-hashed over the ages. Same scenarios, same miracles, just different piles from different dogs.

  17. on 02 Dec 2010 at 4:17 am 17.dxt said …

    Lol, thats what I thought. Your explanation doesn’t fit the evidence.

  18. on 02 Dec 2010 at 8:13 am 18.Severin said …

    13 dxt
    “If God raised Jesus from the dead, then He acted in history.”

    If! (???)

    Then, we have here a paadox again: didn’t you tell us Jesus = god?

    So, who rised whome from death?

    Let others, who have something to say of their own, to speak.
    You admitted you have nothing to say, why bothering?
    Aen’t you aware you are saying nothing?

  19. on 02 Dec 2010 at 8:16 am 19.Severin said …

    13 dxt
    “All you need to agee on is that the Bible is an ancient document.”

    Yes, and hyerofliphes glorifying Ra are even more ancient.
    Shall we start believing in Ra?

  20. on 02 Dec 2010 at 8:23 am 20.Severin said …

    13 dxt
    “We have fresh eye-witness testimonies who testify to the resurrection of Christ.”

    And I have even fresher eye witness who saw extraterrestrians, and wrote a book about it.
    In fact, there are many of them.
    There is also a man who eye witnessed fairies’ dance, and wrote it in local newspaper.

  21. on 02 Dec 2010 at 8:36 am 21.Severin said …

    13 dxt
    “Because if Jesus is raised from the dead then therefore, God must exist.”

    Yes, you are probably right! IF!

    You have only to confirm that “if” with some more “evidences” than 2000 years old “eye witnesses” who “radically changed” after they saw Jesus alive, and wrote it in an ancient book (IF they did!?).

    IF Jesus existed, IF he was crucified, IF he was moved from the cross and put in a tomb, IF he appeared alive again and someone saw him, isn’t it much more logical explanation that he was moved from the cross while still alive, and recovered?

    Sounds extremely likely.
    Of course, IF all those other “ifs” were fulfilled!

  22. on 02 Dec 2010 at 8:44 am 22.Severin said …

    13 dxt
    “They believed so strongly that they suffered martyrdom along with the rest of the disciples except John who was exiled to Patmos.”

    Poor men!

    The man who saw aliens believed it so strongly that he suffered mocking of whole nation. People even mocked to their children.
    Poor man!

  23. on 02 Dec 2010 at 8:54 am 23.Severin said …

    17 dxt
    “Lol, thats what I thought. Your explanation doesn’t fit the evidence.”

    Are yoy telling us yor “evidences” are 2 guys who put on paper something they THOUHT they saw some 2000 years ago (of course, if THEY put it on paper, if it wasn’t someone else who had some interests to do it)?

    Or, coldn’t they simpy lie?

    If you can’t do it better, don’t do it at all.
    You told us you have nothing to say, anyway, why do you keep making fool of yourself?

  24. on 02 Dec 2010 at 8:58 am 24.Severin said …

    14 Rostam
    “How do we define science? According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is “knowledge attained through study or practice,” or “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.”
    What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.”

    Satisfied? I guess not, because it has nothing to do with blind faith.

  25. on 02 Dec 2010 at 1:06 pm 25.Rostam said …

    What is with all the Ra speak? If Ra was real, and impacted humanity in a meaningful way, he would be around today. Much like atheism.

    Mr Q, what exactly do you and guru Dawkins disagree on? That should be interesting.

    I repost my questions for Mr Q since he wasn’t capable of finding it.

    1. “What about Planck and Pascal? They were Creation believers along with many other great scientist. How could they practice science with such beliefs? Do you disregard their discoveries? How does a boat story and a creation story stop the fulfillment of science?”

    2. “No wait a minute. Your atheist guru, Dawkins, states Collins is not capable of being a real scientist because of his beliefs. Which is it Q?”

  26. on 02 Dec 2010 at 1:28 pm 26.dxt said …

    #21 Severin,

    “Yes, you are probably right! IF!

    You have only to confirm that “if” with some more “evidences” than 2000 years old “eye witnesses” who “radically changed” after they saw Jesus alive, and wrote it in an ancient book (IF they did!?).”

    Lol!….I forgot….These evidences are also the closest sources to the event! How else do you study history Severin? Would you exchange eyewitness testimony closest to the event or would you choose to rely on sources futher removed from the event? I have only given you 2 EXAMPLES of individuals who were radically changed, Paul and James. There were also 500 other eyewitnesses around Jerusalem, most of which were still alive by the time Paul pens 1st Corithians, who could be questioned at any time. Even skeptics concede to this!! Are you more skeptical than a skeptical historian Severin? Sure, you can outright deny the historical evidences, but you would then need to give a MORE BELIEVABLE NATURALISTIC EXPLANATION FOR THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE THAT JESUS WAS RAISED FROM THE DEAD. Until you can do that, than I will consider your nonsense.

  27. on 02 Dec 2010 at 2:18 pm 27.MrQ said …

    From Rostam, #25

    1. “What about Planck and Pascal? They were Creation believers along with many other great scientist. How could they practice science with such beliefs? Do you disregard their discoveries? How does a boat story and a creation story stop the fulfillment of science?”

    Already answered – Carefully read my post #12. I am sure that the god of the mathematicians and scientists is quite different than your god. Since you an Collins both have a god, are you an evolutionist like Collins now? Didn’t think so.

    As for your question #2, see my post #12 again.

  28. on 02 Dec 2010 at 3:31 pm 28.Severin said …

    26 dxt
    Don’t you try to make us fools!
    No, sorry, I already understood that it was YOU who have no understanding of simple logic, history (obviously also history, biology, physics..)…and you really think that all of us others are as poorely informed/educated (not to mention intelligence) as you are.
    Some of your “eye witnesses” MAYBE saw Jesus alive(I have no time to “dig” now, but I will explore it!).

    NO one of them saw:
    a) the moment of his recovering after he was put away from the cross (moment of his transformation from dead to alive)
    b) his “raising” to heaven after 40, or how many?) days

    There are NO eye witnesses of those EVENTS.

    Again (and IF Jesus existed, IF he was crucified, IF…):
    - What they saw was walking Jesus, who might have recoverd his torture
    - Maybe it was not Jesus, maybe someone who looked like him
    - etc
    The man I mentioned witnessed an EVENT, described in details no more than 50 or 60 years ago. He claimed he SAW a space ship, its landing, the aliens…
    Do ouy trust him?
    If not, why?
    Why are you sceptic about THIS and are not sceptic about Bible?

  29. on 05 Dec 2010 at 8:21 pm 29.Jesus of Fairy Land said …

    dxt, you want us to study history according to events written by people who were not there, discounting the non-conforming actual records written by those that were? OK, seems suspect to me but let’s see where that leads.

    Assuming you place weight in this written record, let’s try to understand why you reject other gods? It’s a serious question.

    http://www.godchecker.com/ lists over 2850 deities. All of whom are “…certified genuine and digitally signed.” This must be true, it says so on their website.

    Many of these gods have their own written record, and eye-witness accounts of their greatness. Their followers prayed to them and “stuff happened”; the sun rose, harvests and rain appeared, babies were born. Absolute proof, that their gods were genuine. Right? People wrote about it, this is your own standard of evidence.

    So, explain to us, why these other gods are not real?

    These other gods had written records, and if we’re going for weight of numbers, the Egyptian gods were worshiped for longer than yours. If people worshiped these gods for thousands of years, there must have been something to it, right? No one would waste their time worshiping someone who doesn’t exist, right?

    “Ra is perpetually resurrected in the mornings, he rides across the sky during the day and at sunset he is swallowed by the goddess Nut, only for her to give birth to him in the morning”. Ra will be resurrected tomorrow morning. Lots of people will witness this. Why don’t you believe in Ra?

  30. on 09 Dec 2010 at 7:25 pm 30.Anti-Theist said …

    Although I can see Ra failing to boast many followers in today’s educated society due to the flamboyant demonstration of claimed evidences, like him being the sun, I can see and frankly guarantee that if any one of these Christians on this site had been born to a Muslim family in Iran or in North Vietnam that their beliefs would reflect the influence that of the local population.

  31. on 09 Dec 2010 at 8:39 pm 31.Ben said …

    Ra is not my issue. Atheism has guys like Dawkins who may comments like:

    “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right?”.

    We would all be better off if atheist would worship RA, but unfortunately they propagate hateful individuals like Dawkins. Its a dangerous religion that should be labeled as a hate group and monitored closely.

  32. on 10 Dec 2010 at 5:50 am 32.A4 said …

    Ben, quote mining in order to justify your anger at people who don’t share your beliefs just highlights your own hate and desperation.

    The irony is that the rest of that quote continues… “…But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath…”.

    It’s also interesting that so many so-called Christians (I see some in this thread who don’t spew hate) feel the need to personalize by finding a figurehead to demonize and attack. Atheism, not being a religion, doesn’t need a figurehead nor do atheists have a need to worship anyone.

    Anti-theist expands upon my point that religious affiliation is heavily influenced by accidents of geography.

  33. on 10 Dec 2010 at 12:51 pm 33.Ben said …

    A$

    You are clearly as bad as your leader Dawkins. He and The God Delusion are the atheist dogma. The rest of his quote does not justify the hate and stupidity of “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right?”. This is why atheism is so dangerous – the fact he is right about the atheist dogma.

    Speaking of figureheads to demonize. Atheist constantly attack Falwell, the Pope, George Bush and manger scenes so don’t play the role of “holier than thou”.

    The geography reference is sort of a duh moment for you. Did you know I speak English because of my geography too! But moving past the duh, how does the geography make Jesus Christ wrong?

  34. on 10 Dec 2010 at 1:22 pm 34.A4 said …

    Ben, your hate speaks for itself. Do you think you could actually make a coherent point without resorting to logical fallacies?

    Why do you hate atheists so much, anyway?

    Does continuing to quote out of context and to deliberately misconstrue someone help you avoid facing your own internal inconsistencies?

    Does misusing words such as dogma help you avoid addressing why you are so angry at people who have chosen not to believe in something that hasn’t been proven?

    Does saying “but, mommy, someone hurt my feelings” make your god real?

    You’re on the right track regarding religion and geography but you’ve got the burden of proof the wrong way round: How does where anyone was born make their religious beliefs correct?

  35. on 10 Dec 2010 at 2:13 pm 35.azriel said …

    Ben you seriously misunderstand atheism. There is no figurehead, leader, set of beliefs etc. You confuse your belief with thinking that anyone that doesn’t agree must have an opposing belief – this is not the case. Atheism is not a system of belief, it is merely the lack of belief in a deity; our lack of belief does not mean that we have to replace it with an alternative.

    To make it clear to you – I personally don’t believe in a god(s), not yours or any other i have heard of, I see no need or logic for such a belief. I’m ok with that and don’t feel the need to belong to any other organisation or group to take the place of religion. I simply don’t believe, that’s it.

    By the way, I think that A4 has a good point, it is likely that particular religious belief is heavily influenced by parents, society etc that a person is born into. If you are a person that is likely to have strong religious beliefs, then what form that belief takes depends on where you happen to live (muslims in iraq, christians in USA, hindu in India etc)it makes it difficult to understand why one of these should be any more valid than another doesn’t it?

  36. on 10 Dec 2010 at 2:34 pm 36.Anti-Theist said …

    Ben, your inability to retain the intended concepts from these most recent posts is pathetic. The aggravated thoughts you have chosen to slop onto this site bring nothing to the discussion and only alienate you and the theists you attempt to speak for from intellectual society. You should calm down and fabricate a rebuttal worthy of literate society before damaging your or anybody else’s credibility any further. A demographic who’s only distinguishing feature is its requirement of credible evidence need not a leader or dogma, which by definition is a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative “without” adequate grounds, which is wholly incompatible with what makes an atheist an atheist. In your hysterical rant you even failed to realize your admission that if you were born to a Mormon family you’d be Mormon and condemned to hell by other Christian sects. I believe there are popular Christians on this site that would admit to believing you’ll burn as a heretic due to your lax views and morals.

  37. on 10 Dec 2010 at 3:40 pm 37.Rostam said …

    Ben not only Richard but Sam Harris has been quoted as saying those with certain beliefs should be put to death. Thankfully atheist have no real power other than to attack Christmas displays but they should be watched closely. With leaders like this among them their ideas and relative moral beliefs could lead to more Stalinist scenarios.

    Don’t be concerned with the rants directed at your post. Atheist are very good at dishing it out become enraged when they revive some. They circle the wagons and protect the three amigos.

  38. on 10 Dec 2010 at 3:47 pm 38.azriel said …

    #37 Rostam

    you completely miss the point – see post 35

  39. on 10 Dec 2010 at 3:48 pm 39.rael said …

    “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

  40. on 10 Dec 2010 at 3:51 pm 40.Ben said …

    #34 “You’re on the right track regarding religion and geography but you’ve got the burden of proof the wrong way round: How does where anyone was born make their religious beliefs correct?”

    A4, I never made such a claim. You bring up the geography. Do you have a point? Would Christ be less true due to geography? I grew up in secularism but fortunately I did discover the truth of Christ.

    You attack the messenger and use belittlement while avoiding the real issue. I don’t hate any of you, I do pity you. That you would follow after men like Dawkins and apparently Sam Harris is truly sad.

  41. on 10 Dec 2010 at 3:58 pm 41.azriel said …

    Ben; please read the posts first, you don’t seem to have understood thier meaning

  42. on 10 Dec 2010 at 4:05 pm 42.Anti-Theist said …

    I imagine you with your fingers in your ears, eyes tightly shut, shouting “NO, NO, NO” into oblivion; Its quite comical. Why people like yourself choose to communicate “at” others when a true meeting of the minds and understanding of one another is available escapes me.

  43. on 10 Dec 2010 at 5:18 pm 43.A4 said …

    Ben, I’m aware of Harris quoting the bible, Deuteronomy for example, with regard to others being directed to stone people to death. Was that the point you were making?

    By being selective as you are, you’re just digging yourself into a hole and you’ll get responses like the above. So, if this seems belittling then it’s because you’re not exactly helping yourself at this point. If you’d like to be treated like an equal then, please, post your own views not some cut-and-paste intellectually-vapid “atheists eat babies” hate-speech.

    I’m not sure what Harris quote specifically you are referring to but whilst you keep trying to attack people rather than address the argument you simply come over as described by AT.

    Ben, you’ve made your mind up what atheism is. You’ve been corrected several times yet you continue to post based on a flawed premise.

    The question keeps being asked in many different formats. You can take it personally if you wish, but it’s a general question.

    Some people believe in several gods, some people only one, atheists don’t believe in any. What makes your god and your holy books “true” when others are not?

  44. on 10 Dec 2010 at 6:00 pm 44.Ben said …

    A4,

    Your long tirades offer nothing of substance. In #40 I asked a number of questions and you failed to address any of them. Yes, we all know the atheist definition. However, the actions and words of atheist do not match their definitions. Atheist are bent of destroying others. Why speak, lets give examples. Here is a couple of great quote from Sam Harris:

    “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.”

    “The gravity of Jewish suffering over the ages, culminating in the Holocaust, makes it almost impossible to entertain any suggestion that Jews might have brought their troubles upon themselves. This is, however, in a rather narrow sense, the truth”

    Why do you guys so anti-semitic? Jews brought the holocaust on themselves? And to complete the pair, who gets to decided which ideas are “dangerous” enough as to kill the holder?

  45. on 10 Dec 2010 at 6:28 pm 45.A4 said …

    Ben, you’re just trying to shift the burden of proof whilst avoiding answering any questions that might cause you to examine your beliefs.

    Perhaps you genuinely don’t understand the difference but you’re the one making the claim of a supernatural being. You need to provide the proof. If you truly don’t understand why, then please read up on Russell’s Teapot.

    In #43 I asked you to stop with the quote-mining yet you continue. You do this in total contradiction to the hate contained in the bible. Do you really want to play a game of “Tu Quoque”? Really?

    Tell you what. Prove to us that you are not simply playing cut-and-paste. Provide the REFERENCE for your quotes. Show your quotes in context and, this is important, show how they relate to the conversation and are not simply an attempt to find an outlet for your anger?

    If you cannot do this, how do you know that you are not being manipulated and lied to by those that passed those quotes on to you?

    As a reminder, the question was: “Some people believe in several gods, some people only one, atheists don’t believe in any. What makes your god and your holy books “true” when others are not?”

  46. on 10 Dec 2010 at 6:39 pm 46.Rostam said …

    LOL, Ben

    Sam and Rich are just stand up wonderful guys, eh? Hey, at least they say what they believe and don’t pretend to be some neutral party waiting on proof of a deity. They state their end now the waiting begins to see their means.

    A4,

    I prefer A1, it has some usefulness. Let me answer the context question. The context was done in the name of nihilistic elitism. As a good follower, you should be reading the manifestos.

  47. on 10 Dec 2010 at 6:56 pm 47.A4 said …

    Ah, Rostam, thanks for the personal attack, they are like little treasures.

    Nihilistic elitism? Manifestos? Followers?

    Great, now that you’ve assigned some labels so that you can personalize the discussion, perhaps you could educate us as to how that answers this question as it pertains to you?

    “Some people believe in several gods, some people only one, atheists don’t believe in any. What makes your god and your holy books “true” when others are not?”

  48. on 10 Dec 2010 at 7:18 pm 48.Ben said …

    “Some people believe in several gods, some people only one, atheists don’t believe in any. What makes your god and your holy books “true” when others are not?”

    Since I have not attempted defend a particular dogma seems like digression on your part. If you do become sincere and have realized atheism is illogical and not possible you might want to investigate that question thoroughly. Don’t listen to opinion of others.

    You might want to read Harris’ “The Moral landscape” to see what you leaders are selling.

    I saddens me that people like you have no problem with the hatred directed towards the faith-based community. Maybe you would like to take this opportunity to publicly denounce these individuals?

    Maybe you could answer the questions in #40? Maybe you could explain how #46 is an attack on you?

  49. on 10 Dec 2010 at 9:16 pm 49.Severin said …

    31 ben
    ““What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right?”.”

    Could you kindly provide the source for this Dawkins’ words?
    Where can I find them? I mean, if he defended Hitler, I would like to spit on him, but I have to be sure he did.

  50. on 10 Dec 2010 at 9:29 pm 50.Severin said …

    31 Ben
    Thanks, I found it myself:

    “When asked in an interview, “If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”, Richard Dawkins replied, “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”[1]

    Did Dawkins say here Hitler was right?

  51. on 10 Dec 2010 at 9:44 pm 51.Severin said …

    40 Ben
    “Would Christ be less true due to geography? I grew up in secularism but fortunately I did discover the truth of Christ.“

    I almost asked you what would you have believed if you grew up in Afganistan, but I will not.
    I will turn the question:
    WHY Afganistan children do not share Christianity with you?
    WHY did they „discover“ Islam and found the „truth“ in Allah?

    Then: N. and S. American Indians first heard for Jesus about 1600 AD.

    If Muslims were first in Americas, you would today hate Christians and sing „allahbismillah“.

  52. on 11 Dec 2010 at 4:27 am 52.Hell Yeah said …

    I sure love coming to this site to get my good laugh for the day.

    I am sure Dawkins never referred to agreeing with Hitler on killing or torchering people. It is funny how ones mind can trick itself (I am referring to you theists). So if Hitler said he liked pizza, and you also like pizza, does that mean you are like Hitler? Of course not. He might be right that pizza is good, but it doesn’t mean he is right in killing and torchering.

    Theists, here is a survey for you. How long do you think humans have been on Earth? The bible has only been around for about 2000 years. According to the bible, it claims to not worship false gods. So does that mean everyone else who lived before then and worshipped all the tons of other man made gods, that they were all sent to hell? I can just imagine how shocked when they died and realized the real god, whom was never known on Earth at that time yet. LOL And then all of a sudden after all of those years, god says to himself, hmmmm, I better send a human like copy of myself to teach those humans that I am the real god. What was god doing all this time before then? Why hasn’t he done anything like the biblical stories since? Probably because 2000 years ago some people were bored of the current religions at the time and had nothing to do during their time since most of the activities we have today haven’t been invented yet, so they needed something to keep themselves occupied. Just a thought.

  53. on 11 Dec 2010 at 7:34 am 53.Severin said …

    37 Rostam
    “Ben not only Richard but Sam Harris has been quoted as saying those with certain beliefs should be put to death.“

    It is quite possible that an atheist said something like that.
    ONE!
    He did not kill anyone, did he?

    Crimes all religions did during te history of human race are unmeasurable, and they all did them in name of their gods.
    Those crimes are uncomparable to crimes done by atheists.

    Theists do not just talk, they act.

  54. on 11 Dec 2010 at 7:50 am 54.Severin said …

    37 Rostam
    “With leaders like this among them their ideas and relative moral beliefs could lead to more Stalinist scenarios.”

    Yes, like in Sweden, Germany, England…

    Why you guys always neglect the fact that, although athiests, Lenin/Stalin came to power THANKS TO RELIGIOUS MASSES, which died for communist regime voluntarily, and with enthusiasm. There were 0% (or maybe 0.001%) atheists in Russia at that time, and without support of religious masses communist could only wish the power and cry.

    Atheistic communism WON not only in civil war, but won foreign armed intervention thanks to religious masses!
    They (atheistic communists) CHEATED ON THE MASSES (just like church did), but had better decoys than church, and religious masses cought on it.

  55. on 11 Dec 2010 at 8:00 am 55.Severin said …

    52 HY
    “So does that mean everyone else who lived before then and worshipped all the tons of other man made gods, that they were all sent to hell?“

    I posed that question many times before, but I never got any answer.

    Strange god!
    He appeared to a small nation, negligible compared to the population of earth, and forgot to „save“ hundreds of millions in China, Europe, whole Asia, Indonesia, both Americas…

    Oll those poor people went to hell only because GOD DID NOT GIVE THEM CHANCES to know him! He FORGOT THEM!
    He NEGLECTED them!
    Did he hate them?

    Some god!

  56. on 11 Dec 2010 at 9:43 am 56.Severin said …

    Ladies and Gentlemen Christians,

    Why did Jesus forget so many people and gave them no chances to be saved?
    Why did he chose Jews and avoided to offer an honest chance to be „saved“ to people from Europe, Asia, Americas, Australia, Africa, in total some 400 -500 million „souls“, compared to a few hundred thousands (or a million or two) of Jews?
    (And multiply it with number of centuries thosepoor people could not reach the “truth”!)

    If your god followed any logic, he should have appeared in China, not in Judea.

    If your god created the earth, he (=Jesus!!!) obviously created also Indians, Cheneses, Indonesians, Europeans, Aborigines, Polinesian people, Eskimos…
    Wasn’t they all his „children“?

    And he sent all his children in hell without a chance to meet him in their hearts and to be saved!

    It was NOT their choice! How could they know he ever existed, if he did not inform them?

    Or, did he (existed)?

  57. on 11 Dec 2010 at 4:13 pm 57.Deit said …

    “Lenin/Stalin came to power THANKS TO RELIGIOUS MASSES,”

    What Severin is trying to save is that the faith community needs to make sure atheist do not come to power. I understand I will do my part to follow this advice.

  58. on 16 Dec 2010 at 3:24 am 58.sonofthesouth said …

    Without quoting Holy Scripture, or argue about the origin of the universe, I ask atheists to read but a few pages of an online book, “Dying Testimonies of Saved and Unsaved.” This book is a compilation of nearly 300 deathbed utterances of both saint and sinner. Even the atheist hero, Voltaire, his final words are recorded as well. Pay particular attention to case number 7, as this one still chills my bones and grieves my heart to read his last words to his loving parents as he faces a certain life after his death.
    I left my email address if anyone’s heart is touched by this book and have any questions. This book alone has resulted in many, many conversions from non-belief. I look forward to anyone wanting to enter into discussion about the book’s contents.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply