A question for atheists.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-03-2014, 07:03 PM (This post was last modified: 09-03-2014 07:12 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: A question for atheists.
(09-03-2014 03:09 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  1. Almost every argument we see from religionists involves some sort of "explanatory" god of the gaps argument, (ie see William L Craig, and his Kalam bullshit). They NEED, (secondary to their low ambiguity tolerance and NEED for cognitive closure) a "place holder" explanation for how, what they see around them, came to be, ("Oh you think the universe just popped into existence"),even though the deity thing fails utterly to explain anything important. They call that explanation "god". It's been that way for thousands of years. That's the function the gods have always played.
2. Almost all theists have virtually no knowledge (including those who claim to "know" the Bible) the actual historical roots of their various cults. There is no reason AT ALL to even begin to think that the 70th son, (Yahaweh Sabaoth) of the Babylonian chief deity, (El Elyon), the "god of the armies" of the ancient Canaanites, just happens to *be* (of all the deities humans have cooked up over the centuries) the real one, or the set of ancient texts that HUMANS cooked up and assembled (the Bible) in political exile to create a national story to function as a political tool to unify and keep in control some tribes which were being allowed to return by the Persian emperor to part of one of their kingdoms which they had carved out by waring against neighboring city-states, (Isra-EL), and then WROTE FOR THEMSELVES, and justified for themselves by calling it their "promised land" is any more legitimate than any other national explanatory myth system.
3. If people choose to live in ignorance of the origins of what they believe, and why they hold it as "true" in their brains, it's their problem. There is no reason those who dismiss the bullshit claims of theists, (and ALL their various cult iterations) need to try to "sway" anyone, anymore than we have to worry about providing why it's preposterous to explain why there is no 1957 Chevy orbiting Pluto, or why there is no teapot orbiting the sun, which are the precise equivalent of the claims of theists . It's THEIR responsibility to examine the roots and foundations for what they tell themselves is true, and get an education. Life is short. There are FAR better things to do than argue with the scientific, psychologically and historically ignorant.
4. There is no coherent or internally consistent definition of the set of brain patterns, that humans "reference" when they use the meaningless three letter word *god*.

Beautiful! Thanks!

The essence of the issue is whether there's any evidence of the biblical god. When one understands the history, it's very clear there isn't.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
09-03-2014, 07:20 PM
RE: A question for atheists.
(09-03-2014 06:27 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  You done with your lecture? Piss off.
You know where the ignore button is.

Yes, I'm done now sweety. Angel

I don't believe in the ignore button. You go ahead and keep making a mess of threads and I'll keep putting up with it. But you will hear me whine from time to time, just so you're prepared for it. Thumbsup

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-03-2014, 08:17 PM
RE: A question for atheists.
(09-03-2014 06:22 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  RE
"In short, they taught to consciously circumvent intellectual conversation and go for the emotions and conscience instead. "

Wow! I didn't know that. Thanks.

No problem.

Here's the thinking behind it:
1. Intellectual discussion/debate usually gets nowhere fast
2. A conversion by argument can just as easily become a de-conversion by argument (except they would argue that this can't happen, because of eternal security so if you deconvert, you were obviously not really a Christian in the first place).
3. Salvation is a matter of the heart, not just the mind. A conversion involves a total change from an old heart to a new one, and the intellect can stand in the way of this, so it is best and more direct to circumvent the intellect and go straight to the heart.
4. The heart involves the conscience, which is the knowledge of right and wrong, and how we react to issues of morality (a.k.a. Divine Law)


~Recent Fundy, reporting in.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Charis's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: