No Such Thing as an Atheist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-02-2010, 12:06 AM
 
RE: No Such Thing as an Atheist
1. Atheists exist, they should be called agnostics. If you can’t follow the basic premise then this might be futile.
2. Sorry, the intellectually honest don’t question his existence. Every major religion acknowledges Him, even the ones that agree with Christianity.
3. The historical record provides examples of writers, philosophers and historians who lived during or not long after the time Jesus is believed to have lived and who testify to the fact that he was a real person. Look up the following: 1. Cornelius Tacitus- Tacitus lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120. He was a Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome. 2. Lucian of Samosata- Lucian was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it. He particularly objected to the fact that Christians worshipped a man. He does not mention Jesus’ name, but the reference to the man Christians worship is a reference to Jesus. 3. Suetonius- Suetonius was a Roman historian and a court official in Emperor Hadrian’s government. In his Life of Claudius he refers to Claudius expelling Jews from Rome on account of their activities on behalf of a man Suetonius calls Chrestus [another misspelling of Christus or Christ].4. Josephus- Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died sometime after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish antiquates and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the dead. There are many more.
4. “Circular logic” Look the term up, doesn’t apply. How do prove Plato or Socrates existed? Is it because of their writings? Socrates was 70 years old and familiar to most Athenians. His anti-democratic views had turned many in the city against him. Two of his students, Alcibiades and Critias, had twice briefly overthrown the democratic government of the city, instituting a reign of terror in which thousands of citizens were deprived of their property and either banished from the city or executed. After hearing the arguments of both Socrates and his accusers, the jury was asked to vote on his guilt. Under Athenian law the jurors did not deliberate the point. Instead, each juror registered his judgment by placing a small disk into an urn marked either "guilty" or "not guilty." Socrates was found guilty by a vote of 280 to 220. The jurors were next asked to determine Socrates' penalty. His accusers argued for the death penalty. Socrates was given the opportunity to suggest his own punishment and could probably have avoided death by recommending exile. Instead, the philosopher initially offered the sarcastic recommendation that he be rewarded for his actions. When pressed for a realistic punishment, he proposed that he be fined a modest sum of money. Faced with the two choices, the jury selected death for Socrates. Did that happen? Prove it.
5. Qur’an 3:45-48 the Sahih international version [And mention] when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary - distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah ]. He will speak to the people in the cradle and in maturity and will be of the righteous." He will speak to the people in the cradle and in maturity and will be of the righteous." And He will teach him writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel. 5:75, 19:30-35, 5:116-117 Plus more spend two minutes of research and you will see. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama regard Jesus as a bodhisattava who dedicated his life to the welfare of human beings. The 14th century Zen master Gasan Joeski indicated that the Gospels were written by an enlightened being:"And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They toil not, neither do they spin, and yet I say unto you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these...Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself."Gasan said: "Whoever uttered those words I consider an enlightened man."
6. I am only saying that a Religion that is opposed to Christianity acknowledges Jesus.
7. See number 3. To say that Jesus did not exist is foolishness and intellectual dishonesty.
8. HEY we agree on something.
9. I am going to write random thoughts all which point to God. First law of thermodynamics-matter/energy cannot be created from nothing “Out of nothing nothing comes”, Second law of thermodynamics, Evolution, objective moral values, Prayer-look up the studies that were done with double blind studies with cardiac patients, plus all the other arguments that have been discussed for years-cosmological, ontological, teleological, anthropic etc. fulfilled Bible prophecy-The Bible was written by 40 authors over 1500 years with 66 books, resurrection of Jesus, just a few if you need more let me know.
10. Miller-Urey is no comparison to what would have happened in evolution, please don’t believe the junk you hear from people explore it for yourself.
11. Doesn’t apply, remember you believe in science! Although in the overall picture we both could say that, You/me must be wrong because you/me are incapable of accepting that the others position is true. God versus no God.
12. The way it was explained to me is you take the number of events that occurred which is 1, and the number of possible outcomes. I am no scientist so I will give you that one. Mainly because I am tired and I will answer enough questions to prove that there are no atheists only agnostics. I will the Chair of the UCI statistics dept tomorrow and find out for sure.
13-17. The truth is am not a scientist and I am sure you are not either I am getting my information from my son who is doing grad work at Texas A&M. It is based on papers that have been published. I said amino acids not acids. Amino acids left, nucleic acids right.
18. If “chance is not the main driving force of evolution” Really? Then what is? God!
19. Notice, when I wrote my original piece, I did not use words like straw men, Argument from personal incredulity, argument from ignorance. Big words, yet misapplied and I am sure others will applaud you. But what you just did in your last point was an ad hominem.

The bottom line is you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, He could be on the non-planet Pluto. Based on the fact that you can’t prove he doesn’t exist along with the evidence that I have that he does, if you were intellectually honest you would call yourself agnostic.
Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2010, 07:20 AM
 
RE: No Such Thing as an Atheist
(23-02-2010 12:06 AM)martinb59 Wrote:  3. The historical record provides examples of writers, philosophers and historians who lived during or not long after the time Jesus is believed to have lived and who testify to the fact that he was a real person. Look up the following: 1. Cornelius Tacitus - Tacitus lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120. He was a Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome. 2. Lucian of Samosata- Lucian was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it. He particularly objected to the fact that Christians worshipped a man. He does not mention Jesus’ name, but the reference to the man Christians worship is a reference to Jesus. 3. Suetonius- Suetonius was a Roman historian and a court official in Emperor Hadrian’s government. In his Life of Claudius he refers to Claudius expelling Jews from Rome on account of their activities on behalf of a man Suetonius calls Chrestus [another misspelling of Christus or Christ].4. Josephus- Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died sometime after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish antiquates and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the dead. There are many more.

Mm, this is interesting. I'm gonna quote Zeitgeist again, but expand it a bit more now:
Quote:There are numerous historians who lived in and around the Mediterranean either during or soon after the assumed life of Jesus.[S185] How many of these historians document this figure? Not one. [S186] However, to be fair, that doesn't mean defenders of the Historical Jesus haven't claimed the contrary. Four historians are typically referenced to justify Jesus's existence. Pliny the younger, Suetonius, Tacitus and the first three. [M] [S187] Each one of their entries consists of only a few sentences at best and only refer to the Christus or the Christ, which in fact is not name but a title. It means the "Anointed one" [S188] The fourth source is Josephus and this source has been proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years.[S189] Sadly, it is still cited as truth.
Here's a wikipedia article about Josephus. The article provides arguments against authenticity and in favor. I don't think I'm qualified to provide arguments against its authenticity, but I can see that if it's being disputed then it must be vague evidence.
Now Tacitus mentions "Jesus" in his work Annals, according to wikipedia. Apparently all he does is mention "Christus" in one line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

All I could see in your evidence is just a few mentions and mispellings of the word Christus in works whose authenticity are disputed. I wouldn't call that "huge amount of historical data".

(23-02-2010 12:06 AM)martinb59 Wrote:  4. “Circular logic” Look the term up, doesn’t apply. How do prove Plato or Socrates existed? Is it because of their writings? Socrates was 70 years old and familiar to most Athenians. His anti-democratic views had turned many in the city against him. Two of his students, Alcibiades and Critias, had twice briefly overthrown the democratic government of the city, instituting a reign of terror in which thousands of citizens were deprived of their property and either banished from the city or executed. After hearing the arguments of both Socrates and his accusers, the jury was asked to vote on his guilt. Under Athenian law the jurors did not deliberate the point. Instead, each juror registered his judgment by placing a small disk into an urn marked either "guilty" or "not guilty." Socrates was found guilty by a vote of 280 to 220. The jurors were next asked to determine Socrates' penalty. His accusers argued for the death penalty. Socrates was given the opportunity to suggest his own punishment and could probably have avoided death by recommending exile. Instead, the philosopher initially offered the sarcastic recommendation that he be rewarded for his actions. When pressed for a realistic punishment, he proposed that he be fined a modest sum of money. Faced with the two choices, the jury selected death for Socrates. Did that happen? Prove it.

I think all he meant is, as he said, that you can't prove what the bible claims using the bible. There's countless historical figures who did less things that those that are attributed to Jesus and yet we know of their existence. Not only because of their works, but also because there's other historical evidence that supports them.

(23-02-2010 12:06 AM)martinb59 Wrote:  10. Miller-Urey is no comparison to what would have happened in evolution, please don’t believe the junk you hear from people explore it for yourself.

I like the "don't believe the junk you hear from people" part. I'm guessing that all you know about god, jesus and the bible... you just know it. Surely someone must have tought you that as a kid. And you believed it.

(23-02-2010 12:06 AM)martinb59 Wrote:  Well, I agree with you there.
The bottom line is you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, He could be on the non-planet Pluto. Based on the fact that you can’t prove he doesn’t exist along with the evidence that I have that he does, if you were intellectually honest you would call yourself agnostic.

I agree, it's impossible to disprove God's existence. The Cambridge Dictionary defines "Atheist" as: someone who believes that God or gods do not exist. Note the "believe" part. I don't think it's necessary to discuss about what labels we should wear. You are convinced that God exists, we are not.
Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2010, 07:22 AM (This post was last modified: 25-02-2010 02:50 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: No Such Thing as an Atheist
(22-02-2010 10:23 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(22-02-2010 08:50 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I get into this argument a lot on a lot of websites against a lot of people. In fact, I just finished arguing against it on the Facebook Apologetics board. So... yeah. I get a lot of practice, and I have the rebuttals necessary to any point that an a-atheist is likely to raise on hand for immediate access. So far, not a single one of them has ever been able to prove that I don't exist.

You do exist, but if you were honest you would call yourself agnostic

No. I am an atheist. I do not believe in a god.
You expect to prove that all atheists are agnostic, but you don't even know the actual definition of "agnostic". You can't simply be agnostic. You are either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.
Agnosticism is simply defined as the belief that the truth value of some claim can never be proven. It does not actually alter the amount of belief held in that object. You can be an agnostic theist, an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist (one who believes that it can be proven) or a gnostic atheist (one who believes that it can be disproven), but you cannot be merely agnostic.
And even if your definition of agnosticism were correct, I would still be an atheist. As someone who had never experienced your god, I would be perfectly at liberty to disbelieve.

(23-02-2010 12:06 AM)martinb59 Wrote:  1. Atheists exist, they should be called agnostics. If you can’t follow the basic premise then this might be futile.

If you can't understand the definition of "agnostic" or realize that atheists are not all agnostics this might be futile.

Quote:2. Sorry, the intellectually honest don’t question his existence.

Yes, they do.

Quote:Every major religion acknowledges Him

No, they don't. You have not provided a single example of this.

Quote:even the ones that agree with Christianity.

Well, duh. Of course the religions that agree with Christianity would agree with Christianity.

Quote:3. The historical record provides examples of writers, philosophers and historians who lived during or not long after the time Jesus is believed to have lived and who testify to the fact that he was a real person.

Yet not one of these people was an eyewitness to the occurrences. Not even the gospels were written by people who claimed to have met Jesus. And the authenticity and accuracy of said documents are under dispute.

Quote:Lucian of Samosata- Lucian was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it. He particularly objected to the fact that Christians worshipped a man. He does not mention Jesus’ name, but the reference to the man Christians worship is a reference to Jesus.

Referencing their beliefs is not the same as saying that they are true and presenting evidence to same.

Quote:Suetonius- Suetonius was a Roman historian and a court official in Emperor Hadrian’s government. In his Life of Claudius he refers to Claudius expelling Jews from Rome on account of their activities on behalf of a man Suetonius calls Chrestus [another misspelling of Christus or Christ].

Link?
And, if this is true, so what? People believed in Jesus. They would do things in his name. They do so today. Having believers does not prove a faith true.

Quote:Josephus- Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died sometime after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish antiquates and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the dead.

No, he didn't. The authenticity of the Testimonium to which you are referring is hotly debated, and most scholars believe that it is only partially Josephus' writing. Christian scribes altered the passage.

Quote:“Circular logic” Look the term up, doesn’t apply.

Yes, it does.
Circular logic: an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion.
Your premises - that the testimony in the Bible is true - are only true if the Bible is true. You assume your conclusion. You commit the circular logic fallacy.

Quote:How do prove Plato or Socrates existed? Is it because of their writings?

There is a difference between testimony about a man and testimony proven to be by a man.

Quote:<snip story>

Why should I prove it? The existence of Socrates has not been established, and I have no reason to try.

Quote:Qur’an 3:45-48 the Sahih international version [And mention] when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary - distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah ]. He will speak to the people in the cradle and in maturity and will be of the righteous." He will speak to the people in the cradle and in maturity and will be of the righteous." And He will teach him writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel. 5:75, 19:30-35, 5:116-117 Plus more spend two minutes of research and you will see.

Again, do you think that the Qu'ran is an accurate document? If so, why are you not a Muslim?

Quote:Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama regard Jesus as a bodhisattava who dedicated his life to the welfare of human beings. The 14th century Zen master Gasan Joeski indicated that the Gospels were written by an enlightened being:"And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They toil not, neither do they spin, and yet I say unto you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these...Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself."Gasan said: "Whoever uttered those words I consider an enlightened man."

So? Argument from authority fallacy. And there is a difference from believing that the gospels were written by an enlightened man and acknowledging Jesus. You are still lying when you state that all major religions accept him.

Quote:I am only saying that a Religion that is opposed to Christianity acknowledges Jesus.

You have not presented evidence that this is true.

Quote:See number 3. To say that Jesus did not exist is foolishness and intellectual dishonesty.

No, it isn't. You have not presented any evidence that he existed, let alone that he was the Messiah.

Quote:I am going to write random thoughts all which point to God. First law of thermodynamics-matter/energy cannot be created from nothing “Out of nothing nothing comes”

Doesn't apply outside the universe.

Quote:Second law of thermodynamics

Doesn't apply outside the universe.

Quote:Evolution

Doesn't need a guiding hand.

Quote:objective moral values

Don't exist.

Quote:Prayer

Has been proven not to work.

Quote:plus all the other arguments that have been discussed for years-cosmological, ontological, teleological, anthropic etc.

All debunked.

Quote:fulfilled Bible prophecy

Circular logic.

Quote:The Bible was written by 40 authors over 1500 years with 66 books

And is, in many places, self-contradictory. There is also evidence that certain passages were added in later.

Quote:resurrection of Jesus

Unproven.

Quote:Miller-Urey is no comparison to what would have happened in evolution

Nice straw man. You claimed that no scientist had ever performed an experiment that had created left-handed amino acids. I proved you wrong. Now you are attempting to deflect attention to evolution, when we are not talking about it.
Try again.

Quote:please don’t believe the junk you hear from people explore it for yourself.

I have. That is why I am an atheist.

Quote:Doesn’t apply, remember you believe in science!

Of course it applies. You cannot personally believe or come up with a mechanism that would allow abiogenesis to happen. This does not mean that it could not.

Quote:Although in the overall picture we both could say that, You/me must be wrong because you/me are incapable of accepting that the others position is true. God versus no God.

What?

Quote:The way it was explained to me is you take the number of events that occurred which is 1, and the number of possible outcomes.

And you know the possible number of outcomes how?

Quote:I am no scientist so I will give you that one.

Mmkay.

Quote:The truth is am not a scientist and I am sure you are not either I am getting my information from my son who is doing grad work at Texas A&M. It is based on papers that have been published.

Such as?

Quote:I said amino acids not acids.

Yes, I know. I simply said acids because I didn't feel like typing out "amino acids" again.

Quote:If “chance is not the main driving force of evolution” Really? Then what is? God!

Total non sequitur. The universe obeys laws. These are what drive evolution. If you want to assert that your god controls evolution rather than these natural laws, present evidence.

Quote:Notice, when I wrote my original piece, I did not use words like straw men, Argument from personal incredulity, argument from ignorance.

I know you didn't. You couldn't have, because no one had made any statements except you. These are fallacies, and they can't be pointed out when no one else has said anything. What's your point?

Quote:Big words, yet misapplied

No.

Quote:and I am sure others will applaud you. But what you just did in your last point was an ad hominem.

No, actually. The ad hominem fallacy is when insults are used in place of a more substantial argument. Insults by themselves are not a fallacy.

Quote:The bottom line is you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist

You can't prove that Cthulhu doesn't exist. Burden of proof fallacy.

Quote:Based on the fact that you can’t prove he doesn’t exist along with the evidence that I have that he does, if you were intellectually honest you would call yourself agnostic.

Based on the fact that you can't prove that Cthulhu doesn't exist along with the existence of of H. P. Lovecraft's writings on the subject, if you were intellectually honest you would call yourself agnostic.

Please, for the love of your god go learn some basic logic before you try again.


ETA: Nahuel covers your supposed "historical references" much more succinctly than I did. I'd like you to imagine that everything that I wrote on them is snipped out and replaced with his post.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2010, 11:33 AM (This post was last modified: 23-02-2010 11:56 AM by ashley.hunt60.)
RE: No Such Thing as an Atheist
(23-02-2010 12:06 AM)martinb59 Wrote:  The bottom line is you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, He could be on the non-planet Pluto. Based on the fact that you can’t prove he doesn’t exist along with the evidence that I have that he does, if you were intellectually honest you would call yourself agnostic.

We don't need to prove he doesn't exist, atheism deals with belief. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, to get precise. Most rational atheists admit to being both. We are without knowledge(Agnostic) of his existence. We have heard of him, w just don't know for a fact that he exists. You could extent this to every human on the face of the earth. No one knows definitely whether or not he exists. We tend to limit this to people to admit they don't know however.

On to atheism. Atheism s not a stance on knowledge like agnosticism. Rather it is on belief. This is why you can be both. You gain beliefs from knowledge. So this is why beliefs are more fallible than knowledge. Two people can see that same thing, and draw different conclusions. For example, lets says there is an apple under a tree. One person walks by, and sees the apple and tree. They are now know about the apple and tree. They can then draw the belief that the apple fell from the tree. Another person can walk by and see the same thing, but then gain the belief that someone left the apple under the tree. They both know the same things, but have gained different beliefs about it.

So, to conclude. Atheism deals with belief. Belief is NOT knowledge, but an explanation derived from knowledge. This is why atheists exist.

But to get to another point, language is an interesting thing. It's not define, but is constantly evolving. A word is a sound recognized by a large group of people to have the same meaning. If I say I don't belief in god, then society says that I'm an atheist then, then I'm an atheist. I've never seen a decent reason to get into such precise word arguments. It means whatever society wants it to mean.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2010, 02:28 PM
 
RE: No Such Thing as an Atheist
Agnostics! "Unbeliever" is a classic agnostic debater, and I even hate to use the term debater. He/or she can't follow a logical thought, when I said the all the major religions believe that Jesus, he said no they don't, with 30 seconds of research he could have found that out, I quoted the Qu'ran he said do you think the Qu'ran is an accurate document? If, so why are you not a Muslim? The point was ALL MAJOR RELIGIONS ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS. Not the reliability of the Qu'ran or Hindu or Buddhist teachings.

His quote "Not Not even the gospels were written by people who claimed to have met Jesus." that is just a stupid comment. Because an agnostic writes something in a book, does not mean it is true. By his logic we didn't land on the moon because there are some who say it was done on sound stage in Hollywood.

I could go on with every point, but I write a paragraph and he comes back with "no they don't , or yes they do" it is a waste of my time. And when people with a brain get tired of responding to his drivel, he will claim a victory.

I would encourage you to watch the following debates. Forget your position, just watch the debate for what is, and see who is better organized, responds to the points better etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1Y6ev152...re=related

This one is why Richard Dawkins won't debate William Lane Craig. He will debate people who aren't to his level, Pope, Cardinal, Bishop etc. Dawkins knows he would get crushed. So he doesn't want to debate. He said "I am busy" what time difference is there between debating a Bishop or debating William Lane Craig?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFamS4RGE_A
Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2010, 02:47 PM (This post was last modified: 25-02-2010 02:52 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: No Such Thing as an Atheist
(25-02-2010 02:28 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Agnostics! "Unbeliever" is a classic agnostic debater

Huh?

Quote:and I even hate to use the term debater. He/or she can't follow a logical thought

Produce an example of a fallacy I have used. Also, I'm a dude.

Quote:when I said the all the major religions believe that Jesus, he said no they don't

They don't.

Quote:with 30 seconds of research he could have found that out, I quoted the Qu'ran he said do you think the Qu'ran is an accurate document? If, so why are you not a Muslim? The point was ALL MAJOR RELIGIONS ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS. Not the reliability of the Qu'ran or Hindu or Buddhist teachings.

They do not acknowledge him. You are lying through your teeth. You have produced a single example of one other religion referencing Jesus in its holy book - the Qu'ran - where he is not called the son of god. Neither does the other man you referenced say that he was the son of god, nor is Jesus part of that religion's holy book.

Quote:His quote "Not Not even the gospels were written by people who claimed to have met Jesus." that is just a stupid comment. Because an agnostic writes something in a book, does not mean it is true.

It is true. The writers of the gospels never claimed to have met Jesus.

Link.

Do some research before you post again. Maybe you won't look like such an idiot.

Quote:I could go on with every point, but I write a paragraph and he comes back with "no they don't , or yes they do" it is a waste of my time.

Frankly, typing even that much out was probably more than you deserved. You have done no research, you blatantly lie and get your facts wrong. When I call you out, you either ignore it or continue on with the same old lies.

Quote:And when people with a brain get tired of responding to his drivel, he will claim a victory.

[Image: irony.jpg]

Quote:I would encourage you to watch the following debates. Forget your position, just watch the debate for what is, and see who is better organized, responds to the points better etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1Y6ev152...re=related

Jotting down thoughts as I watch:
- It opens with the burden of proof fallacy, as disproving God is a logical impossibility
- He poisons the well immediately by saying that the only arguments that atheists have are straw men
- Reason one: straw man (atheists do not say that the universe was eternal), special pleading (inserting an intelligent cause over an unintelligent one), lie (we don't actually know if the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. It is simply as far back as it is physically possible to see, as the conditions beforehand are impossible to calculate), straw man (Big Bang does not entail creation, see above comment), appeal to authority (Hoyle), false analogy ("out of nothing nothing comes" does not apply without a law of causality, which cannot exist without time, and there was no time before the universe), lie (virtual particles are something that comes from nothing), circular logic (whence comes God?), self-contradiction (there can be no creation without causality, and therefore no cause for the universe).

Mmkay, stopped there, as it's just the argument from creation. It's bollocks. It's self-contradictory. It's riddled with fallacies. It takes a number of false premises.
In short, LOL. Come back when you actually have something.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2010, 08:03 PM
 
RE: No Such Thing as an Atheist
You just proved my point that you are classic agnostic debater, ill prepared, afraid of the truth. People of this forum, look at my original post, I said there was no such as an atheist. I proved Historical data, Biblical data, and before you scream circular logic, The Smithsonian's department of Anthropology says this about the Bible "Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed." They are not exactly a Christian organization.

The idea of evolution-I said in a nutshell, that it was statistically impossible. He comes back with "how were the odds created" etc. Why don't you prove that it is statistically possible to evolve into what we are today? How about looking up the Miller-Urey Criticism by even bringing that up one experiment up you committed fallacy of the crucial experiment, even if you grant Miller-Urey, where did the stuff that started life come from? And don't give me some BS argument tell me where it came from. What are the odds of EVERYTHING evolving into what we are today. If you were honest you would look at both sides, which you haven't.

Does this sound like Unbeliever? Me-The sky is blue! Him-no it's not.(argument from dismissal) Me-yes it is. Him-No its not.(argument Ad Nauseam) Me-People everywhere believe the sky is blue. Him-The sky is not always blue, I look up now and it is gray (exception that proves the rule) Me-Yes it because of Rayleigh scattering,in the atmosphere the color blue is scattered much more efficiently than the other colors. Him-Fallacy Of The Crucial Experiment.

The above, can go on forever Ad Nauseam. Because most people are not educated in fallacious arguments he can throw them out and he sounds smart. I call it the five percent rule, if someone knows five percent more than you, you don't know how much more they know, they just no more. Same with him, he logs onto a website gets some arguments, throws them and thinks he sounds smart.

I said watch the videos to see who was better equipped, provided better arguments etc. I said forget your position and watch the debate. If you never made it past the first few minutes, you never saw the agnostics poorly run debate.

Major religions, I already quoted the Qu'ran. Hindu's-The Hindu literature known as the Bhavishya Maha Purana contains some ten verses indicating that Jesus was in India/Kashmir during the reign of King Shalivahan, which has been placed within 39 to 50 C.E. Gandhi-Gandhi once said,
"During many years of my life I considered Jesus of Nazareth a
great Master, perhaps the strongest the world has ever known...
I can say that Jesus holds a special place in my heart as a
teacher who has exerted a considerable influence on my life". Dr Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan says (1888-1975 says "Every event in the life of Christ, because he is born of the Spirit, is to be seen as a universal-symbolic stage
of spiritual life; Christhood is the state of glorious interior illumination in which divine wisdom has become heritage of the soul". and many others.

Islam is number two behind Christianity and Hinduism is three.

And again you proved my point about you, your quote "They do not acknowledge him. You are lying through your teeth". I just showed you that the Islam and Hindu's acknowledge him. " I said "acknowledge" that he existed, nothing to do with him being the Son of God.

How about this one... You need to prove there is no God to call yourself an atheist. This is different from the usual, the burden of proof is on the theist to prove there is a God.
Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2010, 08:57 PM
RE: No Such Thing as an Atheist
(25-02-2010 08:03 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  You just proved my point that you are classic agnostic debater, ill prepared, afraid of the truth.

Either present your evidence or go away.

Quote:People of this forum, look at my original post, I said there was no such as an atheist.

I am an atheist. You have been proven wrong by example of contradiction.

Quote:I proved Historical data, Biblical data, and before you scream circular logic

Because it is. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.

Quote:The Smithsonian's department of Anthropology says this about the Bible "Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed."

Source? And in any case, even if they do say this, appeal to authority fallacy doesn't exactly help your argument.

Quote:The idea of evolution-I said in a nutshell, that it was statistically impossible. He comes back with "how were the odds created" etc.

And you completely and utterly failed to prove that your calculations were legitimate.

Quote:Why don't you prove that it is statistically possible to evolve into what we are today?

Why don't you go and debunk all the evidence for evolution that we have? Look at the fossil record. Look at the DNA evidence. Look at the dating. Look at the known and observed examples of speciation.
We know that evolution happens. We have seen it happen. If you want to disprove it, you have quite a job ahead of you.
In any case, you are committing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Quote:How about looking up the Miller-Urey Criticism by even bringing that up one experiment up you committed fallacy of the crucial experiment

What, so peer-reviewed, verified, repeated experiments aren't valid evidence now? Rolleyes[/b]

Quote:even if you grant Miller-Urey, where did the stuff that started life come from? And don't give me some BS argument tell me where it came from.

Chemicals. Many of the chemicals necessary to start life are confirmed to have existed on early Earth. Also, it has been confirmed that many asteroids contain left-handed amino acids and other chemicals, and the early Earth was constantly under asteroid bombardment.

Quote:What are the odds of EVERYTHING evolving into what we are today.

Actually, they're practically guaranteed.
What you are doing is called the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. It is the equivalent of shooting at the side of a barn, then pointing to the bullet hold and shouting "what are the odds it would hit that spot, eh?"
Even granting your argument that the odds against life forming are astronomical, we have billions of billions of billions of planets in the universe which are potential life-holders. Out of all of those, even with the incredibly remote odds you describe, it is practically guaranteed that at least one planet would form life.

Quote:If you were honest you would look at both sides, which you haven't.

Yes, I have. That's why I'm an atheist.

Quote:Does this sound like Unbeliever? <snip bull>

The above, can go on forever Ad Nauseam. Because most people are not educated in fallacious arguments he can throw them out and he sounds smart.

You may not like it, martinb59, but every single objection I have raised against you is entirely valid. If it's so obvious to anyone with an education in fallacies that I am BSing, let's educate the others.

Here: a link to a list of the logical fallacies.

Quote:I call it the five percent rule, if someone knows five percent more than you, you don't know how much more they know, they just no more. Same with him, he logs onto a website gets some arguments, throws them and thinks he sounds smart.

I would post the irony picture again, but... y'know... it'd probably count as spamming.

Quote:I said watch the videos to see who was better equipped, provided better arguments etc. I said forget your position and watch the debate.

And I did.

Quote:If you never made it past the first few minutes, you never saw the agnostics poorly run debate.

*shrugs*

Honestly, I don't give a crap what the atheist's argument was. He's not me, and his argument is not necessarily mine. What I know is that the theist completely and utterly failed to make a single valid point during his entire argument.

Quote:Major religions, I already quoted the Qu'ran. Hindu's-The Hindu literature known as the Bhavishya Maha Purana contains some ten verses indicating that Jesus was in India/Kashmir during the reign of King Shalivahan, which has been placed within 39 to 50 C.E.

You mean this passage?

You'll note that the man mentioned does not say his name is Jesus Christ. He is called Isha Putra, which means "the son of god". Having not studied Hinduism, I can see where you became confused. Virgin births are a common theme in Hindu mythology when the children are of godly heritage. This man also doesn't claim to know the Jews, and his remark about there being "no rules and regulations" indicates that he did not know them: the Romans were in strict control.
Even if this is a reference to Jesus, it isn't proof of his existence, as the document has been dated to well after his alleged death and resurrection. Religions often borrow from one another.

Quote:Gandhi-Gandhi once said,
"During many years of my life I considered Jesus of Nazareth a
great Master, perhaps the strongest the world has ever known...
I can say that Jesus holds a special place in my heart as a
teacher who has exerted a considerable influence on my life".

Doesn't say that he believed him to be divine.

Quote:Dr Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan says (1888-1975 says "Every event in the life of Christ, because he is born of the Spirit, is to be seen as a universal-symbolic stage
of spiritual life; Christhood is the state of glorious interior illumination in which divine wisdom has become heritage of the soul".

Radhakrishnan dedicated his life to an attempted reconciliation of western and eastern religions. He was not a strict Hindu.
And your quotes don't help you. We are discussing the religion of Hinduism as a whole, not what each of its members believe. There are Jews who believe in the divinity of Jesus despite the fact that he is not confirmed as divine in their book. The only piece you have that supports you in the slightest is your snippet from the book, and even that connection is highly dubious.

Quote:And again you proved my point about you, your quote "They do not acknowledge him. You are lying through your teeth". I just showed you that the Islam and Hindu's acknowledge him. " I said "acknowledge" that he existed, nothing to do with him being the Son of God.

Okay, fine. If you just want to say that other religions give nods to him, go ahead, but it doesn't help your case. The Bible mentions Moses, after all, but do we take that as confirmation of the Jewish faith?
Merely being mentioned does nothing to help you. The other religions are every bit as unconfirmed.

Quote:How about this one... You need to prove there is no God to call yourself an atheist.

No, you don't.

Quote:This is different from the usual, the burden of proof is on the theist to prove there is a God.

If only the rules of logic bent themselves simply because you wished it. Wouldn't the world be great?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2010, 09:12 PM
 
RE: No Such Thing as an Atheist
martinb,

I did the research and, yes, the Hindu text does mention a guy named Issa Masih. But, the text I read also says that Jesus would have survived the crucifixion and travelled to India afterwards (aside from other purported locales).

If that is the case, then Jesus was NOT resurrected, which means he didn't 'die' for anyone's sins, did not ascend bodily into heaven. Some Atheists do not argue the existence of Jesus the 'man' (even Hitchens admits that he may have existed as a man) but NONE of the miracles he supposedly performed were real.

That doesn't make him divine. I can go about saying the same things Jesus had apparently said (I teach my own kids to love others, to respect their elders, etc. etc.) Would that make me a 'man of god'?

The fact that NONE of the things I listed above about Jesus would have happened if he survived the crucifixion defines, by default, that there is NO GOD.

Although, there is one perplexing thing though in the Hindu text...

Although he could have hidden his wounds, why did the text not mention anything about the holes in his hands where the soldiers drove spikes through them? Either a) that didn't happen or b) the writer of the Hindu text wasn't an eye witness (took the words exchanged during the meeting between Jesus and the King after the fact), which would, frankly, reduce its credibility).

One final point...

If a well-enough structured rumour started circulating in the world today, most people would take it verbatim. You are guilty of this and so am I. We tend to add our own biases and 'wishes' to those rumours, which skew the story from its original form. And this is us, who have evolved 2000 years from when all the Jesus stuff apparently happened.

Seeing how people were far more gullible back then, would you admit then that the simplest story could have become one of the most exaggerated of all time? When I was a child, my mother would tell me religious stories (like the tower of babel), and i would listen with amazement. Looking at the story nowadays, THROUGH THE EYES OF REASON, it is the most ridiculous tales in the world (I would have an easier time believing the story of Little Red Riding Hood, well except for the talking wolf part).

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable."I

am an Atheist because I don't have enough evidence to believe that a god does or ever did exist. I don't believe in a god or any gods. That makes me an A-theist...not an agnostic. There is too much evidence that science has uncovered that has led me to the determination that this human species, this world, and the universe came about through natural processes that, although we don't fully understand, do exist and are always working to mold the universe into what we see, feel, hear, smell and taste every day.

Before you ask me for the 'evidence', here are the concepts that I believe in:

1. The beginning of our universe - big bang theory, string theory, possible steady-state theory (no one knows for sure, but we will know one day...IT WASN'T GOD).

2. The beginning and evolution of life - abiogenesis, evolution by natural selection.

3. Everyday occurances that are 'unexplained' - shit happens, coincidence, not a DIVINE GUIDING HAND.

Finally, it is hard for me to understand what an omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supreme being, who can supposedly do what he wants, when he wants, and how...would want with this lowly planet which, even from the distance of Neptune, is nothing but a dust particle...

I think theists (which, yes, I classify you under that title) have daddy issues and, just so you feel good about yourselves and all the shit you do day in and day out, you believe in a giant sky fairy who will grant you eternity for being nice little sheep.

It is better to be true to yourself than to live a lie.
Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2010, 09:14 PM
RE: No Such Thing as an Atheist
Thank you, supermanlives. Like Nahuel, you have just proven yourself to be better at dealing with history than I.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: