Atheists - why?

Post Reply New Topic

No reliable source whatsoever.

Typical of conspiracy theorists.

One thing to keep in mind here in PPR is the fact many/most people asking those kinds of questions are not seeking answers for any reason other than to then just tear into them ... and then, of course, they expect the rest of us to believe they are actually doing so with ...

Ah, never mind. Anything I might say there will just also get mutilated beyond all recognition ... and then now for saying what I just have, I might next get accused of hiding something -- -- or just running off into some corner and thereby allegedly admitting ...

Ah, never mind!

Truly, thought, you make many good points any true seekers can already read for themselves without need of further comment anyway.

Personally, however, here is one that caught my own eye:


Yes, and then we have this ...

"Pure religion and vndefiled before God and the Father, is this, to visit the fatherlesse and widowes in their affliction, and to keepe himselfe vnspotted from the world." (KJV, 1611)

So simple, and yet so costly, eh?!

Ok.. I was going to leave this alone... but, I just can't. How can Jesus be called human if he was in fact a demigod? Sure, human body, but half of his DNA was either Divine... or missing, or he was the product of asexual reproduction.. but that can't be possible any more than half of his DNA missing can be possible... so, if you go with the idea that he was the Christ... then he was anything but human. Therefore, his being perfect and sinless are meaningless because he was already Divine.

????

The Bible works in mysterious ways, many of which illogical

whatever.

If he in fact was/is a "demigod" or whatever, I would personally have to stop calling him human ... and yes, I meant to say what you just heard. As best I can tell, and in spite of all the many extrapolations of Scripture being spread around over these past 2000-or-so years, I see no conflict with the thought of "the son of the living Elohim" being just as mortal as you and me.


I have never before ever heard anyone present that in such pure and simple logic, and you just caused me to have a great belly laugh!

You got it: Too many bats in too many belfries getting caught between far too many rafters.

Last edited by leejosepho on 12 May 2011, 10:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Don't whatever me. Why not do some research and see for yourself if those claims are really supported by the mythologies themselves?

Why do you think most scholars don't believe this nonsense that many lay seculars believe?

You ain't a Christian; you have nothing to lose. Do the proper research needed.

These are the conflicts I see:
1) We're supposedly all God's children, but for some reason God had to be explicitly involved in the Christ's conception. Therefore, he would not be the same as you and I.
2) There is some half-assed concept that this had to be a miracle birth in order to give the Christ some sort of authority as the "Son of God" to "die for our sins", yet there is this defies the premise that he was he perfect human sacrifice.
3) If you assume that the royal "we"s and "us"s throughout the Bible refer to the Holy Trinity crap, then the Christ was "part" of God before his conception, before his death, and before his resurrection. Therefore, his "divinity" shouldn't be in question.

The Christ, whether Jesus or not, would not -in theory- be human.
(Where is Rho at a time like this to explain that the Bible's ideologies aren't contrdictory?!?!)

I am still pretty skeptical to the conjunction Christianity *is* true and the trinity within Christian theology is untrue. As I've stated, it seems to me that God would have had to do a poor job with the church to cause all of orthodoxy to go off of the rails.


I am not sure that John Glenn believes X therefore I ought to really works. After all, there are lots of individuals with perspectives on the universe that you and I do not have, but who come to various conclusions. I mean, there are tons of people with great perspectives who militate various directions, however, I don't see this as powerful.

In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if patterns repeat themselves as a matter of informational economy in many places. As a pattern allows you to specify an order without specifying every exact detail. This is why patterns are studied in mathematics.


Is it always remarkable though? I mean, if we didn't heal, we might very well die. However, the way the body heals isn't always that brilliant. For instance, one of the major issues with a coma is how the body is suffocating the brain during that coma. Even further, even though the brain is incredible, the fact that it is poorly designed in many ways is also notable. It is prone to self-deception. It is prone to failures of memory that never occur in our basic computers. It is prone to push us to make poor decisions even though this makes little sense, such as the struggle we all have not to eat that tub of ice-cream. If it were designed differently, the very notion of the struggle would likely be non-existent. And given that these issues are so deeply structural, we can't even appeal to the Edenic Fall as an explanation for these failings. Yet, the existence of these failings is good reason to question the existence of God, as God *never* had to accept any of them.

As it stands as well, I am not sure that aesthetics really seems a solid proof to me. Taste issues are very basic, as taste always favors the unhealthy(which used to be the healthy), we used to need lots of salt, lots of energy, etc, and so taste was a great guide to that, but.... taste is not adaptive like it could be, and taste is one of the big driving factors for y'know, obesity. For the others, I think it makes more sense to say that it's a result of the kluges of the mind, after all, there is little reason to say that a designer is the best explanation, as why not have tactile "art", or something else as equally common? I mean... tactile "art" is possible, it's easily maintained, and if God is all about aesthetics, then he could easily create a being just as motivated to that as the others, BUT... we don't see very much of this(aside from a few things like our love of fuzzy animals and a few out there artists) which.... kind of suggests God as a gap-filler in knowledge to me.


....... evolution is true. I am not really interested in arguing this point at the moment, but... the simple issue is that common traits are so much a matter of biological study and knowledge, and the change in fossils over time, and all of this stuff, is so big, that nobody reasonably denies this in the scientific community at this point. Going this direction... just isn't even tenable.

Even further, modern science DOESN'T agree with the order. Birds came into existence AFTER land animals. The Biblical order has birds coming into existence BEFORE land animals. This is a factual disagreement in order.


We weren't made from dirt. Instead the "primordial soup" is in reference to early earth conditions, which... were dramatically different than that, and actually had creatures develop in the water, which was full of various chemicals.

I consider the use of God as an explanatory matter for abiogenesis to be relatively ad hoc. It's a God of the gaps kind of explanation.

I know about abiogenesis used to be common, however, early earth abiogenesis is an entirely different notion than the spontaneous generation idea. Abiogenesis refers to the creation of cells/proto-cells that allowed evolution to occur. Spontaneous generation is the idea of multicelled organisms growing out of meat.


Ventriloquism???? First of all, that's not in the Bible. Second of all..... if this is a rationalization of the Bible, either you're wantonly violating the text, or this is entirely ad hoc, as the talking snake isn't alone in uncredible statements.

And of course, why does this make sense? If God is this all-knowing and all-powerful being, or even anywhere close, then how could a usurper even have the idea without being a complete moron? Why wouldn't God even correct such a moron before the being went on the disastrous path? I don't think this is plausible.


Where do you get the idea that other myths are derived from the Bible's story of Genesis. Just curious, as I see little reason to assign Greek heroes a role in expressing Biblical prophecy.


I don't know what exactly you are rebutting though, as God's creatorship has very little to do with my actual argument. The entire focus on this is a deflection, as unless you are saying that God's goodness is really a meaningless term, or that despite all claims to the contrary, none of these variables have any relationship to real ones(like God actually isn't love for instance), this doesn't actually help anything. Either God is loving, good in a sense that expresses meaning, and so on, or he isn't. If he isn't then.... a lot of theology is flat-out wrong.


How does Jesus prove this? You made an assertion about proof, but it doesn't match anything really in the text about the importance of Christ's blood. Nor does Christ's death on the cross really prove that Eve's way was worse, after all, Eve didn't die on a cross.

Finally, why does God's name even have to be vindicated? Who is credibly accusing it? If nobody is, then there's no reason to try to vindicate it. If somebody is, then there's got to b ea real concern.


And that undermines the earlier attempt to use creatorship to blunt the problem of evil. If God loves us, then there is a real issue.

Even further, you really haven't shown that God showing his almightiness or his love is best done by KILLING LOADS AND LOADS OF PEOPLE! The idea of this is just ridiculous. It's on the level of reductio ad absurdum. Seriously, if we weren't talking about the sky-fairy, the idea would be dismissed and dead on that ground alone.


Then why not do this sooner, so that way LESS of the people who have to be destroyed exist? I mean, the longer God waits, the more people destroyed there will likely be, simply because of the existence of more people. The world's population is increasing over time, and humanity is still persisting... so the problem isn't getting solved. Even further.... is this even a credible response? You say that this is a possibility, but no critic is obliged to say that this stubbornness is likely actual, or that this method of doing things is likely the most effective way. I think it's silly.


So, scripture, without evidence or ANYTHING that really follows our best epistemic practices, should be considered evidence enough????? There is nothing to consider here. You're not actually presenting an honest idea, but a strange set of apologetics to help you avoid ever coming into contact with critical thinking or truth. If this is a good argument, then it would rest on itself, not rest on my stubborn-headedness about it.


If knowledge requires truth, then you don't know it to be true. If knowledge requires justification in belief.... you haven't even persuaded me that much of that. I mean, a lot of what you present is a generic theistic argument(and put together in its non-deductive formulation, which reduces credibility for some of it), and thus can't help you establish the truth of Christianity. Most of the rest.... just isn't actually evidence for Christianity. You've attempted to REBUT an argument against Christianity, but I don't think you've even succeeded at that, and you don't actually have an argument FOR your favored belief if you really look at it. So.... I don't really think any of us ought to accept what is written.

@BurntOutMom: Assuming you already know the words "Christ" and "Messiah" are the same ...

You are absolutely correct, and that is reason number two for ditching "trinity".

Reason number one is the simple fact of Yahuah being One, of course, and there are people who say Yahuah, Himself, is the Messiah to come.

Yes, I am aware that "Christ" and "Messiah"are the same thing... That is specifically why I referred to him as "the Christ", and not as Jesus... Jesus is the name of a man, Christ/Messiah the role he is thought by some to have played. By substituting words in my statement you prove outright that you know what I meant, so I don't understand the need to reword my statement.

And... though I agree that, in the way I would interpret the texts, there is no substantiation for the trinity, when delving into religious texts there is no such thing as "simple facts".

I have a personal aversion to the word "Christ" and never use it, and I apologize if it seemed I might in any way be correcting you or whatever.

If I understand correctly, "Messiah" and/or "Christ" can simply mean "Anointed One", and that means there are many "Messiahs" mentioned in Scripture even if not literally mentioned in that specific way. And then, of course, and as you might already know, there are "types and shadows" throughout ... and that leaves someone like Moses fittingly called a "Messiah". But then within Christianity, of course, the word "Christ" seems quite-often mis-perceived as actually being some kind of holy (set apart) surname to be exclusively attached to "Jesus" ... and there is another reason I typically "refuse", as such, to use that word.


Noted!

And oh, have you ever heard anyone say "Damn" is not "God's" last name?!

Well, I mean... seriously, like we're making up this convoluted story just because the scripture makes little sense. So... I mean, seriously, it's just kind of silly.

Yeah, that is certainly the first time I had ever heard that one!

I wish there was ventriloquism in the Bible. I'm sure it would be much more lively! The Ventriloquism Apocalypse doesn't sound so ominous, and the Ventriloquism Rapture brings to mind all the Christians 'Rapture' involving transporting them to some kind of crazy nether world where they are all ventriloquist puppets, fully conscious and being animated by the extraterrestrial reptilian shapeshifter masters who had been lying to us all, all along