(May 27, 2014 at 6:03 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote:

(May 26, 2014 at 9:57 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: The answer is rational humanism.

Can something create itself?

is that rational?

think about it..

This is a nonsensical truism. Are you talking about God creating itself from nothing, or the universe arising from something else (we don't know what)?

(May 27, 2014 at 6:03 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: Can something create itself?

is that rational?

think about it..

Not apparently so, but if we were to discover reasons how entities in nature, from particles to a Universe, might do that, then it would no longer be irrational, it would just be difficult to understand.

Christians: Why do Adam and Eve have belly buttons?
Muslims: Isn't Allah really just Yahweh?
Mormons: Do you even know that Joseph Smith was a known con man?
Scientologists: Do you even know that L. Ron Hubbard made a bet that he could make a religion?
Deists: Isn't your idea of god a cruel and negligent one?
Pantheists: If everything is divine or god, then what isn't divine and how can you tell what is and isn't?
Panpsychists: Are atoms themself minds?

(May 23, 2014 at 6:49 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: One of the many nails in the coffin of the Abrahmaic religions is this.

The omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe has the most important message, ever, to communicate to his loved creation. He allegedly really wants us to join him, so he has every reason to make sure we know the truth. He has any method he wants at his disposal to make sure this vital message is communicated, and every reason to want it to be communicated.

So how does he do this?

He appears to one of the most illiterate, barbarian tribes on the planet, talks to a few of them directly. They then wait for centuries (in the case of the OT) to record any of it. And they do it in ancient languages, that he should know would die out, would be edited, mistranslated, subject to copy errors, and manipulation by the powerful.

Anyone here could think of better ways to communicate this vital message.

Titanium plates, stored in a way to preserve their message, in every language spoken or will be spoken (he should know this), would be way better than what allegedly happened. I'm just a human and even I can think of a better way. But again, this is a god that could not defeat a tribe because they used Iron Chariots. So, he's not that Omnipotent.

But no, what we actually have is a set of texts that look an awful lot like every other mythology. And much of it borrowed from Ugarit mythology written about 1000 years before the Bible.

And Christians wonder why we're not impressed with their tiny, tribal, war god.

I like this so much I quoted it in full thanks

(May 24, 2014 at 5:26 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: Just the words :"I now truly believe" that will shut them up and checkmate any Christian.

I now truly believe in doubt.

---

(May 25, 2014 at 12:17 am)mralstoner Wrote: According to Dr. Peter Boghossian, author of A Manual for Creating Atheists, don't bother going for the checkmate. Rather, your aim is to move the person one step at a time away from their faith.

I'm not sure I like all this evangelism. It has nothing to do with atheism per se, and doesn't seem very humanistic, either. Is it motivated by anti-theism (I don't believe in God and you shouldn't either!)?

Besides, the churches and mosques are doing a wonderful job of the initial task moving people a step away from their faith. That's the typical path from religious to atheist: Leave place of worship over the hypocrisy or whatever. Discover you can get along just fine without the institution. Faith gradually erodes. Winds up atheist.

I know it would have been much more difficult for me to stop believing in God if I'd stayed in church getting my faith reinforced and being subjected to pressure to believe all the time.

So the religious are doing their part by driving young people away. Letting nature take its course should suffice to generate significant numbers for us. I'm not sure I even want us to be a majority. I haven't been to impressed with how people act when they know they're in the majority. A large minority, like 20-40% of the population would be fine with me.

---

(May 25, 2014 at 11:40 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: I hear this general story from fellow atheists all the time and it reeks of the same strain of bullshit as those atheist-turned-Christian stories, because it paints a picture of people and how they usually change more fundamental beliefs about the world that is very against the grain. Sure, it happens sometimes, but this sort of thing certainly does not happen nearly as often as fellow internet atheists like to pretend (especially in cases where the reasoning they present is less rationally sound than they seem to realize).

Have you considered that atheists may be different from believers and that's why our stories are different from theirs? No doubt someone raised atheist is largely atheist for the same reason people raised Muslim are Muslim, but someone who deconverts in an overwhelmingly theist-positive society may have distinctive personality traits. Against the grain is kinda our thing.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/scienceonre...y-profile/

---

(May 27, 2014 at 6:03 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote:

(May 26, 2014 at 9:57 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: The answer is rational humanism.

Can something create itself?

Did anyone here claim that something can create itself?

(May 27, 2014 at 6:03 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: is that rational?

Are nonsequiturs?

(May 27, 2014 at 6:03 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: think about it..

Generally speaking, it's thinking that makes someone an atheist. You should try it yourself.

for every checkmate argument made by atheists there is another for theists, like the 5 proofs of the existence of a god by Aquinas

(May 29, 2014 at 9:46 pm)theist101 Wrote: for every checkmate argument made by atheists there is another for theists, like the 5 proofs of the existence of a god by Aquinas

Nice thread derail, however, this really should be discussed in a new thread.

1. Circular argument
2. Circular argument
3. "Proofs" by logic are not facts, assumes infinite regress can't occur
4. Argument from ignorance, no examples of perfection exist
5. Argument from ignorance, circular

(May 23, 2014 at 6:49 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: One of the many nails in the coffin of the Abrahmaic religions is this.

The omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe has the most important message, ever, to communicate to his loved creation. He allegedly really wants us to join him, so he has every reason to make sure we know the truth. He has any method he wants at his disposal to make sure this vital message is communicated, and every reason to want it to be communicated.

So how does he do this?

He appears to one of the most illiterate, barbarian tribes on the planet, talks to a few of them directly. They then wait for centuries (in the case of the OT) to record any of it. And they do it in ancient languages, that he should know would die out, would be edited, mistranslated, subject to copy errors, and manipulation by the powerful.

Anyone here could think of better ways to communicate this vital message.

Titanium plates, stored in a way to preserve their message, in every language spoken or will be spoken (he should know this), would be way better than what allegedly happened. I'm just a human and even I can think of a better way. But again, this is a god that could not defeat a tribe because they used Iron Chariots. So, he's not that Omnipotent.

But no, what we actually have is a set of texts that look an awful lot like every other mythology. And much of it borrowed from Ugarit mythology written about 1000 years before the Bible.

And Christians wonder why we're not impressed with their tiny, tribal, war god.

I don't agree with the idea that saying that there is a better way is sufficient evidence for a religion to be bogus. Why should anyone care how it's told? What matters is it was told.

(May 29, 2014 at 9:50 pm)theist101 Wrote: I don't agree with the idea that saying that there is a better way is sufficient evidence for a religion to be bogus. Why should anyone care how it's told? What matters is it was told.

There is no concrete evidence that it was even "told".

Why's that?