RE: We can be certain of NO resurrection - A Response
October 1, 2015 at 6:54 pm
(This post was last modified: October 1, 2015 at 6:58 pm by TheRocketSurgeon.)
Where? Okay, a couple of examples:
This implies that we cannot or should not have community, without it being "a problem", but that it's not a problem for Christians because you're "one community", which is demonstrably untrue... and which was recently demonstrated for us when another Christian's argument was mistaken for one of ours.
Your entire argument was predisposed to the conclusion that we have no basis for morality as atheists.
And I don't think I've ever seen anyone misstate one of your Christian beliefs/positions, other than quibbles over wording. We evaluate evidence as it comes to us-- not without bias, a thing of which no one is totally free, but with an eye to eliminating that bias as much as possible. We hold no conclusions as automatically true, and often change our minds, which is part of why we argue with one another so often and so fiercely. When someone (including one of us) posts something that is demonstrably untrue, we call them on it. If they persist in the face of better evidence, or continue to rely on debunked evidence, we're likely to call them a moron.
*sigh*
Hope, I suppose.
(October 1, 2015 at 6:27 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:(October 1, 2015 at 9:03 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: "Support group" makes it sound like we're alcoholics! Heh.
Yes, it's a community for us. If you call this a "support group", then so are your church services and socials.
Of course. This is not a problem for believers. We know we need community. We are one body.
This implies that we cannot or should not have community, without it being "a problem", but that it's not a problem for Christians because you're "one community", which is demonstrably untrue... and which was recently demonstrated for us when another Christian's argument was mistaken for one of ours.
(September 22, 2015 at 5:31 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:(September 22, 2015 at 5:19 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: The question I would seriously like to see answered is why it's so hard for people who pull the "Stalin was an atheist mass murderer!" trope out to stop, look at the responses, and go,
"Okay, I guess that's a fair point, that he wasn't killing because of his atheism but because he was silencing anyone who stood in the way of his power or who was perceived as a threat to it, like tyrants have done throughout history."
They just go right on believing that when the Conquistadors committed mass murder, it wasn't because they were Christians but because they were power- and wealth-hungry sociopaths... yet when atheist power- and wealth-hungry sociopaths do it, IT'S BECAUSE THEY WERE ATHEISTS! Aaaaaaaaah! Evil atheists!! Aaaaaaaah!
The reason the connection between atheism and Stalin or Pol Pot is so obvious is because what they did is a natural result of what they believed.
Human life is of no real value if natural selection means that only the strong survive or that less desirable elements of our society - like the Jews, the Poles, the Blacks, the mentally handicapped, etc. (cf. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood) - should be eliminated.
And despite the attempts to find a Christian parallel from some dusty period of history, there simply aren't isn't anything like the murder committed under atheist communist regimes in the supposedly enlightened modern era.
So much for mankind evolving into a better and better version of itself.
Your entire argument was predisposed to the conclusion that we have no basis for morality as atheists.
And I don't think I've ever seen anyone misstate one of your Christian beliefs/positions, other than quibbles over wording. We evaluate evidence as it comes to us-- not without bias, a thing of which no one is totally free, but with an eye to eliminating that bias as much as possible. We hold no conclusions as automatically true, and often change our minds, which is part of why we argue with one another so often and so fiercely. When someone (including one of us) posts something that is demonstrably untrue, we call them on it. If they persist in the face of better evidence, or continue to rely on debunked evidence, we're likely to call them a moron.
(October 1, 2015 at 6:39 pm)abaris Wrote: Why do you even bother, Rocket?
*sigh*
Hope, I suppose.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
