Anti-Christianity Thread

[kal-el]

Also a study in Social Sciences will show that Atheism is not the 'default' of a human being. All societies around the world have believed in a Deity or Deities. You would do well to look into that and maybe change the idea. They didn't come up with separate Deity ideas against their very nature and 'default setting' of Atheist. It is within human nature to believe in a Deity. There are even Psychological studies on the effect. Your idea of a 'default setting' of atheism flies directly into the face of modern scientific study, and rational thought.

Some of those studies for you:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4351726,00.html

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/31/1728_77081

Very well, I'm going to have to contact the author(s) of the forementioned sites, and make them aware of the lies on their sites. Atheism is the default position. Everyone was an atheist when they were born, some as they aged, became "brainwashed" or "indoctrinated" tio believe certain things. And a youngster dosen't have a strong sense of denial.

 

[kal-el]

The fact is God lives. Anyone who says otherwise is ignoring everything in the universe. Because all things testify that there is a God.

That's quite an extraordinary claim. Let me guess, you have extraordinary evidence for this?

 

[kal-el]

you are my sky pixie

Hey, whatever floats your boat, man.

 

[kal-el]

Anyone who would disbelieve in God, or the God of the Bible simply because those stories are toooo unbelievable to be true, are not being honest at all, or are absolutely, stark raving stupid.

Why? I would think anybody who would take these fairy stories literally, would be ignorant and flat-out dumb.

What they would believe instead is that a being powerful enough to create trillions and trillions of stars, couldnt make a virgin pregnant, yet our doctors can. Couldnt part the Red sea, yet we could. Couldnt flood the earth and keep Noah and his alive.

Who bestowed you with the authority to judge others? You believe donkey's talk? There were giants on earth? A house can have leprosy? The earth is flat? That some winged creatures go on all 4's? And god loses a wrestling match?

yea, right,,,,I can drive a car 140 on a freeway, but I wouldnt be able to handle a go kart at the local kiddie palace.

What? Who said this? You are not making complete sense here.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Your blatant lack of fundamental conceptions non withstanding. If there exists so much evidence disproving Santa and the tooth fairy, I'm sure you won't mind enlightening me?!

Now, trying to enlighten someone as billiant as you, is a difficult, if not impossible task, would you not agree? Especially for someone as dimwitted as No one 2vote4

Why not? Everything that exists leaves some trace of evidence as it's existence. Look believing that a god exists, and knowing that a god exists are 2 totally different things. Some people can believe in a sky pixie without knowing he exists, and someone does not need to believe in a god if they know that a god exists, hence knowledge is more than suffiecient here.!

Thats a rather circular arguement. If something does exist that hasnt left a trace of its existence, how would we know it exists?

I guess if one spends their time reading fairy stories, totally illogical acts portray themselves as direct evidence.!

Glad you called that a guess, cuz it certainly isnt logical or reasonable thinking.

Yes, they might actually believe this, but by proclaiming that they "believe this", they made an obligation to present proof of this.!

Says who?

Maybe so, because they are too entangled in their religious cacoon's to open the eye of reason.!

Me oh my, for such an enlightened person, you sure are quick (erroneously so) to judge.

Listen, once they say "God exists" they are under an obligation to prove it. Some assertions are not under such obligations, but when people assert that their beliefs carry validity, they have entered their beliefs into the realm of "Burden of proof", hece must defend them.!

WHy is that? Many of us like to discuss the existence of God, its proofs or lack of. You are free to leave the discussion any time.

Right, but you must also say the same about the theists who attempt to convert atheists. IMO it is rather asinine to attempt to convert without any evidence whatsoever, a simple photograph will do, but no, theists won't introduce me to their sky man!

Using No1tovote4's reasoning, you would be obligated to provide "personal experience" as a reason to not believe and try to get others to do so also.

 

[no1tovote4]

Very well, I'm going to have to contact the author(s) of the forementioned sites, and make them aware of the lies on their sites. Atheism is the default position. Everyone was an atheist when they were born, some as they aged, became "brainwashed" or "indoctrinated" tio believe certain things. And a youngster dosen't have a strong sense of denial.

This is simply your opinion and the result of current scientific research is directly against such a claim. You have no evidence but your supposition to this 'default state' while evidence to the contrary is abundant. Contacting the authors of the studies won't change the results of their study.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Very well, I'm going to have to contact the author(s) of the forementioned sites, and make them aware of the lies on their sites. Atheism is the default position. Everyone was an atheist when they were born, some as they aged, became "brainwashed" or "indoctrinated" tio believe certain things. And a youngster dosen't have a strong sense of denial.

So our resident fictional superhero is telling us what to believe in and what not to believe in. If it wasn't for the colossal hubris, it might even be funny.

Btw, why exactly are you here to convince us of the non-existence of God? Why do you care what anyone besides yourself believes? Care to share the real reasons for your crusade? People complain about evangelical Christians, but I have never met a Christian who is anywhere as pushy as atheists like Kally-poo here.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Why? I would think anybody who would take these fairy stories literally, would be ignorant and flat-out dumb.



Who bestowed you with the authority to judge others? You believe donkey's talk? There were giants on earth? A house can have leprosy? The earth is flat? That some winged creatures go on all 4's? And god loses a wrestling match?




What? Who said this? You are not making complete sense here.

Its really simple. If the entity that created a donkey, or the house or the earth, can certainly do all those things. But where does the Bible call the earth flat???

Those feats most certainly wouldnt be fairy tales for a being capable of creating trillions of stars. Any more than landing on the moon would be a fairy tale for modern man, yet the ancients would have scoffed at such a notion.

And you dont ever judge anyone?

 

[no1tovote4]

Using No1tovote4's reasoning, you would be obligated to provide "personal experience" as a reason to not believe and try to get others to do so also.

Garbage, I stated that some would have that personal experience others simply believe in the 'truth' of what they were taught. I made no such assertion that all believers would have such a personal experience nor that they would be obligated to tell you about such an experience.

That you assign statements to me is undeniable, but if you re-read you will see I made no such assertion. This is a logical fallacy called reductio ad absurdum. You take a statement, make it into an absurdity by taking it out of context or assigning meaning not expressed (as you did) then mocking it. It is fallacious because it argues statements that were not made assigning non-existent statements to another.

You make another logical fallacy when you simply state as truth an unproven theory of a 'default setting' that has been shown to be evidently false by current scientific research and insist on its salience to the conversation with no evidence to back it up than your own assertions.

 

[no1tovote4]

Your blatant lack of fundamental conceptions non withstanding. If there exists so much evidence disproving Santa and the tooth fairy, I'm sure you won't mind enlightening me?

Well, Santa has a place where we can look to see him, he isn't there. Of course you can remain married to this argument and you can intend to find evidence of Santa but we all realize the fictional nature of the sky pixie. Much like the fictional character your login ID denotes. If you really need an explanation of fictional characters at this point of your life you are really, really in need of psychological support.

Why not? Everything that exists leaves some trace of evidence as it's existence. Look believing that a god exists, and knowing that a god exists are 2 totally different things. Some people can believe in a sky pixie without knowing he exists, and someone does not need to believe in a god if they know that a god exists, hence knowledge is more than suffiecient here.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of non-existance. This can be seen by the fact of all the things that existed when we had no evidence of them previously. Such as stars that are too dim to see without powerful telescopes. That we had no evidence of their existence did not cause their existence to vanish, it simply meant we had not yet invented the tools that allowed us to see the evidence of their existence.

I guess if one spends their time reading fairy stories, totally illogical acts portray themselves as direct evidence.

Right, much like all the evidence of the Flat World Theory was so true that it was illogical at one point to contend against it. Such fairy tales as an earth shaped like a globe were laughable.

That their personal experience might convince them of a Deity, wouldn't make them less logical any more than science being the only source of logic. It isn't, ask a philosophy professor about that some time. Or even a logic teacher.

Yes, they might actually believe this, but by proclaiming that they "believe this", they made an obligation to present proof of this.

If they claim this then I am sure they would happily tell you that story. They however have no obligation to explain a personal experience to you, you assert an obligation where none exists.

Maybe so, because they are too entangled in their religious cacoon's to open the eye of reason.

Or, like a philosophy professor, they realize that not all logic and reason is a result of science. To assert so is to ignore much evidence to the contrary. Once again, ask a Logic Professor about it he'll set you straight and maybe keep you from some of the more blaring logical fallacies in your argument style.

Listen, once they say "God exists" they are under an obligation to prove it. Some assertions are not under such obligations, but when people assert that their beliefs carry validity, they have entered their beliefs into the realm of "Burden of proof", hece must defend them.

They are not. Nobody is under any obligation to prove anything at all to you. That is your assertion. If you want another to believe how you believe then you are obligated to state why you believe it, but under no circumstance is one obligated to show evidence of a belief unless they want to spread that belief.

Right, but you must also say the same about the theists who attempt to convert atheists. IMO it is rather asinine to attempt to convert without any evidence whatsoever, a simple photograph will do, but no, theists won't introduce me to their sky man!

I do state that same thing, depending on the religion. Some religions like christianity require them to attempt to convert you. Others like mine, Theravada Buddhism if you want to inquire, require you not to. If one is on another path you are to allow them their path, and several times I have stated so to other Buddhists on this site.

That their belief relies on Faith doesn't make it irrational, as I stated many have personal experience, most would happily share them. Some simply believe as they were taught and as they feel. All would assert that Faith is the important aspect. That you have none does not mean theirs is necessarily irrational.

 

[kal-el]

Now, trying to enlighten someone as billiant as you, is a difficult, if not impossible task, would you not agree?

Hey, if there is actual evidence of Santa and the tooth fairy, please present it, or else please retract your silly claims, thanks.

Especially for someone as dimwitted as No one 2vote4

Huh? Who is that? Are you trying to imply something here? If you are, you're not sounding very intelligent.

Thats a rather circular arguement. If something does exist that hasnt left a trace of its existence, how would we know it exists?

Excatly. That's what I would have said, it seems you beat me to the punch. Nothing that exists, hasn't not, not left a trace of evidence; i.e. the dinosaurs (bones), people that lived once (bones, and dental records).

Glad you called that a guess, cuz it certainly isnt logical or reasonable thinking.

What, it isn't true that theists take these stories as fact? Does it make sense that god created plants before he created light?

Says who?

If you proclaim that the Keebler Elves exist, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you be expected to provide some sort of evidence? If not, you would'nt be taken seriously.

Me oh my, for such an enlightened person, you sure are quick (erroneously so) to judge.

Ohh, don't try to turn this around, Jesus clary states in scripture that the same measure you use to judge, will be measured unto you, and you theists continue to disregard your very own Messiah's teachings, WWJD? Not that.

WHy is that? Many of us like to discuss the existence of God, its proofs or lack of. You are free to leave the discussion any time.

Why should I leave? I see, you want me gone because I lack a belief in a supernatural entity, well, sorry to tell ya, but just because I'm the minority, dosen't by any means, indicate I'm wrong here. Don't be such a moron.

Using No1tovote4's reasoning, you would be obligated to provide "personal experience" as a reason to not believe and try to get others to do so also.

That's totally ludicris, not to mention, illogical. One doesn't need to provide proof to not believe. Not believing is the default, it's the person who is asserting the claim, who carries the burden of proof. Once again, your ignorance is duly noted.

 

[kal-el]

This is simply your opinion and the result of current scientific research is directly against such a claim. You have no evidence but your supposition to this 'default state' while evidence to the contrary is abundant. Contacting the authors of the studies won't change the results of their study.

Actaully, theists are indeed atheists also, as they don't believe in any other god, but they're own. Last time i checked, Christians don't believe in Zeus, Ra, or Osiris. http://www.geocities.com/anatheist2001/subdefault.htm

 

[kal-el]

So our resident fictional superhero is telling us what to believe in and what not to believe in. If it wasn't for the colossal hubris, it might even be funny.

Let me clear this silly situation up: I'm not dictating morals to anyone, I'm not telling you to believe anything.

Btw, why exactly are you here to convince us of the non-existence of God?

Uhh, negative. I simply try to inform without actually convincing. And why are you here? Surley it's not to convert non-believer's without any sort of empiracal evidence whatsoever?

Why do you care what anyone besides yourself believes?

I don't persae. But you are under an obligation to prove an assertion you bring to light. Is it wrong to expect that?

Care to share the real reasons for your crusade?

I'm an atheist. I have the right to discuss my lack of beliefs with anyone I see fit. Why do I need to justify myself to you? You do not hold any authority over me.

People complain about evangelical Christians, but I have never met a Christian who is anywhere as pushy as atheists like Kally-poo here.

Then you haven't gotten out much.

 

[manu1959]

Hey, whatever floats your boat, man.

hey sky pixie....do you belive that a man named jesus christ existed?

 

[kal-el]

Its really simple. If the entity that created a donkey, or the house or the earth, can certainly do all those things. But where does the Bible call the earth flat???

Revelations 7:1
After this I saw four angles standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land, or on the sea, or on any tree.

Those feats most certainly wouldnt be fairy tales for a being capable of creating trillions of stars.

The god of the bible is depicted as having emotions, making mistakes, and being limited. Limits are incompatible with an omnipotent being. The god of the bible is considered omnipotent, right? Hence, the god of the bible cannot exist.

Any more than landing on the moon would be a fairy tale for modern man, yet the ancients would have scoffed at such a notion.

That claim is false. Landing on the moon is in our capacity, we have already accomplished this, it's proven. Talking donkey's and virgin births are not. Next argument please.

 

[dilloduck]

The god of the bible is depicted as having emotions, making mistakes, and being limited. Limits are incompatible with an omnipotent being. The god of the bible is considered omnipotent, right? Hence, the god of the bible cannot exist.



That claim is false. Landing on the moon is in our capacity, we have already accomplished this, it's proven. Talking donkey's and virgin births are not. Next argument please.

Who was stronger--supermans' mom or dad ?

 

[kal-el]

Well, Santa has a place where we can look to see him, he isn't there.

Moot point. So does god-heaven; the sky. We fly there everday by plane, noone seen him, we even went to the moon, no sky pixie, our deep-space telescopes can detect distant galaxies, none seen a skydaddy anywhere.

Of course you can remain married to this argument and you can intend to find evidence of Santa but we all realize the fictional nature of the sky pixie. Much like the fictional character your login ID denotes. If you really need an explanation of fictional characters at this point of your life you are really, really in need of psychological support.

I see, so I guess the "hobbit" is fictional. It contains elves, hobbits, etc. What makes the bible any different? Why am I in need of help if I require evidence of fictinal characters that people portray as fact. I think it is they who need help.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of non-existance.

Quote where I said this, or else please stop being dishonest here, thanks.

This can be seen by the fact of all the things that existed when we had no evidence of them previously. Such as stars that are too dim to see without powerful telescopes. That we had no evidence of their existence did not cause their existence to vanish, it simply meant we had not yet invented the tools that allowed us to see the evidence of their existence.

Of course we now know they existed, but at the time, no as there was no evidence that we could comprehend at that time. Thus, your argument is paralyctic at best.

Right, much like all the evidence of the Flat World Theory was so true that it was illogical at one point to contend against it. Such fairy tales as an earth shaped like a globe were laughable.

No shit, Bruno was burned at the stake for saying that there was life on other planets, and I think it was Copernicus, that said the earth was round, it turned out that the minority, Copernicus was right.

That their personal experience might convince them of a Deity, wouldn't make them less logical any more than science being the only source of logic.

Uhh, false, yes it would. The Scientific method, and science as a whole are based on testable evidence, thus the term "hypothesis". When we are talking about faith, believer's check all logic and reason at the door.

If they claim this then I am sure they would happily tell you that story. They however have no obligation to explain a personal experience to you, you assert an obligation where none exists.

Hahaha, dude, I was born at night, but not last night, ok. The burden of proof always falls on the believer not the doubter, or else one could claim any number of thigs:

Flying spaghetti monster exists, jolly green giant exist, leprechaun's exist, etc.

Or, like a philosophy professor, they realize that not all logic and reason is a result of science. To assert so is to ignore much evidence to the contrary. Once again, ask a Logic Professor about it he'll set you straight and maybe keep you from some of the more blaring logical fallacies in your argument style.

Dude, all logic and reason stems from science, technology, and our wits and fortitude. It's a flat-out lie claiming logic=faith

They are not. Nobody is under any obligation to prove anything at all to you.

They are if they make wild, silly, unfounded claims, and I call them on it. If someone said they were abducted by a UFO, would you believe them, or would you want evidence?

That is your assertion.

Nope, you can't let people continuesly make ridiculous, wild, unfounded claims. They must substantiate them, or else look juvenile in the eyes of debaters.

If you want another to believe how you believe then you are obligated to state why you believe it, but under no circumstance is one obligated to show evidence of a belief unless they want to spread that belief.

O, so tiring. Any satement made that proposes something about reality, must be proven.

I do state that same thing, depending on the religion. Some religions like christianity require them to attempt to convert you. Others like mine, Theravada Buddhism if you want to inquire, require you not to. If one is on another path you are to allow them their path, and several times I have stated so to other Buddhists on this site.

I could be wrong, but isn't Buddhism any atheist religion?

That their belief relies on Faith doesn't make it irrational, as I stated many have personal experience, most would happily share them.

Really? Without any hardcore evidence of god's existence, no amount of personal experience will get anyone any closer to supporting their wild claims, that is, unless they have several detailed, eyewitneess testimonials supporting the god myth.

Some simply believe as they were taught and as they feel. All would assert that Faith is the important aspect.

True, but faith is in no way, grounded in reality.

That you have none does not mean theirs is necessarily irrational.

Hey listen, if certain peole wish to believe in a giant sky ape who sprang out of nothingness to create the universe in 6 days, and needed to rest on the 7th, that's fine. Like I said, if one wants to devote their time to reading the myths in the biblke, then thinking irrational seems appropriatte.

 

[kal-el]

hey sky pixie....do you belive that a man named jesus christ existed?

Yep, I believe in a historical Jesus, but not a divine one. Just because he lived 2,000 years ago, does not give him a free pass at being divine.

 

[kal-el]

Who was stronger--supermans' mom or dad ?

Well I'd say that all depends on the individual's traits. Kryptonians (the race of Superman) are only strong on a planet with a yellow sun. Krytpon (their home planet) contains a red sun, hence they are all endowed with humanlike qualities.

 

[dilloduck]

Well I'd say that all depends on the individual's traits. Kryptonians (the race of Superman) are only strong on a planet with a yellow sun. Krytpon (their home planet) contains a red sun, hence they are all endowed with humanlike qualities.

Well DOH-----I just want to know who was stronger !