Why I Don't Believe

[alang1216]

what an odd, (and foolish) assumption.....

So you don't believe God somehow communicated scipture to these men 2,000 years ago? My bad.

But if you do you'll have to admit they had the entire scipture, works lost to us today. What did God say in them that we don't know today?

omigorsh......so I comment on statement X and you pretend you said something completely different.......why didn't I think of trying that brilliant debate mechanism......

my comment was directed at the idiot that claimed I believed men living 2000 years ago knew more than we do today....if you want to defend that fucked up statement, go for it.....your last comeback is being totally ignored.....

That wasn't clear but OK what does that imply? Were the men who wrote the gospels talking off the top of their heads like we are or did God somehow insert himself into the process? Why is what they wrote scripture and what we write just words? What did they know that allowed them to speak for God?

 

[JimBowie1958]

No need to answer my questions but I'm still happy to answer yours.

The answer is that I'm looking to be shown I'm wrong. We learn something new from our mistakes. When we're proven right we only learn we were right.

Do you understand the Infinite Regression Fallacy?

Do you see how that proves that time had to have a beginning point?

Why not, if you are so pursuant of Truth?

You are a fraud, like GIMSYS, merely a little less transparent

The answers are yes, no, it is a stupid semantic riddle with no practical value.

Lol, so you say you understand the Infinite Regression Fallacy, and yet cannot understand why that requires time to have a beginning point? You are as stupid as a sack of busted hammers. And whether time has a beginning point or not is not a pointless semantic riddle, dumbass, and it is already answered by science as well.

And you're wrong neither GIMSYS nor I are frauds. He most likely is exactly what he seems to be. There the similarity ends.

Bullshit. You are both poseurs.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So you don't believe God somehow communicated scipture to these men 2,000 years ago? My bad.

But if you do you'll have to admit they had the entire scipture, works lost to us today. What did God say in them that we don't know today?

omigorsh......so I comment on statement X and you pretend you said something completely different.......why didn't I think of trying that brilliant debate mechanism......

my comment was directed at the idiot that claimed I believed men living 2000 years ago knew more than we do today....if you want to defend that fucked up statement, go for it.....your last comeback is being totally ignored.....

That wasn't clear but OK what does that imply? Were the men who wrote the gospels talking off the top of their heads like we are or did God somehow insert himself into the process? Why is what they wrote scripture and what we write just words? What did they know that allowed them to speak for God?

as if PMPs answer would make a damned bit of difference to you...hypocrite.

 

[PostmodernProph]

That's very Christian of you. Thanks for reinforcing my point. Your mother must be very proud of you, with such excellent and innovative word choice.

hard to say.....she's dead....

So's mine. At least I paid enough attention to her teaching to know what she would be proud of and what she would be ashamed of in my behavior. I suspect your mother attempted to impart the same. Sad that her wisdom fell on barren ground.

what can I say.....she was a Democrat.....I HAD to ignore what she said while I was growing up.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

So you don't believe God somehow communicated scipture to these men 2,000 years ago? My bad.

But if you do you'll have to admit they had the entire scipture, works lost to us today. What did God say in them that we don't know today?

omigorsh......so I comment on statement X and you pretend you said something completely different.......why didn't I think of trying that brilliant debate mechanism......

my comment was directed at the idiot that claimed I believed men living 2000 years ago knew more than we do today....if you want to defend that fucked up statement, go for it.....your last comeback is being totally ignored.....

That wasn't clear but OK what does that imply?

to a rational person or to you.....

Why is what they wrote scripture and what we write just words?

did you spend three years walking across Israel with Jesus?.....

 

[alang1216]

Lol, so you say you understand the Infinite Regression Fallacy, and yet cannot understand why that requires time to have a beginning point? You are as stupid as a sack of busted hammers. And whether time has a beginning point or not is not a pointless semantic riddle, dumbass, and it is already answered by science as well.

Understanding the Infinite Regression Fallacy doesn't mean I agree with its conclusion. It is important whether time has a beginning point but the Infinite Regression Fallacy does not provide an answer.

 

[alang1216]

did you spend three years walking across Israel with Jesus?.....

No and neither did you and neither did Paul. The authors of the gospels may or may not have. We'll probably never know for sure.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Lol, so you say you understand the Infinite Regression Fallacy, and yet cannot understand why that requires time to have a beginning point? You are as stupid as a sack of busted hammers. And whether time has a beginning point or not is not a pointless semantic riddle, dumbass, and it is already answered by science as well.

Understanding the Infinite Regression Fallacy doesn't mean I agree with its conclusion. It is important whether time has a beginning point but the Infinite Regression Fallacy does not provide an answer.

what the **** are you talking about?

It is impossible for there to have been an infinitely long period of time prior to NOW, because the infinite regression fallacy says that there cannot have been an infinite number of previous nonzero units of time prior to NOW.

That PROVES that there had to be a start to the series of time units, dude, at some point somewhere back before NOW.

 

[JimBowie1958]

did you spend three years walking across Israel with Jesus?.....

No and neither did you and neither did Paul. The authors of the gospels may or may not have. We'll probably never know for sure.

St Paul was intimately familiar with the events of Jesus life and His teachings. Many think he spied on Jesus for the Sanhedren. So, you do not know that St Paul did not follow Jesus through His entire ministry, and I bet Paul did.

The authors of the Gospels were recorded by the early church fathers as having written the books that bear their names to which there is no contrary evidence.

Do you get EVERYTHING wrong?

roflmao

 

[sealybobo]

The reason you are having trouble debating is because I am holding you to the standard you claim to meet. If evidence and reason are the deciding factors, then present your evidence. Any position in the absence of evidence has no claim to reason.

Another reason you are having trouble is that you are still a Christian. I have told you multiple times that I am not a Christian and I have never been a Christian. Nor am I Jewish or Muslim. Yet you want me to explain how I can believe in God and not the Flood? I am giving you facts and you are ignoring them. Yet you want me to accept that yours is a rational position.

Ah, you are like boss. As long as you don't believe the organized religions, I'm cool with you clinging to your fairy tale. Harmless. Stupid, but harmless. Eventually you'll grow up or your kids or grandkids will grow out of it. Especially if you aren't using a fairy tale book as your source. All you can do is tell your kids what you think. At least you aren't telling them about a religion that is a lie as if it is fact.

I am not a Christian I'm a former christian who less than a year ago believed like you and Boss. I realized organized religions were bullshit but still had a personal relationship with god. I recently gave that up. No hard feelings. Just realized I was talking to myself.

And if you are saying that "Atheists should prove god doesn’t exist." The burden of proof is on the person or party asserting the claim; in this case, the theist.

I will believe you are not a Christian when you can show that you are able to break away from Christian beliefs. So far, you have shown no such ability.

I do not say Atheists should prove god doesn't exist, I say that anyone has to prove statements made as if they were fact. I don't care what statement they are making. Atheists don't get a free ride. If you are making the claim, then the burden is on you. When you say there is no god that cares for you, and I believe it was you who said that, then either produce the evidence to support that claim or admit it is pure belief. And if it is pure belief, then don't pat yourself on the back about how rational you're being.

Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

 

[sealybobo]

The reason you are having trouble debating is because I am holding you to the standard you claim to meet. If evidence and reason are the deciding factors, then present your evidence. Any position in the absence of evidence has no claim to reason.

Another reason you are having trouble is that you are still a Christian. I have told you multiple times that I am not a Christian and I have never been a Christian. Nor am I Jewish or Muslim. Yet you want me to explain how I can believe in God and not the Flood? I am giving you facts and you are ignoring them. Yet you want me to accept that yours is a rational position.

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

Theists also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.

Not a single shred of evidence presented in that statement, just belief. Not just belief, but willfully ignorant belief. Much of science was not only not prevented by religion, it was nurtured and encouraged by it. The majority of western scientists are believers to some extent, and fully half associate themselves with specific religions. The father of modern genetics was a monk. Astronomy, architecture, mathematics, etc. were all supported by religious institutions. In Europe, the catholic church single handedly maintained learning after the fall of the Roman empire and brought forth the renaissance.

If you would simply stop allowing your beliefs to control your reason, you might well see that just because you don't believe something does not make it stupid or bad.

Are you really not aware of the period of history called the Age of Enlightenment where science fought with and FINALLY overcame religion? Do you know how many great scientists were excommunicated/murdered for their blasphemy? Only after the enlightenment period was science freed. So the church liked math and chess so what? Everyone wants a cure for cancer even anti science people. Who do they run to the minute they get sick? A doctor/scientist.

And the church is fickle. They may embrace science now but they didn't always. The church is a cameleon. For example, in the 1950's I bet a lot of churches and priests in America were against black men marrying white women. How many are today? The church changes with the times. Rolls with the punches. BFD.

Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[alang1216]

Lol, so you say you understand the Infinite Regression Fallacy, and yet cannot understand why that requires time to have a beginning point? You are as stupid as a sack of busted hammers. And whether time has a beginning point or not is not a pointless semantic riddle, dumbass, and it is already answered by science as well.

Understanding the Infinite Regression Fallacy doesn't mean I agree with its conclusion. It is important whether time has a beginning point but the Infinite Regression Fallacy does not provide an answer.

what the **** are you talking about?

It is impossible for there to have been an infinitely long period of time prior to NOW, because the infinite regression fallacy says that there cannot have been an infinite number of previous nonzero units of time prior to NOW.

That PROVES that there had to be a start to the series of time units, dude, at some point somewhere back before NOW.

Since we cannot describe the past or the future using a finite number of causal events going backwards or forwards in time from the PRESENT, then the past and future must be eternal. You cannot traverse the past in a finite number of cause/effects to show Existence as VANISHING into nothingness. You cannot traverse the past and ever hope to find a point of Creation. Infinite and eternal are not the same.

 

[alang1216]

St Paul was intimately familiar with the events of Jesus life and His teachings. Many think he spied on Jesus for the Sanhedren. So, you do not know that St Paul did not follow Jesus through His entire ministry, and I bet Paul did.

Paul was NOT familiar with Jesus' life and teachings. How often does he quote Jesus or talk about his ministry? The only thing about Jesus that was important to Paul was the resurrection. To Paul it was not about the religion Jesus preached, that was Judaism, it was about Jesus as Messiah.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Do you know how many great scientists were excommunicated/murdered for their blasphemy?

actually there was only one who was killed, and that's if you assume Bruno was burned at the stake for believing there was more than one sun instead of denying the Trinity.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

St Paul was intimately familiar with the events of Jesus life and His teachings. Many think he spied on Jesus for the Sanhedren. So, you do not know that St Paul did not follow Jesus through His entire ministry, and I bet Paul did.

Paul was NOT familiar with Jesus' life and teachings. How often does he quote Jesus or talk about his ministry? The only thing about Jesus that was important to Paul was the resurrection. To Paul it was not about the religion Jesus preached, that was Judaism, it was about Jesus as Messiah.

lol, dude.....does Paul talk about Jesus ministry?......pretty much non stop.....

 

[PratchettFan]

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

Theists also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.

Not a single shred of evidence presented in that statement, just belief. Not just belief, but willfully ignorant belief. Much of science was not only not prevented by religion, it was nurtured and encouraged by it. The majority of western scientists are believers to some extent, and fully half associate themselves with specific religions. The father of modern genetics was a monk. Astronomy, architecture, mathematics, etc. were all supported by religious institutions. In Europe, the catholic church single handedly maintained learning after the fall of the Roman empire and brought forth the renaissance.

If you would simply stop allowing your beliefs to control your reason, you might well see that just because you don't believe something does not make it stupid or bad.

Are you really not aware of the period of history called the Age of Enlightenment where science fought with and FINALLY overcame religion? Do you know how many great scientists were excommunicated/murdered for their blasphemy? Only after the enlightenment period was science freed. So the church liked math and chess so what? Everyone wants a cure for cancer even anti science people. Who do they run to the minute they get sick? A doctor/scientist.

And the church is fickle. They may embrace science now but they didn't always. The church is a cameleon. For example, in the 1950's I bet a lot of churches and priests in America were against black men marrying white women. How many are today? The church changes with the times. Rolls with the punches. BFD.

Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am aware of the period, but apparently you read entirely different history books than I do. How many great scientists were murdered for blasphemy.... well I can't think of one off the top of my head. Care to name a few? Did the people want to go to doctors? Yep. And where you found the doctors were in hospitals which were almost all funded by religious institutions. Where the did scientists come from. Pretty much all from universities which were funded by.... that's right - religious institutions.

In the 1950's most people were opposed to racial intermarriage. It has nothing to do with religion. Racial bigotry was the norm.

You are aware that religion doesn't actually exist as some separate living entity, don't you? You do understand that it is just a bunch of people? It is always going to reflect the mores of the people.

 

[alang1216]

St Paul was intimately familiar with the events of Jesus life and His teachings. Many think he spied on Jesus for the Sanhedren. So, you do not know that St Paul did not follow Jesus through His entire ministry, and I bet Paul did.

Paul was NOT familiar with Jesus' life and teachings. How often does he quote Jesus or talk about his ministry? The only thing about Jesus that was important to Paul was the resurrection. To Paul it was not about the religion Jesus preached, that was Judaism, it was about Jesus as Messiah.

lol, dude.....does Paul talk about Jesus ministry?......pretty much non stop.....

You should have no problems providing examples of Paul quoting Jesus or talking about his ministry. I'm not talking about theology. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong so go for it.

 

[PratchettFan]

Ah, you are like boss. As long as you don't believe the organized religions, I'm cool with you clinging to your fairy tale. Harmless. Stupid, but harmless. Eventually you'll grow up or your kids or grandkids will grow out of it. Especially if you aren't using a fairy tale book as your source. All you can do is tell your kids what you think. At least you aren't telling them about a religion that is a lie as if it is fact.

I am not a Christian I'm a former christian who less than a year ago believed like you and Boss. I realized organized religions were bullshit but still had a personal relationship with god. I recently gave that up. No hard feelings. Just realized I was talking to myself.

And if you are saying that "Atheists should prove god doesn’t exist." The burden of proof is on the person or party asserting the claim; in this case, the theist.

I will believe you are not a Christian when you can show that you are able to break away from Christian beliefs. So far, you have shown no such ability.

I do not say Atheists should prove god doesn't exist, I say that anyone has to prove statements made as if they were fact. I don't care what statement they are making. Atheists don't get a free ride. If you are making the claim, then the burden is on you. When you say there is no god that cares for you, and I believe it was you who said that, then either produce the evidence to support that claim or admit it is pure belief. And if it is pure belief, then don't pat yourself on the back about how rational you're being.

Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

I have no idea. Now.... let me know when you have objective evidence to share. Until then, you're just spouting religious beliefs and treating it as if you knew something.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Ah, you are like boss. As long as you don't believe the organized religions, I'm cool with you clinging to your fairy tale. Harmless. Stupid, but harmless. Eventually you'll grow up or your kids or grandkids will grow out of it. Especially if you aren't using a fairy tale book as your source. All you can do is tell your kids what you think. At least you aren't telling them about a religion that is a lie as if it is fact.

I am not a Christian I'm a former christian who less than a year ago believed like you and Boss. I realized organized religions were bullshit but still had a personal relationship with god. I recently gave that up. No hard feelings. Just realized I was talking to myself.

And if you are saying that "Atheists should prove god doesn’t exist." The burden of proof is on the person or party asserting the claim; in this case, the theist.

I will believe you are not a Christian when you can show that you are able to break away from Christian beliefs. So far, you have shown no such ability.

I do not say Atheists should prove god doesn't exist, I say that anyone has to prove statements made as if they were fact. I don't care what statement they are making. Atheists don't get a free ride. If you are making the claim, then the burden is on you. When you say there is no god that cares for you, and I believe it was you who said that, then either produce the evidence to support that claim or admit it is pure belief. And if it is pure belief, then don't pat yourself on the back about how rational you're being.

Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?
.

Because God only speaks to those who are willing to hear, dumbass liar.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Paul was NOT familiar with Jesus' life and teachings. How often does he quote Jesus or talk about his ministry? The only thing about Jesus that was important to Paul was the resurrection. To Paul it was not about the religion Jesus preached, that was Judaism, it was about Jesus as Messiah.

lol, dude.....does Paul talk about Jesus ministry?......pretty much non stop.....

You should have no problems providing examples of Paul quoting Jesus or talking about his ministry. I'm not talking about theology. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong so go for it.

St Paul quoted Jesus fairly frequently in his letters, you ignorant ****.

If you knew damned thing about Christianity other than the atheist moron talking points you might know that.