Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never said or implied that, no. Atheism is not a person, for starters. Nor is it sensible to compare plain "atheism" with "religious indoctrination!!" I'd say, however, that anti-theism is dogmatic at times and its subscribers demand people follow certain rules (however unspoken) blindly, and that would be a good comparison to religious indoctrination.
What are the "certain rules" that so called "anti theists" demand people follow blindly?
As to the assertion that it's a "good" comparison to religious indoctrination I vehemently disagree. Mostly on the terms that atheism isn't all that organized in and of itself, has few organized meetings, no book comparing to the bible, no schools that I know of and does not have incentive to proselytize to any real degree. That type of thing is in it's infancy and only time will tell if it ever becomes like a religion in that regard.
Yes, a source that says there is one god, two gods, Jesus is separate from God, Jesus is God. A book with a section written by a man who had been dead for 100 years. I could write a very long list pointing out how unreliable the NT is.
Of course not, no one is arguing this silly little non sequitur.
But you are so good with them.
its not non sequitur at all. You need non sequitur to minimize whatever it is your faith needs you to be minimizing. christianity teaches love compassion and understanding. those parts are sound teachings.
the jesus rising and going into heaven (what did he use to go into heaven) is the false parts.
it needs to grow up, but it has parts that are just fine. and parts ... not so much.
What are the "certain rules" that so called "anti theists" demand people follow blindly?
As to the assertion that it's a "good" comparison to religious indoctrination I vehemently disagree. Mostly on the terms that atheism isn't all that organized in and of itself, has few organized meetings, no book comparing to the bible, no schools that I know of and does not have incentive to proselytize to any real degree. That type of thing is in it's infancy and only time will tell if it ever becomes like a religion in that regard.
two pieces of evidence suggest that some atheist do act like some theist. And since its the people that make religion we can say its people that make atheism.
certain atheist treat atheism like a religion. They follow the dogma that religion is so dangerous that we need to deny everything, no matter how valid, to keep it out of the hands of theist. they suggest we blindly follow that teaching or just get out of their way so they can have at people that don't think like them.
thats religious looking. "anti-religion", like north korea's leader, is almost the "god" they follow.
secondly, if we list the personality types from institutions that study human behavior, you will see that both camps will have the same personality types in them. We can then compare personality types to expression of beliefs and see if they match observations. ei: how will concrete, leanear, black/white thinkers express a theist belief and a atheist belief.
In the meantime, the Bible is unreliable and that is the best evidence against Christianity that I know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
A concession I'm happy to see. Because it means you have no evidence against Christianity, since if only a few defining points in the bible are true we have a confirmation of Christianity on our hands! I'd say, that if there is a god and Jesus was his son who was crucified but rose on the third day and ascended to heaven where some/all of us will eventually join him, then that's Christianity right there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Circular logic based on unreliable sources, and ignoring how probability works.
Are you under the impression somehow that this paragraph was an attempt to prove Christianity was true? Because it wasn't. All I was saying was that even granting for the sake of argument that the bible is unreliable, it doesn't follow that therefore Christianity in and of itself isn't true. If only the aforementioned few details are true, then that's Christianity. The rest of the modern-day bible could be outright false and therefore certainly unreliable, and it wouldn't mean Christianity was false.
So yeah. No evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein
What are the "certain rules" that so called "anti theists" demand people follow blindly?
Well, recently, one of them told me here that an atheist is someone who doesn't even believe there might be a god. That saying there might be a god is only something a theist or agnostic would do. But generally speaking, anti-theists want the rest of us to join them in opposing theism and if we should dare to defend it as a rational option for people we're not "real atheists". We might even be accused of being a Christian spy! There's more, but you get the idea.
Quote:
As to the assertion that it's a "good" comparison to religious indoctrination I vehemently disagree. Mostly on the terms that atheism isn't all that organized in and of itself, has few organized meetings, no book comparing to the bible, no schools that I know of and does not have incentive to proselytize to any real degree. That type of thing is in it's infancy and only time will tell if it ever becomes like a religion in that regard.
It doesn't matter that atheism in and of itself isn't comparable to theism/Christianity (although one could easily argue just how many of these features flow from theism in and of itself). I see similarities between anti-theism and religious extremism regardless.
Irony overload.
Strange, Transponder often argues against both positions.
So all gods are equally probable?
The EXISTENCE of God does NOT depend on ANY of the myriad descriptions or religions ABOUT God. It is an entirely empirical issue that has nothing to do with human speculation. Our Reality is the closest to a God that is empirically established, so we start there as our default God. Its attributes certainly seem to meet the minimum criteria for God relative to us.
The EXISTENCE of God does NOT depend on ANY of the myriad descriptions or religions ABOUT God. It is an entirely empirical issue that has nothing to do with human speculation. Our Reality is the closest to a God that is empirically established, so we start there as our default God. Its attributes certainly seem to meet the minimum criteria for God relative to us.
what don't they understand about this mystic?
its like the word "GOD" is a trigger for them. They over react to the letters "GOD" and completely ignore what is being said.
an no-god for bid we reply with the same tone they they answer us. we become the devil incarnate.
its not non sequitur at all. You need non sequitur to minimize whatever it is your faith needs you to be minimizing. christianity teaches love compassion and understanding. those parts are sound teachings.
the jesus rising and going into heaven (what did he use to go into heaven) is the false parts.
it needs to grow up, but it has parts that are just fine. and parts ... not so much.
Of course it is a non sequitur. It may be a (stolen) diamond in a pile of pig manure, but no one is arguing the diamond is also pig manure.
Are you under the impression somehow that this paragraph was an attempt to prove Christianity was true?
No. I am pointing out your claim is in the Bible only. Using the Bible to argue the Bible is circular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Because it wasn't. All I was saying was that even granting for the sake of argument that the bible is unreliable, it doesn't follow that therefore Christianity in and of itself isn't true.
True, as for many other arguments, it COULD be true DESPITE the evidence. But it is still evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
If only the aforementioned few details are true, then that's Christianity. The rest of the modern-day bible could be outright false and therefore certainly unreliable, and it wouldn't mean Christianity was false.
For historians, the police, and courts of law it usually means X is not true.
Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. The lack of criticism may be a simple oversight or an application of a double standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
The EXISTENCE of God does NOT depend on ANY of the myriad descriptions or religions ABOUT God.
It was YOUR argument I took to it's logical conclusion. Do not blame me if you make contradictory arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It is an entirely empirical issue that has nothing to do with human speculation.
Agreed, although Vic and the religious (including yourself) argue otherwise. Apparently contradictory experiences that suffer from cognitive bias are also credible evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Our Reality is the closest to a God that is empirically established, so we start there as our default God. Its attributes certainly seem to meet the minimum criteria for God relative to us.
So you keep asserting, yet never provide any evidence for this. The god of the gaps argument, yes, but never any evidence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
