21 reasons to be an Atheist

[oriel36]

AnAtheist:

Newton was a smart guy. Newton was a Christian. Therefore God exists.

If you put it that way, it looks as stupid as the compiled list. There is the irony.

You cannot be a Christian by denying the trinity as Newton did.Considering that the art of deceiving can be a cunning business and Newton practiced it with admirable frequency and almost blatantly,there is nothing more repulsive than witnessing Catholics join in the empirical hagliography.

On the most basic and fundamental principle which half the world’s population already know is true in that the world rotates through a full revolution in 24 hours exactly,the empiricalists with Newton as their mentor decided that it was a different rate -23 hours 56 min 04 sec.

I simply do not know how people can fall so intellectually low, for being a Catholic is to inherit the best examples of reasoning in the investigation of natural phenomena as a facet of faith such as many of the founders of disciplines - Copernicus in astronomy and Steno in geology.

What possesses Catholics to join in this betrayal I do not know but as you are an atheist you can enjoy the luxury of support from Catholics and especially on the ‘genius’ of Newton without fully understanding the damage he did.

Newton was smart awright but not smart enough,it is with hope that someday Catholics will know exactly why.Part of the answer is staring people in the face as they watch the hands of a clock that sweep around its face and the principles which keep that constant pace tied to terrestial longitudes at 15 degrees per hour exactly.

All your arguments against faith are built on foundations that would shock people if they really cared,in understanding neither things of nature or things of faith it appears that evil has had its way in that you understand nothing.

A society who no longer uses the intuitive aspects which served the reasonong behind Copernicus and Steno in their respective fields may lose the faculty altogether over suceeding generations generating a communal type of autism,an example of which is the pretty easy principles which link the Earth’s rotation to a clock with the Sun and the Sun alone as a reference yet not a single person has understood the Equation of Time principle which connects the equable day to the natural unequal day via axial rotation and orbital motion.

Again,Newton denied the trinity in a specific way and that Catholics do not question it makes it all the more awful.

 

[john_doran]

Stevereeno:

Nevertheless, the conclusion is absurd.

“Thus, the power set contains more elements than the set of all integers.”

well, while i agree it is an absurd conclusion if applied to really existent actually infinite sets, transfinite math is a valuable mathematical tool.

Stevereeno:

You can only make this statement for finite sets.

well, no - you can also make the statement of infinite sets. it;s just that there’s no such thing as a really existent, actually infinite set.

 

[TobyLue]

I have used my telescope aimed at this screen to see the faces of the people posting. I have not been able to see anybody, therefore this forum does not exist…
I think I’ll go take a little

I do not know whats going on around me when I’m asleep therefore when sleeping, I do not exist.

 

[jimmy]

AnAtheist:

On the contrary. I am starting from the assumption there is no limit whatsoever.

No, your arguement is an arguement based on a limit.

Oh well, THAT’s why? Who can argue against that kind of wisdom…

The point is that you are building up an arguement against something that does not represent Christian doctrine. Read it however you like, but you are in denial.

Yes, that means, he cannot create a weight, he cannot lift.
But okay, the rock example is not the best one.

Like terminating his own existence?
Like creating other gods like him?
Like creating a universe not exposed to the influence of any god including himself?
Like creating mathematics disproving his own existence?

Creating other gods like him would imply a weakness or imperfection in him because it would mean that he could be created. God is uncreated, and unchanging.

You really have some pretty weak arguements against a belief in God. You argue that since God influences the universe then there is no god. That is pretty weak, and it is grasping at straws.

I would like to see this mathematics you claim disproves his existence. You have shown nothing that does. Your limit is false.

 

[jimmy]

AnAtheist:

Ok, but why is creating another omnipotent being logically impossible?

It is logically impossible because it would make the first omnipotent being no longer omnipotent based on the idea that he could be created.

 

[eptatorata]

jimmy:

The point is that you are building up an arguement against something that does not represent Christian doctrine. Read it however you like, but you are in denial.

Strong words.

AA presented one or more arguments that do not rely on Christian doctrine as a premise. You can question the soundness of the argument(s) if you do not accept AA’s premises, but a state of denial does not exist on his(?) side.

What you are saying is that the conclusion reached by AA is untrue because you reject his premises, because if you would, a contradiction with your premises might occur. That is an elementary logical error.

 

[jimmy]

eptatorata:

Strong words.

AA presented one or more arguments that do not rely on Christian doctrine as a premise. You can question the soundness of the argument(s) if you do not accept AA’s premises, but a state of denial does not exist on his(?) side.

What you are saying is that the conclusion reached by AA is untrue because you reject his premises, because if you would, a contradiction with your premises might occur. That is an elementary logical error.

My words may have been a little too strong. I am sorry.

What is an elementary logical error? That there should be no contradictions in the proof? That is very true to logic. He is argueing against the Christian understanding of God in this thread. Therefore his premises should not contradict the Christian doctrines. You can not argue against something you are not presenting in the arguement.

 

[Steven_Merten]

jeffreedy789:

i’m glad you’re not God or the church.

i think you’re forgetting something called grace. that’s what the entire concept of ‘invincible ignorance’ is based on. we trust sinners who honestly don’t see reason for faith to the mercy and grace of God. just as we trust babies who die before they’re baptised, or murdered in abortions, to the grace of God.

none of us seek Him before He seeks us. we should ALL be damned for that. thank God that in His grace, He reaches out to save us - even the atheist, even the unbaptised baby - even me.

Hello Jeffreedy,

Can you describe someone on earth who God has not yet saught out? Are some baptized Catholics not yet saught out by Jesus? God desires that we all return to Him rather than only a group whom “He selects to seek Him out”.

The rich man in the Lazerous story certianly thinks he was “invincible ignorant” to the reallity of hell upon those who do not feed their neighbor. The rich man clearly wants to educate his brothers about hell so they do not end up there as he has without such education.

A majority of Catholics do not tithe to keep the poor from dying. Pope John Paul II has not made it absolutely clear of the high probubility that Catholics will burn in hell for not properly feeding the poor similiar to the rich man in Christ’s teaching. Like the rich man, many will burn in hell regardless of their ignorance due to lack of instruction from the Pope. I think Church leaders push “invincible ignorance” too far.

LUK 16:19 The Rich Man and Lazarus

"There was a rich man who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day. And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps that fell from the rich man’s table. Dogs even used to come and lick his sores. When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he cried out, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.’ Abraham replied, ‘My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here,whereas you are tormented. Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours.’ He said, ‘Then I beg you, father, send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they too come to this place of torment.’ But Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.’ He said, ‘Oh no, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ Then Abraham said, ‘If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.’"Peace in Christ,

Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[eptatorata]

jimmy:

What is an elementary logical error?

Let me explain by example.

All dogs have green fur. Fido is a dog. Therefore, Fido has black fur.

The first premise is wrong and the conclusion does not follow from the premises. But it just so happens that Fido’s fur is black and the conclusion is true, even though the premises and the inference are wrong.

What you are saying is that is that Fido’s fur cannot be black, because no dog has green fur. Do you see the problem now?

That there should be no contradictions in the proof? That is very true to logic. He is argueing against the Christian understanding of God in this thread. Therefore his premises should not contradict the Christian doctrines. You can not argue against something you are not presenting in the arguement.

See above. You say that AA’s conclusion is wrong, because it contradicts a premise that he himself did not make.

 

[jeffreedy789]

steven merten - i honestly don’t understand the point of your post. the only theme i derive from it is ‘people certainly WILL go to hell, and lots of em!’ which doesn’t seem contributary to discussion.

you asked me to describe someone who God has not sOught out. i don’t understand why you ask that, as i never intimated (that i’m aware of) that God hasn’t sOught ANYONE out. He seeks out every single person who has ever lived and will ever live.

once again, your post SEEMS to be saying (though i confess i’m confused as to your definite meaning) that in some legal system, these people find a loophole of invincible ignorance.

when in reality, it’s God’s grace and mercy that makes it possible for ANYONE to be saved - including you and me. do you honestly think that ANY of us ‘feeds the hungry’ or ‘clothes the poor’ ENOUGH to deserve eternal life?

 

[Steven_Merten]

jeffreedy789:

steven merten - i honestly don’t understand the point of your post. the only theme i derive from it is ‘people certainly WILL go to hell, and lots of em!’ which doesn’t seem contributary to discussion.

you asked me to describe someone who God has not sOught out. i don’t understand why you ask that, as i never intimated (that i’m aware of) that God hasn’t sOught ANYONE out. He seeks out every single person who has ever lived and will ever live.

once again, your post SEEMS to be saying (though i confess i’m confused as to your definite meaning) that in some legal system, these people find a loophole of invincible ignorance.

when in reality, it’s God’s grace and mercy that makes it possible for ANYONE to be saved - including you and me. do you honestly think that ANY of us ‘feeds the hungry’ or ‘clothes the poor’ ENOUGH to deserve eternal life?

Hello jeffreed,

You were the one who said that some people were sought out by God and some people were not yet sought out by God. You said, “none of us seek Him before He seeks us” I simply asked you to tell me who these people were who you claim God has not yet sought out.

The only way to heaven is throught the blood of Jesus. We cannot earn our way to heaven. Jesus clearly states that it is those who feed the hungry and care for the poor who go to heaven through His grace. Jesus clearly states to those who do not feed and care for the poor **‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’ **Do you disagree with Jesus teaching? Do you believe that those who Church leaders do not warn of Jesus warnings of eternal damnation for not feeding the poor are just going to slip through some “invincible ignorance” loophole? Do you just throw out the works that Jesus demanded of His followers for eternal life and say that only grace is needed rather than grace and works?

NAB MAT 25:31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, escorted by all the angels of heaven, he will sit upon his royal throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. Then he will separate them into two groups, as a shepherd separates sheep from goats. The sheep he will place on his righthand, the goats on on his left. The king will say to those on his right: 'Come. You have my Fathers blessing! In herit the kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me. I was ill and you comforted me, in prison and you came to visit me.’ then the usut will ask him: 'Lord, when did we see you hugry and feed you or see you thirsty and give you drink? When did we welcome you away from home or clothe you in your nakedness?" When did we visit you when you were ill or in prison?" The king will answer them: ‘I assure you, as often as you did it for on of my least brothers, you did it for me.’

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Peace in Christ,

Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[jimmy]

eptatorata:

Let me explain by example.

All dogs have green fur. Fido is a dog. Therefore, Fido has black fur.

The first premise is wrong and the conclusion does not follow from the premises. But it just so happens that Fido’s fur is black and the conclusion is true, even though the premises and the inference are wrong.

What you are saying is that is that Fido’s fur cannot be black, because no dog has green fur. Do you see the problem now?

I am unsure of what you think I am trying to say. If no dog has green fur that does not affect whether any dog has black fur.

What my arguement is trying to say is that he is argueing from a base that goes against Christianity. You can not argue from a base like this. I am not trying to make any conclusion other than that the logic is false.

There may be a chance that AA’s conclusion is correct, but it would follow the same type of logic in the above post. There would be no logical leap that would lead you to that conclusion.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

eptatorata:

Kevin, were you joking?

Not that God exists.

 

[jeffreedy789]

hey steven merten -

you said:

You were the one who said that some people were sought out by God and some people were not yet sought out by God. You said, “none of us seek Him before He seeks us” I simply asked you to tell me who these people were who you claim God has not yet sought out.

while i don’t quite understand how you get that ‘none of us seek Him before He seeks us’ means that there are some that He doesn’t seek - i’ll go ahead and just spell out that that’s not what i mean when i say that. He seeks all of us. not all of us respond. we don’t know to what degree we MUST respond before He saves us. there’s no way to know.

as far as the rest of your post, it seems to be… ignoring? not understanding? something… about what i’m saying. i made a point of saying that we’re not talking about loopholes. we’re talking about God’s grace and mercy.

of course i have no problem with the teachings about works being involved in our salvation. it’s one of the reasons i became catholic. however, i know that you’re not saying that we earn our salvation through our works - it’s not like you have to feed so many hungry people or clothe so many naked people, and once you’ve done that - DING! - you’re in.

it’s a matter of becoming His children - becoming more Christlike. if we don’t feed hungry people or clothe naked people or visit people in jail, then we’re not like Jesus. and He desires to make us like Him, so that we will find ourselves at home in heaven.

that said - what are we arguing about again?

 

[turboEDvo]

Well, as for the impossibility of omnipitence, lets take a small example from my calculus class. If you really really want me to dig through my papers and find the examples I am looking for I will, but just trust me that my following assumption is true (I have no reason to lie about it, logically, because if I do, then I am either going against the God I believe in or lying to uphold an argument in which I don’t actually believe, thus I am logically telling the truth in the situation as I gain nothing from lying…ooo…I like doing logic and math problems sometimes , ok back to my example)

We looked at a problem in calc that showed that infinity can be larger than 2 times infinity (so, that will be our assumption that you are assuming true for the purpose of saving me from actually organizing my calculus binder). Thus, it is possible for the resultant set (from above posts) to contain the initial set, even if the result appears to be smaller than the initial (simply because logic says that because 2x2>2, that 2x infinity> infinity using substitution). So, it is not particulary outlandish, even with (relatively) simple math.

Eamon

 

[Steven_Merten]

jeffreedy789:

that said - what are we arguing about again?

Hello Jeffreedy,

Possibly we are not arguing any more. I was just initially carifying to the atheists that there are things Jesus tells us to do to go to heaven. It is not a lack of sin through “invincible ignorance” which gets you into heaven, rather it is a fulfillment of what Jesus wills you to do which brings you into heaven through Jesus grace. Atheists simply ignoring God had better not be expecting eternal life.

Many times Jesus tells us to produce the fruit of the Kingdom of God. Love for God through doing His will is that fruit. In heaven there will be no starving people to feed out of love for Jesus. In heaven there will be no marriages to be faithful too nor will you be able to murder your neighbor. The free willed love for God choices made by humans on earth is their treasure in the Kingdom of God. Jesus calls us to be fruitful with these gifts and the fruitless trees will be burned in the fire. Atheists refusing to fulfill Jesus will to produce the fruit of the Kingdom of God, because they saw no proof God existed, will be cast into hell.

I just want atheists to have a heads up on this truth.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[jimmy]

eptatorata:

Let me explain by example.

All dogs have green fur. Fido is a dog. Therefore, Fido has black fur.

The first premise is wrong and the conclusion does not follow from the premises. But it just so happens that Fido’s fur is black and the conclusion is true, even though the premises and the inference are wrong.

This is what I was trying to say. Even though his conclusion could be true, his logic is false.

I don’t reject his conclusion based on his logic, I just reject the logic because it does not work with Christianity. I reject the conclusion because I have faith that there is a god.

 

[AnAtheist]

jimmy:

I don’t reject his conclusion based on his logic, I just reject the logic because it does not work with Christianity. I reject the conclusion because I have faith that there is a god.

Granted that correct reasoning from a false premise leads to wrong conclusions.
You take the existence of God as a premise, I don’t. So how can we make statements about this very existence?

I derived a logical conclusion from the proposed nature of God which lead to a contradiction, thus there is something wrong with a) the propoesed nature or b) the logic. I say the logic is sound, thus there is something wrong with the premise.

You may argue, I got the proposed nature of God wrong, i.e. it doesn’t reflect the Christian God, therefore the conclusion is wrong.
You may argue, that human logic cannot be applied to God, therefore the whole process is wrong. But that of course leads to some other intersting questions…

 

[Tulkas]

There is so much ignorance in this post, so i think ill add some of my own:

Im far to lazy to make a full 21 bullshit point system, so ill make it 11, its getting late

11 REASOSN TO BE A CATHOLIC:

1. Why am i here? There must be a reason, yes i know. god must exist.
2. My parents taught me this thing, i guess im a catholic. god must exist.
3. I have made mistakes in life. How can i cope? god will forgive me! god must exist.
4. Hell sounds pretty bad…Eternally damned! Oh no! I love jesus christ. god must exist.
5. Everybody around me is christian, i dont want to be an oddball. Uh oh! god must exist.
6. What organization can control millions, without question, reason, logic, or even thought. What could possibly turn self sufficiant thinkers into brainless zombies? god must exist.
7. Mel Gibson died for us! He died for our sins! god must exist.
8. If god doesn’t exist, i think i will have a void in my life! Why even live or do good at all? god must exist.
9. There must be a higher power, i cannot stand the thought of dying alone, it makes me sad. god must exist.
10. These Atheists make me so mad. They act all smart and only try to defy us for fun! They are stupid. I am right. god must exist.
11. I have faith in god and in my religion, yet i do not even understand what the preist tells me on sundays. It doens’t matter though. god does exist!!!

Please do not refute these, because it is only meant to mock your original ignorant statement. Perhaps in the dispaly of my intentional ignorance, you will see your own.

As always, your loving atheist

 

[john_doran]

turboEDvo:

We looked at a problem in calc that showed that infinity can be larger than 2 times infinity (so, that will be our assumption that you are assuming true for the purpose of saving me from actually organizing my calculus binder). Thus, it is possible for the resultant set (from above posts) to contain the initial set, even if the result appears to be smaller than the initial (simply because logic says that because 2x2>2, that 2x infinity> infinity using substitution). So, it is not particulary outlandish, even with (relatively) simple math.

Eamon

this sounds like transfinite math: the cardinality of the set of natural numbers is http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.co...c703ed73456618ed283b892c6715a.png(aleph-null), which is the first transfinite number. multiplication and addition can be performed with this number, but not division or subtraction.

2^http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/wiki/images/math/be4c703ed73456618ed283b892c6715a.png, however, is a transfinite number larger than http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/wiki/images/math/be4c703ed73456618ed283b892c6715a.png(i.e. it cannot be put in a one-to-one correspondence with the set of natural numbers), and is called http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.co...c9d952e0d3fb65351053e08b3dfe0a.png(aleph-one), or c (“continuum”, in set theory). http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/wiki/images/math/9bc9d952e0d3fb65351053e08b3dfe0a.png is the cardinality of the set of real numbers. to be pedantic, http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/wiki/images/math/9bc9d952e0d3fb65351053e08b3dfe0a.pngis the smallest infinite set larger than http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/wiki/images/math/be4c703ed73456618ed283b892c6715a.png, and cannot be proven to equal c - Cantor assumed that it was, and this assumption is called the Continuum Hypothesis.

anyway. none of this has anything to do with omnipotence or omniscience.