Atheism - Paradox

[Eleve]

I don’t think that suicide bombers should be called martyrs, either.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Do not call what they do “martyrdom”. And furthermore, you did not witness the resurrection as the apostles did. They died for what they saw.

no one died for what they saw … they died for what they believed (just as Muslim radicals do today). Sure we can say Christians were better because they weren’t homicidal. But both groups still willingly killed themselves (or willingly put themselves in a position where they would be killed) in the name of fictitious mythology.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I don’t think that suicide bombers should be called martyrs, either.

I don’t think either group is any less brainwashed than the other. Christians just exist in a secular western society that tempers the theocratic urges of religion, while Muslims don’t (at least not yet).

 

[josie_L]

no one died for what they saw … they died for what they believed (just as Muslim radicals do today). Sure we can say Christians were better because they weren’t homicidal. But both groups still willingly killed themselves (or willingly put themselves in a position where they would be killed) in the name of fictitious mythology.

Yes, they did see the resurrection otherwise what would be the whole point of their death? No they did not willingly kill themselves (that would be suicide). Nor did they put themselves in a position where they would be killed (you’re basically blaming the victim). In the name of . . . . . . (fill in the blank) people have killed, it is not restricted to “fictitious mythology”.

 

[Eleve]

I don’t think either group is any less brainwashed than the other. Christians just exist in a secular western society that tempers the theocratic urges of religion, while Muslims don’t (at least not yet).

I didn’t say anything about brainwashing or distinctions between different religions and cultures. I don’t consider people who kill themselves to be martyrs.

 

[josie_L]

I don’t think either group is any less brainwashed than the other. Christians just exist in a secular western society that tempers the theocratic urges of religion, while Muslims don’t (at least not yet).

I have the theocratic urge to what: :knight2:, is that what you’re saying?

P.S. You act like all Christians have a Dr. Jekyll/ Mr. Hyde syndrome? Is this verifiable? If I leave the West and move to the Middle East will I become a terrorist?

 

[latin_rite]

Atheists are sheeple? That’s funny. Theists are one’s blindly clinging to 2000 year old myths despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary. All because some invisible magician who created everything says they must have faith.

Faith - A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers.

Supernatural - Not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material.

Sorry buddy but you are the one that believes in a flying spaghetti monster.

Yes atheist are sheeple. Did you conduct any of these “scientific” experiments that concluded that God does not excist? I will suggest not. you read about it from a book/internet or what ever.you quote from those authors as if they were Apostles. And who is this invisible magcian? As far i know there are no stories of Jesus being invisible. Your interpretation of the word faith is a little off . While the powers of God would be abnormal if he was Human. But seeing as he is God i don’t think what he does is in anyway abnormal or beyond or above his capabilities. (example. if i see a human flying around by just flapping his arms, i will say " hey that man has supernatural powers. If i see a bird doing it. i just go “meh”)
Um I didn’t say i believed in the flying spaghetti monster. I don’t know how you could expect me to take any of your interpretations from your “bibles” seriously, as you somehow lacked the intelligence to see that i Didn’t say i believed in the flying spaghetti monster. Your comprehension levels are very low…poor pet.
And what is all the scientific evidence against God?
I’ll wait while you do a google search to see how your “preachers” would suggest you should answer.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Yes atheist are sheeple.

coming from someone who believes in the majority religion (that teaches us fun stuff like talking snakes, flying angels, and all other sorts of mystical mythological fables). Yeah … we’re the sheeple alright

 

[latin_rite]

coming from someone who believes in the majority religion (that teaches us fun stuff like talking snakes, flying angels, and all other sorts of mystical mythological fables). Yeah … we’re the sheeple alright

Flying angels? as oppose to walking angels? Maybe i am a sheeple. i never said people who believe in God can’t be sheeple. Just that atheist are more sheeplish. But anywho. One day i will meet an atheist who has something original to say. Or dare i say. an opinion that i haven’t heard on yahoo chat a million times. NO wonder i’m so convinced that 99% of atheist are indoctornated or are brainwashed sheeple.

 

[Eleve]

Actually, latin, I spent a lot of time considering the nature of God myself, talking to other Christians, etc. before I became an atheist. It only took a minimum of prompting from other atheists to start looking around for myself. Before that, the main books I read on the existence of God were things by Lee Strobel — that is, books in Christianity’s defense. And, anyway, even if I did read atheist books, why shouldn’t I consider their arguments? Listening to both sides of a disagreement and discerning which one is stronger is the opposite of being a “sheeple.”

As for science, you should know that science can’t be used to find or disprove God. And if all you want to do is insult atheists, please go yell at a tree, which probably also doesn’t believe in God. You weren’t contributing to this discussion anyway, and that way you won’t be distracting from it.

 

[PennitentMan]

Flying angels? as oppose to walking angels? Maybe i am a sheeple. i never said people who believe in God can’t be sheeple. Just that atheist are more sheeplish. But anywho. One day i will meet an atheist who has something original to say. Or dare i say. an opinion that i haven’t heard on yahoo chat a million times. NO wonder i’m so convinced that 99% of atheist are indoctornated or are brainwashed sheeple.

Oh, and your Rhetoric is just 2000 years old…now who’s original?

Atheists are original in essence since they break from age old mythologies and realize that it’s all hearsay, bells and whistles and smoke and mirrors, wrapped up in an ancient tale.

All that your paragraph tells me is that you have been confronted with the facts and the issues and you still follow “the old ways”.
Sure, have at 'er!

 

[PennitentMan]

Actually, latin, I spent a lot of time considering the nature of God myself, talking to other Christians, etc. before I became an atheist. It only took a minimum of prompting from other atheists to start looking around for myself. Before that, the main books I read on the existence of God were things by Lee Strobel — that is, books in Christianity’s defense. And, anyway, even if I did read atheist books, why shouldn’t I consider their arguments? Listening to both sides of a disagreement and discerning which one is stronger is the opposite of being a “sheeple.”

As for science, you should know that science can’t be used to find or disprove God. And if all you want to do is insult atheists, please go yell at a tree, which probably also doesn’t believe in God. You weren’t contributing to this discussion anyway, and that way you won’t be distracting from it.

Okay, now you said it much more eloquently than I did…thanks

 

[happilycatholic]

in the name of fictitious mythology.

Okay, and there we have it. Humble, THIS is insult. You may call it refuting a claim but it is nothing but an opinion and you cannot provide proof that it is a myth because you cannot prove that ‘true’ or ‘untrue’. You cannot prove or disprove what they saw or believe.

It’s merely your opinion. So how about we stop using opinions and stick to information.

 

[happilycatholic]

nothing

(except mankind’s capacity for lunacy).

Again, INSULT. It is your opinion that Christians are foolish.

Why do you feel the need to do this? No one here has called you a name or insulted your intelligence or your mental capacity to make rational decisions. What drives you to insult people the way you do?

You could have said a million different things and yet you continue to accuse Christians of being unintelligent and crazy. Again, opinion.

 

[josie_L]

Oh, and your Rhetoric is just 2000 years old…now who’s original?

Atheists are original in essence since they break from age old mythologies and realize that it’s all hearsay, bells and whistles and smoke and mirrors, wrapped up in an ancient tale.

All that your paragraph tells me is that you have been confronted with the facts and the issues and you still follow “the old ways”.
Sure, have at 'er!

When compared to our 2000 years of “rhetoric”, Atheism is just a “babe in the woods”.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Again, INSULT. It is your opinion that Christians are foolish.

Why do you feel the need to do this? No one here has called you a name or insulted your intelligence or your mental capacity to make rational decisions. What drives you to insult people the way you do?

atheists are generally described in all sorts of insulting ways here on CAF (and I’ve personally been on the receiving end of plenty of unkind ad hom remarks … but no big deal I have thick skin). With regard to my comment, yes I honestly do think it’s crazy to willingly kill yourself (or seek after martyrdom) based on unverifiable tales from ancient men.

I don’t think that’s a blanket insult toward Christians in general … but I suppose it’s understandable that you disagree. I guess there’s really no way to have any dialog between theists and non-theists unless all parties involved have thick skin (because the opinions of all involved are inherently offensive to the other side).

If I say the god of the bible doesn’t exist, I obviously need to explain myself. There’s no way to explain why I think the bible is false without saying something that’s offensive to theists; it’s just not possible (no matter how polite and articulate I think I’m being). Inversely when Christians point to what they view as the flaws of atheism they will inevitably say something offensive. So the measuring stick for what’s offensive in a discourse like this has to be raised. Outrageous personal attacks are obviously off limits. However, without a little heated debate we’ll be left explaining to each other how the weather is in Texas as compared to New York (and even watching the same report over and over again on CNN is more interesting than that ).

 

[humble_in_doubt]

When compared to our 2000 years of “rhetoric”, Atheism is just a “babe in the woods”.

I suspect there’s always been atheists and skeptics in the background. It’s just a little harder to express yourself in a theocracy like fourth or twelfth century Catholic Europe (where you would have likely been killed in a most brutal fashion for expressing a dissenting opinion), which is why you didn’t hear much from atheists until around the Enlightenment era.

 

[josie_L]

there are ways we can examine the significance of the early Christian martyrs. For instance, the first recorded period of mass martyrdom (where there were probably hundreds if not thousands of Christians killed) was during Nero (decades after the death of Christ). Beyond that we have the scriptural accounts, but even there you’re hard pressed to find a martyr who actually walked with Christ during his ministry. The church was built by Paul, who himself never met Christ (beyond his claim of a divine encounter on the road to Damascus).

The Church was not built by Paul.

 

[PennitentMan]

When compared to our 2000 years of “rhetoric”, Atheism is just a “babe in the woods”.

Sure it is…A Revolutionary babe. People realise that the old ways are false and they move on. This doesn’t happen over night, human thinking needed to evolve and get to a critical mass point. Only then did we see…

 

[josie_L]

I suspect there’s always been atheists and skeptics in the background. It’s just a little harder to express yourself in a theocracy like fourth or twelfth century Catholic Europe (where you would have likely been killed in a most brutal fashion for expressing a dissenting opinion), which is why you didn’t hear much from atheists until around the Enlightenment era.

First, there never was a theocracy. And secondly, you do not express the opinion of history as Atheism is a fairly new concept (and I don’t think the Church would have cared if there was one or two atheists around during the 4th or 12th century as they were more concerned with pagans and witches).

P.S. Please try to put things into perspective instead of caricaturizing 2000 years of history.