I am an atheist thread 3

[phooney]

So a quick summary of the latest theistic arguments here.

Appeals to popularity, like when everybody thought the earth was flat.

Pascal’s wager, which I have refuted at length about 3-5 times in these threads.

Appeals to secret evidence.

I’m starting to feel very sorry for some of you. I hope we might be able to help you see through your irrationality.

 

[c659smith]

If they believed it to be a lie, then it would be illogical. A lot of people are however, deluded.

This makes no coherent sense. Although it is not the first thing that you have written that has this. Are you asking for non-selfish Atheists?

Do you mean Wiccan?

Moreover, you’re appealing to testimonial evidence again.

Your links were either broken or a catalogue (which I am not going through). They are also not conclusive evidence of anything.

Okay then.

But his experience is not any more evidence of the truth of anything any more than Omar Sharif is evidence of Islam.

Since I am still waiting for you to show me where I have been either angry, wicked, arrogant and pompous - I will take this next accusation with a pinch of salt.

We all know that you are unable or refuse to back yourself up.

That’s not true. Just 1.1 billion are Catholic.

There are over 1.5 Billion Muslims.

Do not be a dishonest hypocrite.

It is you that have taken the opportunity to preach.

If they believed it to be a lie, then it would be illogical. A lot of people are however, deluded.

Again I am not saying a belief but they claimed to have seen Christ resurrected

Now explain to me why or how 10 men could be deluded it is illogical?

Explain to me how 10 men could have been deluded at the same time with the same delusion?

Explain to me why 10 men would be tortured, stoned, and crucified for a lie on what they saw?

Go ahead and explain because any attempt to explain will prove my point with logic.

Again any attempts to deny the existence of the Apostles would be illogical as then you could not logically explain the creation of Christs Church and it’s massive build up in the 300 years since the Ressurection with further atrositities that had occurred to the Christians.

 

[c659smith]

So a quick summary of the latest theistic arguments here.

Appeals to popularity, like when everybody thought the earth was flat.

Pascal’s wager, which I have refuted at length about 3-5 times in these threads.

Appeals to secret evidence.

I’m starting to feel very sorry for some of you. I hope we might be able to help you see through your irrationality.

To refute Pascals wager where no evidence can be shown could possibly be refuted such as God in the Old Testament today may be understandable. but even if one has the minimal of evidence that cannot be refuted with logic such as in the new testament to and include logical eye witness accounts Pascal wager stands correct and with logic.

 

[c659smith]

Pascal’s Wager is a completely flawed and dishonest argument. First of all, the assertion that there is more to gain by simply being a Christian over an Atheist or Agnostic has absolutely nothing to do with wherever Christianity is true or not. All you are doing is attempting to give a reason to believe based on fear. You are advocating that an individual should believe X because of Y. This is an appeal to consequences fallacy.

Do you also think it is honest to believe in something because if it is true then a God will damn you to hell for all eternity? I would only be believing through fear rather than sincerity. It also does not guarantee belief. If I came to you and said that you should become a Muslim because it is the safer option in the afterlife, would you be convinced of the truth claim of Islam? You likely would not.

The main flaw in Pascal’s Wagers basis comes regarding its truth value of proclaiming that believing in X has better results than Y. It is false. If the Fundamentalist Christians are correct then you will be burning in hell for all eternity. If various Islamic sects are correct then you might be burning in hell for all eternity. Anyone could end up being wrong and consequently anyone could end up burning in hell for all eternity for their beliefs. So the premise of the argument is rendered redundant.

There we go again. You’re presuming to speak for over 1 billion of the global population again. Your bigotry, prejudice and generalisations speak more about your colossal ignorance on this subject much more than your intellect.

Let it be known you neither speak for me, or the majority of Catholics.

Of course, this is nothing but a straw man. Most Muslims would contend you do not need to murder to be ‘led to Allah’.

if Christ became man.

That’s another cliche.

You cannot win a lottery if you do not enter no matter what the odds and thats a fact. So your x and y formulas are illogical and rediculous. Plus we are not here to discuss Islam and compare Islam to Christianity as thats another thread even though I have shown where Islam based on a lie from a prophet logically.

 

[c659smith]

Pascal’s Wager is a completely flawed and dishonest argument. First of all, the assertion that there is more to gain by simply being a Christian over an Atheist or Agnostic has absolutely nothing to do with wherever Christianity is true or not. All you are doing is attempting to give a reason to believe based on fear. You are advocating that an individual should believe X because of Y. This is an appeal to consequences fallacy.

Do you also think it is honest to believe in something because if it is true then a God will damn you to hell for all eternity? I would only be believing through fear rather than sincerity. It also does not guarantee belief. If I came to you and said that you should become a Muslim because it is the safer option in the afterlife, would you be convinced of the truth claim of Islam? You likely would not.

The main flaw in Pascal’s Wagers basis comes regarding its truth value of proclaiming that believing in X has better results than Y. It is false. If the Fundamentalist Christians are correct then you will be burning in hell for all eternity. If various Islamic sects are correct then you might be burning in hell for all eternity. Anyone could end up being wrong and consequently anyone could end up burning in hell for all eternity for their beliefs. So the premise of the argument is rendered redundant.

There we go again. You’re presuming to speak for over 1 billion of the global population again. Your bigotry, prejudice and generalisations speak more about your colossal ignorance on this subject much more than your intellect.

Let it be known you neither speak for me, or the majority of Catholics.

Of course, this is nothing but a straw man. Most Muslims would contend you do not need to murder to be ‘led to Allah’.

if Christ became man.

That’s another cliche.

Your quote below.

Of course, this is nothing but a straw man. Most Muslims would contend you do not need to murder to be ‘led to Allah’.

Yes but the answer put forth is that their Islam was created from a prophet that broke a fundamental law of God–“Thou shall not murder” and mass murder at that so from it’s onset is flawed.

Mohammed was a man and is subject to the laws of God.

 

[c659smith]

Pascal’s Wager is a completely flawed and dishonest argument. First of all, the assertion that there is more to gain by simply being a Christian over an Atheist or Agnostic has absolutely nothing to do with wherever Christianity is true or not. All you are doing is attempting to give a reason to believe based on fear. You are advocating that an individual should believe X because of Y. This is an appeal to consequences fallacy.

Do you also think it is honest to believe in something because if it is true then a God will damn you to hell for all eternity? I would only be believing through fear rather than sincerity. It also does not guarantee belief. If I came to you and said that you should become a Muslim because it is the safer option in the afterlife, would you be convinced of the truth claim of Islam? You likely would not.

The main flaw in Pascal’s Wagers basis comes regarding its truth value of proclaiming that believing in X has better results than Y. It is false. If the Fundamentalist Christians are correct then you will be burning in hell for all eternity. If various Islamic sects are correct then you might be burning in hell for all eternity. Anyone could end up being wrong and consequently anyone could end up burning in hell for all eternity for their beliefs. So the premise of the argument is rendered redundant.

There we go again. You’re presuming to speak for over 1 billion of the global population again. Your bigotry, prejudice and generalisations speak more about your colossal ignorance on this subject much more than your intellect.

Let it be known you neither speak for me, or the majority of Catholics.

Of course, this is nothing but a straw man. Most Muslims would contend you do not need to murder to be ‘led to Allah’.

if Christ became man.

That’s another cliche.

Originally Posted by c659smith
It is self pride that guides an atheists heart as when self pride is stripped away ones heart and mind are open.

your post below
There we go again. You’re presuming to speak for over 1 billion of the global population again. Your bigotry, prejudice and generalisations speak more about your colossal ignorance on this subject much more than your intellect.

Let it be known you neither speak for me, or the majority of Catholics.

My response

My post if taken with it’s responses and full paragraph asks the question to refute the statement with logic and you have not done that.

My statement also asks the question in previous posts to name an atheist in history or today that has remained an atheist would do something for another without self pride (reward or boast) and you have not done that.

For if this life is all one has it is not logical to to do such at thing.

Tell me what logic you would have as an atheist to do such a thing?

Why would an atheist give his life for another if this is the only life he has? As an atheist would have to respond to first and foremost the instinct of survival. For you are an animal with a computer between 2 ears.without a soul.

please prove me wrong.

 

[c659smith]

Yes. Which has absolutely nothing to do with agreeing with them, by any stretch of the imagination. It would also be a time to explain to my children and pray for my relatives with them.

I don’t pretend to go along with any of it. I just don’t attack them for their beliefs.

It is very often a “tight-rope” situation, especially around holidays. I am not too sure what you are referring to in your last sentence above. Are you talking about their refusal to accept blood transfusions? As far as I know, they are opposed to abortion.

wonder how it is to deal in a mixed bag, where some conflicting religious beliefs are respected, even to the point of being observed, while others are just too appalling to be respectful of.
If you are someone who is against abortions on the basis of the value of human life, how to ‘respect’ those particular JEW beliefs?
We as Catholics do not respect those beliefs and I think that was shown in the Terry Schavo case as feeding tubes and blood transfusions are not considered extraordinary means to extend life.
Catholic are truly one of the few religious entities that believes in the fullness of life from womb to tomb.
Abortion is extrinsically evil for it is the destruction of human life that is totally helpless and innocent. The only viable reason for abortion is to save the life of the mother if she should so choose but with todays medicine that would be very rare.

All other reasoning stems from selfishness or ignorance

 

[Jonathan82]

What about Buddhism, have you guys thought about getting involved with that? They don’t believe in an actual God. The reason I say that is because it is good to follow a spiritual path, they teach good things. After all being Atheist doesn’t mean not being religious.

 

[c659smith]

If they believed it to be a lie, then it would be illogical. A lot of people are however, deluded.

This makes no coherent sense. Although it is not the first thing that you have written that has this. Are you asking for non-selfish Atheists?

Do you mean Wiccan?

Moreover, you’re appealing to testimonial evidence again.

Your links were either broken or a catalogue (which I am not going through). They are also not conclusive evidence of anything.

Okay then.

But his experience is not any more evidence of the truth of anything any more than Omar Sharif is evidence of Islam.

Since I am still waiting for you to show me where I have been either angry, wicked, arrogant and pompous - I will take this next accusation with a pinch of salt.

We all know that you are unable or refuse to back yourself up.

That’s not true. Just 1.1 billion are Catholic.

There are over 1.5 Billion Muslims.

Do not be a dishonest hypocrite.

It is you that have taken the opportunity to preach.

Originally Posted by c659smiths
Again other than you seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, or touch what evidence would that be, But wait I have given you the evidence of seeing through the miracles of the Saints (incorruptible bodies) evaluated and verified scientifically by 3rd party scientists and in no other religions has this been done.

your post below
Your links were either broken or a catalogue (which I am not going through). They are also not conclusive evidence of anything.

my response.
How are you making such a response such as not conclusive evidence of anything when by your own admittance you admit to not bothering to go through.
There is scientific evidence here of miracles and the unexplained.

I checked and verified each and every one of the reference html’s I placed in the last couple of days and only one was broken.

You did ask for evidence you could see or touch with scientific evidence and backing of it’s authenticity did you not?

 

[Skavau]

c659smith:

Again I am not saying a belief but they claimed to have seen Christ resurrected

Now explain to me why or how 10 men could be deluded it is illogical?

Why is self-delusion of just 10 people so incomprehensible for you? Your own belief system dictates that at least 60 - 70% of the world are deluded.

Throughout history we have seen a lot of instances of delusion on mass. The delusion of just 10 people here, is nothing.

c659smith:

You cannot win a lottery if you do not enter no matter what the odds and thats a fact.

So?

To believe something is not to ‘play in the lottery’. You insult your own faith when you compare it to gambling.

c659smith:

So your x and y formulas are illogical and rediculous. Plus we are not here to discuss Islam and compare Islam to Christianity as thats another thread even though I have shown where Islam based on a lie from a prophet logically.

This is selective filtering. Pascal’s Wager presumes just two options:

1. The Christian God exists.
2. The Christian God does not exist.

There are actually, an almost infinite amount of possibilities are we to actually consider the reality. There is no reason for me, as a skeptic to just look at it through selective goggles.

c659smith:

My post if taken with it’s responses and full paragraph asks the question to refute the statement with logic and you have not done that.

When an individual makes assertions without evidence, they can be refuted with the same amount of effort. I have no interest in entertaining your prejudice.

c659smith:

My statement also asks the question in previous posts to name an atheist in history or today that has remained an atheist would do something for another without self pride (reward or boast) and you have not done that.

This is your claim not mine. You are claiming that Atheists are all selfish and you have yet not substantiated that all Atheists are. All you have done is make the assertion.

Please connect that with reality.

To do what? Be selfless? Because I care about people. It does not need to be ‘beneficial’ to me to be useful to another. If I can help others, I generally would like to think that I will.

Do not presume to know me and declare otherwise. That is condescending, judgmental and ultimately self-righteous bigotry.

c659smith:

Again other than you seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, or touch what evidence would that be, But wait I have given you the evidence of seeing through the miracles of the Saints (incorruptible bodies) evaluated and verified scientifically by 3rd party scientists and in no other religions has this been done.

Show me an example of a single Saints body and I will look it up.

c659smith:

How are you making such a response such as not conclusive evidence of anything when by your own admittance you admit to not bothering to go through.

It might be conclusive, you’re quite right. But I have neither the time or patience to read through a catalogue. I suspect you would not do the same for me.

c659smith:

There is scientific evidence here of miracles and the unexplained.

That’s an oxymoron. If something is unexplained or a miracle then it cannot be scientifically verified. The moment it becomes a part of scientific knowledge, it is totally consistent with reality and therefore neither a miracle or an unexplained event.

 

[phooney]

What about Buddhism, have you guys thought about getting involved with that? They don’t believe in an actual God. The reason I say that is because it is good to follow a spiritual path, they teach good things. After all being Atheist doesn’t mean not being religious.

You are correct, an Atheist can be a buddhist. Why would we need or want to get involved with that though?

You’ve just baldly asserted that it is good to follow a spiritual path. I tend to follow the evidence approximately as far as it leads, unless for some reason I am forced to believe something. Those times are rare, the less of them the better.

I can agree that buddhists teach many good things, I also agree that there are some nice parts of the bible and christian and islamic beliefs etc.

The fact that I already have my own opinions regarding them shows that I don’t need them to tell me what is good and bad.

You could be an atheist and believe in ghosts, the loch ness monster, bat boy and a reptilian conspiracy theory. The only thing you need to be an atheist is a lack of belief in a god. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were atheists out there that believe in some of these things in this short list, but the rational application of evidence most of us tend to employ on gods does also tend to be applied to most things we come across, so I’d say they would be a pretty small minority.

 

[BlaineTog]

Speaking as a Roman Catholic, c659smith, please stop this. You’re just giving us a bad name. Please take a course in logic before you continue one further.

 

[phooney]

He’ll only stop if such instruction is directed at him personally in the catechism.

I can only imagine what he’s copying and pasting now to get this response!

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I can’t believe I’m back. I think the continuing lure of this thread is proof positive of the supernatural! No earthly forum thread could possibly keep people coming back for this long.

Why is self-delusion of just 10 people so incomprehensible for you? Your own belief system dictates that at least 60 - 70% of the world are deluded.

Not deluded, but wrong. There is a difference.

Throughout history we have seen a lot of instances of delusion on mass. The delusion of just 10 people here, is nothing.

Like what? I have heard of mass hysteria, which isn’t really the same thing as ten people having simultaneous, identical hallucinations. That is what you’re proposing, right? That the apostles went to their deaths because they shared a hallucination of the risen Christ? I sure can’t think of any similar historical delusional experience. If you have one, please share.

God bless.

 

[Skavau]

NaturalEnquirer:

Like what? I have heard of mass hysteria, which isn’t really the same thing as ten people having simultaneous, identical hallucinations. That is what you’re proposing, right? That the apostles went to their deaths because they shared a hallucination of the risen Christ? I sure can’t think of any similar historical delusional experience. If you have one, please share.

There are many instances of UFO Abductees claiming that they have been abducted.

See here, here and here.

Also, the Colares incident.

And, away from the UFO aspect - what about the splitting of the Moon?

And then there is this, although I am sure you believe it is legitimate.

And given that natural law is so consistent, one could argue that it is more probable that these disciples were hallucinating rather than witnessing Christ rising.

 

[phooney]

Welcome back, N.E. I, for one, am glad to have your (name removed by moderator)ut here.

 

[c659smith]

Why is self-delusion of just 10 people so incomprehensible for you? Your own belief system dictates that at least 60 - 70% of the world are deluded.

Throughout history we have seen a lot of instances of delusion on mass. The delusion of just 10 people here, is nothing.

So?

To believe something is not to ‘play in the lottery’. You insult your own faith when you compare it to gambling.

This is selective filtering. Pascal’s Wager presumes just two options:

1. The Christian God exists.
2. The Christian God does not exist.

There are actually, an almost infinite amount of possibilities are we to actually consider the reality. There is no reason for me, as a skeptic to just look at it through selective goggles.

When an individual makes assertions without evidence, they can be refuted with the same amount of effort. I have no interest in entertaining your prejudice.

This is your claim not mine. You are claiming that Atheists are all selfish and you have yet not substantiated that all Atheists are. All you have done is make the assertion.

Please connect that with reality.

To do what? Be selfless? Because I care about people. It does not need to be ‘beneficial’ to me to be useful to another. If I can help others, I generally would like to think that I will.

Do not presume to know me and declare otherwise. That is condescending, judgmental and ultimately self-righteous bigotry.

Show me an example of a single Saints body and I will look it up.

It might be conclusive, you’re quite right. But I have neither the time or patience to read through a catalogue. I suspect you would not do the same for me.

That’s an oxymoron. If something is unexplained or a miracle then it cannot be scientifically verified. The moment it becomes a part of scientific knowledge, it is totally consistent with reality and therefore neither a miracle or an unexplained event.

but as an atheist there is only one option there is no God is that not what an atheist is. God or no God

This is selective filtering. Pascal’s Wager presumes just two options:

1. The Christian God exists.
2. The Christian God does not exist.

There are actually, an almost infinite amount of possibilities are we to actually consider the reality. There is no reason for me, as a skeptic to just look at it through selective goggles.

If you are a skeptic than you are agnostic not atheist.

one atheist on this thred writes after each of his posts

“Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, nothing more.”

1. The Christian God exists.
2. The Christian God does not exist.

So Pascal wager stands.

 

[c659smith]

Speaking as a Roman Catholic, c659smith, please stop this. You’re just giving us a bad name. Please take a course in logic before you continue one further.

Explain yourself as to what paticular logic in the past 24 hrs I stated was wrong. Stop sending blanket statements.

 

[c659smith]

"]

Why is self-delusion of just 10 people so incomprehensible for you? Your own belief system dictates that at least 60 - 70% of the world are deluded.

Throughout history we have seen a lot of instances of delusion on mass. The delusion of just 10 people here, is nothing.

So?

To believe something is not to ‘play in the lottery’. You insult your own faith when you compare it to gambling.

This is selective filtering. Pascal’s Wager presumes just two options:

1. The Christian God exists.
2. The Christian God does not exist.

There are actually, an almost infinite amount of possibilities are we to actually consider the reality. There is no reason for me, as a skeptic to just look at it through selective goggles.

When an individual makes assertions without evidence, they can be refuted with the same amount of effort. I have no interest in entertaining your prejudice.

This is your claim not mine. You are claiming that Atheists are all selfish and you have yet not substantiated that all Atheists are. All you have done is make the assertion.

Please connect that with reality.

To do what? Be selfless? Because I care about people. It does not need to be ‘beneficial’ to me to be useful to another. If I can help others, I generally would like to think that I will.

Do not presume to know me and declare otherwise. That is condescending, judgmental and ultimately self-righteous bigotry.

Show me an example of a single Saints body and I will look it up.

It might be conclusive, you’re quite right. But I have neither the time or patience to read through a catalogue. I suspect you would not do the same for me.

That’s an oxymoron. If something is unexplained or a miracle then it cannot be scientifically verified. The moment it becomes a part of scientific knowledge, it is totally consistent with reality and therefore neither a miracle or an unexplained event.

your quote in blue

Why is self-delusion of just 10 people so incomprehensible for you? Your own belief system dictates that at least 60 - 70% of the world are deluded.
Throughout history we have seen a lot of instances of delusion on mass. The delusion of just 10 people here, is nothing".
Your references show deiusion on a belief system and has nothing to do with 10 men being tortured, stoned, and crucified, and going to their death proclaiming that belief.

Again not logical that ten men from different walks of life hallunated at the same time, with the same hallucnation, and for them to individually hold onto the eyewitness accounts and be killed seperately over the past several decades.

The accounts you give are of belief systems not eyewitness accounts and when they do they did not go to their death (killed)seperately for eyewitness accounts. 10 men do not die for a lie. not logical.

Your scrambling to show reason proves my logic

I would go far to say that it is your prejudice and/or delusion. You do not know the minds of all atheists and it is with only complete arrogance that you assume to do so.

The word delusion must be new for you as you use it alot.

How would you also in conjunction with the Apostles logically explain Paul who was a persecutor of Christians and claims to have heard God and was struck blind also.

A whole lot of delusion going on.

There must have been a panademic at the time, I guess kind of like avian flu huh!

We can call this one a delusional flu huh!

 

[_A]

Yes. Which has absolutely nothing to do with agreeing with them, by any stretch of the imagination. It would also be a time to explain to my children and pray for my relatives with them.

Would you say it right in front of the murdering parent? Would you wait until you were away from them before expressing your opinion about the killers belief to your children?
If you say that the wrong beliefs this family has mean that they have to let their kid die, right in front of the offending parent, then I think it is not ‘respecting their beliefs’, if you only say those things behind their back, I also don’t feel that shows respect.
Perhaps we have a different idea of respect in this context.

I don’t pretend to go along with any of it.

I am sorry. What I meant was the way you might bite your tongue when faced with a JW who is letting their child die. I meant that kind of pretending, because I can’t imagine anyone being *pleased * with that result.

I just don’t attack them for their beliefs.

Do you bow your head and appear to agree when they decide to let the child die, or do you tell them that their belief is wrong (which would not be ‘respecting their beliefs’ in my view), or do you tell them that you respect their belief and say goodbye to their child?
A horrible question, I know, but I want to see how far this ‘respect for belief’ really goes.

It is very often a “tight-rope” situation, especially around holidays.

Again, easier for me. Though I admit I don’t get out much

I am not too sure what you are referring to in your last sentence above. Are you talking about their refusal to accept blood transfusions? As far as I know, they are opposed to abortion.

Clumsy writing is all, sorry about that. I was assuming you were of the opinion that abortion is wrong because of the value of life (approximately the catholic position). If you share this opinion, would you, as a doctor, save their child against their wishes? If they were not there in the hospital, for example. Would you (again pretending you are a doctor with the power to save the child) stop another doctor from giving a transfusion because you knew that the parents had this belief?