List of common fallacies of Atheists

[Prodigal_Son]

you’re basically saying we have no idea whether the bible is merely a collection of folklore or old wise tales handed down (invented by men as perhaps bedtime stories for children); or whether the events depicted really happened … and to accept the latter proposition as truth requires faith?

When did I say that? You obviously aren’t familiar with the power of myth in human history. Mythology does not preclude truth. Many myths have a grain – or more than a grain – of actual historical fact to them. C.S. Lewis said that the story of Jesus is unique in the history of mankind, because it is a perfectly *true *myth.

Now it is true that to accept the events of the Gospels as true requires faith. But this is also true of the stories we hear about the assassination of Julius Caesar or about the life of William Shakespeare. How do we acquire the faith to believe in the Bible? God provides the faith. This is a perfectly cogent argument – a Being that created everything is capable of a) doing miracles, and b) giving a rational being the ability to believe remarkable things. “Faith is the evidence of things unseen.”

But, like I said, I care not if you come to believe. But you should realize that Christianity is coherent, and rationally defensible. This cannot be said of certain forms of atheism.

OK … I guess that’s sort of accurate (even though I believe I can make an excellent circumstantial case debunking the veracity of the bible; even beyond a reasonable doubt).

Make your case, if you like. Just don’t pick on the book of Genesis, because few Catholics take it literally. Prove to me that the Gospels are historically inaccurate.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Actually I see metaphysical naturalism as one of the great superstitions of our modern age.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

 

[MindOverMatter]

Actually I see metaphysical naturalism as one of the great superstitions of our modern age.

When a naturalist wants to convince you that a thing can come out of absolutely nothing by itself with out reference to an already existing being, then we are dealing with a return to warlocks and wizard philosophy. We are talking about the worst kind of magic. And if you think about, if its not reasonable to believe in ufos, then it certainly isn’t reasonable to believe that the world popped out of nothing.

 

[liquidpele]

When a naturalist wants to convince you that a thing can come out of absolutely nothing by itself with out reference to an already existing being, then we are dealing with a return to warlocks and wizard philosophy. We are talking about the worst kind of magic. And if you think about, if its not reasonable to believe in ufos, then it certainly isn’t reasonable to believe that the world popped out of nothing.

Not at all. They’re simply saying that something came from nothing instead of the something coming from something which came from nothing.

 

[yankee_doodle]

When did I say that? You obviously aren’t familiar with the power of myth in human history. Mythology does not preclude truth. Many myths have a grain – or more than a grain – of actual historical fact to them. C.S. Lewis said that the story of Jesus is unique in the history of mankind, because it is a perfectly *true *myth.

That was merely Lewis’ opinion (btw I’ve read Mere Christianity). Certainly some (or perhaps most) myths have a grain of truth in them … but you certainly can’t posit that as a rule of general application, which is true in all cases?

Now it is true that to accept the events of the Gospels as true requires faith. But this is also true of the stories we hear about the assassination of Julius Caesar or about the life of William Shakespeare.

This is quite an old argument (i.e. we have more documentary evidence concerning the New Testament than we do of say Alexander the Great). However, it’s a fallacious argument for the simple reason that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

How do we acquire the faith to believe in the Bible? God provides the faith.

I’m absolutely convinced the human brain provides the impetus to either believe this sort of stuff or not … and our brain is unassisted by any paranormal source.

This is a perfectly cogent argument – a Being that created everything is capable of a) doing miracles, and b) giving a rational being the ability to believe remarkable things. “Faith is the evidence of things unseen.”

I suppose, except there’s far more reasons to believe the bible is merely a collection of ancient myths, no more true than say Zeus or Odin.

But, like I said, I care not if you come to believe. But you should realize that Christianity is coherent, and rationally defensible. This cannot be said of certain forms of atheism.

well I’m not sure of what “form” of atheism you’re referring to, but on its face your comment seems absurd (perhaps you could elaborate)?

Make your case, if you like. Just don’t pick on the book of Genesis, because few Catholics take it literally. Prove to me that the Gospels are historically inaccurate.

Imagine if a figure like Jesus existed today? Further imagine that his alleged resurrection was said to be witnessed by only twelve men. Who would possibly believe such a preposterous claim? No one (including those who believe these same sort of claims made by men in the distant past) would take this sort of nonsense seriously.

Let’s also imagine these twelve men garnered together a cult of followers that numbered in the hundreds or even thousands. They convinced their followers that miracles were performed (like we see today with the ministry and bizarre services held by the animated pastor Benny Hinn). These followers fanned out throughout the country “spreading the word” as it were. Obviously most modern people would dismiss these folks as lunatics, brainwashed cult members who need to deprogrammed, or worse.

This is essentially how your religion was born. However, there was one substantial difference, it was born in the primitive and superstitious Roman world of the first century.

The people who would become Christians were already Jews living under a dogmatic, primitive (and probably pretty barbaric) theocracy, or pagans who worshiped a panoply of major and minor gods, and had all sorts of bizarre superstitions and rituals. This was fertile ground for the birth of a religion like Christianity (it would be impossible for such a religion to be born today).

This is far more likely that the existence of flying angels (that mysteriously elude our most powerful telescopes, which can observe millions of light years into the universe in all directions), a god-man who rose from the dead (and raised other dead men back to life), etc. In fact I’m not really sure how anyone could view religion as logical … much less assert it’s more logical than my position?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That was merely Lewis’ opinion (btw I’ve read Mere Christianity). Certainly some (or perhaps most) myths have a grain of truth in them … but you certainly can’t posit that as a rule of general application, which is true in all cases?

Of course it isn’t a general rule. But it is possible.

This is quite an old argument (i.e. we have more documentary evidence concerning the New Testament than we do of say Alexander the Great). However, it’s a fallacious argument for the simple reason that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

True enough. But the goal of Christianity is not to *objectively prove *the historical accuracy of the Gospels. Most true things cannot be objectively proven. This is not a reason to accept any far-fetched claim; it is a reason not to pigeonhole oneself within the lifeless hallways of verificationism.

well I’m not sure of what “form” of atheism you’re referring to, but on its face your comment seems absurd (perhaps you could elaborate)?

Scientific or psychological determinism is what I’m thinking of. The claim that the human being’s opinions are merely the result of the movement of particles is inconsistent with itself. It could be true, but if true, it could not be knowledge, because knowledge involves the ability to justify that knowledge (justified true belief). But justification amounts to causality. If the belief is itself caused by determined causes, then it has no epistemological weight. You cannot know it, even if it is true. It is a reed swayed by the wind. (Yes, I know, Calvinists also believe this, not just atheists).

Imagine if a figure like Jesus existed today? Further imagine that his alleged resurrection was said to be witnessed by only twelve men. Who would possibly believe such a preposterous claim? No one (including those who believe these same sort of claims made by men in the distant past) would take this sort of nonsense seriously.

This is rhetoric, not argument. I agree that the events in the Gospels are preposterous. But saying something is preposterous does not make it untrue.

Obviously most modern people would dismiss these folks as lunatics, brainwashed cult members who need to deprogrammed, or worse.

Most people consider Michael Jackson God’s gift to mankind. The opinions of “most people” are irrelevant.

You told me that you would debunk the Bible beyond a reasonable doubt, but I fail to see much argumentation in your response so far. It’s obvious that saying “a man cannot rise from the dead” is not going to convince someone that believes otherwise. Can you give me something more concrete than rhetoric?

(As for flying angels, please show me the passage in the Gospels that claims this.)

 

[yankee_doodle]

True enough. But the goal of Christianity is not to *objectively prove *the historical accuracy of the Gospels. Most true things cannot be objectively proven. This is not a reason to accept any far-fetched claim; it is a reason not to pigeonhole oneself within the lifeless hallways of verificationism.

what do you mean most true things cannot be objectively proven? I have a sink in my hotel room, I can prove this is true. I’m typing on a keyboard I have attached to a HP laptop, I can prove this is true. I’m a human being, comprised of biological cells, I can prove this is true. 1 + 1 = 2, I can prove this is true. Water is comprised of elements we call hydrogen and oxygen, I can prove this is true.

Scientific or psychological determinism is what I’m thinking of. The claim that the human being’s opinions are merely the result of the movement of particles is inconsistent with itself. It could be true, but if true, it could not be knowledge, because knowledge involves the ability to justify that knowledge (justified true belief). But justification amounts to causality. If the belief is itself caused by determined causes, then it has no epistemological weight. You cannot know it, even if it is true. It is a reed swayed by the wind. (Yes, I know, Calvinists also believe this, not just atheists).

First, I think you’re projecting the opinion of someone else onto me (I think I read a few posts I assume between you & another poster on this topic). I guess the question is do we have a paranormal conscience of some sort; and if not how can we objectively prove it?

This segways into another objection I have concerning theism. Just because we don’t understand much about our conscience (or other things like the relationship between physical & psychological health) doesn’t give license to religion to attribute these things to the workings of some unseen deity.

This is the historical pattern of religion; and religion is continually proven wrong each time science discovers the natural causes for different phenomena. Take for instance solar eclipses or earthquakes. These are the sorts of events our ancient predecessors attributed to a god or gods (and imagined they inspired the anger of their deity through their wretched conduct). Yet every day science discovers the natural causes of things formerly thought to be the work of a calculating god who does things for a purpose; or who reacts to our collective behavior through either reward or punishment.

This is a perfect example of circumstantial evidence debunking the veracity of the claims made by the various world religions.

This is rhetoric, not argument. I agree that the events in the Gospels are preposterous. But saying something is preposterous does not make it untrue.

It’s not rhetoric, it’s argument by analogy.

You told me that you would debunk the Bible beyond a reasonable doubt, but I fail to see much argumentation in your response so far.

well, the key word was “reasonable”

 

[Matthias123]

That was merely Lewis’ opinion (btw I’ve read Mere Christianity). Certainly some (or perhaps most) myths have a grain of truth in them … but you certainly can’t posit that as a rule of general application, which is true in all cases?

This is quite an old argument (i.e. we have more documentary evidence concerning the New Testament than we do of say Alexander the Great). However, it’s a fallacious argument for the simple reason that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I’m absolutely convinced the human brain provides the impetus to either believe this sort of stuff or not … and our brain is unassisted by any paranormal source.

I suppose, except there’s far more reasons to believe the bible is merely a collection of ancient myths, no more true than say Zeus or Odin.

well I’m not sure of what “form” of atheism you’re referring to, but on its face your comment seems absurd (perhaps you could elaborate)?

Imagine if a figure like Jesus existed today? Further imagine that his alleged resurrection was said to be witnessed by only twelve men. Who would possibly believe such a preposterous claim? No one (including those who believe these same sort of claims made by men in the distant past) would take this sort of nonsense seriously.

Let’s also imagine these twelve men garnered together a cult of followers that numbered in the hundreds or even thousands. They convinced their followers that miracles were performed (like we see today with the ministry and bizarre services held by the animated pastor Benny Hinn). These followers fanned out throughout the country “spreading the word” as it were. Obviously most modern people would dismiss these folks as lunatics, brainwashed cult members who need to deprogrammed, or worse.

This is essentially how your religion was born. However, there was one substantial difference, it was born in the primitive and superstitious Roman world of the first century.

The people who would become Christians were already Jews living under a dogmatic, primitive (and probably pretty barbaric) theocracy, or pagans who worshiped a panoply of major and minor gods, and had all sorts of bizarre superstitions and rituals. This was fertile ground for the birth of a religion like Christianity (it would be impossible for such a religion to be born today).

This is far more likely that the existence of flying angels (that mysteriously elude our most powerful telescopes, which can observe millions of light years into the universe in all directions), a god-man who rose from the dead (and raised other dead men back to life), etc. In fact I’m not really sure how anyone could view religion as logical … much less assert it’s more logical than my position?

This is quite an old argument (i.e. we have more documentary evidence concerning the New Testament than we do of say Alexander the Great). However, it’s a fallacious argument for the simple reason that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

What kind of proof are you expecting?

I’m absolutely convinced the human brain provides the impetus to either believe this sort of stuff or not … and our brain is unassisted by any paranormal source.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

I suppose, except there’s far more reasons to believe the bible is merely a collection of ancient myths, no more true than say Zeus or Odin.

Do you honestly beleive that? Come on now, I would find it much more rational if you said that “the bible is the greatest myth known to man”

Imagine if a figure like Jesus existed today? Further imagine that his alleged resurrection was said to be witnessed by only twelve men. Who would possibly believe such a preposterous claim? No one (including those who believe these same sort of claims made by men in the distant past) would take this sort of nonsense seriously.

Let’s also imagine these twelve men garnered together a cult of followers that numbered in the hundreds or even thousands. They convinced their followers that miracles were performed (like we see today with the ministry and bizarre services held by the animated pastor Benny Hinn). These followers fanned out throughout the country “spreading the word” as it were. Obviously most modern people would dismiss these fol

You just provided the best evidence for Christianity my friend. I assert to you that they wouldn’t have even believed it in the ancient world. In fact the philosophers at the time thought it was impossible. The people who spread it were not very educated and they managed to convince people to die for this resurrection, and later on caused the greatest Empire in the history of the world, to bend it’s knee to Christ, and profess the risen Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Just so you know though it was more then 12 people, because he appeared to men after His resurection. Also many went around working miracles in His name. So there was ample witness, but still the problem still remains. How did they convert the world?

This is far more likely that the existence of flying angels (that mysteriously elude our most powerful telescopes, which can observe millions of light years into the universe in all directions), a god-man who rose from the dead (and raised other dead men back to life), etc. In fact I’m not really sure how anyone could view religion as logical … much less assert it’s more logical than my position?

because you are ignorant of philosphy and currently don’t see why such things are logical The fact that you think that angels are flying persons that can be observed by telescopes demonstrates this.

Let’s also imagine these twelve men garnered together a cult of followers that numbered in the hundreds or even thousands. They convinced their followers that miracles were performed (like we see today with the ministry and bizarre services held by the animated pastor Benny Hinn). These followers fanned out throughout the country “spreading the word” as it were. Obviously most modern people would dismiss these fo

What evidence do you have that Christianity was like this? Have you not read the writings of early Christians? This is resorting to fanciful historical conspiracy theories.

I have read the writing of early Christians and I can say that the truth and wisdom that is contained in the text does not reflect the insane or supersitious.

 

[Matthias123]

Also, hardly anyone did believe Him – they killed Him remember?

 

[yankee_doodle]

You just provided the best evidence for Christianity my friend. I assert to you that they wouldn’t have even believed it in the ancient world. In fact the philosophers at the time thought it was impossible. The people who spread it were not very educated and they managed to convince people to die for this resurrection, and later on caused the greatest Empire in the history of the world, to bend it’s knee to Christ, and profess the risen Lord to the glory of God the Father.

the stuff you guys convince yourselves of to justify this belief never ceases to amaze me.

Just so you know though it was more then 12 people, because he appeared to men after His resurection. Also many went around working miracles in His name. So there was ample witness, but still the problem still remains. How did they convert the world?

these claims wouldn’t be any less preposterous or untrue even if there were a thousand alleged witnesses. There’s probably several thousand people in Benny Hinn’s services every Sunday (and perhaps hundreds of thousands watching on TV) … who really believe that some guy in a wheelchair who Pastor Hinn slapped upside the forehead was miraculously cured.

because you are ignorant of philosphy and currently don’t see why such things are logical The fact that you think that angels are flying persons that can be observed by telescopes demonstrates this.

if you think I’m ignorant of philosophy then let’s have a philosophy contest.

What evidence do you have that Christianity was like this? Have you not read the writings of early Christians? This is resorting to fanciful historical conspiracy theories.

oh please. The bizarre pagan cults within the Roman world & pharisaic theocracy of Roman Palestine (during the second temple period) are well recorded by secular historians of the period.

I have read the writing of early Christians and I can say that the truth and wisdom that is contained in the text does not reflect the insane or supersitious.

I never said insane. They were a product of the world around them & I’m sure they were brilliant and very sane men compared to their contemporaries. I merely noted what we would think of people who made such claims today (in other words I was doing a comparative analysis between our advanced civilization and a very primitive and superstitious ancient people).

 

[Matthias123]

the stuff you guys convince yourselves of to justify this belief never ceases to amaze me.

if you think I’m ignorant of philosophy then let’s have a philosophy contest.

oh please. The bizarre pagan cults within the Roman world & pharisaic theocracy of Roman Palestine (during the second temple period) are well recorded by secular historians of the period.

I never said insane. They were a product of the world around them & I’m sure they were brilliant and very sane men compared to their contemporaries. I merely noted what we would think of people who made such claims today (in other words I was doing a comparative analysis between our advanced civilization and a very primitive and superstitious ancient people).

oh please. The bizarre pagan cults within the Roman world & pharisaic theocracy of Roman Palestine (during the second temple period) are well recorded by secular historians of the period.

I never said insane. They were a product of the world around them & I’m sure they were brilliant and very sane men compared to their contemporaries. I merely noted what we would think of people who made such claims today (in other words I was doing a comparative analysis between our advanced civilization and a very primitive and superstitious ancient people).

This is not true. We know that ancient and superstitious cultures were still not inclined to convert to a religion that preaches death to self and to exchange everything in this life for life in the next, much less suffer maryrdom for it. It wasn’t the events that transpired that make such a conversion amazing, but the message it preached. It was in a culture of severe iniquity. This also in evident during the Middle Ages with the Cathars. Very few of them came to Christianity, even though they were very superstitious. Also the Jews were the most superstitious and the Romans the least, yet the Romans converted and Judaism today still rejects Christ.

The problem is your doubting the reliability any historical information coming out of the period. We know that the writings of the New Testament are not mythical in nature, they take the genera of an ancient biography this is demonstrated by Colin Hemer in his The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History.

“For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.” Sherwin White Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament.

These people show no evidence of being superstitious in any way, in fact they are less supersitious then our modern culture. On the contrary they did destroy superstitions of the day. This is evident in Saint Paul’s speech to the Athenians. They were not Bennie Hill type people, and you have no evidence for this. Also not everyone during that period was superstitious. Although the Romans did partake in Pagan cults, even the priests would wink when they offered incense. They most likely maintained this as a source of revenue.

Also you underestimate the superstitions in our modern culture. I see metaphysical naturalism and scientism as great modern superstitions.

 

[Matthias123]

Also if he did not rise from the dead, why didn’t the Jews retrive His body? Or the Romans? They ran around saying He rose from the dead, why didn’t they retrieve it? They knew where they placed it. If Bennie Hill said his mother rose from the dead and we should worship her, we would dig up her body and say, look!

I mean as soon as they saw that people were believing them they would have dug up the corpse.

Also we have Jewish sources that claim that they didn’t do that because they couldn’t find the body. I will try to find a reference somewhere.

 

[yankee_doodle]

This is not true. We know that ancient and superstitious cultures were still not inclined to convert to a religion that preaches death to self and to exchange everything in this life for life in the next, much less suffer maryrdom for it. It wasn’t the events that transpired that make such a conversion amazing, but the message it preached. It was in a culture of severe iniquity. This also in evident during the Middle Ages with the Cathars. Very few of them came to Christianity, even though they were very superstitious. Also the Jews were the most superstitious and the Romans the least, yet the Romans converted and Judaism today still rejects Christ.

come on … if martyrdom is proof of the veracity of religion, then Islam takes the cake huh? Indeed we can indisputably verify their acts of martyrdom, whereas first century history is pretty sketchy.

And yes first century Roman society was a culture of severe iniquity … this is why Christianity was so attractive to the poor masses. As far as who was more superstitious between pagans in the Roman world & Jews living in Roman Palestine during the first century … it’s pretty safe to say they were both highly superstitious (and I guess trying to parse out who was more superstitious is pretty speculative).

The problem is your doubting the reliability any historical information coming out of the period.

no, just claims of dead men coming back to life and other claims of supernatural miracles that have never been replicated in a verifiable way since.

We know that the writings of the New Testament are not mythical in nature, they take the genera of an ancient biography this is demonstrated by Colin Hemer in his The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History.

absurd

“For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.” Sherwin White Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament.

It doesn’t matter if 90% of the events described were historically true. It’s only the claims of supernatural miracles and god-men who cheated death that we’re concerned with here. I have little doubt that parts of Acts (and perhaps other books) contain some (or perhaps many) historical accuracies.

However, that doesn’t prove anything (or logically lend any credibility to its paranormal claims). I’m also sure Greek mythology contained some historically accurate segments, yet we still call it mythology because its central characters were mythological or were alleged to have mythological powers.

These people show no evidence of being superstitious in any way, in fact they are less supersitious then our modern culture.

apparently you’ll just and say anything … so whatever

On the contrary they did destroy superstitions of the day. This is evident in Saint Paul’s speech to the Athenians. They were not Bennie Hill type people, and you have no evidence for this. Also not everyone during that period was superstitious. Although the Romans did partake in Pagan cults, even the priests would wink when they offered incense. They most likely maintained this as a source of revenue.

everyone didn’t have to be superstitious (and we know not everyone adopted Christianity). Moreover, the Benny Hinn analogy was simply to show how gullible people can be.

You can hardly say (with a straight face) that people were less superstitious back then … that’s patently absurd. Have you ever read any Greek or Roman mythology? Have you ever studied Roman history and learned about the bizarre cults they had back then? Apparently not (and I suspect your studying is confined to theistic sources).

Also you underestimate the superstitions in our modern culture. I see metaphysical naturalism and scientism as great modern superstitions.

I have no doubt that you do

 

[Matthias123]

So I think we can come to a conclusion. You are an agnostic who does confess that a God exists, and you think that only material things exist, and then you reject any historical evidence I give you.

The problem is you are a materialist and no historical evidence will concivce you that materialism is false because you do not see how it could not be true. So a man rising from the dead seems completely impossible. Like a square circle.

I am not in the mood for a debate against materialism today. So I bid you good day!

 

[yankee_doodle]

So I think we can come to a conclusion. You are an agnostic who does confess that a God exists, and you think that only material things exist, and then you reject any historical evidence I give you.

not exactly right … I don’t say some sort of being or force outside of our cognition cannot exist. I am simply convinced the claims of religion aren’t true. Anyway … good talking with yah!

 

[tonyrey]

Matthias123;5630333:

I see metaphysical naturalism and scientism as great modern superstitions.

I have no doubt that you do.

1. How would you prove everything is physical?
2. How would you prove science is capable of explaining everything?

 

[yankee_doodle]

1. How would you prove everything is physical?
2. How would you prove science is capable of explaining everything?

I don’t say science can explain everything, nor am I necessarily a materialist or naturalist. Frankly this track you guys are trying to bring me down is nothing more than a red herring, detracting from the instant issue (which is whether or not common sense and logic shows religion as its currently framed to be untrue).

You guys simply buy into religion as a default explanation for things where science hasn’t yet provided one (and you’ve apparently convinced yourselves this position is logical; and therefore all contrary positions must not be). Suffice it to say I strongly disagree with this premise.

Earlier I argued by analogy, asking what if a guy named Jesus were around today, and garnered a cult of followers who publicly claimed he was executed and has risen? I showed modern examples of how people can be fooled into believing miracles were performed (the televangelist Benny Hinn as one prominent example). I posited people in the first century were probably less intelligent and more superstitious and susceptible to religious trickery than people are today (although there were plenty of intellectuals in ancient society as well).

Then, what I view as the hallmark question. Where is god today? Is it a coincidence that god has never manifested himself in a verifiable way (and when I say verifiable I mean by unbiased secular mainstream scientists, not by religious pseudo-scientists impersonating the real thing). Is it a coincidence that this god who divided oceans in half, turned sticks into snakes, rivers into blood, brought men back from death, etc. hasn’t done any of these things in the modern age; and all we have to rely on are the reports of our primitive ancestors?

How am I any different from religious folks who agree Benny Hinn is a fraud, or who think David Koresh was a wacko? I’m really not except I understand things were no different 2 or 3,000 years ago when all this stuff was invented.

Is there some sort of grand architect who created the universe? Who knows … but what I do know is no religion on earth describes him or her or it if there really is one.

 

[tonyrey]

yankee_doodle;5631281:

I don’t say science can explain everything, nor am I necessarily a materialist or naturalist.

Then why did you cast doubt on the statement that metaphysical naturalism and scientism are great modern superstitions?

Frankly this track you guys are trying to bring me down is nothing more than a red herring, detracting from the instant issue (which is whether or not common sense and logic shows religion as its currently framed to be untrue).

It is not a red herring because if naturalism is true religion is obviously false.

You guys simply buy into religion as a default explanation for things where science hasn’t yet provided one (and you’ve apparently convinced yourselves this position is logical; and therefore all contrary positions must not be).

We do not regard religion as a default explanation for everything where science hasn’t yet provided one. It is only when science claims to explain the origin of the universe and of human beings that we provide a more rational and adequate explanation.

Earlier I argued by analogy, asking what if a guy named Jesus were around today, and garnered a cult of followers who publicly claimed he was executed and has risen? I showed modern examples of how people can be fooled into believing miracles were performed (the televangelist Benny Hinn as one prominent example).
I posited people in the first century were probably less intelligent and more superstitious and susceptible to religious trickery than people are today (although there were plenty of intellectuals in ancient society as well).

You are forgetting that there were atheists, materialists, hedonists and sceptics long before the first century. The average person in any age is not so stupid as you seem to think. There were many people who rejected the claims of Jesus even when they were in His presence and after His resurrection. The fact that all of His apostles except one were put to death demonstrates that people were not so superstitious as you make out. Nor is there any reason to believe that the average IQ was lower than it is today.

Then, what I view as the hallmark question. Where is god today? Is it a coincidence that god has never manifested himself in a verifiable way (and when I say verifiable I mean by unbiased secular mainstream scientists, not by religious pseudo-scientists impersonating the real thing).

You imply that it is necessary for God to manifest himself in every century in the same way that he did in the time of Jesus. Elementary knowledge of the Gospels is sufficient to make one realise that His mission and message were not just for His own generation but for all mankind until the end of time.

Is it a coincidence that this god who divided oceans in half, turned sticks into snakes, rivers into blood, brought men back from death, etc. hasn’t done any of these things in the modern age; and all we have to rely on are the reports of our primitive ancestors?

You are assuming that all Christians believe in the literal truth of everything in the Old Testament.

How am I any different from religious folks who agree Benny Hinn is a fraud, or who think David Koresh was a wacko? I’m really not except I understand things were no different 2 or 3,000 years ago when all this stuff was invented.

You are different from them in that you reject the claims of Jesus but presumably you accept His moral teaching which is the foundation of the values and legal systems of modern society and of the UN declaration of human rights.

Is there some sort of grand architect who created the universe?

Do you attribute all the beauty in the universe, the immense value of life and our free will and capacity for love to the fortuitous combinations of molecules and random genetic mutations?

Who knows … but what I do know is no religion on earth describes him or her or it if there really is one.

You presume that your insight into the nature of God is superior to that of all the religions on this earth. How would you justify your conviction that you are right and they are mistaken?

 

[yankee_doodle]

Then why did you cast doubt on the statement that metaphysical naturalism and scientism are great modern superstitions?

because they’re not great modern superstitious, and they do have a far more rational basis then religion (moreover, it’s silly to define something like naturalism using a term like superstition). Until we discover otherwise naturalism is a good assumption, but I also don’t have the level of certitude that “nothing beyond our cognition exists” as an atheist might (although not all atheists are the same in this regard).

It is not a red herring because if naturalism is true religion is obviously false.

Yes but that can be said for many things. We don’t need to say a force or being of some sort who is like a god cannot exist in order to debunk religion; and I don’t.

We do not regard religion as a default explanation for everything where science hasn’t yet provided one. It is only when science claims to explain the origin of the universe and of human beings that we provide a more rational and adequate explanation.

Oh yes, a seven day creation story (or whatever the newest Catholic spin is) is surely far more “rational” than what we already know to be true? I mean … huh?

You are forgetting that there were atheists, materialists, hedonists and sceptics long before the first century. The average person in any age is not so stupid as you seem to think.

maybe so … but the average person (in any age) is probably far dumber than you think (I’m more & more amazed by the stupidity of people every day).

There were many people who rejected the claims of Jesus even when they were in His presence and after His resurrection. The fact that all of His apostles except one were put to death demonstrates that people were not so superstitious as you make out. Nor is there any reason to believe that the average IQ was lower than it is today.

there is no reason to believe anything about IQ (I never mentioned that). I merely noted the extraordinarily bizarre religious environment that existed in the first century (and the high level of superstition).

Moreover, you now seem to endorse a view that validates scientific facts like a heliocentric solar system, a 4 billion year old earth, and perhaps even evolution. What does that do to your bible story? I guess you think the new testament can exist isolated from the old testament – since we already know many facts (such as evolution, human migration patterns, the history of linguistics, etc.) that debunk many old testament stories.

If we evolved and if there was an Adam then he must have been a primate. The Pauline epistles sure waste a lot of ink talking about a chimpanzee?

 

[yankee_doodle]

I had to continue my response in a separate post (too many characters for a single post)

You imply that it is necessary for God to manifest himself in every century in the same way that he did in the time of Jesus. Elementary knowledge of the Gospels is sufficient to make one realise that His mission and message were not just for His own generation but for all mankind until the end of time.

I don’t imply that god has to do anything, I imply that Jesus was no god (but rather just some guy who had some pretty good stuff to say, and some other stuff that was a little off the wall … assuming he existed at all). I imply that Moses never split the red sea (or acted as a conduit for a god). I imply that all these stories are a collection of myths and never actually happened.

However, the fact that god doesn’t show himself to modern man is an important fact. You would think if one guy created the entire universe solely because of his plan for mankind, he might pop in from time to time to remind us he exists? But anyway …

You are assuming that all Christians believe in the literal truth of everything in the Old Testament.

not at all … but now you’re starting to sound a little logically haywire? I see you guys arguing with protestants about the concept of sola scriptura, but now you say what, only the new testament should be taken as literal truth (and the old testament is largely a collection of myths)?

I mean that’s fine, at least you’re trying to reconcile the bible with known fact (and I do know the CC is open to evolution and I assume acknowledges the geological age of the earth). However, I think you ignore the logical implications.

You are different from them in that you reject the claims of Jesus but presumably you accept His moral teaching which is the foundation of the values and legal systems of modern society and of the UN declaration of human rights.

first of all, the basis of concepts like democracy, individual rights, market capitalism, etc. are all found in the writings of enlightenment thinkers (many of whom were atheists or deists … and even the few theists in the bunch strongly believed in secular governance and separation of church & state; and were almost always skeptics even if they retained the veil of identifying with Christianity, usually to avoid persecution btw). There were some contributions made by a few members of the clergy (notably in areas like international law) … however, the CC has a bad and intellectually dishonest habit of taking credit for western civilization (which is just absurd; and indeed contrary to the truth).

It’s always the same twisting of the truth from Christians (of all stripes). The Catholics try and steal credit for democracy (which is perhaps the most laughable claim of all), the Protestants try and say our founding fathers were a bunch of fundamental Christians (when our most prominent founders didn’t even believe Jesus was a god, and were deists or outright agnostics). These lies can only work on people who don’t know better; and that to me is exploitation of ignorance (whether intentional or not).

Had the European not broken the power of the church western civilization would look far different today. I imagine we would still live under a dark, oppressive theocracy like our medieval ancestors did. I guess you guys conveniently forget some of the darker contributions your church made to our civilization (and only remember the small handful of notable thinkers the church had through the centuries). No matter, I’ll gladly remind you. Murdering Tyndale for merely publishing the bible (and persecuting those who possessed a copy), the inquisition (Roman and Spanish), forcing Jews into ghettos and compelling them to wear identifying arm bands (Hitler picked up on the idea), there is even some indication of culpability by the church in the genocide in Rwanda (the country is 62% catholic, and the allegation is members of the clergy incited hatred against the Tutsi), the exploitation of the German population (which led to the reformation), absurd events like the persecution of Galileo, pedophile priests, and the list goes on and on.

Indeed if it were any other organization I have little doubt it would be tried for war crimes.

Do you attribute all the beauty in the universe, the immense value of life and our free will and capacity for love to the fortuitous combinations of molecules and random genetic mutations?

Whether or not natural selection was the result of some sort of intelligent design isn’t a question I can or would even try to answer.

You presume that your insight into the nature of God is superior to that of all the religions on this earth. How would you justify your conviction that you are right and they are mistaken?

religion is obviously untrue … for all the reasons I’ve explained ad nausea; which is what my beliefs are based on.