List of common fallacies of Atheists

[Prodigal_Son]

funny, I’m not religious and I’m not a criminal, hold a graduate degree (actually two), don’t use drugs, don’t smoke, rarely drink (and when I do it’s a beer or two), exercise five days per week, I don’t have irresponsible sex, I’m a well respected professional in a position of trust, and the list goes on.

Indeed, the most irreligious part of this country (the Northeast) has the lowest divorce rate, its cities have the lowest crime rates (compared to other large cities), some of the highest college graduation rates, the highest per capita income, etc. etc. etc. In fact the most irreligious countries in the world excel in all these statistics as well (Scandinavia). Highest income, lowest crime, low divorce rates, high rankings in happiness surveys, highest education levels, etc.

Gee, it sounds like Pleasantville! Unfortunately, some of us don’t value any of these statistics as absolute goods. I’d much rather live among a sinner like Dostoevsky than a “saint” like Martha Stewart. Sinners got soul.

(Disclaimer: This post in no way endorses any sinful lifestyle. Although, it must be said, the life of a contrite sinner is infinitely superior to the life of anyone consumed by pride.)

 

[yankee_doodle]

Gee, it sounds like Pleasantville! Unfortunately, some of us don’t value any of these statistics as absolute goods. I’d much rather live among a sinner like Dostoevsky than a “saint” like Martha Stewart. Sinners got soul.

(Disclaimer: This post in no way endorses any sinful lifestyle. Although, it must be said, the life of a contrite sinner is infinitely superior to the life of anyone consumed by pride.)

Isn’t Martha Stewart a Polish-American Catholic?

 

[reggieM]

first, I’m not an atheist. I don’t make conclusive statements pertaining to whether or not some sort of god might exist.

If it is possible for God to exist, then God must necessarily exist. The agnostic position could be even more irrational than atheism in many ways.

That billions of people believe something to be true is not evidence of anything.

If you try that in a court of law – perhaps the judge will believe you. However, the fact that many people believe something (about a crime case, for example) is abundant evidence that something did occur. In the case you mention, it is evidence that a billion people believe the same thing. In a court case, there are many people behind bars right now due entirely to testimonial evidence.

The problem you have already is you can’t even recognize the evidence – but you dismiss it without investigation. The atheist’s problem is to explain among billions of people – many who are more intelligent, more academically and professionally qualified than they are – tjat not one of them is correct. Perhaps an “explanation” is that all of those billions are lying. But that makes it clear that the atheist sees the evidence and then comes up with a lame explanation without investigating (even a tiny percent of the billion cases).

Most of the world thought the earth was flat at one point, did that make the earth flat?

Some counter-evidence showed the error. Again – atheism provides no counter-evidence.

As far as Fatima, I say obscure because there’s various different accounts of what happened that day, and those visions were confined to the region surrounding Fatima (there were no witnesses in any other region of the world).

Clearly, you admit that there is evidence – but you dismiss it and claim that there is none. You offer no alternative explanation.

Moreover, scientists reported that there was no unusual solar activity that day. So it was some sort of localized vision (the sun didn’t actually come hurling toward earth, or spin around in a bizarre manner, since if it did everyone at least in the western hemisphere would have witnessed it).

“Some sort of localized vision” – as I said, you have no viable alternative explanation for what 40,000 people witnessed (including newspaper reporters). What caused this “localized vision”? Again, you provide nothing to explain it. That is simply irrational and biased.

Sure you could attribute this to coincidence, or you could make the unusual claim that god also appeared to these ancient peoples (albeit they somehow misconstrued his message and created a pagan religious system). Or you can acknowledge that the weight of evidence debunking the veracity of religious claims is so great; that the statistical likelihood of these claims being true is remote (and therefore it’s unreasonable to view these claims as true).

The fact that more people, in diverse cultures, claimed to witness the works of God is considered to be less evidence and more statistically improbable than if a few did.
Again – illogical and irrational. You’ve biased the results. You seem to know very little or nothing about God – having done no study, no personal exploration and have shown no reverence or respect towards those who have dedicated their lives to learning about God. Then you’d claim if only a few people in history experienced God - that would be proof that God does not exist. Then if many people claim to have experienced God – that’s proof that God does not exist also.

It’s circular reasoning and confusion.

You then claim to have “statistical evidence” which is absurd and false. I will not bother to ask you for the statistical reports that you’ve consulted because if any exist, they are absurd. What do you base the mathematics on? The statistical likelihood that every person writing about God in human history was lying? That’s what you’re claiming – that the Biblical authors were lying and plagerizing prior religious texts.
You make this claim with no evidence that the Biblical authors had access to those prior texts. Where is the empirical evidence that shows the Gospel authors referred to other religious books, or even knew that they existed? The Gospel authors were not academics and, except for St. Luke, were barely literate? Where and when did they study comparative religions?

Is it a coincidence that the virgin birth motif was repeated throughout ancient history (i.e. Horus, Attis, Mithra, etc.).

This says nothing. The fact that other religions possessed similar concepts is far more evidence about God’s communication with mankind than it is that all religions through history are populated with plagerists and liars. If that’s your attitude, who are you going to convince? You have no respect for the Catholic faith – but you’re wasting people’s time here with absurd and foolish opinions.
If you want to learn about Catholicism, then undertake that effort. Otherwise, why shouldn’t we just consider you a troll – looking to amuse himself with what he thinks is shocking?

Do you think two or three sentences written by Josephus or Tacitus prove a god-man rose from the dead?

It’s clear that you dismiss the Gospel evidence without having any serious depth to your thought. I would not be surprised if you never even read the Bible – and then you go on public sites claiming that you’ve “debunked” it.

Or do you honestly find the fact that the resurrecting god-man born of a virgin story isn’t unique in history, irrelevant?

If you cannot honestly recognize the unique qualities of the story of Jesus in his life, death, resurrection and ascension – and the later formation of the Catholic Church and it’s 2000 year history – then I’m sure you haven’t really taken the claims of the Catholic faith seriously at all. You’d be seeking to push them away with arguments that you borrowed somewhere, and not engage them yourself personally.

I would urge you to seriously think about the possiblity you have rightly kept open for the existence of God. What would convince you that God truly exists? How could you find that evidence that billions of others have found? How is it true that people more intelligent than you are have found the truth about God – how did they do it? Can you try the same things and find this truth also? As an agnostic – you’re open to the possibility. That is very good and to your credit. But why not pursue that possiblity much further. Why not keep an open mind and instead of refusing the claims on first sight – give them the benefit of the doubt (and give Catholics more benefit for what we believe)?

 

[yankee_doodle]

If it is possible for God to exist, then God must necessarily exist. The agnostic position could be even more irrational than atheism in many ways.

uhhhh … OK. What the heck are you talking about?

If you try that in a court of law – perhaps the judge will believe you. However, the fact that many people believe something (about a crime case, for example) is abundant evidence that something did occur. In the case you mention, it is evidence that a billion people believe the same thing. In a court case, there are many people behind bars right now due entirely to testimonial evidence.

In fact there’s many people in jail today due solely to circumstantial evidence (testimonial, or direct evidence is considered more reliable than circumstantial evidence). But I don’t dispute that something did occur. When 70,000 people say something happened I don’t dismiss it as mass delusion. What I know is it wasn’t a solar event, it was a localized vision by people in the region of Fatima. I don’t need to know what the natural cause of everything is to believe everything has a natural cause (and this is the classical premise of religion, we can’t understand or explain a natural phenomena, therefore god exists and by extension our religion is true). Logical fallacy.

The problem you have already is you can’t even recognize the evidence – but you dismiss it without investigation.

unfair critique, since I’ve read a good deal of material regarding the Fatima event (so I investigated the event I’m sure more diligently than the average Catholic).

The atheist’s problem is to explain among billions of people – many who are more intelligent, more academically and professionally qualified than they are – tjat not one of them is correct.

generalizations about any group are almost always logically fallacious.

Perhaps an “explanation” is that all of those billions are lying. But that makes it clear that the atheist sees the evidence and then comes up with a lame explanation without investigating (even a tiny percent of the billion cases).

First, you’re creating a false nexus. Millions or billions of people do not claim to have witnessed a paranormal event. There are billions of believers yes, but claims of miracles are very rare (and most of them are pretty remote in time at this point).

Secondly, aren’t you accusing non-theists of exactly the same thing theists do in practice? Isn’t it true that up until recently mainstream Christianity disagreed with evolution theory and many other scientific theories that turned out to be true (or have been substantially validated)? Therefore, wasn’t it you guys who must have imagined many if not most of the worlds scientists were colluding in a mass anti-god conspiracy?

Some counter-evidence showed the error. Again – atheism provides no counter-evidence.

I’ve mentioned the parallels with ancient mythology ad nausea. That is tangible logical evidence.

Clearly, you admit that there is evidence – but you dismiss it and claim that there is none. You offer no alternative explanation.

so you’re saying religion is true because no one has a better theory? If you’d like I can invent something interesting for you

“Some sort of localized vision” – as I said, you have no viable alternative explanation for what 40,000 people witnessed (including newspaper reporters). What caused this “localized vision”? Again, you provide nothing to explain it. That is simply irrational and biased.

you think it’s irrational to believe there’s a natural cause for this event rather than believing an invisible god who sent his son in the form of a god-man who was born to a virgin impregnated by the spirit of this god … who then centuries later sent the spirit of the virgin down to speak to three young children (and suddenly a Semitic women changed form and became a tall blond Nordic woman).

You’re right, I’m irrational (what the heck was I thinking )

continued in following post

 

[yankee_doodle]

reggieM:

The fact that more people, in diverse cultures, claimed to witness the works of God

examples please.

You’ve biased the results. You seem to know very little or nothing about God – having done no study, no personal exploration and have shown no reverence or respect towards those who have dedicated their lives to learning about God. Then you’d claim if only a few people in history experienced God - that would be proof that God does not exist. Then if many people claim to have experienced God – that’s proof that God does not exist also.

really … how do you know what I know about god (or what my religious experiences have been), why do you view dissent as irreverence (do you fear intellectual challenge), and what specifically do you base your latter two assertions on?

You then claim to have “statistical evidence” which is absurd and false. I will not bother to ask you for the statistical reports that you’ve consulted because if any exist, they are absurd. What do you base the mathematics on? The statistical likelihood that every person writing about God in human history was lying? That’s what you’re claiming – that the Biblical authors were lying and plagerizing prior religious texts.
You make this claim with no evidence that the Biblical authors had access to those prior texts. Where is the empirical evidence that shows the Gospel authors referred to other religious books, or even knew that they existed? The Gospel authors were not academics and, except for St. Luke, were barely literate? Where and when did they study comparative religions?

quite a rant

This says nothing. The fact that other religions possessed similar concepts is far more evidence about God’s communication with mankind than it is that all religions through history are populated with plagerists and liars.

Whether or not Jesus existed isn’t something I opine on (perhaps he did I don’t know). However, when I learn that the Egyptian god Horus (mythology that pre-dates Christianity by centuries) was said to be the only begotten son of Osiris, of royal descent, born in a cave, the annunciation of his mother was by an angel, there was a break in his life history (between 12 and 30), was tempted by Sut in the desert, walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight in the blind, executed by the sting of a scorpion, descended into hell, and resurrected after three days, and will reign for 1,000 years at some point in the future … I scratch my head and wonder, duh?

If that’s your attitude, who are you going to convince? You have no respect for the Catholic faith – but you’re wasting people’s time here with absurd and foolish opinions.
If you want to learn about Catholicism, then undertake that effort. Otherwise, why shouldn’t we just consider you a troll – looking to amuse himself with what he thinks is shocking?

against all the evidence ad hominem attacks is all you have.

It’s clear that you dismiss the Gospel evidence without having any serious depth to your thought. I would not be surprised if you never even read the Bible – and then you go on public sites claiming that you’ve “debunked” it.

want to have a who knows the bible better competition?

If you cannot honestly recognize the unique qualities of the story of Jesus in his life, death, resurrection and ascension – and the later formation of the Catholic Church and it’s 2000 year history – then I’m sure you haven’t really taken the claims of the Catholic faith seriously at all. You’d be seeking to push them away with arguments that you borrowed somewhere, and not engage them yourself personally.

In other words everyone who disagrees with you is unreasonable, since anyone who really knows about Catholicism would convert in a second

I would urge you to seriously think about the possiblity you have rightly kept open for the existence of God. What would convince you that God truly exists? How could you find that evidence that billions of others have found? How is it true that people more intelligent than you are have found the truth about God – how did they do it? Can you try the same things and find this truth also? As an agnostic – you’re open to the possibility. That is very good and to your credit. But why not pursue that possiblity much further. Why not keep an open mind and instead of refusing the claims on first sight – give them the benefit of the doubt (and give Catholics more benefit for what we believe)?

and now after your long tirade, you’re appealing to flattery (another logical fallacy btw)?

 

[tonyrey]

If you look at the way most people live in our secular society they are preoccupied by the things of this life and not with religion.

makes sense to me.

Which makes nonsense of your assertion that “the certitude of religion makes life more simple to grasp and live for most people”!

I haven’t based anything I said on speculative mathematical theories, and IMO this sort of speculation is grossly premature anyway.

In other words you take refuge in dogmatic ignorance: “I don’t know the answer but religion is definitely false and and cannot explain anything whatsoever!”

When I examine ancient Sumerian, Egyptian, or Greek mythology and find numerous parallels to virtually every bible story, it’s clear to me that contemporary religion is merely a monotheistic hybrid of these ancient mythological systems…

It obviously hasn’t dawned on you that myths express fundamental truths and insights into the nature of reality - that the universe is not just an enormous pile of purposeless, valueless junk which emerged from nothing and has accidentally produced strange freaks which imagine they are rational and capable of love.

The funny thing is science continues to debunk the musings of theologians every era.

The funny thing is you believe science can in principle explain everything yet the decisions you make in life are not based on science but on the assumption that human beings are persons not biological machines… What does science tell us about good and evil, justice, love, freedom, friendship, happiness?

From a geocentric earth to the seven day creation story religion continually changes its position in response to scientific discovery.

That is a strength rather than a weakness: science also continually changes its position. The fundamental truths of religion remain unchanged and forever beyond the scope of science - that we are persons the power of reason in a rational universe - with free will and a right to life and happiness. The fundamental principles of science are based on belief in a rational universe and the power of reason.

When you add it up … it becomes silly.

Indeed. When you add it up … it becomes silly to have blind faith that science will explain everything and show us how to live our lives in every single detail. The Brave New World is becoming a hell on earth… abortions, suicides, assisted suicides, euthanasia, mental illness, drug addiction, pollution…

 

[Charles_Darwin]

but on the assumption that human beings are persons

What on earth is that supposed to mean? All person means is individual human being. Which is a biological machine.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What on earth is that supposed to mean? All person means is individual human being. Which is a biological machine.

From dictionary.com: Person (philosophy): a self-conscious or rational being.

If humans are determined by their atoms (and nothing else), then no human is a person. How can a causally determined biological machine be rational?

 

[yankee_doodle]

From dictionary.com: Person (philosophy): a self-conscious or rational being.

If humans are determined by their atoms (and nothing else), then no human is a person. How can a causally determined biological machine be rational?

huh? I think most atheists would say natural selection was a random process (not a determined process). I know there’s been evolutionary algorithms set up that use the concept of random mutation (based on Darwinian selection) & intelligence derived from randomness is indistinguishable from innate intelligence.

We have a working model, whereas ID theorists only have a bunch of speculation based on poor methodology. We know it’s possible that life as we know it (including intelligent life i.e. humans) was able to evolved from simple organisms (that were not preprogrammed, but rather evolved purely because of unguided random mutations).

 

[Charles_Darwin]

From dictionary.com: Person (philosophy): a self-conscious or rational being.

If humans are determined by their atoms (and nothing else), then no human is a person. How can a causally determined biological machine be rational?

From dictionary.com: Person 1.** a human being**, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.

I see no reason why a biological machine couldn’t be rational.

 

[tonyrey]

What on earth is that supposed to mean? All person means is individual human being. Which is a biological machine.

Constant repetition does not alter the facts… Have you told your family and friends they are splendid biological machines?!
Why not try to explain to us the will to survive? That would be far more interesting…

 

[yankee_doodle]

Which makes nonsense of your assertion that “the certitude of religion makes life more simple to grasp and live for most people”!
In other words you take refuge in dogmatic ignorance: “I don’t know the answer but religion is definitely false and and cannot explain anything whatsoever!”
It obviously hasn’t dawned on you that myths express fundamental truths and insights into the nature of reality - that the universe is not just an enormous pile of purposeless, valueless junk which emerged from nothing and has accidentally produced strange freaks which imagine they are rational and capable of love.

no matter how you dress it up, when it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.

You honestly believe that the earlier pagan myth of Horus (which is virtually identical to the Jesus story), which pre-dates Christianity by centuries, is a myth that expresses fundamental truth pertaining to your religion?

Furthermore, just because you’ve created a false dilemma in your mind i.e. either we’re an “enormous pile of purposeless, valueless junk which emerged from nothing . . .” or your religion must be true, doesn’t mean you’re right (all it means is you should go to Barnes & Nobles, pick up a book on rudimentary logic, and read it).

The funny thing is you believe science can in principle explain everything yet the decisions you make in life are not based on science but on the assumption that human beings are persons not biological machines… What does science tell us about good and evil, justice, love, freedom, friendship, happiness?

what does religion tell us about any of these things? No more than say secular enlightenment thinkers (indeed, much less). I’d take Thomas Paine or Immanuel Kant over your St. Paul any day of the week. These enlightenment thinkers created concepts we know today as freedom, justice, democracy, equal rights, etc. It certainly wasn’t your church (who generally stood against individual freedom for most of its history).

With regard to love and other emotions, a product of our subconsciousness, which we’re learning more about every day. Our subconsciousness is a product of our biological formation (and obviously our environment), which likely evolved through a random process of selection.

That is a strength rather than a weakness: science also continually changes its position. The fundamental truths of religion remain unchanged and forever beyond the scope of science - that we are persons the power of reason in a rational universe - with free will and a right to life and happiness. The fundamental principles of science are based on belief in a rational universe and the power of reason.

rhetoric and platitudes. No scientist (or organization of scientists) claims infallibility (imputed by the creator god of the universe). As for fundamental truths, exactly what truths are those? Is it thy shall not kill (unless you’re the CC and burning people at the stake). Geesh

Indeed. When you add it up … it becomes silly to have blind faith that science will explain everything and show us how to live our lives in every single detail. The Brave New World is becoming a hell on earth… abortions, suicides, assisted suicides, euthanasia, mental illness, drug addiction, pollution…

It’s truly amusing how much this slippery slope created by religion is detached from reality. Here in the real world the most irreligious places on earth have the least amount of drug or alcohol addiction per capita, the highest income, highest average education rates, lowest crime, even the lowest divorce rates. In fact we’re the least polluted as well (and it’s normally secular liberals who fight for environmental protections).

 

[tonyrey]

You honestly believe that the earlier pagan myth of Horus (which is virtually identical to the Jesus story), which pre-dates Christianity by centuries, is a myth that expresses fundamental truth pertaining to your religion?

Jesus was a historical person whose moral teaching is the noblest that the human race has ever known, whose community has survived for more than two thousand years and whose followers now constitute one third of the world population. Horus was a mythical figure - of whom there were various versions - in the religion of the ancient Egyptians who had a whole pantheon of gods with a wide range of primitive attributes and adventures. Nevertheless their beliefs reflect the fundamental truths of Creation, the existence of divinity and the soul, the distinction between good and evil, cosmic justice, life after death and the need for prayer, salvation and atonement.

Furthermore, just because you’ve created a false dilemma in your mind i.e. either we’re an “enormous pile of purposeless, valueless junk which emerged from nothing . . .” or your religion must be true, doesn’t mean you’re right.

Do you believe the physical universe is valueless and purposeless or not? Was it created by God or not? Do we exist for any particular reason or not? So much for your “false dilemma”!

You believe science can in principle explain everything yet the decisions you make in life are not based on science but on the assumption that human beings are persons not biological machines… What does science tell us about good and evil, justice, love, freedom, friendship, happiness?
What does religion tell us about any of these things?

Please answer my questions:

1. Are the decisions you make in life are based on science on the assumption that human beings are persons
2. What does science tell us about good and evil, justice, love, freedom, friendship, happiness?
   Religion tells us that we are creative persons with a conscience, free will and capacity for love whose lives are infinitely valuable because we are made in the image of our Creator.

I’d take Thomas Paine or Immanuel Kant over your St. Paul any day of the week. These enlightenment thinkers created concepts we know today as freedom, justice, democracy, equal rights, etc.

It is ironic that the great thinkers you quote both believed in God! Paine was deeply influenced by the humanitarian views of his father who was a Quaker. Kant was a Christian who believed in “the universal kingdom of ends”.
The belief in freedom, justice, equal rights and love stem from Jesus who taught that we are all children of the Father and we shall receive exactly what we deserve - unlike atheists who regard freedom, justice, equal rights and love as human ideas which are a product of our biological formation (and obviously our environment), which likely evolved through a random process of selection.

With regard to love and other emotions, a product of our subconsciousness, which we’re learning more about every day. Our subconsciousness is a product of our biological formation (and obviously our environment), which likely evolved through a random process of selection.

So all your emotions are thrust on you and you are a helpless slave, are you? Do you tell that to the persons you love?
The fundamental truths of religion remain unchanged and forever beyond the scope of science - that we are persons the power of reason in a rational universe - with free will and a right to life and happiness. The fundamental principles of science are based on belief in a rational universe and the power of reason.

No scientist (or organization of scientists) claims infallibility (imputed by the creator god of the universe). As for fundamental truths, exactly what truths are those?

Are the fundamental principles of science based on belief in a rational universe and the power of reason or not?
The fundamental truths of religion are : we are persons with the power of reason in a rational universe - with free will and a right to life and happiness. Do you dispute that? If not, on what do you base those truths? Our biological formation (and obviously our environment), which likely evolved through a random process of selection?

The Brave New World is becoming a hell on earth… abortions, suicides, assisted suicides, euthanasia, mental illness, drug addiction, pollution…
Here in the real world the most irreligious places on earth have the least amount of drug or alcohol addiction per capita, the highest income, highest average education rates, lowest crime, even the lowest divorce rates. In fact we’re the least polluted as well (and it’s normally secular liberals who fight for environmental protections).

Please substantiate your assertions statistically. Otherwise they are worthless…

 

[Thales]

We have a working model, whereas ID theorists only have a bunch of speculation based on poor methodology. We know it’s possible that life as we know it (including intelligent life i.e. humans) was able to evolved from simple organisms (that were not preprogrammed, but rather evolved purely because of unguided random mutations).

I don’t think we know it is possible intelligent life can evolve from simple organisms. As far as I know this sort of thing cannot be tested, has not been duplicated, nor is there any other examples of its occurrence.

 

[Thales]

what does religion tell us about any of these things? No more than say secular enlightenment thinkers (indeed, much less). I’d take Thomas Paine or Immanuel Kant over your St. Paul any day of the week. These enlightenment thinkers created concepts we know today as freedom, justice, democracy, equal rights, etc. It certainly wasn’t your church (who generally stood against individual freedom for most of its history).

It is not fair to give so much credit to the enlightenment thinkers. It isn’t like they came up with their ideas out of the clear blue. Much of their thinking has a basis in Judeo-Christian values and ethics. Nor did they create the concepts of democracy, freedom, equal rights, and justice, those things have always been championed by Christians and Catholics. It is only because the freedom of thought, allowed by Christianity, were men like Thomas Paine and the other enlightenment thinkers able to advance those ideas.

Anti-religious myth #1739: Christianity and the Catholic Church stood against individual freedom for most of its history.

 

[reggieM]

uhhhh … OK. What the heck are you talking about?

If it is possible for God to exist, then God necessarily exists. The only way God could not exist is if it was impossible for God to exist.
That is the atheistic claim – that it is impossible for God to exist. Again, that claim is offered without evidence.

Since God is not a contingent being, then if there is a possibility that God exists, then God necessarily exists – because whatever conditions there were that created the possiblity would be fulfilled by the first cause, necessary being.

God, by definition, is the thing which possesses the maximal excellence (omnicience, omnipotentence, perfect goodness). If there is a possible world that possesses the maximal exellence – then that maximal excellence must exist in all possible worlds (because if it was limited to just one, it would not be the maximal excellence).

Thus, if God is possible, God must exist in every possible world - thus God must exist in our world.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Jesus was a historical person whose moral teaching is the noblest that the human race has ever known,

I don’t necessarily disagree with that statement.

whose community has survived for more than two thousand years and whose followers now constitute one third of the world population. Horus was a mythical figure - of whom there were various versions - in the religion of the ancient Egyptians who had a whole pantheon of gods with a wide range of primitive attributes and adventures.

obviously the comparison is of the supernatural elements of the Jesus story. The supernatural elements of the Horus myth were obviously plugged into the Jesus story.

Nevertheless their beliefs reflect the fundamental truths of Creation, the existence of divinity and the soul, the distinction between good and evil, cosmic justice, life after death and the need for prayer, salvation and atonement.

that’s an absurd conclusion

Do you believe the physical universe is valueless and purposeless or not?

irrelevant question

Was it created by God or not? Do we exist for any particular reason or not? So much for your “false dilemma”!

you don’t have a grasp of basic logic.

Please answer my questions:

1. Are the decisions you make in life are based on science on the assumption that human beings are persons
2. What does science tell us about good and evil, justice, love, freedom, friendship, happiness?

I’ve already given you a well rounded response to this line of questioning. How about this, answer one question for me.

Do you think asking the same questions repeatedly helps you sound intelligent?

Religion tells us that we are creative persons with a conscience, free will and capacity for love whose lives are infinitely valuable because we are made in the image of our Creator.

you need a primitive book to tell that?

It is ironic that the great thinkers you quote both believed in God! Paine was deeply influenced by the humanitarian views of his father who was a Quaker. Kant was a Christian who believed in “the universal kingdom of ends”.

Thomas Paine was a deist, who authored a book called the Age of Reason (which helped deism become popular in the colonies). Immanuel Kant was agnostic.

The belief in freedom, justice, equal rights and love stem from Jesus who taught that we are all children of the Father and we shall receive exactly what we deserve - unlike atheists who regard freedom, justice, equal rights and love as human ideas which are a product of our biological formation (and obviously our environment), which likely evolved through a random process of selection.

Unfortunately the least likely persons or organizations in western history to have acted “justly” is Christians and their churches.

More platitudes with no substance. You don’t even have a grasp of basic history for crying out loud (trying to paint Thomas Paine as a Quaker is the most absurd claim I’ve heard so far). I ask, can you prove that Jesus is the source of freedom, equal rights, and love? I say again that’s an absurd claim.

So all your emotions are thrust on you and you are a helpless slave, are you? Do you tell that to the persons you love?

Did you digest a single word I said previously about the formation of our subconscious? Anyway, aren’t you guys the sheep? I say Christianity is a slave religion. Imagine all the poor and underprivileged in first century Roman society. These people lived hopeless lives, yet this guy named Paul comes along and tells them about a kingdom designed for the meek. It’s no wonder the ignorant, poor, and enslaved came running. Suddenly a religious system that puts them on top, without any effort (just sort of behave yourself and believe). Give me a break

The fundamental truths of religion remain unchanged and forever beyond the scope of science - that we are persons the power of reason in a rational universe - with free will and a right to life and happiness.

well, here in the real world, rewinding to the period when “religion” was in control of things, their fundamental truths had nothing to do with free will and a right to life or happiness. Believe or burn, believe our way or burn, kill the infidels, imprison the scientists, etc. Rational thought has always been the enemy of religion.

I guess in your world they represent truth, fairness, or whatever else you imagine … but most of us don’t live in your imagination.

The fundamental principles of science are based on belief in a rational universe and the power of reason.
Are the fundamental principles of science based on belief in a rational universe and the power of reason or not?
The fundamental truths of religion are : we are persons with the power of reason in a rational universe - with free will and a right to life and happiness. Do you dispute that? If not, on what do you base those truths?

Is an intelligible response too much to ask for?

Our biological formation (and obviously our environment), which likely evolved through a random process of selection?
Please substantiate your assertions statistically. Otherwise they are worthless…

What I’ve said had nothing to do with statistics (statistics is not a relevant standard of proof in the case I articulated). What I’ve said is models have been developed that show randomness can produce intelligence. It’s not conclusive proof (and I never presented it as such), but showing it’s possible (the “means”) is a piece of evidence. My overall case is built upon the totality of the evidence.

Where probability is valid is when we look at the Horus story, which is interestingly virtually exactly the same as the supernatural elements of the Jesus story (and it came centuries earlier). I believe Jesus perhaps did exist, had a ministry, and taught some worthwhile virtues. However, it’s clear that along the way the story of Horus was plugged into the Jesus narrative. What’s the probability that Jesus would replicate the life of an earlier pagan character in such detail, versus the probability that the earlier story was plugged into the later story? The answer is obvious!

Look I understand you’ll rationalize this stuff away in your mind (with intellectual gymnastics that would make an Olympic athlete envious), but that’s your problem not mine

 

[yankee_doodle]

If it is possible for God to exist, then God necessarily exists. The only way God could not exist is if it was impossible for God to exist.

that’s absurd logic?

That is the atheistic claim – that it is impossible for God to exist. Again, that claim is offered without evidence.

I’m not an atheist so I can’t speak for them. However, I do know there’s diversity in the views of atheists.

Since God is not a contingent being, then if there is a possibility that God exists, then God necessarily exists – because whatever conditions there were that created the possiblity would be fulfilled by the first cause, necessary being.

how old are you? This sounds too absurd to be coming from an adult (at least a rational, educated adult).

 

[yankee_doodle]

It is not fair to give so much credit to the enlightenment thinkers. It isn’t like they came up with their ideas out of the clear blue. Much of their thinking has a basis in Judeo-Christian values and ethics. Nor did they create the concepts of democracy, freedom, equal rights, and justice, those things have always been championed by Christians and Catholics. It is only because the freedom of thought, allowed by Christianity, were men like Thomas Paine and the other enlightenment thinkers able to advance those ideas.

Anti-religious myth #1739: Christianity and the Catholic Church stood against individual freedom for most of its history.

oh come on now. The CC endorsed slavery (although it eventually recanted, it was sort of a day late & a dollar short if you know what I mean). They burned human beings at the stake. They facilitated every oppressive system of governance in Europe, from feudalism to absolutism.

The enlightenment thinkers were fighting against the world created by the church. Slavery, serfdom, classism, and just about every other form of oppression was given the stamp of god by the CC.

If your point is that the medieval CC didn’t represent the true message of Christ, and the teachings of Christ do contain elements that were used and built upon by some enlightenment thinkers; that would certainly be worth discussing.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I don’t think we know it is possible intelligent life can evolve from simple organisms. As far as I know this sort of thing cannot be tested, has not been duplicated, nor is there any other examples of its occurrence.

the science of evolution is well developed at this point. So I assume you’re referring to attempts to replicate the process where chemical reactions can simulate the formation of biological life (which I agree, or at least I’m pretty sure, is only theoretical at this point). But I wasn’t talking about that exactly.

However, I do know scientists have been trying to replicate the process (I seen a show on this a while back, but I don’t remember the outcomes).