Atheists, I have only one thing to say to you

reply to post by sphinx551


I wasn't the least bit concerned about what any of them had to say...
I actually feel bad for people of all religions.. Religion is a weak mans crutch or a manipulative mans tool for domination.. PERIOD!!!!

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Well, I am not saying that people and places in the bible did not exist... They were simply misinterpeted by ignorant, weak people...

The problem with the whole
"I believe in God you don't" thing is that it sounds black and white.
But if there are more numbers to the equation.
What if the very words you have read to tell you about this God were changed to make sure you would never find them.
www.thechronicleproject.org...

A Canadian research group has shown that the bible has been purposely translated wrong, and they have begun to post the truth. Read all the research notes.

Get the info, then come and squabble again

Originally posted by Astyanax
So, like I said... just taking out insurance.

Er, no. Nothing like you said.

Originally posted by Astyanax
I'm not talking about answers to life and existence; I'm talking about having to believe in things that commonsense (not to mention logic and science) tells you are false--such as, for example, the Virgin Birth. And anyone who doesn't think religious people live in a state of mental confusion has only to talk to them to discover the truth.

And what exactly is ''common sense'' ?

If someone believes in the ''Virgin Birth'', then there are no points of references, and no need for ''justification'' of their beliefs.

Tell me; what possible argument have you got against the ''Virgin Birth'' ?

Of course, you'll be incapable of providing any logical or coherent alternative, other than your own personal, prejudiced opinion on the matter.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Well, if it isn't clearly before your eyes that life on Earth is older than six thousand years, I can only offer you my sympathy.

Absurd point.

Life may well be older than six thousand years, life may well be younger than six thousand years. We don't know.

Originally posted by Astyanax
The rest of your response to this point is sophomoric bollocks, I'm afraid.

Roughly translated as:

''The rest of your response is unarguably correct, and I can't offer a valid counter to it''

Cheers.

Originally posted by Astyanax
The Muslims, Buddhists and all the rest have their own versions.

And... ?

Originally posted by Astyanax
It's called penance and repentance. Duties of a Christian, you know. Other clubs have similar rules too.

What have Christians got to do with anything ?

Originally posted by Astyanax
It isn't about what you know after death--an obvious contradiction in terms. It's about what you miss and what you suffer while you're still alive, all for the sake of a holy lie.

You can't possibly know whether your life is a lie, unless you know the truth.

This is patently self-evident.

As nobody knows the truth ( if there is such a thing ), then it is clearly illogical to think that anybody could be living a ''lie''.

Please *think* before print your thoughts.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Ask a random sample of, oh, let's say a dozen people. Then ask another.

Yet another absurd point.

I've asked a random sample of people, and all that I've come up with, is a random sample of people's ill-informed opinions.

Originally posted by Mobius1974
Well, I am not saying that people and places in the bible did not exist... They were simply misinterpeted by ignorant, weak people...

I was just querying why you would reinterpret certain characters' lives, who were named in the bible, while using the same book to justify your reinterpretation !

That is all !

Re Sherlock Holmes:

You wrote

"Tell me; what possible argument have you got against the ''Virgin Birth'' ? Of course, you'll be incapable of providing any logical or coherent alternative, other than your own personal, prejudiced opinion on the matter."

You're loosing it now, dude. You're using pseudo-logic, reversing the burden of proof. I don't think, you've met my omniscient mouse Henry yet*; he's kind of divine, and knows everything.

Please prove he doesn't exist.


You also wrote: "Nobody ''knows'' anything."

While I really like your signature, I think you should try to get out of your Cartesian loop. Are you honestly suggesting, that mankind doesn't 'know' anything (please notice I also use citation marks). Every time you cross a street, are you then uncertain as to the existence of the street and the approaching lorry, which will turn you into something messy in a few seconds, unless you acknowledge its existence.

Dog, what a life you must have, living with tupsy-turvy half-logic.

* He and an existential toaster manifest occasionally here in complex philosophical contexts.

Originally posted by bogomil
You're loosing it now, dude. You're using pseudo-logic, reversing the burden of proof.

No, I'm not losing it.

The ''burden of proof'' is not self-evident. A person has to either accept or reject that approach when formulating an opinion.

It is up the individual. Clearly, people that believe in the Virgin Birth aren't adopting formalised logic when coming to their conclusions.

My argument is simply that the entirety of people's beliefs and disbeliefs are based on personal experiences and opinions, and nothing else.

People like to hide behind logic, because they think it gives their personal views and opinions more credence.
It doesn't.

Logic itself, in it's formal sense, is a self-defeating exercise, as it ultimately comes down to circular reasoning, which is prohibited by the rules of logic that are being applied.

Originally posted by bogomil
I don't think, you've met my omniscient mouse Henry yet*; he's kind of divine, and knows everything.

Please prove he doesn't exist.

The thing is, I can't ''prove'' that anything does or doesn't exist to anyone else. It is only possible to prove something to one's self.

Your mouse, for example, could display clear signs of divinity, but it wouldn't prove anything to someone that rejects that notion.

I think you're misinterpreting my point if you think that I'm trying to move the ''burden of proof'' from the person making the claim; I'm not.

Originally posted by bogomilYou also wrote: "Nobody ''knows'' anything."

While I really like your signature, I think you should try to get out of your Cartesian loop. Are you honestly suggesting, that mankind doesn't 'know' anything (please notice I also use citation marks). Every time you cross a street, are you then uncertain as to the existence of the street and the approaching lorry, which will turn you into something messy in a few seconds, unless you acknowledge its existence.

Yes, nobody ''knows'' anything.

We only believe something to be true, based on our own personal experiences.

There is no such thing as a ''mankind'' group-think. Mankind is made up of the views and beliefs of billions of individual people, and it's impossible to tell who is definitively right or wrong ( if such concepts indeed truly exist ).

Your example of crossing a street is an individual person's belief in the street existing, and an individual person's belief that the consequences of being knocked down by a lorry will be harmful.

A mentally handicapped person doesn't ''know'' that walking on a busy road is likely to result in an accident.


To further my point, here's a hypothetical scenario:

Suppose that I'm paranoiac, and display all the archetypal symptoms of thinking that ''everyone's out to get me''; now suppose that I believe that you are out to harm me.

You, on the other hand, aren't ''out to get me'', and think that my belief that you are, is delusional.

So, who's right ?

I ''know'' that you are out to get me, and you ''know'' that you aren't.
One of us has deluded ourselves into believing something that doesn't correlate with reality...
But which one of us ?

How can you prove which individual person's ''knowledge'' is correct ?

Originally posted by bogomil
Dog, what a life you must have, living with tupsy-turvy half-logic.

There is no ''half-logic'' or ''pseudo-logic'' involved in the points that I'm making.

Logic is a concept that is formed by an individual person's belief.

Formal logic is a set of arbitrary rules created by other people that an individual person can either accept or reject.


I don't stick my hand in the fire, because I personally believe that I'll get burnt.

Hi Sherlock,

nice answer, and I would have loved to continue on the track of potential solipsism. But I fear I'm getting really off-topic now.

But thanks anyway.

Originally posted by minute2midnight
If I'm wrong, and there is no God, then there is nothing to worry about. No harm, no foul. Death then blackness, nothingness.

If you're wrong, you're all screwed. Forever.

I may not be a good enough person to get ushered to the front of the line, but you all have a one way ticket.

While we both know what you've stated is absolutely true, it's not wise to present it to the unbeliever. Your argument is called "Pascal's Wager". It's a logical fallacy, and trust me, they've heard it numerous times before.

there are other ways to debate Atheism without the need of Pascal's Wager. It's true, but under terms of debate it's not a logical argument.