Atheism to Defeat Religion By 2038

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

No on Enoch Powell. Book of Enoch. Seventh from Adam.

Good to know.

According to wiki apparently written between 3rd & 1st centuries BCE, and only canon to Eritrean and Ethiopian orthodox x-ians, and Beta Israel.

Curious.

Originally posted by 29INFDIV
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Born in 1982, and nothing will break away my faith, nor my childrens faith.

Born in 1959 - and used to think the same thing....except for the children bit....didn't have any when I decided god doesn't exist.

There is one thing that can "break" your faith - yourself. And your children can also choose to "break" their faith.

Predicting he future is soothsaying isn't it? And isn't that a sin??

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

no - let's answer the question that was asked of you and not duck and dive to avoid it!

but the topic of the thread is not even that either - it is the prediction that there will be more aetheists than christians by 2038 - which may or may not prove true, and which makes no mention of "aetheism taking over christians" at all - when you get it wrong you realy do a bang up job of getting it wrong!

so why dose it take "MORE faith" to beleive evolution than to believe the bible?

I see. The thread is about Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038. To stay on topic, you want me to answer the question, "so why dose it take "MORE faith" to beleive evolution than to believe the bible?"

You are the one who said you wanted to stay on topic, and hten promptly went OT - my comment about hte topic was to remind you what hte topic actually was should you HONESTLY desire to stay on it.

My question about "more faith" is because you made that statement without justifying it in anyway.

I'll try.

Excellent.

It takes more faith to be an Atheist when all of quantum mechanics is explained in the Bible.

And since they aren't that is completely irrelevant.

To not see the connection denies the truth and does not deny ignorance of the truth. The moto of the website is, "Deny Ignorance." My answers stated the case clearly. Any God that can show me the future, demonstrate a mastery of light and physics, claim to only be about love, then demonstrated it by dying on a cross deserves my attention.

Sad.....you are starting from the premise that h bible is true and god exists.....and since I don't believe either (well bits of the bible that are history may well be true, but that's not what we are talking about), your whole argument is just circular and self serving.

Beyond this, why does sin cause a debt?

Who says it does? the Bible? God? See above....

Sin is so fun. Isn't fun what life is all about? Show me the money. That's all that matters, right?

Really? Why do you figure that??

As my other answers have shown, truth is suffering for what is to be earned.

lol - more circular reasoning - ..

In mathematics, we can create a negative. Compare this to a piece of trash I throw in your yard. I just created one negative for you, as you need to now do work to clean your yard. What if you decided, instead, to come beat me up. Now there is trash in your yard and you cause me pain. That's -2. If you had picked up the trash, it would have been -1 +1=0. You could have even thrown it away and then come to my home and picked up my trash too. Now, the world is all positive. I have been taken down by kindness and there is no trash in either yard.

Straw man, irrelevant, nonsensical and not even wrong!!

"Consider this example: In mathematics, if you owe three people $10, then you are negative $30 (3 X -10 = $-30). If the lenders then say, "We forgive you for this debt because we love you," then you are free from that debt by another negative. You have just had three subtractions of -10, making you three positives of $10 (-3 X -$10). Your debt is -30 + 30 = Zero. Jesus died a horrible death to pay our debt, walking us back to a positive value. "

Ditto - circular, irrelevant, nonsensical, strawman, not even wrong!

Our sin and Jesus death is a positive for us all. Giving creates reward. It's the only way to have peace in the world. It's called love.

Beat that with Atheism.

Easy - atheism exists - by definition it therefore beats god.

Thanks for the opportunity

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


Straw man, irrelevant, nonsensical and not even wrong!!

You do realize that a lot of those terms can apply to your argument as well. Nothing you've said about atheism curing the world's woes has a lick of proof behind it. Atheism is mostly a relatively modern belief held by world leaders. Some notable ones are Stalin and Mao.

In essence, your certain about the fruits of atheism, when in fact, there are no fruits to behold. Not the kind you're looking for.

The History of Freethought and Atheism

Dr. Gordon Stein Ph.D. - - from "An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism"

The idea that atheism has a long and colorful history may strike some people as unlikely. It is true, however, and those few people who have made an effort to study that history have found enough there to fill several thick volumes (and most of them barely scratched the surface).

There have undoubtedly always been unbelievers in the current religious belief of an area or a people. Before the invention of writing, however, we know of no specific unbelievers who left any record of their unbelief. In ancient India, there was a group of freethinkers known as the Lokayatas (before 600 B.C., although remnants of this group are found in India as late as the 14th century.) In China, both Confucius and Lao Tsze can be viewed as freethinkers in relation to the religion(s) prevalent in China at the time.

Early Greek Freethinkers

The first real freethinkers or atheists who seem to have produced work specifically dealing with religion in a negative way were found in ancient Greece. Although most of these works have not survived to the present day (and charges of atheism were often politically motivated and really not based upon fact), we know that Anaxagoras was accused of impiety and forced to leave Greece. He supposedly held that the sun was a red-hot body and that the moon was a physical object which was larger than Greece. He did not, however, apparently make an attack on the popular religious beliefs.

The Greek historian Thucydides never invoked the supernatural or attributed any historical events to that cause. This was quite a radical approach in those days and contrasts strongly with the writings of Herodotus, the other famous Greek historian. The third person usually lumped together with Thucydides and Anaxagoras as an atheist is Pericles. He was certainly friendly with the other two men, but there is nothing specifically atheistic in Pericles' surviving writings. Two other Greeks frequently accused of atheism were Hippo and Diogenes. None of Hippo's writing survives, so it is impossible to examine it while only a few scientific fragments of Diogenes are known to us. Aristophanes' play The Clouds put atheistic words in Diogenes' mouth, however, Protagoras was tried and had his work on gods publicly burned. The actual work seems to have merely stated that he did not and could not know whether the gods existed or not. Although Socrates was tried and condemned to death for atheism it is not at all clear whether this charge had any real basis in fact, or was merely "trumped up". Socrates dealt with ethics and left theological questions entirely alone. Finally we can say with confidence that Theodorus of Cyrene was an atheist from the contents of his work On the Gods.

www.positiveatheism.org...

This is a great true story of a Christian Missionary - - sent to the Amazon jungle to spread the word of Christ.

The tribe he worked with have no believe in God - - and are known to be: "The Happiest People on Earth".

It is a very long article - - - I highly recommend reading it in its entirety.

From Missionary to Atheist

The Pirahã: People Who Define Happiness Without God

We learn that not all the things we thought were universal are universal, not all the things that make people happy are necessary to make people happy, and that the idea that somebody died on a cross 2,000 years ago that nobody ever saw, nobody knows anybody who ever saw, has any relevance to my happiness or my life in any way today. ffrf.org...

Originally posted by satron

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


Straw man, irrelevant, nonsensical and not even wrong!!

You do realize that a lot of those terms can apply to your argument as well. Nothing you've said about atheism curing the world's woes has a lick of proof behind it.

I didn't say atheism would cure the worlds' woes tho - so yet again you demonstrate that you ahve no idea what atheism actually is.

Atheism is mostly a relatively modern belief held by world leaders. Some notable ones are Stalin and Mao.

they replaced a supernatural god with a political one

In essence, your certain about the fruits of atheism, when in fact, there are no fruits to behold. Not the kind you're looking for.

As above - I have actually found what I m looking or - a peaceful existence where I am not beholding to the whims of an illogical, capricious, cruel god who no-one can possibly know and the delusions of those arrogant enoughnot to realise that.

Of course I am not immune to the annoyance of being accosted by those people - but at least I can easily dismiss them......except when they start to say I MUST follow their particilar imaginary friend on pain of death, intolerance or at least increased taxes. At that point I lose my tolerance for their fantasy.

Originally posted by satron
Atheism is mostly a relatively modern belief held by world leaders.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus (Greek philosopher, BC 341-270)

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


God uses "evil" for His glory. Example, the devil wanted to have Joseph killed, and finally sent him into slavery. He knew God gave him a dream that one day all Israel would bow to him. End result, Joseph was so faithful that he was placed as 2nd in command of Egypt and the nation of Israel was spared during a great famine. Even Joseph marvelled at this years later:

"What you had meant for evil, the Lord has used for good."

Life is littered with accounts of God turning evil into good for His glory. Another thing that is sad and Im sure wasnt the original plan, is that many many people never turn to God until a horrible situation befalls them in life. God allows certain trouble because thats the only way to get most people to turn to Him.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Life is littered with accounts of God turning evil into good for His glory. Another thing that is sad and Im sure wasnt the original plan, is that many many people never turn to God until a horrible situation befalls them in life. God allows certain trouble because thats the only way to get most people to turn to Him.

So you are saying god is just an a-hole then?

He made people, and being omnipotent could have made them perfect, but it seems failed to do so.

Despite being omniscient he also failed to see that Adam & Eve would fall for the ol' snake & apple switch hit!!

And then, after that, rather than putting things right and letting everyone live in the GoE again (omnipotent remember - could have clicked his fingers), he inflicted 6000 years (so far) of suffering on billions and billions of people because of his design and planning errors.

and after that if we still don't meet his expectations we get to burn in hell for all eternity....only if you made het mistake of not believing him sooner than someone else you get to burn in eternity for anything up to 6000 years longer than me (for example)

and this is your loving god??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Why would you use a syllogism above then respond with a straw man? That doesnt make any sense logically.. Did I SAY God was an A-hole? No, I didnt. He will use the evils of life for our good and His glory. All things work out for good for those who are the called according the His purposes. People have a misconception that it's God's job to minimize our pain and maximize our pleasure. That creates spoiled brats, humans don't even do this with their own children. We learn the most and develop our character during the trials of life, not the triumphs. God realizes this.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I never said you said god is an a-hole.

And of course since god doesn't exist the question is moot anyway.

However........ if there were a god, and he had done all the things in the bible, etc, then I would conclude that s/he/it is indeed an a-hole for the reasons stated.

After all your god did actually intend for people to live in the GoE - thats is what the bible tells us IIRC. And then in a fit of rage because his omniscience didn't work he condemed every single person who would ever exist after A&E to have to work for what he intended to be our birthright.

Boy talk about over-reaction!!

So the evidence is definitely in favour of gyour god being a complete a-hole.

Sorry about that.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by satron
Atheism is mostly a relatively modern belief held by world leaders.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus (Greek philosopher, BC 341-270)

'He did not treat us as our sins deserve'. God will indeed fix things, but he is giving the children of man a time to repent and return to him. there is no doubt the evil in this world greives Him, but he has compassion, even on the rebellious. His desire is for the wicked to repent, not be destroyed.

reply to post by works4dhs


Why isn't 6000 years long enough?

What sort of loving god is so vindictive and petty and capricious and egotistical??

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


I didn't say atheism would cure the worlds' woes tho - so yet again you demonstrate that you ahve no idea what atheism actually is.

I know what atheism is, but I'm not sure this sentence is makes sense as one idea. What exactly does me not knowing what atheism is have to do with me stating that there is no proof that atheism could cure the world's problems?

I think there is no connection. You're going to have to elucidate me on that.

As above - I have actually found what I m looking or - a peaceful existence where I am not beholding to the whims of an illogical, capricious, cruel god who no-one can possibly know and the delusions of those arrogant enoughnot to realise that.

Well, that's good, but you have 7 billion people on this planet that might think otherwise. And as long as there are human characteristics to God, people will either love God or hate God, just like they would like or hate those qualities in you or me. That's partially the reason we have more than one God. That's probably a key tenant to the polytheisms of old - if you didn't like one God, you have other to possibly like.

Of course I am not immune to the annoyance of being accosted by those people - but at least I can easily dismiss them......except when they start to say I MUST follow their particilar imaginary friend on pain of death, intolerance or at least increased taxes. At that point I lose my tolerance for their fantasy.

You're dismissing them with your belief. You should also recognize that you're dismissing them on a emotional basis, because they make you angry and annoyed. So that is part of the reason you are an atheist, a person that believes that God doesn't exist.

Originally posted by satron

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


I didn't say atheism would cure the worlds' woes tho - so yet again you demonstrate that you ahve no idea what atheism actually is.

I know what atheism is, but I'm not sure this sentence is makes sense as one idea. What exactly does me not knowing what atheism is have to do with me stating that there is no proof that atheism could cure the world's problems?

I think there is no connection. You're going to have to elucidate me on that.

Yeah - well the internet isn't the greatest way to get ideas across - my apologies - you have no idea what MT atheism is.

As above - I have actually found what I m looking or - a peaceful existence where I am not beholding to the whims of an illogical, capricious, cruel god who no-one can possibly know and the delusions of those arrogant enoughnot to realise that.

Well, that's good, but you have 7 billion people on this planet that might think otherwise.

And that is fine - I do not require anyone to share my atheism.

And as long as there are human characteristics to God, people will either love God or hate God, just like they would like or hate those qualities in you or me.

that is a false dichotomy - I do not hate god, nor do i love god - how could I have feelings for something I do not believe exists?

That's partially the reason we have more than one God. That's probably a key tenant to the polytheisms of old - if you didn't like one God, you have other to possibly like.

Or just give up on this god idea entirely

Of course I am not immune to the annoyance of being accosted by those people - but at least I can easily dismiss them......except when they start to say I MUST follow their particilar imaginary friend on pain of death, intolerance or at least increased taxes. At that point I lose my tolerance for their fantasy.

You're dismissing them with your belief. You should also recognize that you're dismissing them on a emotional basis, because they make you angry and annoyed. So that is part of the reason you are an atheist, a person that believes that God doesn't exist.

No - that is why I am annoyed at people who say I am evil or damned or have to follow their religion - it comes after I am an atheist so is not a cause of it at all.

And note it is a reaction to people - my belief that there is no god is a reaction to ideas.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by satron
Atheism is mostly a relatively modern belief held by world leaders.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus (Greek philosopher, BC 341-270)

What makes you think that you'd know the process God is dealing with, if God does indeed exist? Epicurus has made a logical attempt to disavow God, but it's lacking. He makes many assumptions about us and our relationship to God. What is evil? What is the use of good without evil? What meaning would their be in our life without things to deem "good" and "evil"? What is omnipotence, and how in the world would Epicurus be able to recognize it if he seen it? Evil things could be considered good. Look at what this country does to ensure the it and it's allies remain in power. Slavery was bad for many people, but for some it was good. Epicurus's observation is naive as best.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Yeah - well the internet isn't the greatest way to get ideas across - my apologies - you have no idea what MT atheism is.

MT atheism? Do you mean MY atheism? It doesn't matter if I know or not, but the more you talk about it, the more clues you give. Everyone has their reason for being an atheist, and it's pointless for our discussion to dissect atheism any further.

And that is fine - I do not require anyone to share my atheism.

It's a good way to be. But it's still fine to talk about it.

that is a false dichotomy - I do not hate god, nor do i love god - how could I have feelings for something I do not believe exists?

You use words like callous, capricious, among others describing your thoughts about God. You disavowed someone's interpretation of God for those reasons. You believe God couldn't be real because you see those qualities in God and come to the conclusion something couldn't be Godly because of that.

Or just give up on this god idea entirely

Well, you can't just give up on something that you've been exposed to. Since the first time you were asked if you believed in God, and you were given a concept of what God is, you made a stance or belief, and your past experience influence on what your believe is. If by "giving up on the idea of God entirely", you mean that you do not believe in the exist or believe in the nonexistence of God, then that makes no sense. You have to be either, at the very least.

No - that is why I am annoyed at people who say I am evil or damned or have to follow their religion - it comes after I am an atheist so is not a cause of it at all.

Well, you don't like God based on some of the accounts of God's followers. You can't be an atheist until someone blesses you with the knowledge of what God is to believe either way.

And note it is a reaction to people - my belief that there is no god is a reaction to ideas.

Well, you're leagues ahead of Annee

Originally posted by satron

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by satron
Atheism is mostly a relatively modern belief held by world leaders.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus (Greek philosopher, BC 341-270)

What makes you think that you'd know the process God is dealing with, if God does indeed exist? Epicurus has made a logical attempt to disavow God, but it's lacking. He makes many assumptions about us and our relationship to God. What is evil? What is the use of good without evil? What meaning would their be in our life without things to deem "good" and "evil"? What is omnipotence, and how in the world would Epicurus be able to recognize it if he seen it? Evil things could be considered good. Look at what this country does to ensure the it and it's allies remain in power. Slavery was bad for many people, but for some it was good. Epicurus's observation is naive as best.

lol - if you do not know what evil is then I think you have failed the god test entirely - from any point of view!

Waht is omnipotence?? Really? you don't know what omnipotence is?? How curious.....

Well there's a definition of it -


om·nip·o·tent
   [om-nip-uh-tuhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.

noun
3. an omnipotent being.
4. the Omnipotent, God.

from here

I hope that helps.

Personaly I think Epicurus asks simple questions and comes up with obvious answers. tehre's no trickery there, there's no evasion - just a comparison of observations such as good and evil exist.

Originally posted by satron

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Yeah - well the internet isn't the greatest way to get ideas across - my apologies - you have no idea what MT atheism is.

MT atheism? Do you mean MY atheism?

my atheism - the atheism that I have - which is for my own reasons, not particularly "following" anyone, self realised, etc.

It doesn't matter if I know or not, but the more you talk about it, the more clues you give.

lol - well it is not somethgni that is actually hidden - just ask!

that is a false dichotomy - I do not hate god, nor do i love god - how could I have feelings for something I do not believe exists?

You use words like callous, capricious, among others describing your thoughts about God. You disavowed someone's interpretation of God for those reasons. You believe God couldn't be real because you see those qualities in God and come to the conclusion something couldn't be Godly because of that.

I come to the conclusion that the god described in thsoe sources does not exist. Not sure that is quite the same thing as "something couldnt' be Godly".....for example there are some "Godly" bodies in the world

Or just give up on this god idea entirely

Well, you can't just give up on something that you've been exposed to.

why not? I did.

Since the first time you were asked if you believed in God, and you were given a concept of what God is, you made a stance or belief, and your past experience influence on what your believe is. If by "giving up on the idea of God entirely", you mean that you do not believe in the exist or believe in the nonexistence of God, then that makes no sense. You have to be either, at the very least.

and you think that I make no sense??

I guess you are trying to argue semantically that if I have given up on this god idea thn somehow I cannot actually know that there is even such a word as god - since that would clearly eman I do know about the "god idea"

That's pretty pathetic!

No - that is why I am annoyed at people who say I am evil or damned or have to follow their religion - it comes after I am an atheist so is not a cause of it at all.

Well, you don't like God based on some of the accounts of God's followers. You can't be an atheist until someone blesses you with the knowledge of what God is to believe either way.

Care to explain that to me - 'cos it appears nonsensical so far.