Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why fanatics can't see the absurdities in their beliefs.

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


'Forgive them for they know not what they do'

-Jesus




posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


I totally concur with you on all points except this one:


Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by stupid girl
 


These people are just plain unreasonable, and the cause for the countless murders, genocides and atrocities attributed to religions throughout our history.


I attribute it to prejudice, power-lust and greed.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
So, when people allow themselves to believe in gods and religion (which usually starts in childhood), the brain makes these connections to the point where fanatics are no longer free to discern what is logical or downright insane.

When we consider the story of how all of the graves opened up during the time of Jesus being crucified and the dead roamed the city, those without the connections in the brain can see the absurdity in this claim. It's not that the religious won't see the insanity in this story, it's that they CAN'T see it.

Don't be ridiculous. First off, people like Bernard Haisch and Irvin Laszlo are very very smart people and they espouse, based on their knowledge and scientific understanding, the idea that a Godhead is the best explanation for the reality we inhabit - see The God Theory.

Secondly, there are many among us who are able to discern between what COULD have been an earthquake, and unsubstantiated rumor, we believers are not all literalist fundamentalists.

In fact if I had the time, I do believe that I could PROVE well beyond any reasonable doubt that there was a lunar eclipse on the day of the cross, but, that the reports of darkness lasting for hours, was generated by confusion, in the retelling of the story, between a solar and a lunar eclipse, because a lunar eclipse can last for a couple of hours, and a solar eclipse only for about 7 minutes max. Thus, to a large degree the darkness at mid day reports validate what CAN be proven in terms of the lunar eclipse (blood red moon) that actually took place (the only one visible from that locale during the governorship of Pontias Pilate, while also coinciding on a number of other historical matrices and data points), revealing how the story in its final form conflated two phenomenon (blood red moon and darkness at mid-day) that cannot occur in simultaneity, thus lending even more credibility to the story as a whole (Jesus crucified under the governorship of Pontias Pilate coinciding with a lunar eclipse, an astronomical event which we can now wind the tape back on with absolute precision).

You, are starting to get really annoying in your presumptions and casting of aspersions in order to uphold a position which itself isn't based in any sort of real understanding or the willingness to consider things from different viewpoints, and that's ignorance when you really think about it.

"There is a principal which serves as a bar against all information and proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principal is called - contempt, prior to investigation."
~ Herbert Spencer, Scientist

DENY IGNORANCE!


Originally posted by emeris
reply to post by jiggerj
 

'Forgive them for they know not what they do'

-Jesus

Indeed.

edit on 4-1-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Jordan River
reply to post by jiggerj
 
Do you believe in aliens? Intelligent beings either corporeal or dimensional entities?
edit on 2-1-2013 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)


Do I 'believe' in them? No. I believe they are possible, but no solid facts or evidence has yet to be presented.


Then if you believe that they are possible, you also believe in the "possiblity" of a heaven (other dimension). So you are not so atheist as you try to act like

What you can do for yourself is accept peoples belief other than yourself and stop acting like a grumpy old man
edit on 4-1-2013 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

Pwned! All ur atheist grumpy old men are forgiven their ignorance 'cause you didn't know any better. (I couldn't help it!)

Best Regards,

NAM
Your brother, in Christ.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   


I just want to add that I wish my familial teachings had emphasized learning and science more. I can only imagine how much more I would have achieved. I know that I had to come about my knowledge the long way and maybe if I had NOT been raised Christian, I may not have become as curious and given the matter as much thought as I have. There's value in that, but life is so short, it would have been nice to have cut that element out and been able to focus that energy to self-improvement.
reply to post by gottaknow
 


Many years ago, I was scolded by one of my professors because my wife and I hadn't had our kids baptized or gone to a church regularly. When I told him that we had agreed early in our marriage to let our children find their individual, spiritual paths as they matured enough to know their own minds and hearts, he said, "That borders on child abuse... If you want a young tree to grow strong and tall, you support it while it is just a twig." My reply was, "We never want to indoctrinate our children in ways they might regret later in life. While a bonsai tree may be pleasing to the eye of the gardener, I don't think even you would claim that is the tree the Lord intended it to be."



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 





You, are starting to get really annoying in your presumptions and casting of aspersions in order to uphold a position which itself isn't based in any sort of real understanding or the willingness to consider things from different viewpoints, and that's ignorance when you really think about it.


Very good! Now, look in the mirror and say what you just wrote while thinking about the stories in the bible.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jordan River


Then if you believe that they are possible, you also believe in the "possiblity" of a heaven (other dimension). So you are not so atheist as you try to act like

What you can do for yourself is accept peoples belief other than yourself and stop acting like a grumpy old man


How can living, fleshy creatures living on another planet in this dimension possibly offer evidence of a fictional place in another dimension?

Here's a real eye opener for you. Go back and read all the posts and see who's being grumpy. Whenever anyone offers an opposing view to the belief in a mystical magical being, it's the believers that go bonkers.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Bone75
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Interesting title, one could say that you yourself are a fanatic who can't see the absurdity in his beliefs. By your logic, no one should believe anything because belief is where learning stops.

So tell me what's the point of learning anything if you refuse to believe anything you learn?


How does faith in fact-less beliefs constitute learning?


How does closing your mind to all these beliefs constitute learning? And how are you going to react when science finds God?

Just how sure are you that we evolved from monkeys, that evolved from single cell organisms in a primordial soup billions of years ago? Is this something you believe or something you know?

Just how sure are you that every choice you've ever made, every memory you have, every act of love and pure unselfishness that you've ever shown, and every lesson you've ever learned.... was all for nothing?

Do you truly believe there are no consequences for your actions in this life, after death?

You should learn to appreciate those of faith, because if everyone agreed with you, the world would burn.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj
This puts me in league with Dawkins, Hitchins, and Harris. Thanks!

Well, Dawkins has been called a coward by fellow atheists for hiding from William Craig Lane, Hitchens is dead, and Harris recently said that religion is worse than rape and that people who believe certain things can be justifiably killed, so I'm not sure I'd be throwing my hat into that ring.


What would be the point of a Dawkins vs. Lane debate? Hitchins destroyed the poor man already - nothing more can be said about his arguments that have no substance.
edit on 1/4/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

Ok, very good. Now pick any parable from the New Testament, seriously, pick one and I'll peel it like an onion for you and reveal it's logos, the root of which is logic.

Parable of the Good Samaritan, that's a fav for many people, how about the Parable of the Mustard Seed, or better yet Jesus comparisons to the Kingdom of Heaven ie: The Treasure Hunter, or the Merchant in search of fine pearls. Pick out any of the portions of the NT that are often written in red (attributed to Jesus himself) and allow me to open it up for you.

But you don't want to do that do you, it's not part of your "mission"..

I'm sorry gramps but is this really how you want to be focusing your time and energy these days? Are you sure you really know what you're doing and why?

Was there maybe a little bit of fundamentalist fanaticism in your family history and upbringing..?

To each his own, but for some of us who've made the inquiry, often a 2nd time with a new outlook, we've found the teachings and the import and export of the Bible in particular that of Jesus' teachings and example to be utterly transformative.

I think it scares you to be honest, because people are often frightened about things they don't, cannot or steadfastly refuse to understand.

I know - here's comes the barrage of everything BUT the illumination at the very heart of things...

Who's really the fanatic here?



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Hitchens is dead

God rest his soul.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   


Thanks for posting this, OP. It's a refreshing take on why, oh why they cannot comprehend that there's simply nothing there.
reply to post by gottaknow
 


You're very welcome.
So far, no one of the religious persuasion has opposed my original post. They've opposed me making this thread. They've opposed my idea simply for the sake of opposing it. lol They hurl biblical quotes and call me names, while not once offering anything scientific to dispute my neuron hypothesis. Hey, I may even be wrong, but no one has showed this to me yet.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by korathin

Originally posted by watchitburn
I like it.

It sounds reasonable to me, and it would explain why it is almost impossible to have an objective conversation with religious people.

Or democrats and republicans for that matter.


Your forgetting the same could be said of atheists as well. Data is data, thoughts are thoughts, pre-conceived notions are pre-conceived notions.


I agree with you 99%. The difference is that atheists will admit when something seems out of the ordinary. The information within our DNA definitely seems out of the ordinary. It doesn't adhere to any scientific model of how things should progress naturally. But! This is where the religious JUMP to the conclusion of an all-knowing, all-powerful, invisible being who created the whole universe, who lives in another dimension called heaven, who is perfect in every way, and who was never born and will never die.

The atheist simply claims, we don't know yet how the information got in our genes. Whatever the possibilities are (intelligent aliens seeding the planet, a scientist in another dimension created this dimension in a petri dish, our microscopic universe being a part of a living animal in a higher dimension) the god premise will always be the very very last on the list of possibilities - to the point where we will claim it to be impossible.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by gottaknow
 





I find it frustrating and sad how atheism is attacked on the internet for being "annoying" or "aggressive".


I say, let the believers in a mystical magical being keep on bashing us. The belief in such biblical fantasies started via word of mouth. As long as the atheist view is being bashed, then maybe kids will be able to read it and be saved before they make fools of themselves too.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by jiggerj
 

According to your thinking there is no need for the commandment of Thous shalt not murder. If you believe we live on after death, be it in heaven or hell, then there's no such thing as murder. So, if Jesus wasn't murdered for our sins there's no need for the Christian religion.

if Jesus had been murdered for our sins then heaven or hell and right or wrong would mean nothing.
according to which logic they are saying that Jesus died that our sins get cleared.
This is a paradox. true Christianity does believe in the last day so Jesus could not be murdered for forgiveness of our sins. then what would be the difference between good or bad !



edit on 4-1-2013 by maes2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj
This puts me in league with Dawkins, Hitchins, and Harris. Thanks!

Well, Dawkins has been called a coward by fellow atheists for hiding from William Craig Lane, Hitchens is dead, and Harris recently said that religion is worse than rape and that people who believe certain things can be justifiably killed, so I'm not sure I'd be throwing my hat into that ring.


What would be the point of a Dawkins vs. Lane Craig debate? Hitchins destroyed the poor man already

What are you, kidding? You obviously never watched it, since even most atheists say that Hitch was unprepared, did a lousy job and made a fool of himself.


The debate went exactly as I expected. Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child. (Common Sense Atheism)

Why won't Dawkins debate Lane Craig? Because he'd lose, and that's why he's being called a coward by people he agrees with.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 





Ok, very good. Now pick any parable from the New Testament, seriously, pick one and I'll peel it like an onion for you and reveal it's logos, the root of which is logic.


What does a parable have to do with anything? I could write one now. This doesn't prove Jesus was god. An eclipse on the day he was crucified doesn't prove he was god.

-----------------------------
Parable of the idiot.

The son had been away for a year. Upon his return he said to his father, "Last year a man came into this village claiming that he had a mansion for sale on the other side of the country. He offered me an unbelievable price, so I bought the mansion because I was afraid that someone else might buy it. I went to live in the mansion, but there is nothing there!"

The father asked, "Did this man have a picture of the mansion?"

The son answered, "No, but he said there were fruit trees on the property, and a lake."

"So, did this man give you the deed to the property?" the father asked.

"No," the son said, "but I have the Bill of Sale that he wrote."

Then the father replied, "Well, son, I guess that makes you an idiot for believing in something without evidence."

This angered the son. "But I have the Bill of Sale right here!"



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


According to your link Bart Ehrman isn't qualified to debate with Mr. Craig either...

Though it seems when I watched a debate between the two... Ehrman ruined Mr.Craig...

The only thing he had to offer about any of Ehrman's points was his own personal opinion's and beliefs




posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen
 


According to your link Bart Ehrman isn't qualified to debate with Mr. Craig either...

Though it seems when I watched a debate between the two... Ehrman ruined Mr.Craig...

I will have to watch that. As you know, I generally appreciate Ehrman.

Regardless, Dawkins would still lose, because he might be a good biologist, but he's a terrible philosopher.
edit on 4-1-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join