giving the religiously inclined a helping hand
Believing in a super-powerful deity or two is the prerogative of followers of religion. These deities are exclusively invisible beings that leave clues to their existence with specially selected human beings. Specially selected human beings are a dime a dozen in some religious areas: the ‘individual relationship’ with the god allows for every believer the potential to imagine a divinely inspired understanding transmitted only to them.
Watching from the sidelines, a few tips and hints, to help the religious believers give their faith some credulity to the logic-based outsiders, keep springing to mind. And I have an uncontrollable (possibly divinely inspired) urge to share these tips with the world.
- Your god is likely to be described as all-powerful and beyond the true comprehension of puny human minds. There is therefore no need to justify or explain this being – blind acceptance is all that’s required.
- Your god may be described as the creator of all things. If this is the case, you don’t need to look for ‘design clues’ in the universe. None have yet been found by any serious scientists. And with regards to areas that humans cannot yet explain, please have faith that your all-powerful god would be able to create everything without leaving childish clues.
- Religious nutters (I’m not saying you) down through time have been convinced that their deities are heralding the end of the world. Please don’t believe that you will either witness this great event that doesn’t occur, or that your god transmitted any special information to you about this favourite of religious nutters. Remember, you are simply one of the 107,602,707,791 people who have lived – the chances of personal preference in terms of the ‘true’ message are remote.
- It’s quite possible that under your chosen god’s religious umbrella there are a number of different interpretations regarding what your deity thinks is appropriate belief or behaviour. It’s also more than probable that down through time understanding of the deity has developed and changed quite significantly. Therefore, if your god is supposed to be nice, and your opinion on what your god wants is hurting anyone, it’s probably best to err on the side of caution and not harm other people. Remember, given the wide variety of views across the world and across time for your same religion – it’s more than probable you’re wrong about quite a few things.
I hope any religiously inclined individuals who stumble across this post will find something of use in these initial points. Any other suggestions from readers will be gratefully received.
Well said, I like your style!
I’m a Shenaniganist and our take on #2, when a person trots out something as beautiful sunsets or flowers as proof that God MUST exist, is to gently point out that sunsets and flowers prove only that sunsets and flowers exist.
LikeLike
Thanks for commenting, you’re my first Shenaniganist! Are you posing as the religiously inclined individual who claims that the sun being there in the morning proves the existence of deities? Sounds like something only a high-spirited Shenaniganist could come up with! On the off-chance the person in genuine, I’ll try your approach.
LikeLike
I find #2 to be grossly erroneous. Please accept Exhibit A:
LikeLike
I think I’ve seen that – is that the banana shape proof? It’s compelling and may convert me to Hinduism yet …
LikeLike
It is not the function of science to prove the existence of God. But such a logical proof can be accomplished with only three sentences. That’s how simple it is to logically prove the existence of God.
Therefore, belief in God is not a matter of faith but of reason. To not believe in God is what requires pure irrational faith.
But science does in fact indicate the existence of God, the Creator.
One indication is the Big Bang which proves that the universe had a beginning just like the book of Genesis says.
Another is that science teaches us that the universe is highly ordered, systematic and comprehensible. That is also a major teaching of the book of Genesis and differs from the thinking of all other ancient peoples who viewed the gods and the universe as capricious and perverse.
In fact, that worldview is what enabled the development of modern science in the first place.
That God is all powerful, all knowing, and the Creator of all, is easily proven through reason. People who believe otherwise have simply forsaken reason and are thinking irrationally.
LikeLike
I hope this is a joke, because if you are serious about it, first it means you don’t understand the BB cosmology, two that you need to tell us what god you mean, and no, science does not teach us that the world is highly ordered, order is a meaningless word, referring to how man sees the world operating under certain fixed laws and that is why anytime something that is detrimental to man happens he talks of chaos.
That god is all powerful is disproved by the fact that he can’t create a stone he can’t lift, that is all-knowing is disproved by the fact that he didn’t know where A&E were after they had eaten the fruit and lastly any one who believes there is a god is simply foolish! I mean to say, doesn’t understand how nature works
LikeLike
I’m talking Stephen Hawking and other prominent atheists whose only response to our present understanding of cosmology indicating the existence of God is rank stupidity: the multiverse.
It is obvious that we live in a highly ordered universe. Science only proves the obvious.
Here is an example: when you wake up tomorrow morning the sun will be there. If there are clouds, wait for them to go away.
Another obvious example of order is language. If our thinking wasn’t ordered we wouldn’t be able to have language.
Yet another example of order: the computer you are using. It was designed according to predictable, knowable principles. Such is order.
If you can’t see what is obvious then you have little in common with those who can. So a meaningful discussion is impossible.
LikeLike
The BB cosmology so far as I can tell refers to what we know Planck time after the said event, what the event was, at least no one knows. Two the BB cosmology doesn’t help your god hypothesis, especially if stellar collapse doesn’t require a divine destroyer. You call the response by Stephen Hawking et al, rank stupidity while I think this is true of your response not theirs.
I have told you we live in a universe which act according to fixed laws, and we are disposed in a certain way to see order especially when things work in our favour and anytime these same laws act in such a way that is detrimental to our well being, everyone begins to say there is chaos. Unless you chose to ignore my response, there is no need wasting my time with you.
You go so far to mention man-made machines as claim that there is order in the universe. A category error fallacy. Computers have been designed by men to work in a specific way, you would expect, unless you are an idiot, that they would be ordered in some way!
From where I stand, the earth appears flat, this looks very obvious but it ain’t the case. So to dismiss my comment because you haven’t thought about what I say is rank stupidity on your part.
LikeLike
Okay, I’m pretty sure you’re joking because I haven’t heard the religious point of view expressed quite so illogically. Why does our perception of order mean deities exist? Why does it not mean that without some semblance of what we perceive as order we couldn’t have evolved to where are now?
LikeLike
The relevance to the Big Bang to this conversation is that it proved that the universe had a beginning, just like the Bible says.
The ensuing science proved that the universe developed in stages, just like the Bible says.
The result is that atheist scientists are the ones who need help understanding reality, not rational minded Christians.
And I say “rational minded Christians” because postmodern Christians, like their postmodern atheist brethren have forsaken reason completely in favor of faith-based dogma and personal opinion.
LikeLike
Wrong. The Big Bang is evidence of the Big Bang. No inference can be made of what was before the Bang. Particles are popping in and out of quantum vacuums all the time. As Krauss says, “Watch nothing for long enough and something will happen.”
LikeLike
@makagutu
“the fact that he didn’t know where A&E were after they had eaten the fruit ”
It is a mistake of the narrators or the scribes; the one true God is All-Knowing.
LikeLike
Paarsurrey, I think we have covered this nonsense of yours of one true god enough times am beginning to think you are having fun being called names!
LikeLike
@ silenceofmind
“It is not the function of science to prove the existence of God.”
You are right.
Thanks
LikeLike
@silenceofmind
” To not believe in God is what requires pure irrational faith.”
I think not to believe in the one true God is superstition.
LikeLike
“It is not the function of science to prove the existence of God. But such a logical proof can be accomplished with only three sentences. That’s how simple it is to logically prove the existence of God.”
Well, out with it, man! Don’t keep us all in suspense.
LikeLike
Instead of responding to reason with reason, violetwisp responded as all atheists eventually do, with an ad hominum attack.
He called me a teenage troll (see his comment below).
Therefore, why should I waste my time with further comments on the topic at hand, when they only invite abuse?
LikeLike
Our good host is a lady, and no you act like one. Besides, whether you answer or not, it’s no one’s business.
LikeLike
Ah. Ye olde “the proof is so simple I can’t be bothered to provide it” ploy…
LikeLike
Apologies if you’re not. I was being genuine, as I’ve never seen a Christian express their argument like that. Either way, it’s nice to follow through a discussion, as any point of view is possible. Please tell us the three sentences so we can all renounce atheism and select a god from those on offer. 🙂
LikeLike
Hinduism also has a creation myth… does that make Hinduism true? What about the first pantheon of the Sumerians: they had a cracker of a creation myth… does that make the Sumerian pantheon true? Why should your particular mythology be considered in any different light to all the others?
LikeLike
Great post my friend
LikeLike
Thank you! I’m sure silenceofmind is a teenager having some trolling fun.
LikeLike
“blind acceptance is all that’s required.”
I don’t think it is correct. A person has visited a city and tells other friends about that; other friends get interested in going to that city; have they accepted the existence of that city in blind? I don’t think so.
LikeLike
Demonstrate how the Quran was transmitted to Mohammed in a concise, logical and scientific fashion and maybe I will afford what you post some measure of respect.
Of you go…..
LikeLike
Quran as the word means was the revelation descended on the heart of Muhammad from the one true God and Muhammad was guaranteed from Him that he need not worry about making strenuous effort to remember the Revelation; he would remember it naturally and he would not forget it.
From Muhammad his companions learnt it by heart or committed it to their memory.Writing the revelation was only an auxiliary measure adopted by Muhammad.
It was not made incumbent on Muhammad, in my opinion, by any clear verse in Quran to commit it to writing; I don’t see any such verse in Quran.
Muhammad and his companions loved Quran and exactly as the word Quran meant they recited Quran very often, in the prayers and even without it; this is not an unusual thing, up-to our times this practice continues among Muslims. The text of Quran was compiled already in the memory of Muhammad and his companions in the same form as it is found in our times without any change. It needed no further compilation or collection.
LikeLike
I said, demonstrate how it was transmitted in a scientific fashion, not religious diatribe.
LikeLike
Religion is not science.
So demanding that science be used to explain religion is like demanding a recipe for spaghetti to explain fire arms maintenance.
LikeLike
No,I am simply asking to explain in a scientific fashion how the Qu’ran was transmitted.
Why is that such a problem?
Or are you suggesting that Mohammed made it all up/was delusional and Islam is nothing but lies or the imagination of a single man?
If you have issues with this, then maybe you would like to demonstrate in a similar fashion how Christianity came about?
Or at least how the Church Fathers were divinely inspired during the compilation of the Bible?
If you could do that Is should think you might be eligible for a Noble prize, don’t you?
LikeLike
“So demanding that science be used to explain religion is like demanding a recipe for spaghetti to explain fire arms maintenance.”
I do agree with you here to a certain extent here, and certainly enjoy the way you’ve expressed it. However, it seems that if your deity exists, he or she stuck to principles that we can understand from a human scientific point of view. Why do you assume at some point she or he diverges from this? (extension of point 2)
LikeLike
Religions like Protestantism and Islam are not based on reasoning, they are based on total faith.
For that reason,I lasted 6 weeks as Protestant and wouldn’t touch Islam with a 10 foot pole.
LikeLike
You sure have made my evening! Am going to bed a happy man and I hope paarsurrey reads your comment, I don’t think he is will be happy with you!
LikeLike
Hundreds of thousands of Jews and Egyptians witnessed the pyrotechnic displays of God’s glory. The Jews chose to remember them and commemorate them until the end of time.
The miracles of Jesus were witnessed by thousands of Jews, Romans, Arabs and people of every kind. The Christians chose to remember Jesus by commemorating him until the end of time.
Alas, Mohammed has only himself as a witness for what he claims to have witnessed.
LikeLike
”The miracles of Jesus were witnessed by thousands of Jews, Romans, Arabs and people of every kind.”
And how odd that only one wrote anything down. And even more strange that of these thousands of Romans and Arabs etc who ‘witnessed’ these events not a single fragment of oral tradition was passed among any of theses diverse cultures. In fact, the gospel of Mark, a tale supposedly sifted from this oral tradition, is so parsimonious in its retelling that not only were the other synoptic gospel writers forced to copy from this text they had to ‘flesh it out’ with embellishments, some of which are so ridiculous that only a moron would accept them as factual.
Not least, the virgin birth, walking on water, feeding the 4000 thousand and the 5000, and coming back form the dead.
And all this went completely unnoticed by any contemporary writer of the time.
Lol….silly person.
LikeLike
No. It isn’t odd.
This is another example of horrific atheist bias. There are more ancient references to Jesus Christ than there are of Julius Caesar.
Yet you don’t doubt that Caesar existed. You deny the exist of Jesus because you are biased. Bias leads to rot gut ignorance. The attenuation of bias is why philosophy and systematic thinking were developed.
Also, atheists stunt their intellectual capacity, growth and understanding of reality by setting arbitrary standards as to what is a valid source of knowledge and what is not. Because you are biased you will only accept as valid those sources that support your personal world view.
Again this mode of thinking leads to deeply ingrained ignorance.
The academy accepts the existence of Jesus. Only the most brutally indoctrinated and willfully ignorant deny that he existed
LikeLike
”This is another example of horrific atheist bias. There are more ancient references to Jesus Christ than there are of Julius Caesar.”
I do not doubt that Julius Caesar was a real person. However, I reject out of hand any mention of miracles attributed to him or allusions to deity.
There are NO ancient (non christian) references to the biblical character of Yeshua. And certainly no contemporary accounts.
I challenge you to produce a single one that can be verified.
”’Also, atheists stunt their intellectual capacity, growth and understanding of reality by setting arbitrary standards as to what is a valid source of knowledge and what is not. Because you are biased you will only accept as valid those sources that support your personal world view.”
You are perhaps referring to that scruffy little rag you call the bible?
Or maybe that lying son of a bitch Eusebius? Lol…
”The academy accepts the existence of Jesus. Only the most brutally indoctrinated and willfully ignorant deny that he existed”
Goods for the academy. I’ll side with Richard Carrier for now thanks.
LikeLike
“Religions like Protestantism and Islam are not based on reasoning, they are based on total faith. For that reason,I lasted 6 weeks as Protestant and wouldn’t touch Islam with a 10 foot pole.”
Silenceofmind, is your blog empty? I was wondering what version of religion/Christianity you belong to.
LikeLike
I am a Catholic who was educated at the graduate level in the intellectual tradition of Saint Thomas Aquinas who followed in the tradition of Aristotle.
If you wish I can offer a logical proof of only three sentences why atheism is a faith-based belief just like Protestantism and Islam.
Of course since atheism is faith-based any logical proofs will be scoffed at and demeaned by the atheist.
The proof that atheism is faith-based only requires the understanding of one simple fact and the definition of one single word.
Yet the atheist will still find the proof incomprehensible. That is because faith-based beliefs like atheism are the result of brainwashing. And brainwashing makes the mind impervious to reason.
LikeLike
I’d love to see the sentences, you’ve mentioned them several times yet they’ve failed to appear. What are they?
LikeLike
The proof that atheism is a faith-based belief.
1. Atheism cannot be proven. This is a fact.
2. Faith is the belief in that which cannot be proven. This is the definition of a word.
3. Therefore, atheism is a faith-based belief. This is the logical conclusion derived from a fact and the definition of a word.
Consequently, atheists are brethren in faith with the Protestant and the Muslim.
LikeLike
‘Brethren in faith’ is one way of looking at it, although I think ‘people who have opinions’ would perform the same function, without odd and unnecessary religious undertones. However, this is completely different to the three sentences you claimed existed further up the post. And I quote:
“It is not the function of science to prove the existence of God. But such a logical proof can be accomplished with only three sentences. That’s how simple it is to logically prove the existence of God.”
LikeLike
@Silence of mind
”Atheism cannot be proven. This is a fact.”
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
What is there to be proved?
LikeLike
Atheism literally means “not God.”
Where “NOT” is the Boolean logic negative or inverse.
Deity refers to the religious worship of supernatural beings.
All of my comments are based on logical reasoning and not on religious faith. So your use of deity is a logical fallacy called moving the goal post.
You’re mixing a word that pertains to religion when religion is not something I am discussing with you.
LikeLike
Fair enough. I shall try to be more succinct I would not wish it to be inferred in any way that I am behaving like a Christian.
I do not believe in gods.
Neither yours, nor anyone else’s.
Your god is Yeshua. If you would care to demonstrate his divinity without resorting to quoting any scripture I would most obliged. Thanks again.
LikeLike
What do you mean by “scientific fashion”; I don’t get you.
LikeLike
The method of transmission was either supernatural or scientific.
As there is no such thing as supernatural, explain using scientific terms how Mohammed received the Qur’an>
LikeLike
There is no such claim by Quran; and I don’t think all aspects of human life are covered by science. If there is any claim of this please quote from a text book of science where it has been claimed.
Science does not claim of perfection.
LikeLike
You have a nasty habit of selectively interpreting my comments. I realise this is a trait of the religious but it will not . move us any closer to understanding. Furthermore,I did not say anything about what the Qur’an did or didn’t claim.
I know you are not stupid so stop pretending to be…
I asked you to explain the method of transmission in a scientific fashion.
LikeLike
“method of transmission in a scientific fashion.”
Word of Revelation is out of the domain of science; so there could be no way of transmission detectable in terms of science strictly speaking.
Unless I first understand as to what one means by the words “scientific fashion”; only then I could explain.
Please therefore help me understand you fully.
Thanks
LikeLike
I have explained it. The method of transmission was either scientific or supernatural.
As there is no evidence of supernatural explain the method of transmission in a scientific fashion.
LikeLike
If you cannot demonstrate the scientific then please explain why I should accept the supernatural explanation?
LikeLike
One is under no compulsion to accept it; one should only accept if it is reasonable.
LikeLike
”One is under no compulsion to accept it; one should only accept if it is reasonable.”
It is unreasonable , and thus I reject it.
LikeLike
I don’t mind.
LikeLike
Me neither. It merely demonstrates that you are gullible. Just don’t get upset when normal people oppose you worldview and more importantly oppose you infecting children.
You, of course, may remain ignorant. This is choice, and I would never wish to deny you this..
LikeLike
You have your own worldview out of your own free-will, right or wrong; and that has been bestowed to every individual by the one true God in this world; I can’t disallow you that.
One is accountable for one’s free will use in the hereafter to the one true God; and that you don’t believe in; so please enjoy till such time.
Thanks
LikeLike
Lol…what a dickhead. You are so funny, Allah be praised.
LikeLike
Using the same logic, demonstrate that a god exists, we are all waiting
LikeLike
““blind acceptance is all that’s required.”
I don’t think it is correct. A person has visited a city and tells other friends about that; other friends get interested in going to that city; have they accepted the existence of that city in blind? I don’t think so.”
You got that a bit out of context. I didn’t mean that blind acceptance is all that’s required to have faith. I meant that justifying or trying to explain an omniscient, all-powerful deity is kind of pointless, given that the human mind is supposedly nothing in comparison. Some people see the commonly uttered ‘God moves in mysterious ways’ as a cop out, but I think if you believe in a being like that, it’s a valid end to the discussion. It’s another facet of the Supernatural Trump Card (copyright Violetwisp). https://violetwisp.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/supernatural-trump-card/
LikeLike
One could believe in the one true God very naturally; that never required any evidence for me; and this way I believe in my God; and His attributes are mentioned in Quran. If others claim that the God of Quran does not exist; then they should come with the evidence.
LikeLike
No, paarsurrey, you are wrong. You would have to be indoctrinated to believe that a tribal god of some Arabs in eons past is the true god, as you keep insisting. To ask to prove that the god spoken of in the Koran doesn’t exist is an exercise in futility. Your argument is flat fallacious, it starts by implying silently that the Koran is the word of god and that the same Koran is evidence that god exists and if you doubt this, look at the Koran, as silenceofmind has said, this is what is called rant stupid no matter he will not touch Islam with a ten foot pole!
LikeLike
I think silenceofmind is actually onto something here! Faith is an exeptionally poor reason for an adult to hold beliefs. A reasonable mind requires evidence. However, he/she is also a bit lost about what counts as actual evidence.
Silenceofmind has equated such legendary characters as Caesar and Jesus. But there are several differencies between the historicity of these two characters. We have a book attributed to Julius Caesar. One that so shamelessly describes his genious, that even though there have been doubts about the authorship of the book, it is most likely written by himself, in order to create a character whith a certain kind of public image. We have a number of contemporary historians who subscribed to the ideal of historical integrity, who tell us that Caesar lived and acted. There are no contemporary comments about Jesus outside a book written by some founders of an end-of-the-world-cult precisely to praise him and even they contradict each other at every possible turn. In addition to that these founders of the cult describe the importance of Jesus over and over again through unnatural magic tricks and other supernatural stunts. No, Julius Caesar and Jesus do not have the same footing as actual historical characters, for a reason.
In my opinion it is quite possible that the character called Jesus was actually based on some, or even several actual human beings. Just like the character known to us as Julius Caesar presented by himself and other contemporaries is based on an actual historical person. But whith the different amount of evidence, we can not declare that Jesus was an actual historical character any more than we can claim that Achilleus was a historical character. It is possible, but it does not mean that any of the supernatural events described in context to these characters were true. Jerusalem and Troy are actual places, but that tells us nothing about the mythical aspects of these stories.
By definition, if one believes that the physical reality of this material universe has ever been broken, that is superstition. Science can not subscribe to that before anyone has ever presented any evidence for such an event to have happened. Anecdotal stories of such an extraordinary events yield no reliable evidence about such things and by the logic of less wondrous explanations being more likely, it is only blind faith (or total ignorance of the fabric of reality) that leads to the conclusion of anything so unnatural as the suggested form of supernatural ever having happened, or even existing.
LikeLike
I did not say that faith was a poor reason to hold beliefs. That’s what you say.
And there is nothing in any of my comments about evidence. My arguments are based on reason.
Then you claim that history must treat Caesar and Jesus differently and as evidence you give your personal opinion.
A personal opinion is not evidence. In your case, your personal opinion is just you voicing your own deeply conditioned bias.
Jesus is a fact, not an anecdotal story. So no matter how biased you are, or how many totally unfounded personal opinions you offer, facts are still facts.
LikeLike
Jesus is far from fact and the whole issue surrounding his historicity is clouded.
It is utterly fallacious to assert otherwise.
If you disagree with this then please present the evidence you have to substantiate this claim.
LikeLike
No it isn’t. The academy accepts the existence of Jesus.
We count time Anno Domini, the Year of Our Lord because Western Civilization grew up around the life and teachings of Jesus.
The evidence that Jesus existed is overwhelming. Atheists are biased so they only see what they want to see.
No amount of evidence will change that. Evidence, like reason, like science, mean nothing to atheists.
Atheists give lip service to reason, evidence and science so as to lend authenticity to the totally bizarre and irrational belief in atheism.
LikeLike
Now you are beginning to utter polemic which is verging on vitriol.
Offer some evidence for your claim concerning Yeshua. It is a simple request.
LikeLike
People who deny that Jesus existed are like people who still believe the earth is flat.
That isn’t polemic. It isn’t vitriol.
How are atheists who deny simple, established, accepted facts, any different from Christians who think the universe was created in six, 24 hour days?
At least those misguided Christians can cite a source for their irrationality.
All atheists can do is site someone’s personal opinion.
Opinion is not evidence. Opinion is simply the mind imagining a possibility.
LikeLike
Yet, you did not offer a single piece of verifiable evidence as requested.
LikeLike
Any reputable, non-leftist university professor of history or religious studies is a good source for the fact that Jesus existed.
Professor James Hannam Ph. D. from Cambridge University is a great, mainstream source for proof that modern science was made possible by Christianity.
No other civilization developed modern science because their religious beliefs, like those of atheism, nurtured intellectual bias not the pursuit of truth.
In fact, atheism is retrograde. It is a return to the pre-modern past when bias and opinion took the place of systematic thinking and dispassionate inquiry.
LikeLike
You still have not offered any evidence that the biblical character of Jesus existed.
Please, if you have any, I would be most interested to hear/read.
Maybe you could provide a link to demonstrate you passionate belief?
I will most certainly check out Prof Hannman in the meantime. Thanks for that.
So, your evidence,for Yeshua, please.
LikeLike
I’m still waiting for the three sentences that prove a god exists. Have you forgotten them?
LikeLike
I just proved to you that atheism is a faith-based religion.
That is a blockbuster that you completely ignored.
In any case, you demonstrate a total lack of interest in seeking the truth of the matter. So why should I waste my time and yours providing something that you have no interest in?
Logically, what you are doing is called moving the goal post.
LikeLike
You missed my reply to your other three sentences then (copied again below). I’m not moving anything, I’m trying to get hold of the proof sentences:
“‘Brethren in faith’ is one way of looking at it, although I think ‘people who have opinions’ would perform the same function, without odd and unnecessary religious undertones. However, this is completely different to the three sentences you claimed existed further up the post. And I quote:
“It is not the function of science to prove the existence of God. But such a logical proof can be accomplished with only three sentences. That’s how simple it is to logically prove the existence of God.””
LikeLike
I didn’t miss that comment. I left it alone because it absolutely nothing to do with the proof that atheism is a faith-based belief.
You either respond, “Yes. I understand your proof and now renounce atheism because it is irrational and I believe in logic and reasoning.
Or you respond like a true atheist and say, “I deny your prove. Atheism doesn’t need proof. Atheism doesn’t need evidence. I am an atheist because I am smarter than most people.”
LikeLike
“it absolutely nothing to do with the proof that atheism is a faith-based belief.” Yes it does. I agree you could use that definition, but it’s the same as saying we all have opinions – it tells you nothing. Why would atheism being a faith-based belief make it irrational or illogical? It’s an opinion. All our opinions are based on faith in our understanding of what’s around us. It’s not special. It’s normal.
LikeLike
By asking, “Why would atheism being a faith-based belief make it irrational or illogical?” you have demonstrated that you have no idea what logic and reason mean, nor how to differentiate them from flawed thinking, irrationality and faith.
You have to be that intellectually impoverished in order to accept atheism in the first place.
Every single atheist I have ever had discussions with exactly like that. It’s like you folks came out of a factory.
This exact mode of thinking is used by Muslims and postmodern Christians. Being able to think systematically has been willfully rejected.
LikeLike
I’m not sure I agree with you on this. I guess you’re trying to tell me that your religious beliefs aren’t based on faith, but evidence. I’m not clear how that could possibly be the case, but if you’d like to explain in laymen’s terms, I’m sure it would be interesting.
I feel confident that my faith in my belief that gods don’t exist is logical. I haven’t seen or heard any, and neither has anyone I know. Besides that, none of the religions I’ve looked into make any sense, and they’ve all been used to control people. I think it’s logical to be slightly suspicious about their origins.
LikeLike
If you read my comments not even carefully you will see that I am not discussing religion.
Effective argumentation takes place when both parties occupy common ground.
Since you profess not to be religious it would be folly on my part to argue from a religious perspective.
Therefore, I have used simple reason, common sense and the meaning of words to argue my cause.
LikeLike
@Silenceofnomind
Interesting. And the right thinking would be Catholic, yes?
LikeLike
All of my commentary has been based on simple reasoning, common sense, accepted facts and the meaning of words.
Yes, those things comprise traditional Catholic thinking but my commentary has been 100% secular.
LikeLike
And you still did not offer one single shred of evidence for Yeshua.
So , basically what you are is a dickhead. Or on drugs, or delusional or all of the above.
See! Problem solved.
Now go and sit quietly on the naughty step and play with your rosary…and remember…Jesus is watching you so keep those hands where we can see them, okay?
Good boy..
Silly Person.
LikeLike
It isn’t my job to teach you elementary school history. If you refuse to accept what has been commonly known for 2000 years, that is on you, not me.
Nevertheless, all our ethics, values and understanding of human rights come from the Christians. They just didn’t pop up out of nowhere.
What the Christians know comes from the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles.
Saint Paul and Saint Luke, both authors of biblical text were well educated. Paul was a Roman citizen and Luke was a medical doctor.
You also must be aware that ancient people, not having the printing press, or hard drives or the Cloud in which to store memory, had to rely on other means.
That means was tradition and ceremony. Both the Jews and the Catholics were scrupulous in preserving memories that way.
So there is evidence which I am sure you will reject because it doesn’t support the atheist very limited and very limited narrative.
And make sure you understand the difference between evidence and proof. Evidence is not proof.
LikeLike
Silenceofmind, you say:”…all our ethics, values and understanding of human rights come from the Christians.” Now, that is a bold assertion, if any. Whose ethics, values and understanding of human rights are you talking about? Are you claiming the Chinese, Japanese, Indians and for example Indonesians have no ethics, or values?
Human rights are a secular concept. All cultures loan from each other. Ethics, morals and values evolve as our understanding grows better. Even in Christian societies. Correct?
Yes, atheist world view is limited to not take fairy tale elements, or unnatural events as true from anecdotal stories. Infact so is Christian world view about other religious myths, but it gives special value to one set of folklore. It is the logical fallacy of special pleading.
LikeLike
@Silenceofnomind
”It isn’t my job to teach you elementary school history. If you refuse to accept what has been commonly known for 2000 years, that is on you, not me.’
So, in fact you don’t actually have any evidence then and are merely continuing to sidestep the issue.
In other words, you are a dickhead.
And as you have done nothing but utter spurious diatribe from Comment One I have no reservations in bestowing that epithet upon you.
You are the perfect candidate. A shining example of what it is to be a Christian. Well done, Sir!
You have amused us all.
Lol
The Ark salutes you. You may take a bow.
LikeLike
Human rights fall under the topic of justice.
The concept of justice was first formally addressed in the West by Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher.
Nevertheless in both Greek and Roman civilizations and in fact, all ancient civilizations, human life differed from a bucket of warm spit because of the bucket.
Only the Jews and the Christians of all religions and secular philosophies illuminated human rights with our modern view of it.
Since all civilizations grew up around religion there existed ethics. But it was the Jews and Christians who gave mankind the view of human rights as we know it today.
LikeLike
Secularism is very much a historical product of the violence between different Christian sects. In 17th century it got so bad, that western nations simply had to declare freedom of religion. From that notion of freedom grew secularism and secular humanist ideals. These have very little to do whith specifically Christian religion, even though one could expect as much, since they are the product of Christian cultures.
As you point out, much was borrowed from the classical philosophers of antiquity who were transmitting and developing ideals from the even more ancient civic cultures of Egypt and Mesopotamia. The ancient Hebrews were in contact whith those ancient cultures as well and loaned a lot from them, like many of the concepts of legality and the idea of monotheism and other folklore elements like the great flood. This is known. Today secularist ideals are ever evolving as our understanding grows and as we learn more about different cultural heritages and values. And Christian values evolve all the time too, mostly borrowing from secular idieals as it has ever borrowed, again as you pointed out, from the classical philosophers.
Ancient Jewish and Christian cultures in them selves historicially have very little in them about humane values. Judaism has arbitrary commands from a god on how Jews are more precious to this god, than other people. Like for example, how a non-Jewish slave may be beaten to death. That is not humane. On the contrary, it is moralistic. Christianity seems undecided wether many of those rules by the Jewish god are valid, or not, but the only thing it seems to have to offer on the human rights front really is the so called “golden rule”, which was presented by Jesus. As it was presented before him by Laozi, Zaraoster and Buddha among others. It is not that clever really, just a statement of the obvious known to all humans whith a half a mind to use their ability for empathy shared by me, you and all other mammals.
LikeLike
Oh, by the way “Anno Domini” refered originally to emperor Augustus from whose reign the western timeline we today hold was started. It was only later adopted to refer to Jesus as his story so nicely fitted the allready existing Julian Roman calendar. This is why some of the Orthodox Christians still count their timeline from the supposed beginning of the world.
I know this is not taught in elementary schools, but some of us have moved beyond, that level of information sources.
LikeLike
Sorry again. But Anno Domini had nothing whatsoever to do with Augustus Caesar other than being a Latin expression.
Just think logically for a moment and forget your indoctrination.
Why would Christians measure their time according to Augustus Caesar? Western Civilization and its measure of historical time arose after the fall of the Roman Empire.
And since the Christians revered Jesus, not Augustus, Anno Domini refers to Jesus.
Again, here is an example of simple reasoning applied to elementary history facts.
LikeLike
Well, there seems to be the problem, that the historical facts you hold are indeed totally “elementary”. And that is why your reasoning fails you. Why do you think it was originally called the Julian calendar, if it was based on Jesus? 😉
Yes, the Christians have meant Jesus by the term AD for centuries.The longer form of Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi was added on by Dionysius the Dwarf a church father in the 6th century, who also revised the calendar to the original Julian calendar after the reign of Diocletian according to the reign calendar of emperor Augustus. The words Anno Domini were however used to refer to the imperial calendar according to whom ever was the emperor in power at the time before the Christians made a military coup and took over the empire. And as it happens Dionysius thought, that Augustus was in power when this Jesus character was alledgedly born. Augustus was also effectively the first actual Caesar, or emperor of the Roman republic, so the calendaric system of Julius Caesar became the hallmark of his rule. Julius Caesar was the final triumvir who paved the way for emperor Augustus to take over the republic after all.
Do you agree whith what I said abowe about human rights and values? It was based on logic, reasoning and historical facts, you know.
You ask me to put aside my indoctrination, but can you put aside yours? I know a lot of atheists who have put aside their religious indoctrination, but I know no religious people who have had no religious indoctrination.
Remember, atheism is just a position on a single issue, to withold belief in any of the unnatural phenomenons called gods, before any actual evidence for them is presented. So far we have just had anecdotes indistinguishable from folklore and flawed logic. Which by the way most often refer to completely different forms of divinity even when presented by the adherents of some particular religion and sect.
LikeLike
You said, “Yes, the Christians have meant Jesus by the term AD for centuries.”
That means you admit to my correction.
That sort of glaring error on your part should have stunned you into silence of mind where wisdom speaks to the humble.
But alas, look at the ensuing verbosity!
LikeLike
Well, well. What exactly did I admit to? The next 1000 years after Christianity took over in Roman empire have been known as the “dark ages”. Arguably the first few centuries were total downfall from the civilization of the antiquity. When religious zealots stopped all open expression of free thought by systematic violence. The fact that Christians renamed Roman imperial calendar according to their legendary avatar character some 500 years later than this dude alledgedly appeared in the Middle-East (leaving only anecdotal stories, and no other evidence, not even comments from contemporary historians), tells us nothing about the veracity of the supernatural claims made about him. I admit no error.
You cling on to this one little detail in my comments about the name of the timeline, and try to twist it to your purpose, just to brush aside the bigger issues. Do you do it on purpose, or is it your sub-conscious making defensive evasions? Such behaviour makes you seem like a troll even though I do not think you are one.
I have demonstrated how you were totally wrong about atheism being a faith based belief. How the notion, that Christianity and Judaism are somehow especially humane, or even the base of modern western social morals, or of human rights is false. And how Jesus is a mythical rather than historical character and more importantly even, if he were a historical character, that would not prove any of the unnatural miracle elements in his story. Was I too wordy for you? Or have I “stunned you into silence of mind”?
You have as of yet failed to provide the proof of your god you boasted about in your first comment to this post. But I would be very interrested about it. I sure hope it was not, that silly thing about the big bang and the sun coming up? Even though I have seen a lot of different apologetic arguments for the existance of a god, (or actually for some unnamed creator entity mostly), they have all been built on false premises, or logical fallacies. If it is so easy as you would claim, then howcome it seems to be so hard for people who genuinely hold faith in the same god you do?
If what I write is too complex for you, I am sorry. I rarely manage to say what I mean by few words. 😦 Now, I am beginning to suspect you even read what I wrote.
LikeLike
Well, silenceofmind, you start to sound a bit like a troll, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt, because religious people are often very emotionally charged about their convictions.
I do not see how you could get reason whithout any evidence. That would be a miracle. 😉 And you did say: “2. Faith is the belief in that which cannot be proven. This is the definition of a word.” And you also said: “Religions like Protestantism and Islam are not based on reasoning, they are based on total faith.” If that is not admitting that “total faith” is a poor reason to believe anything, I do not know what it is. Reasoning whithout evidence is a poor method of coming to any conclusions. Yes?
Atheism can be proven. It evidently is the disbelief in an assertion, that an unnatural phenomenon commonly called gods exist, untill there is evidence of their existance. Simple, eh? And a fact to boost. In fact you are an atheist about a good number of gods. 🙂 Are you not?
Did you really not get what part of my comment was my personal opinion? It was that I think there propably was some dude on whom the Jesus character is based on. I am giving him more credence, than necessary, because I tend to think such myths have some original causes and sometimes even a real person at the core.
Jesus as a concept is a fact (several different concepts, to be fair). But, if we apply the same historical rigour to him as we do to Julius Caesar, then Jesus falls under the gategory of legendary mythical characters. The fact that he may have lived tells us nothing of the truth value of the unnatural miracles attributed to his character. But as we have no other than anecdotal evidence of the observable natural laws of physical reality ever having been broken, there is no reasonable reason to take any of the unnatural parts of the Jesus story as true.
Jesus is indeed a character in an anecdotal story. Or is there some other evidence about him than anecdotal stories?
LikeLike
I object to you redefining the meaning of my comments and that makes me a troll.
You need to start listening to yourself.
LikeLike
Haha! And you need to start listening to the other parties in this conversation. 🙂
LikeLike