best arguments against religion (no theists)
- Thread starter cato
- Start date
Christians, for example, who are opposed to each others views of their beliefs and who claim to have 'knowledge' of god, that which must be the same to all who believe, show evidence that their beliefs can only be self-induced from the ideals of others and not from a supernatural being.
If Scriptures, which many of them base their beliefs and cannot possibly be flawed in its content and presentation if it is the word of god, can evoke such opposing views, it too must be the ideals of others and not that of a supernatural being.
It seems there is evidence in irrationality - what a concept!
If Scriptures, which many of them base their beliefs and cannot possibly be flawed in its content and presentation if it is the word of god, can evoke such opposing views, it too must be the ideals of others and not that of a supernatural being.
It seems there is evidence in irrationality - what a concept!
Last edited:
I was only being slightly facetious.
Here is a group of people (theists) who have been following the same dogma and childish assertions essentially unchallenged for millenia, in the face of actual, provable science and simple observation.
I call this willful stupidity.
Just read the bible for actual, provable statements to support my theory.
P.S. Done!
OliverJ said:
There are example after example in the Bible that show that God is not omnipotent. This Noah story is one of those. The problem with Christianity is that people who are born again get so "high" off of the Holy Spirit, that they go off blurbing stuff that they ought not to without even reading the whole Bible, saying that they understand God. What fools. Christians need to sharpen up on their apologetics and use their brain cells for a change (as well as the Bible), and that is exactly what the new generation of believers are doing. Many twenty-somethings and younger are looking for more concrete philosophical arguments to support their beliefs. It is exciting to see them think. They put adults to shame.
As far as the omnipotent thing, as I said, the Bible clearly shows God without having it. At least that is the only logical assumption that we can make. However, he appears to have it, so it is mistook for omnipotence. He has the ability to look at your past, look at what you are thinking right now, and tell you where you will end up if you do not change your thinking, and Joe Schmoe (your neighbor) doesn't change his thinking to influence you, as well as every person in your life. And this telepathic ability combined with his infinite intellect, can determine the hour of your death because he knows everyone's thoughts.
Example: He knows that Harry Smith has a problem with alcohol and will end up driving drunk the day that his wife (who is not happy with him and is from a broken home) will leave him, thus hitting you broadside and killing you because you have done all you can for God and your race is finished. After that, Harry Smith wakes up in prison and regrets his decision to drink so much, because he is a good person and finds God through the ordeal.
Sorry I posted, sorry i'm off topic, just wanted to clarify God's omnipotence. It doesn't take a genius to read the bible stories and know that he is not omnipotent by definition.
(Q) said:Christians, for example, who are opposed to each others views of their beliefs and who claim to have 'knowledge' of god, that which must be the same to all who believe, show evidence that their beliefs can only be self-induced from the ideals of others and not from a supernatural being.
If Scriptures, which many of them base their beliefs and cannot possibly be flawed in its content and presentation if it is the word of god, can evoke such opposing views, it too must be the ideals of others and not that of a supernatural being.
It seems there is evidence in irrationality - what a concept!
If you didn't read the chapter on arithmetic calculations, but you read the chapter on algebra and say that 1a+1a=2a^2 and I say 1a+1a=2a because I have read the first chapter, who is correct? THere is so much opposition because people forget, or don't read all of the Bible in context.
If you didn't read the chapter on arithmetic calculations, but you read the chapter on algebra and say that 1a+1a=2a^2 and I say 1a+1a=2a because I have read the first chapter, who is correct?
Ok, if you then showed me how 1a+1a=2a, and as a rational person I could do nothing more but agree, because it is in fact correct, then we have both agreed on the same thing.
But even so, your example argues rational concepts that can be tested with results and agree upon by everyone else, while the concepts argued by theists cannot. In other words, you're arguing apples and oranges.
Ok, if you then showed me how 1a+1a=2a, and as a rational person I could do nothing more but agree, because it is in fact correct, then we have both agreed on the same thing.
But even so, your example argues rational concepts that can be tested with results and agree upon by everyone else, while the concepts argued by theists cannot. In other words, you're arguing apples and oranges.
context, a theists favorite thing in the whole world, because nobody can prove exactly what, say, jesus meant, so they can make up a meaning as long as in resembles something in the context.
take this as an example where context blows up in theist's faces. example:
Matthew 15:4"For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
the context here is that the pharisees was becoming more liberal, and not killing any child that "curseth" their parent. so jesus said that no matter what tradition is, you must still kill any child that "curseth" their parents. I head children curse their parents all the time, according to your religion, I should kill them.
cato said:
You missed the start of the verse where Jesus said, "You have heard Moses say..." That clearly shows the law in bounds with Jewish law.
You are right, according to Jewish law, they should be killed. Jesus fullfilled the law, so gentiles (or Jews who accept Jesus) are not under it, and if we keep some of the Jewish/God's laws, we should keep all of it, Jesus said. But, that is not possible for man without Christ.
As you may know, Jewish/God's laws for his people are far stricter than the rules for the bride of Christ, which are only two laws: Love thy God with all of yourself, and your neighbor as yourself. A child who curses his parents today, has the chance to be redeemed by repenting and never cursing again...that does not excuse him (he/she will pay the consequences of the parent and/or God), but he will be given a place in heaven.
what fucked up version are you reading? I looked up 4 different versions and none of them mention moses, they all refer to god directly. therefore, jesus would prefer you to kill childeren who curse their parents. moreover, even if jesus said hat moses said it, he would not critisize the pharisees for doing what was right.
Well the thing I normally say
"There might be a God and there might not be. Even IF (big if) there is one, its most likely that ideas generated by 'religions' are so far off the mark... and the truth is, no human being or religion knows a single thing about the God they claim to know so well."
"There might be a God and there might not be. Even IF (big if) there is one, its most likely that ideas generated by 'religions' are so far off the mark... and the truth is, no human being or religion knows a single thing about the God they claim to know so well."
cato said:
My point was is that was Jewish law, which was delivered by Moses, from God. We cannot sit here and presume to know exactly what Moses meant. We do not know if Moses interpreted God to mean this and actually he meant that. That is why Jesus came and set everything straight. Jesus also said that him without sin may cast the first stone. In this day of grace, we are not to kill those who sin, including children.
but we are to presume to know exactly what jesus meant?jayleew said:
yeah, I guess that would be why he said the pharisees should not have stopped the death penalty for those who curse their parents.jayleew said:
what does that have to do with it? that was a case of adultery. moreover, he never said it was wrong to stone her, he merely said that a sin-free person should be the one to do it. after they all left, he forgave her with the caveat that she would never do it again. nowhere in that story did he say it was wrong to stone her, he merely found a way to avoid taking a hard stance either way. I guess jesus was the first politician =]jaleew said:
I love it. This is clearly an anti-science book:
"baloney detector" or baloney detection kit" was coined by Carl Sagan and is used by scientifically literate skeptics everywhere. Can't the fundies come up with their own phrase?
Dullards.
"baloney detector" or baloney detection kit" was coined by Carl Sagan and is used by scientifically literate skeptics everywhere. Can't the fundies come up with their own phrase?
Dullards.
What is that thing?
speaking of Carl Sagan, anyone want his book "demon haunted world, science as a candle in the dark?" I will give it (free) to any religious person, provided they pay the shipping. I am not really the type of person to read books twice, unless I am looking something up.
I am sure that book lawdog posted is full of half truths and spin to fool the weak minded. however, I would like to read it just to know how much bull is actually in it.
p.s. lol, I just looked the book up on findbookprices.com, and there were NO used copies. I am glad there were not enough stupid people out there to shell out money for that crap.
I am sure that book lawdog posted is full of half truths and spin to fool the weak minded. however, I would like to read it just to know how much bull is actually in it.
p.s. lol, I just looked the book up on findbookprices.com, and there were NO used copies. I am glad there were not enough stupid people out there to shell out money for that crap.
Last edited:
I've read my copy of DHW twice. And yes, I'll bet the above book is a hoot.