On atheists and freedom of belief

Should theists have the freedom of belief?

  • Yes, everyone is free to choose what they believe

    Votes: 17 77.3%

  • No, theists are irrational and should be re-educated

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • Some other opinion

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • Total voters
    22
Norsefire said:
The evidence does not suggest anything at all. It's unknown, in every respect. Therefore it's foolish to assert that you KNOW. Strong atheism is a form of theism.
Click to expand...

What is "unknown in every respect?" Christianity? Are you saying there's no valid way of knowing? You've just demonstrated the validity of my argument that Christianity is a delusion.

A delusion is an erroneous belief in the face of evidence.
No evidence supports Christianity.
Considerable evidence contradicts Christianity's doctrines.
Therefore, Christianity is a delusion.

Time's up. Do you want an extension?
 
SkinWalker said:
<i>What</i> is "unknown in every respect?" Christianity? Are you saying there's no valid way of <i>knowing?</i> You've just demonstrated the validity of my argument that Christianity is a delusion.

A delusion is an erroneous belief in the face of evidence.
No evidence supports Christianity.
Considerable evidence contradicts Christianity's doctrines.
Therefore, Christianity is a delusion.
Click to expand...


Skin, I asked but it got lost.

If the physical world is an illusion, isn't any opinions we derive from it considered delusion? What's the difference?
 
Absence of evidence = evidence of absence?

That sounds like a delusion.
 
CheskiChips said:
If the physical world is an illusion, isn't any opinions we derive from it considered delusion? What's the difference?
Click to expand...

If the physical world were an illusion, it would suggest that the illusion were being held in the physical mind of a physical being in an actual physical world. Therefore, it is relevant to continue to believe that physical laws exist in nature.
 
Gustav said:
an explanation has to be accepted or rejected by recipient

sam
do you hold tabletalk (wtf is that?) to be a valid historical source?
Click to expand...
It was a book peddled after the war by one of Hitler's former staffers who claimed that it was full of second-hand accounts of Hitler's conversations with friends. It's generally dismissed by historians, since there aren't any records to back up its authenticity and much of it is contradicted by other sources that most historians consider more reliable. Hitler is quoted as saying a lot of strange stuff in it about how christianity was hijacked early on people people who distorted its message. Often christians who are desperate to show that Hitler wasn't actually a christian will take quotes from it out of context to make it sound like he wasn't a christian. But if you actually read the book, it's clear that
1) He WAS a christian, he just thought that most modern christians were wrong about the doctrine.
and
2) He thought atheism was bad.

SAM clearly hasn't actually read the book and is just cutting and pasting out-of-context snippets that he thinks support his position. That would normally make he think that he was just intellectually lazy, but the fact that this has all been explained to him before and he's STILL trying to do it makes me think that he's intellectually dishonest. He clearly only cares about "proving" what he has already decided is true, rather than actually learning anything.
 
SkinWalker said:
If the physical world were an illusion, it would suggest that the illusion were being held in the physical mind of a physical being in an actual physical world. Therefore, it is relevant to continue to believe that physical laws exist in nature.
Click to expand...


That's true, however it's not a rebutle to the argument I intended which was poorly phrased.

Better phrased my argument is; we don't know all of the laws of physics. We constantly discover new things, learn more and more. Is it ever potentially possible that we learn things that disprove physics in entirety? If so, weren't the philosophies of physics a temporary delusion? Isn't certain delusion inherent of limited knowledge?

If so, certain moral factors presented in religions are transcendent really of all physical laws. Those surely can't be delusions. Meaning the two sciences are unrelated and there's no need to reconcile the two.
 
S.A.M. said:
they found evidence contradicting Jesus?
Click to expand...

Why must it be Jesus?

But there is evidence that contradicts the mythology surrounding Jesus. For instance, the evidence that other religious cult leaders and mythical people lived or were created by stories centuries prior that mirrored the Jesus myth.

But we need look no further than myths of global flood, turning people to pillars of salt, or stopping the rotation of the earth for a day. Each of these myths are disproved by science. Special creation of man just a few thousand years ago -a biblical doctrine disproved by science.

Even humanist and philosophical thought has disproved biblical mythology since we no longer believe it moral to keep, sell, or capture slaves. We no longer hold it moral to stone to death adulterers, victims of rape, or those that work on the Sabbath. We no longer believe it moral to degrade or oppress women as the inferior sex. I'm speaking of society in general and there are those that will no doubt see more advancement to be done in some of these areas of morality, but the point is that while they are held as "biblical truths," we no longer subscribe to these "truths."

Christianity and other religious doctrines are delusions. Plain and simple.

Those that justify their delusions with a fear of rising above them or perhaps existing without their comforting embrace are the "ignorant" ones.
 
SAM, the Patriot act is justified; and even then, it's the government's right to be able to collect information on its citizens. It's fair and for everyone's greater good.
 
S.A.M. said:
Alas, that surely proves Christianity is evil and a delusion.




Ever heard of the Patriot Act?
Click to expand...


You asked for an evidence, I gave it to you. Why do you think I am making accusations towards Christianity when I have done nothing less than be an advocate for many Christian morals?!
 
Norsefire said:
and even then, it's the government's right to be able to collect information on its citizens
Click to expand...
Government's right?
What rights are due to a government?
They're representatives of the people.
 
And when most of the people don't want such things, or "the government" comes up with ideas on its own?
Governments, qua governments, are due no rights at all, they are (or should be, as intended) public servants and representatives.
 
Norsefire said:
SAM, the Patriot act is justified; and even then, it's the government's right to be able to collect information on its citizens. It's fair and for everyone's greater good.
Click to expand...

Soon this will be the perfect thread, with every member viciously flaming every other member.

rubs hands together evily

Excellent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top