cuchulain

Member
  • Content Count

    2,576
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About cuchulain

  • Rank
    Stoic Atheist
  • Birthday 03/24/1978

Helpful Information

  • Title, Name/Nickname
    Wanderer
  • Gender
    Male
  • Marital Status
    married
  • Location
    citizen of the world

Friendly Details

  • Interests
    reading, friends, philosophical studies, science fiction, logic. Trying to understand others, and get them to understand me.
  • Pets / Animals
    a few
  • Grateful For
    Good friends and family
  • Your Motto
    Always try to be your best self
  • Doctrine /Affiliation
    stoic atheist

Other Details

  • Occupation
    human

Recent Profile Visitors

5,144 profile views
  1. Treating every one equally implies a love for others to me. Treating them differently or discriminating because of faith puts faith higher than love.
  2. Wasn't there something in there saying of faith hope and love the greatest is love? Guess you pick a different order
  3. You have stated previously that in god we trust supports the majority view so should be accepted by atheists. Also, you recently said christians should be allowed to discriminate despite the majority view. Yes you. Contradicting a previous statement of belief. Because you lack consistency and integrity .
  4. The simple remedy usually is a dictionary, you are right. Yet, every time you argue something and decide the meaning of a word is different than everyone else, you refuse to acknowledge the dictionary definitions yourself Dan. Do you know what that means, in dictionary terms? Either double standard, or hypocrite. Take your choice. Double standard: A set of principles that apply differently to one group than to another. Hypocrite: a person who acts in contradiction to stated beliefs. I pick option two, for you...you have stated a belief, yet act in contradiction to it.
  5. First, it wasn't documented in history. It may have been documented in your religious book, but your religious book is not a history book, nor were it's writers historians. They were pushing a specific belief system, and so cannot be considered in any way unbiased. To be a history book, you need to know who the actual authors were and be able to vet their credentials and biases. Since a lot of the bible is anonymous, that negates the historical aspect. And you cannot prove that it was written by eye witnesses, as claimed in the article. Point two, is also entirely reliant on biblical "history", which isn't really history. So no. Point three. Straw man. I haven't said they knowingly lied. See, the argument began as "It cannot be proven because it isn't historically recorded". Not, "they were promoting a knowing lie." Thus your article has swapped out arguments to one that they can defeat. Why would they make up the ressurection story if jesus turned out to be a fraud? I don't know why they would. I don't know their motives. Why does the guy I work with continually make up stories that are easily disproven? Who can say? Motive is irrelevant to the truth. Lies and deception are typically done for some gain. Maybe. But...being honestly mistaken? You consider these testimonies to be written at the actual time of Jesus. The problem is there is no proof that they were written at the time of Jesus. Maybe they were written later, by people who honestly believed this to be the truth. Maybe the stories were adopted from other cultures and the names were changed to protect the innocent. I don't know their motive, but neither do you. Pulling off such a hoax, as if it were difficult. At the time, many were illiterate. Word of mouth was the primary means of transmitting stories. They changed by word of mouth. So by the time they were written down, maybe they changed. On top of that, the writers didn't have a vast amount of opposition to their writings. And then lets not forget the vast amounts of information that was lost throughout the centuries, some deliberately burned by the church. But yeah, they obviously had no say in changing the bible, taking things out and deciding what went in, right? How do we know thousands of people immediately converted? Show me the evidence. And remember, your book is not really history, so it doesn't count. Evidence not in your bible, that thousands immediately converted. Sorry, got tired of rebutting the same argument rephrased...so I quit reading. Not really evidence. It's an opinion piece, at best. Maybe there was an actual Jesus, but even that cannot be proven. The arguments provided seem stale to me. Probably to many others as well. As Johnathan said, it boils down to belief. If you believe, you will find this all compelling evidence. If you don't, you will probably be able to point out the flaws as easily as I did. The fact that the article says it isn't logical doesn't actually make it illogical, any more than the bible existing must make it true.
  6. Similarly people use metaphysical hypotheses on physical properties with less success but insist it does work.
  7. What is, is. Not having answers doesnt mean we should abandon reasonable searches for them in favor of popular mythology.
  8. Here's a thought. Most religions are praying for the virus to end. Pagans are praying for the pollution levels to drop. Which seems to be happening? By religious logic it should be evidence.
  9. I dont think i'll mind hell so much. I mean, all the best people are going, right? And the parties have to be better. I'm certain at least the music is better...
  10. It's not hard at all for me to leave the phone at home. I am barely proficient enough to call or text, the other fancy stuff is just flat out. But I have always been a low tech person.
  11. Myself, I guess I just don't see enough people in the middle 😀
  12. It doesn't make sense. But then, the government has a hard time delivering the mail properly, so it's also not terribly surprising either.
  13. Pete said it's baffling how some people don't see another view as valid, paraphrased. It's equally baffling to me that the trend these days is to accept every view as valid. It's a lot like overcompensation I think. There should be a middle. Open minded but not too much so that the brain just falls out.
  14. So that is where Dan went. Must have been the wrong brand after all.
  15. If everything you know is wrong, but you know it...then you are wrong about it all being wrong. But then, if it's not all wrong because you know its wrong, your right about it all being wrong...but...but...