Atheist Arguments

[cuchulain]

 

6 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Dan's religion is one of many.  What are the odds that Dan has the right religion -- and all the other religions are wrong?  They can't all be right.  They can all be wrong.  

 

Do I really want to waste the only life that I can be sure of?  On my knees, praying to an improbable God?  Studying ancient Scriptures, produced by people, who knew way less than I do?

 

We are indeed surrounded by lies, deception and corruption.  Including pious fraud and fantasy.  That is why evidence is so important.  Or we become ready victim, to every fraud, huckster, cheat, scam artist and humbug, to come along.  

 

When confronted by a wizard, it is good to look behind the curtain.       Sometimes, it's just a humbug.     

 

 

Or a sincere believer, who swallowed it all.  Hook, line and sinker.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Samuel Clemens said it best for me.  "religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool".

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

 

Samuel Clemens said it best for me.  "religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool".

 

 

We can also go with Voltaire.  "The purpose of religion, is to keep the servants from stealing the silverware."

 

 

[Dan56]

13 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Dan's religion is one of many.  What are the odds that Dan has the right religion -- and all the other religions are wrong?

Do I really want to waste the only life that I can be sure of?  On my knees, praying to an improbable God?  Studying ancient Scriptures, produced by people, who knew way less than I do?

We are indeed surrounded by lies, deception and corruption. 

When confronted by a wizard, it is good to look behind the curtain.   

"The purpose of religion, is to keep the servants from stealing the silverware.

 

 

The odds of me being right are 100%, my opinion of course.. The odds of all other religions being wrong are 100%, my opinion of course.

 

When you  believe God is real,  its not a waste of life, its an assurance of everlasting life.. And its true scriptures are ancient, but I've read what those authors wrote and I've read what you've written, and I can attest to the fact that the biblical authors knew more than you or I do, my opinion of course.

 

We agree with being surrounded by lies, deception, and corruption, but it wasn't Christ who lied, deceived, or corrupted. "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.  And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not" (John 8:44&45), his proclamation of course.

 

When confronted by a Savior, it is good to look behind the tombstone, and if there's nothing there, he's a genuine Savior.. That pretty much dispels the Atheist argument, my opinion of course.

 

And I agree, "Thou shall not steal" is a moral attribute that helps encourage people from stealing silverware

 

These arguments are getting silly again, they resolve nothing, we're still left with: To believe or not to believe, that is the question

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

8 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

The odds of me being right are 100%, my opinion of course.. The odds of all other religions being wrong are 100%, my opinion of course.

 

When you  believe God is real,  its not a waste of life, its an assurance of everlasting life.. And its true scriptures are ancient, but I've read what those authors wrote and I've read what you've written, and I can attest to the fact that the biblical authors knew more than you or I do, my opinion of course.

 

We agree with being surrounded by lies, deception, and corruption, but it wasn't Christ who lied, deceived, or corrupted. "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.  And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not" (John 8:44&45), his proclamation of course.

 

When confronted by a Savior, it is good to look behind the tombstone, and if there's nothing there, he's a genuine Savior.. That pretty much dispels the Atheist argument, my opinion of course.

 

And I agree, "Thou shall not steal" is a moral attribute that helps encourage people from stealing silverware

 

These arguments are getting silly again, they resolve nothing, we're still left with: To believe or not to believe, that is the question

 

 

 

 

 

Just so.  Continuing would be pointless.

 

 

 

 

[RevBogovac]

20 hours ago, cuchulain said:

 

Samuel Clemens said it best for me.  "religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool".

 

And capitalism was invented when the first wiseass put a fence around a piece of land and proclaimed it his... and the fools that believed him. 😁

[RevBogovac]

11 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

The odds of me being right are 100%, my opinion of course.. The odds of all other religions being wrong are 100%, my opinion of course. [...]

 

 

 

 

Yeah, that's what the other 583977620342725087397763461253743 religions say too...

 

Even if we narrow it down to Christianity; which 1 is right? Danism?!?

 

 

[cuchulain]

Takes at least two to keep an argument going, Dan...

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

18 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Takes at least two to keep an argument going, Dan...

 

 

 

I give up.  I'm throwing in the towel.  It hurts too much.     

 

 

🏳️

 

 

 

[Dan56]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

Takes at least two to keep an argument going, Dan...

 

Not really an argument as much as it is people just saying what they think.. I just say what and why I believe as I do, but never anticipate a consensus to validate it.. I'm fully aware that you guys find it difficult to believe anything that you can't get direct confirmation of, but unfortunately "beliefs" don't afford us that kind of direct evidence. I want to believe, and am convince its true. You want to know, but are convinced of nothing. That's why we are called by faith, you can accept a message you love, but are non-receptive of a message you hate.

 

58 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I give up.  I'm throwing in the towel.  It hurts too much.     

 

🏳️

 

 

Don't be too hard on yourself.. It shouldn't "hurt" to hear views you disagree with. Your not obligated to convince anyone of anything, so don't get irritated and turn yourself into an emotional wreck over it.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

23 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

Not really an argument as much as it is people just saying what they think.. I just say what and why I believe as I do, but never anticipate a consensus to validate it.. I'm fully aware that you guys find it difficult to believe anything that you can't get direct confirmation of, but unfortunately "beliefs" don't afford us that kind of direct evidence. I want to believe, and am convince its true. You want to know, but are convinced of nothing. That's why we are called by faith, you can accept a message you love, but are non-receptive of a message you hate.

 

 

Don't be too hard on yourself.. It shouldn't "hurt" to hear views you disagree with. Your not obligated to convince anyone of anything, so don't get irritated and turn yourself into an emotional wreck over it.

 

 

What???

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

Not really an argument as much as it is people just saying what they think.. I just say what and why I believe as I do, but never anticipate a consensus to validate it.. I'm fully aware that you guys find it difficult to believe anything that you can't get direct confirmation of, but unfortunately "beliefs" don't afford us that kind of direct evidence. I want to believe, and am convince its true. You want to know, but are convinced of nothing. That's why we are called by faith, you can accept a message you love, but are non-receptive of a message you hate.

 

 

Don't be too hard on yourself.. It shouldn't "hurt" to hear views you disagree with. Your not obligated to convince anyone of anything, so don't get irritated and turn yourself into an emotional wreck over it.

Can you define argument?  It's classically meant as a person's point in a debate, so when you say that the argument is getting silly, I responded by saying it takes two...unless you want to play the unwitting participant.  But you complained about the silly argument...then kept going.  I think that is silly as well.  Or do you need to have the last word in a silly debate?

[Dan56]

4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

What???

 

You wrote "It hurts too much" and I replied that "It shouldn't hurt".......... I just assumed the pain you were experiencing was in regards to not being able to convince me that God does not exist? And that's why you wrote "I give up"... That's why I responded by saying that your under no obligation to convince me of anything. You've gotten irritated and frustrated before, so I assumed you felt like you failed your mission and surrendered (again). My simple point was that believers aren't convince by non-believers and non-believers aren't convinced by believers, so its not a battle for either side to persuade someone that their position is correct. 

 

3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Can you define argument?  It's classically meant as a person's point in a debate, so when you say that the argument is getting silly, I responded by saying it takes two...unless you want to play the unwitting participant.  But you complained about the silly argument...then kept going.  I think that is silly as well.  Or do you need to have the last word in a silly debate?

 

An argument is a disagreement, two points of views that can't be reconciled. I defined it as silly because there's no resolution to me believing in something that you guys don't. My additional comment was just explaining why belief isn't based on direct evidence, but in a desire to accept a message that appeals to you and rings true. That's not an argument, just my definition of faith.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

39 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

You wrote "It hurts too much" and I replied that "It shouldn't hurt".......... I just assumed the pain you were experiencing was in regards to not being able to convince me that God does not exist? And that's why you wrote "I give up"... That's why I responded by saying that your under no obligation to convince me of anything. You've gotten irritated and frustrated before, so I assumed you felt like you failed your mission and surrendered (again). My simple point was that believers aren't convince by non-believers and non-believers aren't convinced by believers, so its not a battle for either side to persuade someone that their position is correct. 

 

 

An argument is a disagreement, two points of views that can't be reconciled. I defined it as silly because there's no resolution to me believing in something that you guys don't. My additional comment was just explaining why belief isn't based on direct evidence, but in a desire to accept a message that appeals to you and rings true. That's not an argument, just my definition of faith.

 

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

You wrote "It hurts too much" and I replied that "It shouldn't hurt".......... I just assumed the pain you were experiencing was in regards to not being able to convince me that God does not exist? And that's why you wrote "I give up"... That's why I responded by saying that your under no obligation to convince me of anything. You've gotten irritated and frustrated before, so I assumed you felt like you failed your mission and surrendered (again). My simple point was that believers aren't convince by non-believers and non-believers aren't convinced by believers, so its not a battle for either side to persuade someone that their position is correct. 

 

 

An argument is a disagreement, two points of views that can't be reconciled. I defined it as silly because there's no resolution to me believing in something that you guys don't. My additional comment was just explaining why belief isn't based on direct evidence, but in a desire to accept a message that appeals to you and rings true. That's not an argument, just my definition of faith.

Had to have that last word 😂

[PollyLama]

When one uses something out a of the Bible to prove the Bible is true. There seems to be an assumption that the bible is in fact actually what it’s claimed to be (The True Word of God).

[cuchulain]

Seems like a faulty assumption.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, PollyLama said:

When one uses something out a of the Bible to prove the Bible is true. There seems to be an assumption that the bible is in fact actually what it’s claimed to be (The True Word of God).

 

 

Yes.  Silly, isn't it?''

 

Welcome to the board.

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

10 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Seems like a faulty assumption.

 

 

No need to be timid.  It is a faulty assumption.

 

 

 

[Dan56]

20 hours ago, PollyLama said:

When one uses something out a of the Bible to prove the Bible is true. There seems to be an assumption that the bible is in fact actually what it’s claimed to be (The True Word of God).

 

Its true that the bible is its own best evidence. I've studied it in-depth and found no untruths, so its truth becomes self-evident in the absence of any falsehoods. And its fair to say that every book inspired by God corresponds with every other book compiled into the bible, so there is collaborating material written by multiple authors. i.e; Isaiah doesn't contradict Ezekiel, Matthew doesn't contradict Mark. Using the assumption that the bible is the Word of God, what other possible source could establish confirmation of that fact? Consider the prophesies of Christ that predated his birth by 10 centuries, when realized, did in fact establish a truth to be self-evident, whether one accepts it or not, facts are facts. "I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me" (John 8:18).

[Key]

12 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

Its true that the bible is its own best evidence. I've studied it in-depth and found no untruths, so its truth becomes self-evident in the absence of any falsehoods. And its fair to say that every book inspired by God corresponds with every other book compiled into the bible, so there is collaborating material written by multiple authors. i.e; Isaiah doesn't contradict Ezekiel, Matthew doesn't contradict Mark. Using the assumption that the bible is the Word of God, what other possible source could establish confirmation of that fact? Consider the prophesies of Christ that predated his birth by 10 centuries, when realized, did in fact establish a truth to be self-evident, whether one accepts it or not, facts are facts. "I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me" (John 8:18).

Playing Devil's advocate here again, Dan, just to offer another perspective of what you're saying. A bit lengthy, so bear with me, please.

 

1)   Prior to Disney buying the Star Wars franchise and rights, every Star Wars book, comic, or even movie had to be inline with the others so as not to contradict timelines and events for various recurring characters. This process is called "canon". After the change in ownership, Disney was no longer following previous established canon (except loosely the films of the original trilogy and prequels).

With this in mind, what if the regions from which the Bible books came from, also established a sort of canon in order for them to be more believable or relatable and easier for memory? And forgers were rampant as well, so they would have followed many similarities and styles of the originals. Then something happened, a council was convened to establish a new canon from the books, to remove many that were popular in different areas and sects. Some books no longer were seen as part of the canon, while others remained. In effect, a new ownership was established.

Of course, the older books may not contradict, in many faithful minds, but that may be greatly in part of how they were intently written, as part of a mental canon.

 

2)   Scientologist absolutely believe their books on Dianetics to be thoroughly true, and even cite various entries from it as proof, and those entries do not contradict each other, whatsoever. Would you then think to yourself, "well, they are quoting from a book they believe in, with only their faith as real evidence, so they must be the true religion?"