I think it is pretty simple. Morality is how we interact with others and the things around us. A simple “Be nice to me and I’ll be nice to you.” works! No diety required.
3 Likes
David:
- Are you asking because you can’t understand why Atheists don’t believe what you believe? I find this hard to believe, as you don’t believe many things that other people don’t believe.
- Perhaps because you can’t believe atheists don’t believe what you seem to think is very obvious - but even you must admit there are many things that you don’t believe that seem obvious to other people.
- Surely, you don’t believe in many gods that people died for in the past - they swore they existed - and some still die for them today.
- Is it because you are questioning your faith and want to argue with some atheists as if to show your friends that you really, really believe and this is a way to convince yourself and them?
- When you say we all have Faith in something - what exactly do you have Faith in? Don’t be quick to say God, because you are having Faith in your feelings and what a book (or other men) have told you.
- After all, I don’t believe you have direct evidence of God. If you did, you would simply present that to us.
- Keep in mind, many people here were once Christian. They were you. They wrestled with the big questions of life and of Christianity and they found no answers. What seem to be answers to you were not convincing and I think you know that.
- Have you read, for one example, “More Than a Carpenter” by Josh McDowell? It’s filled with poor apologetics and bad reasoning, but was one of the leading reasons people believed in God and Jesus. Looking at it today, it is laughable, yet, that is all they had. Today, William Lane Craig is just as laughable.
- The problem is, the idea of God seems - according to history - to be something invented (not discovered) by humanity.
- Until you can give us a compelling reason to prove that the God Hypothesis could not be an invention of the human mind, you will forever wonder why atheists don’t believe in whatever God you happen to believe in this year.
In my experience, religious people don’t believe humans are animals.
1 Like
I’d suggest they consult a dictionary, but they don’t seem overly keen on those either.
animal
noun
- a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
1 Like
Good epistemology demands that we apply sound scientific skepticism to each new truth claim we encounter. For mundane claims like my wife telling me she’s going shopping, I accept her word and move on. But suppose she tells me she will float off the Earth and henceforth live in Heaven. Such an extraordinary claim demands extraordinary proof.
The claim that an invisible, undetectable deity created the Universe and wants me to worship Him so I can live forever in Heaven is a vast claim demanding a great deal of evidence. But the only evidence I find for the existence of a creator deity is anecdotal claims, hearsay, just-so stories, and wishful thinking. So long as all the gods on offer remain undetectable, no shred of confirming evidence for their existence can be found.
What evidence for your God convinced you he exists?
Perhaps the third time will be the charm…
@davidc.guthrie, are you going to answer this question?
1 Like
Yeah… we’re speshul don’t you know coz Gawd made us, LOL.
UK Atheist
1 Like
I have an opinion if anyone’s interested? It’s based on the evidence thus far.
2 Likes
All I can tell you is that the evidence you hold true to about the universe and our existence isn’t enough to disprove the existence of God. The evidence for God is in His creation. Also it is a heart-felt conviction. If you don’t “seek” God, you won’t find Him. I believe the Word of God is the Truth. Your “truth” comes from the tangible, and the measureable. In your mind, it doesn’t take faith for that.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, it seems your beliefs aren’t honest enough to address the irrationality of your arguments.
Circular reasoning fallacy, again your dishonesty is manifest in the fact you keep making the same fallacious arguments, even after their irrationality has been explained over and over.
Sigh, circular reasoning fallacy.
No deity is tangible or measurable, in any objective way.
The fallacious false equivalence of equating religious faith, with the word’s primary definition, has been explained to you, more than once, again the dishonesty of this fallacious claim is self evident.
Why pretend here, you are not here for honest debate, that is evident in your posts. You’re here to preach and to proselytise.
You didn’t address this at all.
1 Like
FYI…the poster known as davidc.guthrie has been put in time-out. He has been warned that, if he chooses to return when his time-out expires, he needs to respond to questions posed about the content of his posts, not just make continued assertions, or he will be permanently banned.
4 Likes
Oh dear, look what’s leaving a bad smell in my in tray, just as I finallly had some time to devote to my JavaScript project …
Apparently you’re unaware of an embarrassing fact. Namely, that the moment testable natural processes are demonstrated to be sufficient to explain observed entities and interactions, then cartoon magic men from pre-scientific mythologies become superfluous to requirements and irrelevant, which in a way is even worse for mythology fanboys.
Bullshit. ALL the evidence available points to testable natural processes being responsible for the universe and its contents, not an imaginary cartoon magic man from a Bronze Age mythology. That evidence is provided by the contents of several million peer reviewed scientific papers, many of which document successful direct experimental test and verification of relevant postulates, a level of support that your favourite Bronze Age mythology and its frequently cretinous assertions have never enjoyed.
Correction, it’s an ideological choice. One involving zero robust or rigorous evidential support, which tends to be the case with ideological choices.
Yawn. Funny how mythology fanboys can never come up with a proper, rigorous means of “finding” their cartoon magic man, it always boils down to “treat the unsupported assertions of my favourite Bronze Age mythology uncritically as fact, and my cartoon magic man will make voices in your head”.
First of all, neither you nor any other mythology fanboy, has ever provided proper evidence for your cartoon magic man. All you have to offer here is “my favourite Bronze Age mythology says so, therefore it’s true”. Which is risible.
Furthermore, your Bronze Age mythology contains within its pages, assertions that are not merely wrong, but fatuous and absurd, such as that cretinous bilge about genetics being controlled by coloured sticks.
Speaking of which, I note the hilarity of seeing the few mythology fanboys who don’t run away from this, resort to pretzel mental gymnastics and rococo ex recto apologetic fabrications, to try and hand-wave away the embarrassment of having their Biblical literalism destroyed by the manner in which reality pisses on this particular assertion from a great height. For which, ironically, we have a 19th century monk to thank, along with his diligent scientific experiments teaching us how genetics actually operates.
Guess what, Looby Loo? It doesn’t take “faith” for this, because the observable and measurable demonstrably work. Scientists are able to verify their postulates via reliably repeatable experiments. Whereas all you have to offer is “!my favourite Bronze Age mythology says so”.
Furthermore, as I’ve already covered above, those reliably repeatable experiments tell anyone who pays attention thereto, that testable natural processes are responsible for what we objserve, not a cartoon magic man from a Bronze Age mythology. Indeed, your fanine-free, disease-free life surrounded by expensive electronic toys, was made possible by the same scientific endeavour that rendered your cartoon magic man superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.
Worse still for mythology fanboys like you, scientists have alighted upon vast classes of entities and interactions, that the piss-stained nomads who scribbled your Bronze Age mythology were incapable of even fantasising about. Indeed, said piss-stained nomads knew nothing about the existence of five major continental land masses on this planet, and if you live on one of those land masses, this should be a source of embarrassment to you. The same scientists covered above, have also placed said classes of entities and interactions into usefully predictive quantitative frameworks of genuine, substantive knowledge, of a sort that the authors of your mythology would have regarded as magic. Yet, I was able to replicate numerous of the experiments in question as a teenager in my science classes, and successfully to boot. So no, it doesn’t require “faith” to accept scientific postulates, because they’ve been tested.
You really are an amateur at this, aren’t you?
1 Like
Ok. So evidence of Jesus from non-Christian writers:
Flavius Josephus from ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS references Jesus of Nazareth
Tacitus from ANNALS refers to followers of Chrestus (Christ)
Thallus from 3rd Book of Histories was quoted by Julius Africanus describes darkness at time of Jesus’ crucifixion although Thallus believed it was an eclipse, Phlegon says that an eclipse would have been impossible because of the time of the Passover.
Did I read all these books? No. But they are evidence. Yes. Do you believe in their authenticity? Doubtful. Do I have numerous degrees in fields of study such as philosophy , Astro physics, biology, genetics, ancient history, theology? Nope. But I’m sure everyone who had such kind words to say about me do.
But as I mentioned earlier in this topic or the other one I made comments in, belief in God is a heart issue. There is no way that I can 100% physically prove God’s existence. But with all the scientific evidence of evolution you hold claim to, that evidence can’t disprove Him either.
Here is a quote you might like: “We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one God further.”-Richard Dawkins
Here is a quote that you probably won’t like: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:18
It is my hope that one day each of you will have a change of heart and seek God.
I also wish you all good health and an even better day. Fare well!!!
Not being very specific are you? The only SPECIFIC entry about a Jesus of Nazareth in Vol 18 is a known 3rd century or later forgery. A simple google will tell you that.
The second entry about a Jesus in the Second Temple is about a priest also called yeshua…and quite famous in his day.
I have debunked this so many times over the years, but hey ho, rabbits need shootin’ …
Tacitus was a Roman Historian writing at the turn of the 1st Century CE, i.e between 90CE and 120CE. Many years after the alleged life and death of the jesus gospel figure. Many theists make much of a brief mention of a “Chrestus” and use it to bolster their beliefs without ever realising what the passage actually says.
Just to make sure no fantasy mad theist argues the point here is the passage in English and Latin:
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.”
In Latin: ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. [Wiki]
The most anyone can get out of this rather inaccurate passage (Pilate was Prefect not Procurator and there was not an 'immense multitude" of christians anywhere much less in Rome in 60CE) Is that a Jewish Cult of Chrestus was in Rome in about 64CE according to reports some 30 - 50 years later.
Not very convincing evidence for a Jesus, even for a rabid theist now is it?
Really? Thallus? …reportedly means HEARSAY and an eclipse has nothing to do with anything, especially not multiple people resurrecting themselves. …Did you actually even google any of this before you wasted our time?
Please, before coming to a forum where there are more than likely to be well educated members, experts in all sorts of fields that your simple heart obviously can barely comprehend much less reply to in a cogent manner, do some research, proper research. Not Sunday School “ask the pastor”.
It is also polite, as you have served your “time out” to reply to points raised in previous posts. Try and do that before releasing a shoal of red herring.
Perhaps you could instruct your fellow “Southern Boys” in the FACTS and maybe not make such incredible fools of themselves in wider forums. “Bless your Confederate heart”
1 Like
Really? You are just gunna cut and run? Why do you ‘spose I’m not surprised you are leaving without answering any of the very specific questions posters here asked? Is it because you can’t? Because you’re afraid to do so? Because even you know the answers would be inadequate?
Interestingly, we get these farewells rather frequently. It seems you’re in ignominious company.
2 Likes
And here I had a reply all cooked up about allowing the historicity stuff… but that this still doesn’t mean anyone should follow the ridiculous central doctrine of the supposed Jesus.
You’re no fun anymore.
1 Like
Oh deal, look what’s turned up in the in tray … more disinfectant needed …
In other words, it’s all about emotional investment in an idea, not demonstrable fact. Shot yourself in the foot there somewhat, didn’t you?
So far, mythology fanboys have had 2,000 years to provide even an atom of evidence for the carton magic man in question, and have failed. Yet on this dismal basis, many of them not only think they’re in a position to tell the rest of us that their cartoon magic man is real, but that all the world’s most educated and brilliant scientists are supposedly “wrong”, because their diligent experimental work doesn’t gemnuflect before the cretinous assertions of a Bronze Age mythology. About which I had a fair about to say in this post that I notice you didn’t even acknowledge the existence of.
And once again, you, just like every other mythology fanboy who struts and swaggers here with woefully misplaced hubristic self-assurance, fail to understand an elementary concept at work here. Namely, that when testable natural processes are found to be sufficient to account for a given class of entities and interactions, then cartoon magic men from pre-scientific mythologies are rendered superfluous to requirements and irrelevant with respect thereto. Indeed, I’ve already schooled you on this concept and its ramifications, in that previous post you ignored, and which, as a corollary of your above assertion, you ignored at your peril.
A second elementary concept you obviously don’t understand is this - since you and other mythology fanboys are the ones asserting that your cartoon magic man exists, you (and the rest of your ilk of course) are required to support that assertion with something resembling genuine evidence, as opposed to the usual fatuous mixture of ex recto apologetic fabrications and appeals to “my favourite Bronze Age mythology says so”, that your ilk keep serving up here as an ersatz for genuine evidence. But, lo and behold, none of you ever deliver on this front.
Consequently, all we need to do is observe your dismal failure in this regard, and upon doing so, discard your assertion with the same lack of effort you exerted when presenting it. In short, mythology fanboy failure to convert this assertion into something other than unsupported fabrication, is sufficient grounds for dismissal thereof.
Ah, how mythology fanboys love their “quotes”.
And once again, you demonstrate that like other mythology fanboys, you don’t understand a basic principle of discourse. What matters is not who uttered a statement, but whether that statement can be independently tested and verified.
In this case, the observational data is suitably informative -the vast majority of religious believers belong to non-intersecting sets. Though of course I can think of exceptions, such as Universal Unitarians and the members of the Bahá’i faith, who exhibit varying degrees of omnism. But I’m already demonstrating the vacuity of reliance upon “quotes” without subsequent analysis of the real world data with that previous statement. Try learning from this.
Since I’ve already pointed out to you in that previous post, that your favourite Bronze Age mythology is known to contain numerous farcical and fatuous errors, you should be aware that I and numerous other regulars here treat said mythology accordingly.
But once again, I and others here have been aware for some time, that there are numerous discoursive deficiencies endemic to mythology fanboys, and lo and behold, mythology fanboys keep demonstrating those deficiencies every time they gatecrash sites such as this.
Your “hope” is forlorn. I and others here have learned far too much about reality to be swayed by a manifestly error-laden mythology. To borrow an aphorism from the comedian Lewis Black:
Quite simply, expecting someone whose background includes cosmological physics to treat as fact, the scribblings of Bronze Age nomads who were too stupid to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses, is a waste of your time and energy.
Spare me your manifestly synthetic ingratiation. I’m not interested therein. Bring substance, or be silent.
They are not evidence of the divine or the supernatural, obviously. They represent some scant evidence that someone with a pretty common name for that place and time, met a pretty common end for a political prisoner of the Romans, in that place and time.
Do you have any grasp of the standards for verifying archaic literary claims in the historical method?
- When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
- Where was it produced (localization)?
- By whom was it produced (authorship)?
- From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
- In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
- What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?
Did you really take weeks away, and all you have is this? Do you really imagine we have not known about and studied these claims before, in detail? More than you have clearly, Thallus’s writings are dated to almost half a century after the events he claims to be describing.
Which is an entirely natural event, thus not evidence for the christian religions at all.
Not for me, my beliefs are formed on the basis they are supported by a reasonably sufficient amount of objective evidence.
You can’t offer one shred of objective evidence that a deity is even possible, so the hyperbole there is pretty funny.
- I made no such claim.
- I do not need to disprove anything, least of all a claim you cannot support with any objective evidence.
- This is both a straw man fallacy, and an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
If only you were able to understand why it is significant, sadly you are too emotionally invested in the belief. to examine it rationally or critically.
Is there a point in quoting the bible at me, without offering any context?
A rather pointless and facile assertion, that simply ignores all the reason and arguments that’ve been offered. What do you imagine we should do with such a vapid claim?
Thanks, bye then.
It seems you had no real interest in your opening question, as you have failed to properly respond to or examine those reasons.