11 Arguments Against Theism

Ahnimus · May 2007

Actually I just finished St. Augustine On Free Choice of the Will. And it seems to be about rhetoric.

deadnothingbetter · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

No way man, Solomon's song was a mycology guide for picking Fly Agarius a.k.a. Amanita Muscaria.

no, the book was about getting laid... are you sure you read it? that book got's some sexual stuff man... really hot.

chopitdown · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I asked before how to you take literally the Noah's Ark story, when it's nearly identical to several stories prior to Christianity, dating back as far as 1800 B.C.E.

Honestly, if all these Gods flooded the earth, there wouldn't be much left.

Shit, the earth was flooded before Yahweh even created it.

I also aksed, if you have religious experiences, how do you know your not tryp'ing?

I take it literally b/c I believe the Bible is true...again man, the questions you're asking are good questions, but I sleep, have to keep a girlfriend happy, and finish school, so I'm not going to get into a discussion when we CLEARLY WONT see eye to eye. Call it lazy, that's fine with me.

I guess you'd have to think if you are having a religious experience...i.e, god talking to you. You'd have to evaluate what that message is. If the message is clearly contrary to the preachign of the bible or against his character, it would prob not be god but be a mental disorder. You can't observe some things (i.e. religious experiences) b/c they are personal. So if you want science to explain it, you have to take it as some sort of chemical imbalance etc... If you dont' believe miracles can occur or religous experiences can occur, you have to rationalize them away chemically or by some other physical explanation. I also believe miracles are extremely extremely rare b/c if they happened very frequently it wouldn't be a miracle, rather it would be a possible outcome of some event.

Ahnimus · May 2007

chopitdown wrote:

I take it literally b/c I believe the Bible is true...again man, the questions you're asking are good questions, but I sleep, have to keep a girlfriend happy, and finish school, so I'm not going to get into a discussion when we CLEARLY WONT see eye to eye. Call it lazy, that's fine with me.

I guess you'd have to think if you are having a religious experience...i.e, god talking to you. You'd have to evaluate what that message is. If the message is clearly contrary to the preachign of the bible or against his character, it would prob not be god but be a mental disorder. You can't observe some things (i.e. religious experiences) b/c they are personal. So if you want science to explain it, you have to take it as some sort of chemical imbalance etc... If you dont' believe miracles can occur or religous experiences can occur, you have to rationalize them away chemically or by some other physical explanation. I also believe miracles are extremely extremely rare b/c if they happened very frequently it wouldn't be a miracle, rather it would be a possible outcome of some event.

Do you think maybe the ancients couldn't explain it rationally, so they passed it off as miraculous?

deadnothingbetter · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Do you think maybe the ancients couldn't explain it rationally, so they passed it off as miraculous?

if i were an atheist, yeah, i would think so. but i'm not so i guess i don't.

chopitdown · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

No way man, Solomon's song was a mycology guide for picking Fly Agarius a.k.a. Amanita Muscaria.

no offense, but i hope i NEVER interpret Song of Solomon that way.

chopitdown · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Do you think maybe the ancients couldn't explain it rationally, so they passed it off as miraculous?

sure it's possible. But some things..i.e walking on water is clearly something that people wouldn't be confused about. People back 4000 years ago were just as intelligent as we are today, they just didn't have as much to be smart about. But they were perfectly capable thinking and analytic creatures. I went to an ancient egypt medical treatment display in NYC and some of the treatments they used (at least for musculoskeletal issues) were somewhat similar in theory to what we use today; we just have more at our disposal now. i have no idea where that bit came from

Ahnimus · May 2007

chopitdown wrote:

sure it's possible. But some things..i.e walking on water is clearly something that people wouldn't be confused about. People back 4000 years ago were just as intelligent as we are today, they just didn't have as much to be smart about. But they were perfectly capable thinking and analytic creatures. I went to an ancient egypt medical treatment display in NYC and some of the treatments they used (at least for musculoskeletal issues) were somewhat similar in theory to what we use today; we just have more at our disposal now. i have no idea where that bit came from

Yea, but Krishna and Horus also walked on water. The sun walks on water.

chopitdown · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, but Krishna and Horus also walked on water. The sun walks on water.

I guess it works out for me that i don't believe in those god's. The sun doesn't walk on water, it appears to drop in to water but we now know, thanks to science, that it doesn't.

Ahnimus · May 2007

chopitdown wrote:

I guess it works out for me that i don't believe in those god's. The sun doesn't walk on water, it appears to drop in to water but we now know, thanks to science, that it doesn't.

No, I mean the light from the sun reflects or 'walks' on the water.

So, what you are suggesting, is that the people who observed Jesus walk on water were entirely sane, while those that observed Krishna and Horus walk on water were psychotic?

chopitdown · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

No, I mean the light from the sun reflects or 'walks' on the water.

So, what you are suggesting, is that the people who observed Jesus walk on water were entirely sane, while those that observed Krishna and Horus walk on water were psychotic?

oh you mean reflects off water and appears to walk.

yes, that is exactly what I'm suggesting. Horus had a mans body and a falcons head and "A leading historian has said that there is no historical evidence whatsoever that Ram or Krishna, two deities worshipped by millions of Hindus in India and elsewhere, ever existed."http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2005/July/subcontinent_July618.xml&section=subcontinent&col=

At the very least, a reasonable person would agree that a man with a falcons head has never existed and there isn't a lot of proof for Krishna. Jesus walking on water at the very least was a man in appearance.

Ahnimus · May 2007

chopitdown wrote:

oh you mean reflects off water and appears to walk.

yes, that is exactly what I'm suggesting. Horus had a mans body and a falcons head and "A leading historian has said that there is no historical evidence whatsoever that Ram or Krishna, two deities worshipped by millions of Hindus in India and elsewhere, ever existed."http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2005/July/subcontinent_July618.xml&section=subcontinent&col=

At the very least, a reasonable person would agree that a man with a falcons head has never existed and there isn't a lot of proof for Krishna. Jesus walking on water at the very least was a man in appearance.

But there is not non-Christian evidence of Christ.

deadnothingbetter · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

But there is not non-Christian evidence of Christ.

nope, there isn't. you're absolutely right.

Ahnimus · May 2007

deadnothingbetter wrote:

nope, there isn't. you're absolutely right.

Ok, now, didn't Moses have horns? Was he not also the Ram?

And was Jesus not Pisces or the Fish, and Virgo was Mary...

chopitdown · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

But there is not non-Christian evidence of Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_an_historical_person

i think this covers the pending discussion.

chopitdown · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, now, didn't Moses have horns? Was he not also the Ram?

And was Jesus not Pisces or the Fish, and Virgo was Mary...

can you honestly point to a source that says all of these things as declarative as you say them?

Ahnimus · May 2007

chopitdown wrote:

can you honestly point to a source that says all of these things as declarative as you say them?

Here is a statue of Moses with horns
http://clendening.kumc.edu/dc/pc/moses.jpg

Acharya S mentions the astrotheological origins of Christianity on her web-page.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/index101.htm

Ahnimus · May 2007

chopitdown wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_an_historical_person

i think this covers the pending discussion.

"the four canonical Gospel accounts are based on source documents written within decades of Jesus' lifetime, and therefore provide a basis for the study of the "historical" Jesus. These historians also draw on other historical sources and archaeological evidence to reconstruct the life of Jesus in his historical and cultural context."

I'm pretty sure, the Gospels weren't written until about 400 years after Jesus's life.

Only two people actually wrote about Jesus at his time and they were Jews who said Mary was not a virgin, but was raped by her neighbour Ben Pandera. Hence they call Jesus 'Yeshu Ben Pandera'.

chopitdown · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Here is a statue of Moses with horns
http://clendening.kumc.edu/dc/pc/moses.jpg

Acharya S mentions the astrotheological origins of Christianity on her web-page.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/index101.htm

unless that was moses sitting for the statue it really probably isn't accurate...maybe he just uses product and likes the spikey look???

I don't trust anyone with one letter as a last name. my guess is she suggets possible things rather making declarative statements such as "it is"

chopitdown · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

"the four canonical Gospel accounts are based on source documents written within decades of Jesus' lifetime, and therefore provide a basis for the study of the "historical" Jesus. These historians also draw on other historical sources and archaeological evidence to reconstruct the life of Jesus in his historical and cultural context."

I'm pretty sure, the Gospels weren't written until about 400 years after Jesus's life.

Only two people actually wrote about Jesus at his time and they were Jews who said Mary was not a virgin, but was raped by her neighbour Ben Pandera. Hence they call Jesus 'Yeshu Ben Pandera'.

Luke was written around 60 CE.

it seems like you put more stock in anything that is contrary to the biblical account and anything that makes christianity look stupid...this is why discussion is difficult. At least other people on here can at least understand why people have belief; they may not agree with them, but they can understand why and what people believe.

11 Arguments Against Theism

Comments

Categories