Atheists who attack Christianity

Pascals wager..patently flawed. What about Zeus? Saturn? Estra? Your odds are closer to 1 in several trillion you hit the right combination.

Care to wager now?

You have proof of this? Do tell!

Thank you for clearing that up, everyone go back to your regularly scheduled activities, Jake has made it clear we are misguided to assume to know if God exists. We can rest easy knowing Jake knows all.

First off, I don't consider myself an "atheist" as such because the term implies the opposite of something called "theist," which in turn implies that "theism" is at least arguably legitimate, which it isn't. I'm not an atheist. Nor am I an a-alchemist, aflat-Earthist, asorceryist, ageocentrist, or the like. In the same way that those ideas fail to justify themselves enough even to earn the right to be opposed (rather than flatly dismissed), so do organized religions fail to justify themselves. It's not merely that I "don't believe in God," it's that I don't view "God" any differently than I view Zeus, Aphrodite, Freya or Thor, just to name a few.

As for the question posed, I attack Christianity, along with other, similar organized religions, for the same reason I attack Nazi philosophy: it deserves to be attacked. The religious are essentially either "moderates" (people who ignore their books where the commands become inconvenient) or "fundamentalists/extremists" (true believers who follow their books more or less to the letter). The former group serves as enablers, creating a situation where it's positively forbidden to even discuss the illegitimacy of religion because you're "attacking their beliefs," while the latter form the scary groups like dominionists, destructionists and suicide bombers. And the really scary thing about the latter group is that they're just doing what the books really say. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch burnings ... those people weren't misunderstanding their religious texts. Rather, they actually read them, cover-to-cover, and took them to heart. Yes, the Christian God wants heresy eradicated, and he wants you to kill your neighbor to do it. That's what the Bible actually says.

Today, "moderates" read those texts selectively, taking what they can fit comfortably into their modern lives and discarding the rest. By themselves, they're (mostly) harmless, but by virtue of the fact that they effectively stifle serious discussion of the legitimacy of religion, they're just as dangerous as the "extremists" -- the true believers -- they effectively protect.

If you declare yourself a follower of Zeus and claim that he really exists and inhabits animals, that your dog is in fact Zeus incarnate and can do magic, and that aliens from Jupiter periodically visit your home, people will consider you crazy, and you will probably at least be kept away from positions of responsibility. At the very least, they will demand proof, and "have faith" won't be accepted as an answer.

If you declare that the creator of the universe is invisible, omnipresent, and simultaneously three beings and one being, that more than two thousand years ago, a supernatural savior who could and did do magic visited us, was executed but came back to life and thereby became a universal scapegoat for all of our wrongdoings for all time (but it only works if you believe in him), and that said savior can now be eaten at your local church in the form of cheap wine and little disc-shaped crackers ... well golly gosh gee, that's perfectly acceptable, and no proof is needed (just have faith)!

What's more, if you question the acceptability of this, you're a horrible person who's attacking someone's cherished beliefs because people get to believe whatever they want with no justification whatsoever, no matter how insane it is, without even the slightest questioning of it allowed (at least as long as their beliefs are in line with a major organized religion). So by questioning them, you're attacking them! You bad person you.

There are a couple of ways to answer this: the empirical way is that you do not need to prove a vacuum: if god existed there would be proof of his existence. Since there is no proof of his existence, there is no god. In short, it is not up to me to prove ther is no good, it is up to you to prove there is a God. So prove to me ther eis a god, and this debate is academic.

Just like the law has a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, a rational person has a presumption of atheism untill god is proven.

Ultimately beleife in god is beleif, and by definition cannot be knowing.

Of course another way of looking at it is thus: Zen is what is. Thus if there were a god, gos would be part of Zen. I am part of Zen, if god exists the God is me and I am god. But ultimately I do not exist, the mind, the flesh, the self are all illusions. If I am an illusion and I am god, then god is an illusion, and if god is an illusion the god does not exist. Its simple really, just stop looking and see.

This seems to be the only post in the entire thread that honestly answers the original question. And surprisingly almost no one has responded to it. Interesting, I should say, not surprising really.

But reitsuki, debunking one system of beleifs with another is what christians have doen for years.

No christian would even have a problem denying the existence of Athena. They would categorically say she is a myth. As a buddhist, I say the same thing about christ. The possibilty simply does not exist when you try to see what is.

Ultimately is not a question of me havign to disprove god, its a question of you havign to prove god, and since you cannot prove god, the you cannot disprove my assertion that he does not exist. If you cannot disprove my assertion, then it must be correct.

The original question has to do with this forum, not the World in general. It was meant to point out the religious bigotry apparent in other threads.

-take a look at the back of the US$ dollar bill. The inscription in the Great Seal (designed while FDR was in office) reads "Novus Ordo Seclorum" - New Secular Order. secular...
meaning non religious. .

For the record, "Novus Order Seclorum" means "New Order for the Ages"; it has nothing whatever to do with religion or secularism.

But reitsuki, debunking one system of beleifs with another is what christians have doen for years.

No christian would even have a problem denying the existence of Athena. They would categorically say she is a myth. As a buddhist, I say the same thing about christ. The possibilty simply does not exist when you try to see what is.

Ultimately is not a question of me havign to disprove god, its a question of you havign to prove god, and since you cannot prove god, the you cannot disprove my assertion that he does not exist. If you cannot disprove my assertion, then it must be correct.


And really faith is belief, and beleif is beleif. It is not knowing..the very word means to not know.

Assuming what you say is true (and that religons with more followers are not more likely to represent the one true faith), then why would it matter whether the odds of hitting the right faith is in 1 in 3 or 1 in a billion? You would alway wager on the side that didn't have leave you upside-down submersed in bubbling excrement if you were wrong, I would think.

The true flaw is that picking a religion comes at some cost. It might be as simple giving up bacon, sunday morning football, or hot gay sex. Or it may be the cost is that you have to stay married to your shrew of a wife because divorce is illegal. Of course, some religions come with perks (e.g. polygamy or animal sacrifices) so wager wisely.

However Christ did exist and there is factual proof of this, the real debate is his divinity.

Wow wow where to start.

First off the board is called "Atheists who attack Christianity" I decided to simply write Atheists instead of Atheists who attack Christianity because my fingers hurt already.

Tisk tisk Siro, I need do not need to prove the existance of God to you anymore than you need to try and disprove His existance to me. And why you wrap your brain around this take a gamble for once since Im willing to bet you have no moral qualms against it. The odds are in your favor if your a Christian: If Christianity is correct (Which I have made quite clear that I believe it is) then if you die and you are a Christian you get to go to Heaven and meet exciting people, like Teddy Roosevelt and Jesus! If you are not a Christian you go to hell which sucks. Now lets flip it around and just for kicks say that Christianity is wrong. Ok so then no matter what you do in life, when you die thats it. So lets recap. If you are a Christian than the worst that can happen to you when you die is nothing. So care to wager?

Michael..Michael...wait I remember you, werent you that Iraqi Information Minister that said all those funny things about there not being any Americans in Baghdad?

Seriously though it would be in vain to argue with you cause I believed I covered in one of my previous posts in a different topic how its a waste of time to argue with someone who isnt going to even consider what you have to say. (The Fox News Propoganda remark gave you away my Liberal friend )

Well im going to go partially against my remarks in that post and try to poke fun with a little hint of hidden meaning to keep you fellows on your toes.

No war on Christmas? Of course there was, I was there.... *has flashbacks*

Reasonable scientific explanation = in the beginning there was nothing and it all came from a big exposion...yeah that makes perfect sense. Something from nothing...sounds like entitlement to me and i dont like that kinda stuff.

As for where babies come from I suggest you talk to your parents or maybe even read "Handmaid's Tale" as was suggested earlier.

My Liberal Friend you and some of the other people on this board (like good old Siro) are proof that Atheists do not understand Christians. The fact that that Christianity is a religion and Atheism is the lag there of has nothing to do with understanding.

Atheists are not offended by...so are you claiming to speak for all Atheists now?

Historical Scrutiny? Wow you guys love big words dont you? Seriously though its kinda sad to see you try to act smart so drop the bad acting. Whether somthing is right or wrong has absolutely nothing to do with how nice some group was to another group in the past.

In closing to you Mikey, GROW UP!

I really can't let that stand as fact. Sorry.

There is absolutely zero proof that there was a historical Jesus. None, Nada. Zippo

Your question was vague and you didn't provide any examples to show what kind of abuse you meant.

hmm lets think here, well the Bible obviously. The Koran has him in there as does the Talmud. I find it very hard to imagine three of the largest groups in the world who don't get along to well make up the same person.

hmm lets think here, well the Bible obviously. The Koran has him in there as does the Talmud. I find it very hard to imagine three of the largest groups in the world who don't get along to well make up the same person.

many believing does not make something true

I didn't say believing did I? I said mentioning which you have to admit is rather peculiar since Islam, Judaism and Christianity as a general rule don't get along like bussom buddies. I doubt very highly that the ones who wrote the original texts for each religion sat down and decided to include Jesus Christ.

Assuming what you say is true (and that religons with more followers are not more likely to represent the one true faith), then why would it matter whether the odds of hitting the right faith is in 1 in 3 or 1 in a billion? You would alway wager on the side that didn't have leave you upside-down submersed in bubbling excrement if you were wrong, I would think.

The true flaw is that picking a religion comes at some cost. It might be as simple giving up bacon, sunday morning football, or hot gay sex. Or it may be the cost is that you have to stay married to your shrew of a wife because divorce is illegal. Of course, some religions come with perks (e.g. polygamy or animal sacrifices) so wager wisely.

That sadly doesn't constitute proof of an historical Jesus. Putting that aside however,

The Talmud makes no mention of Jesus at all. That's a common christian myth.
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

The Koran was written some 6 centuries after the alleged existence of Jesus of Nazareth.
In essence --he had already been made up.

The New Testament was written between 50 and 150 AD.


also 'Jesus of Nazareth' supposedly lived in what is the most well-documented period of antiquity – the first century of the Christian era – yet not a single non-Christian source of that era mentions him at all.

I can better prove the historical existence of King Arthur (another mythical amalgam of people) than I can your Jesus of Nazareth.

Your belief is emanating from some a very shaky premise.