ANSWERS TO ATHEIST NONSENSE

[Mulefoot]

It actually is in reality. Which is a major problem for all religions.

I'm not concerned with it in Christianity, because disagreement isn't actually the problem. The problem is how people handle those disagreements.

 

[Michael Cole]

If God doesn't exist, of course.

I understand your point, but outside of pure epistemology, I don't see the value to it.

Even if such a being did exist and showed himself, people would still interpret his existence differently. Such is human nature. That humans have interpreted the writings of others differently, and that all may be wrong, is to be expected. It just reveals our humanity. Has nothing to do with the veracity of biblical claims.

 

[Mulefoot]

No where did you ever get such an absurd beleif that I agreed to such an erroneous statement?

As all beliefs in God(s) exist only in the believers their changing beliefs change the God(s)

Show your work with Nicaea.

 

[Mulefoot]

Gods potential existence has nothing at all to do with how humans perceive and interpret gods.

Thank you.

 

[Quag]

If God doesn't exist, of course.

Makes no difference
God(s) that we know are all inventions of humans if there are actual God(s) they are not based on any made up nonsense unless of course American Gods is factual in hich case they change based on our beliefs and do exist purely because of them

 

[Quag]

Show your work with Nicaea.

What are you babbling on about now ive already shown this

 

[watsup]

I didn't really any particular point of doctrine in mind necessarily.

And yet you claim that errors could be made. Sounds like you can’t actually back your statement. Perhaps is was the original error in doctrine and the councils corrected them. This is the problem with “interpretation” as regards doctrine and dogma. Who is supposedly “correct” when it’s all based on myth and superstition.

 

[devildavid]

I'm not concerned with it in Christianity, because disagreement isn't actually the problem. The problem is how people handle those disagreements.

That is a classic example of a distinction without a difference. It actually is a problem because of how people handle those disagreements. Also, it is a basic problem for the beliefs themselves if everyone can create their own versions of them, for any religion. It is a problem inherent in all religious beliefs.

 

[devildavid]

Thank you.

For what? Disagreeing with you?

 

[Pyrite]

I understand your point, but outside of pure epistemology, I don't see the value to it.

Even if such a being did exist and showed himself, people would still interpret his existence differently. Such is human nature. That humans have interpreted the writings of others differently, and that all may be wrong, is to be expected. It just reveals our humanity. Has nothing to do with the veracity of biblical claims.

Excellent point.

 

[Mulefoot]

That is a classic example of a distinction without a difference. It actually is a problem because of how people handle those disagreements. Also, it is a basic problem for the beliefs themselves if everyone can create their own versions of them, for any religion. It is a problem inherent in all religious beliefs.

Are you as argumentative with your spouse as you are with me? I doubt it. I suspect you give her grace because your value system requires it. Peace with your wife is important to you, so you accept her points of view, even if you believe she's wrong. Better to be reconciled than right.

Believers should aspire for this kind of peace, regardless of differences.

 

[devildavid]

Are you as argumentative with your spouse as you are with me? I doubt it. I suspect you give her grace because your value system requires it. Peace with your wife is important to you, so you accept her points of view, even if you believe she's wrong. Better to be reconciled than right.

Believers should aspire for this kind of peace, regardless of differences.

I argue with my spouse about stuff all the time. We disagree lovingly. We are equals and have peace with each other. That is all I am doing here. I am not making it personal. Peace to you.

That you think believers should do this is commendable. However, that isn’t what happens. This is a debate forum. So I am debating, which means if I disagree I don’t pretend otherwise. Just ask the Joe Biden fair weather supporters about me.

 

[Mulefoot]

I argue with my spouse about stuff all the time. We disagree lovingly. We are equals and have peace with each other. That is all I am doing here. I am not making it personal. Peace to you.

That you think believers should do this is commendable. However, that isn’t what happens. This is a debate forum. So I am debating, which means if I disagree I don’t pretend otherwise. Just ask the Joe Biden fair weather supporters about me.

Don't take that the wrong way. I don't care if you disagree with me, I'm just making the point that my original point stands, and there is no difference without a distinction.

Your marriage proves my point that it's not the differences that divide, it's the attitude towards those differences.

The apostles wrote on this phenomenon early and often.

 

[Mulefoot]

I understand your point, but outside of pure epistemology, I don't see the value to it.

Even if such a being did exist and showed himself, people would still interpret his existence differently. Such is human nature. That humans have interpreted the writings of others differently, and that all may be wrong, is to be expected. It just reveals our humanity. Has nothing to do with the veracity of biblical claims.

I agree.

I believe Christ (God in human form) did show up and people still interpret his existence differently. It's also important to note that NT theology doesn't assert itself with a list of rules to abide by, and if we disagree on the list, it's game over. Ultimately it's a living entity that we assert and no more.

So a believer has interpretations about him, and maybe imperfectly. But also he instructs and aids us to understand his nature to amend those imperfections.

So the NT theology would assert that the context of those errors is different than say Judaism.

 

[devildavid]

Don't take that the wrong way. I don't care if you disagree with me, I'm just making the point that my original point stands, and there is no difference without a distinction.

Your marriage proves my point that it's not the differences that divide, it's the attitude towards those differences.

The apostles wrote on this phenomenon early and often.

No, your original point is a still a distinction without a difference. My marriage is not analogous to religions or religious beliefs. I don’t believe in my marriage or my wife, I have actual knowledge of my marriage and my wife. I am with her because I want to be, not despite anything. My point is that differences in beliefs does necessarily lead to conflict that cannot ever be resolved as far as the beliefs go. There is not one set of beliefs that can be called Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. This is a major problem for all religions. It means that it is all made up, and any individual can make up their own version of it. That suggests that all such beliefs have no real value as far as correspondence to any real truth. It means that religion and religious beliefs are no more important than choosing a team to root for or style of clothing. So if someone says you must go through Christ to be saved it is no more profound than saying you must be a Celtics fans to be saved. Or even what it means to be saved or if that is a real thing at all.

 

[devildavid]

I agree.

I believe Christ (God in human form) did show up and people still interpret his existence differently. It's also important to note that NT theology doesn't assert itself with a list of rules to abide by, and if we disagree on the list, it's game over. Ultimately it's a living entity that we assert and no more.

So a believer has interpretations about him, and maybe imperfectly. But also he instructs and aids us to understand his nature to amend those imperfections.

So the NT theology would assert that the context of those errors is different than say Judaism.

What errors are you referring to?

 

[Mulefoot]

No, your original point is a still a distinction without a difference. My marriage is not analogous to religions or religious beliefs. I don’t believe in my marriage or my wife, I have actual knowledge of my marriage and my wife. I am with her because I want to be, not despite anything. My point is that differences in beliefs does necessarily lead to conflict that cannot ever be resolved as far as the beliefs go. There is not one set of beliefs that can be called Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. This is a major problem for all religions. It means that it is all made up, and any individual can make up their own version of it. That suggests that all such beliefs have no real value as far as correspondence to any real truth. It means that religion and religious beliefs are no more important than choosing a team to root for or style of clothing. So if someone says you must go through Christ to be saved it is no more profound than saying you must be a Celtics fans to be saved. Or even what it means to be saved or if that is a real thing at all.

Yeah, I was responding to differences within Christianity, not a Christian's point of reference with other world religions.

But to your point, I'm not going to reconcile doctrinally with a Jew on Christ's resurrection. However, I STILL have an obligation to be at peace with a Jew, or a Muslim, or whatever.

Because he was at peace with men.

 

[Mulefoot]

What errors are you referring to?

Any. Say baptism. Infant baptism. Types of baptism. The nature of baptism. Is it required, etc.

 

[devildavid]

Yeah, I was responding to differences within Christianity, not a Christian's point of reference with other world religions.

But to your point, I'm not going to reconcile doctrinally with a Jew on Christ's resurrection. However, I STILL have an obligation to be at peace with a Jew, or a Muslim, or whatever.

Because he was at peace with men.

It applies to Christianity. There is nothing special about that religion that exempts it from this problem.

If getting along is seen as an obligation, that is missing the real point of getting along. And getting along is not an ideal at all. I hope that I don’t get along with people who are doing harm to others due to their beliefs. Conflict is a healthy part of being a human being.

 

[devildavid]

Any. Say baptism. Infant baptism. Types of baptism. The nature of baptism. Is it required, etc.

How is any of that an error? That is just an example of differences in beliefs.

 

[Mulefoot]

It applies to Christianity. There is nothing special about that religion that exempts it from this problem.

I think I could get along with that, in that human nature runs thru all religions.

If getting along is seen as an obligation, that is missing the real point of getting along. And getting along is not an ideal at all. I hope that I don’t get along with people who are doing harm to others due to their beliefs. Conflict is a healthy part of being a human being.

I don't have anything to add to that. Good point.

 

[tosca1]

Some of the following points I addressed more in depth in my "Fallacy of Biblical Stories" series. The original article source can be found here.

To summarize:

1. The Earth is only a few thousand years old.
2. Humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
3. A global flood covered the entire Earth as described in the Bible.
4. Biological evolution is not real.
5. Prayer can heal any physical ailment.
6. The Earth is the center of the universe.
7. Certain phenomena (astrology, supernatural events) are definitively real.
8. Science completely contradicts the existence of a higher power.
9. The universe and everything in it was created in six literal days.
10. The sun revolves around the Earth.
11. Certain events or people are definite miracles, defying natural explanation.
12. The human body contains an immaterial soul.
13. Homosexuality is unnatural or a choice.
14. Illness or disability is the result of sin or demonic influence.
15. The Earth is flat.
16. Vaccines are harmful and unnecessary.

Thoughts? I'll bet most of us have heard some make such claims before, and probably still do.

ANSWER:


N O N S E N S E!



Posts #41, 42, 43, and 44

Religious Beliefs That Science Has Debunked (But People Still Cling To)

Similar to my last thread where I presented an article I found, "18 Ways Christians misunderstand Atheists," here is another article I came across, "Religious beliefs that science has debunked (But people still cling to). Some of the following points I addressed more in depth in my "Fallacy of...

debatepolitics.com

Furthermore..............



Post #1, 688

The Bible

I wonder how many Trump supporting evangelist churches are still using unapproved Bibles ? Since you know who the players are why don't you tell us?

debatepolitics.com

 

[watsup]

ANSWER:


N O N S E N S E!

Projection.

 

[tosca1]

There is no god.. next tough question?


Answer:

Many keep regurgitating the same thing, even when it has already been responded to.
Kinda like they think, repetition will eventually - miraculously - reveal a different answer!


Post #731

TOUGH QUESTIONS

You're ridiculing real accredited accomplished scientists such as Martin Rees who is highly regard, has won a noble prize, is an astrophysicist and was knighted by the queen. So its Sir Martin Rees to you and me. Best of all like you he's an atheist. He wrote the book 'Just Six Numbers' and...

debatepolitics.com

 

[jpevans]

There is no god.. next tough question?


Answer:

Many keep regurgitating the same thing, even when it has already been responded to.
Kinda like they think, repetition will eventually - miraculously - reveal a different answer!


Post #731

TOUGH QUESTIONS

You're ridiculing real accredited accomplished scientists such as Martin Rees who is highly regard, has won a noble prize, is an astrophysicist and was knighted by the queen. So its Sir Martin Rees to you and me. Best of all like you he's an atheist. He wrote the book 'Just Six Numbers' and...

debatepolitics.com

There is no god. God is a concept which is the subject of many stories. Like Santa Claus or Robin Hood. In stories about these imaginary beings, the basic attributes are carried forward in further stories. Santa has settled in with the obese white bearded gentleman in a red suit set by the poem the night before Christmas. Although Santa is loosely based on some Saint made up by fans of the god story now he is a man who brings toys around the world to children in a slaigh pulled by flying Reigndear. So many stories have added to the myth, like a workshop in the North Poll etc. but there is a conspiracy to tell small children tha it is true thing. Until they figure out that it’s their parents bringing the presents.
Meanwhile the god story is also given to those little kids. A super hero who controlled everything from the weather to whether you fall in love, & with whom. Since there’s nothing concrete to prove that the god exists it’s easier to develop a relationship, where Santa’s stories fall apart for kids when they find out those gifts came from mom & dad.