Why Everyone's Bored With Atheists

[Frank Apisa]

Or it may be impossible that the universe has an entity responsible for its creation.




Unless, of course, there is logical proof that it is impossible for such an entity or entities to exist.

Game still in progress. But this is Sunday during football season. You oughta stick with football. That game makes a lot more sense.

 

[Frank Apisa]

You are welcome to endorse and support all the imaginary entities that you want.

I'd never do that.

 

[BabaVoss]

Your faith in "nuh-uh" is astounding.

As is your strange obsession with and ignorance of atheism.

 

[Paradoxical]

What I've said of Christianity I've said of every religion: originality does not matter. Like literature, religious stories continually pick up all sorts of odds and ends from previous sources. Sometimes it's done intentionally, to cut into another religion's action (Irish priests concocting a "Saint Brigid" to compete with the pagan Brigid), but other times the newer religion just picks up on stories and incorporates them because they're interesting stories. Take this example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlaam_and_Josaphat No one knows who picked up on the story of Siddharta and turned it into a story palatable to Middle Ages Europeans. But they certainly didn't do it to compete with Buddhists, because at that time nearly no European knew what a Buddhist was. Constantine's not your best example here. Yes, I'm sure he helped (further) legalize Christian practices in Rome because it was a growing minority worth courting politically. But his family remained devoted to Sol Invictus and he didn't convert personally until his deathbed. He may've used the sun god to suggest divine retribution as much as the Christian god, and indeed since there weren't a majority of Christians yet-- my source said they were able 8 million at one point, not even equal to the minority of the Jews-- why wouldn't most Romans have responded more to Sol than to Jehovah?

I could see if the paganization was only that a religion based its beliefs on love, kindness and good morals that are helpful for the self or other humans. But to be a "Me too" religion replete with virgin births (on the same day as another God Mithra), miracles, a resurrection should leave someone to question the authenticity of that belief system.

If I came down from some other planet and was learning the belief systems of humans and had to decide which ones were true, if any, and you told me of Christianity, it would be the least likely belief system of all that had any semblance of truth. It would tell me that 2,000 years ago people were hyper religious, believed in apparitions, believed in vengeful Gods that could alter time, mathematics and reason, claimed that a very small tribe was his favorite, that blood sacrifices of animals and humans were pleasing to him and to prove it, sacrificed himself to himself for 3 days to save us except we weren't, did miracles to impress people and cured only a few people but not everybody, I would immediately leave the planet thinking the inhabitants were still too easily persuaded by stories.

In the time of Constantine, the region was plagued by wars. He never was a Christian. He was a powerful man and told the high priests to get together and get their act together to decide on which books should stay or go, what their dogma would be and to make sure their God was an invisible being who monitored everything a human did including in the bedrooms and if they crossed Him, killed anybody, stole things that He, (God) would deal with them. Constantine knew that their God would be the Cop in the sky and alleviate his problems with a warring populace.

Constantine's conversion to Christianity also helped to bring stability and unity to the empire, which had been divided and plagued by internal conflict. By promoting a common belief system, he was able to bring people together under a shared set of values and ideals, which helped to strengthen the empire as a whole. Thus, just like it is today, the leaders indoctrinate a gullible populace (as we see with the TV anchor's montages given them by the Demoncrats) and control the populace so they can stay in power or gain power, just as the Dems used lawfare to bring down Trump.

 

[watsup]

I'd never do that.

You’re doing it. You are daily endorsing the idea that there might actually be some sort of imaginary entity that would supposedly have some sort of ultimate power to just “create” this almost infinitely complex universe. How do you not understand that is a fable invented by humans and not an actuality?

 

[watsup]

I could see if the paganization was only that a religion based its beliefs on love, kindness and good morals that are helpful for the self or other humans. But to be a "Me too" religion replete with virgin births (on the same day as another God Mithra), miracles, a resurrection should leave someone to question the authenticity of that belief system.

If I came down from some other planet and was learning the belief systems of humans and had to decide which ones were true, if any, and you told me of Christianity, it would be the least likely belief system of all that had any semblance of truth. It would tell me that 2,000 years ago people were hyper religious, believed in apparitions, believed in vengeful Gods that could alter time, mathematics and reason, claimed that a very small tribe was his favorite, that blood sacrifices of animals and humans were pleasing to him and to prove it, sacrificed himself to himself for 3 days to save us except we weren't, did miracles to impress people and cured only a few people but not everybody, I would immediately leave the planet thinking the inhabitants were still too easily persuaded by stories.

In the time of Constantine, the region was plagued by wars. He never was a Christian. He was a powerful man and told the high priests to get together and get their act together to decide on which books should stay or go, what their dogma would be and to make sure their God was an invisible being who monitored everything a human did including in the bedrooms and if they crossed Him, killed anybody, stole things that He, (God) would deal with them. Constantine knew that their God would be the Cop in the sky and alleviate his problems with a warring populace.

Constantine's conversion to Christianity also helped to bring stability and unity to the empire, which had been divided and plagued by internal conflict. By promoting a common belief system, he was able to bring people together under a shared set of values and ideals, which helped to strengthen the empire as a whole. Thus, just like it is today, the leaders indoctrinate a gullible populace (as we see with the TV anchor's montages given them by the Demoncrats) and control the populace so they can stay in power or gain power, just as the Dems used lawfare to bring down Trump.

Last sentence. Same old projection lies.

 

[Frank Apisa]

You’re doing it. You are daily endorsing the idea that there might actually be some sort of imaginary entity that would supposedly have some sort of ultimate power to just “create” this almost infinitely complex universe. How do you not understand that is a fable invented by humans and not an actuality?

You wrote: "You are welcome to endorse and support all the imaginary entities that you want."

I responded: "I would never do that."

And I wouldn't.

I also will never allow YOU to decide what is or is not "imaginary."

Continue to blindly guess that there are no gods. Do not suggest that I must do so also.

 

[watsup]

Your faith in "nuh-uh" is astounding.

More projection.

 

[watsup]

The atheists' idea of evidence remains irrelevant.

Your repetition does not make it so. Funny, that’s exactly what a religionist/theist would say, Mr Watercarrier.

 

[watsup]

You wrote: "You are welcome to endorse and support all the imaginary entities that you want."

I responded: "I would never do that."

And I wouldn't.

I also will never allow YOU to decide what is or is not "imaginary."

Continue to blindly guess that there are no gods. Do not suggest that I must do so also.

Who says that I am the one who decides what is imaginary? Who has decided that basically every god that has ever been claimed by humans such as Thor and Isis are imaginary? Why, it is other humans who have looked for evidence of their actuality and found none. And yet you insist on holding dear to “at least one” god without being able to find even a single bit of actual evidence that such is a reality. Rather, just like the religionists/theist/believers, you continue to support a claim of the “possibility” of a god of some sort.
Continue to blindly guess that there is the possibility of a god, but don’t expect me to buy into such imaginary total nonsense.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Who says that I am the one who decides what is imaginary? Who has decided that basically every god that has ever been claimed by humans such as Thor and Isis are imaginary? Why, it is other humans who have looked for evidence of their actuality and found none. And yet you insist on holding dear to “at least one” god without being able to find even a single bit of actual evidence that such is a reality. Rather, just like the religionists/theist/believers, you continue to support a claim of the “possibility” of a god of some sort.
Continue to blindly guess that there is the possibility of a god, but don’t expect me to buy into such imaginary total nonsense.

It is possible there is at least one god...it also is possible there are no gods.

Stick with your blind guess. I'll stick with the truth...no matter how disturbing "the truth" is for someone with that blind guess.

 

[watsup]

The atheists' idea of evidence remains irrelevant.

And yet you don’t have any, which shows that it is indeed relevant.

 

[watsup]

What a lame excuse.

Projection. I have provided solid info that my claim is correct regarding the humanist-based ethics of primitive societies, but you hide behind all sorts of lame excuse not to engage in a thread devoted to that argumentation. I was trying to move beyond your normal “nuh-uh” responses, but you clealry fear doing so.

 

[watsup]

Your faith in "nuh-uh" is astounding.

Derivative.

 

[Paradoxical]

It is possible there is at least one god...it also is possible there are no gods.

Stick with your blind guess. I'll stick with the truth...no matter how disturbing "the truth" is for someone with that blind guess.

Not sure if you are familiar with Scientology which still has about a million idiots who believe. They believe that humans are spiritual beings called "thetans" who are trapped in a physical body. Couldn't a Scientologist also say to a non believer:

It is possible there are thetans...it also is possible there are no thetans.

Stick with your blind guess. I'll stick with the truth...no matter how disturbing "the truth" is for someone with that blind guess.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Not sure if you are familiar with Scientology which still has about a million idiots who believe. They believe that humans are spiritual beings called "thetans" who are trapped in a physical body. Couldn't a Scientologist also say to a non believer:

It is possible there are thetans...it also is possible there are no thetans.

Stick with your blind guess. I'll stick with the truth...no matter how disturbing "the truth" is for someone with that blind guess.

If you find any fault with my statement...tell me about it. We can discuss why you are wrong and I am correct.

Here is my statement again: "It is possible there is at least one god...it also is possible there are no gods."

So...what do you see as wrong with either or both sides?

 

[Paradoxical]

If you find any fault with my statement...tell me about it. We can discuss why you are wrong and I am correct.

Here is my statement again: "It is possible there is at least one god...it also is possible there are no gods."

So...what do you see as wrong with either or both sides?

What did you find wrong with my premise?

 

[Frank Apisa]

What did you find wrong with my premise?

I did not say I found any fault with your premise.

 

[Paradoxical]

I did not say I found any fault with your premise.

As you may know I am a Pantheist in line with Spinoza and I could postulate your same premise regarding pantheism. It would seem that any belief system could do the same. Would you agree?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

If you find any fault with my statement...tell me about it. We can discuss why you are wrong and I am correct.

Here is my statement again: "It is possible there is at least one god...it also is possible there are no gods."

Those are assumptions. There isn't anything wrong with the assumptions themselves. Only with your inability to see that they are assumptions.

You are assuming, without evidence, the nonexistence of proof that gods are impossible.

 

[Paradoxical]

Those are assumptions. There isn't anything wrong with the assumptions themselves. Only with your inability to see that they are assumptions.

You are assuming, without evidence, the nonexistence of proof that gods are impossible.

There also is, nor could there ever be, the nonexistence of proof that thetans are impossible.

 

[Frank Apisa]

As you may know I am a Pantheist in line with Spinoza and I could postulate your same premise regarding pantheism. It would seem that any belief system could do the same. Would you agree?

I would, Para. And it would hold up not only for any belief system...it would hold up for some of the stuff atheists present in these arguments. The supposed belief in the existence of Splurtzes, or Guzinka, or Rhoniputzers. (At least until it is acknowledged that they are made up at the moment.)

But it definitely holds up for the notion of "there might be a creator entity...which is what I am arguing.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

There also is, nor could there ever be, the nonexistence of proof that thetans are impossible.

How do you know?

There may be proof that thetans are impossible, or there may be no such proof.

Do you have any evidence for either the existence or nonexistence of such proof?

 

[Frank Apisa]

Those are assumptions. There isn't anything wrong with the assumptions themselves. Only with your inability to see that they are assumptions.

You simply are unwilling to see that they are not assumptions. Nothing I can do about that.

You are assuming, without evidence, the nonexistence of proof that gods are impossible.

If you need to go to that extreme in order to defend whatever it is you are attempting to defend...do so with my regard.

 

[watsup]

But it definitely holds up for the notion of "there might be a creator entity...which is what I am arguing.

Yes, we fully understand that you are arguing for thd “existence” of an imaginary entity. Might as well argue that Mickey Mouse is real.