Silent no More: The Rise of the New Atheists

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Silent no More: The Rise of the New Atheists

Post #1

Post by Jagella »

I read some very good news in the April 2018 Scientific American. Michael Shermer writes in his Skeptic column "that 23 percent of all Americans have forsaken religion all together." The 23 percent figure is based on a 2013 Harris Poll and corroborated by a 2015 Pew Research Center poll. It is a "dramatic increase" from 2007 when only 16 percent of polled Americans said they were affiliated with no religion.

Why these poll results are so important to me is that the real good news is that America has a chance to lead the world with a new sense of social responsibility. We atheists can succeed where religionists have failed. As religion and superstition decline; science, critical thinking, and true morality can increase. We can level the playing field for all Americans granting everybody a chance to make something out of themselves. Let's leave religion and all its "bad fruit" behind forever!

Our efforts to turn the tables on Christianity appear to be working. Do you agree?

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6522
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 360 times
Been thanked: 331 times
Contact:

Post #111

Post by tam »

Peace to you alexx,

tam wrote:
Question 2 - Why should you accept it, would be my question. I realize that some of William's questions had to do with Christianity, so perhaps that is why you brought this up. BUT... listening to Christianity is not the same as listening to Christ. Christianity (the religion) often teaches its people in contradiction to Christ. Proving that it (Christianity) is not listening to Christ and if people are then following it... well that would be the blind leading the blind.


Observation 3 - Christ is the One who reveals God as God TRULY is.


So we should ignore what the prophets said in the Old Testament. Why? Were they not the vessels though which God(Yahweh) spoke?[/quote]


You do not have to ignore them, although it would be wise to keep in mind that what is written is subject to error (Jeremiah 8:8; Matthew 23:14**).

But if you want to know the truth about God, then you must look to Christ. He and His words come FIRST. Since He is the One the prophets pointed TO; He is the One the scriptures testified TO; and He is the One who God said to listen TO.

Christ is the One who is the Image of God. Not the prophets or men or the scriptures or nature or religion, etc.



If there is a contradiction (and how else would Christ have had anything to correct, if the people had gotten everything correct before then?), then go with Christ. Seek to understand whatever you think is in conflict (and may indeed be in conflict), according to what Christ revealed about His Father.



(Oh, in answer to your 'yes/no' question, is Christ God (where God = Yahweh), then the answer is, 'No.")



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy




**For an example of an error of both the scribes and the teachers in the New Testament, take the doctrine of hell. The word 'hell' has been translated as that one word from three (or four) different words. They don't all mean the same thing. And NONE of them mean a place of eternal torment in fiery hell. So both the doctrine and the translation used to support the doctrine (or the translation being used to support the doctrine; I'm not sure which error came first), are in error and have led to a great lie about God and about His Son.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Post #112

Post by alexxcJRO »

tam wrote: Peace to you alexx,

tam wrote:
Question 2 - Why should you accept it, would be my question. I realize that some of William's questions had to do with Christianity, so perhaps that is why you brought this up. BUT... listening to Christianity is not the same as listening to Christ. Christianity (the religion) often teaches its people in contradiction to Christ. Proving that it (Christianity) is not listening to Christ and if people are then following it... well that would be the blind leading the blind.


Observation 3 - Christ is the One who reveals God as God TRULY is.


So we should ignore what the prophets said in the Old Testament. Why? Were they not the vessels though which God(Yahweh) spoke?

You do not have to ignore them, although it would be wise to keep in mind that what is written is subject to error (Jeremiah 8:8; Matthew 23:14**).

But if you want to know the truth about God, then you must look to Christ. He and His words come FIRST. Since He is the One the prophets pointed TO; He is the One the scriptures testified TO; and He is the One who God said to listen TO.

Christ is the One who is the Image of God. Not the prophets or men or the scriptures or nature or religion, etc.



If there is a contradiction (and how else would Christ have had anything to correct, if the people had gotten everything correct before then?), then go with Christ. Seek to understand whatever you think is in conflict (and may indeed be in conflict), according to what Christ revealed about His Father.



(Oh, in answer to your 'yes/no' question, is Christ God (where God = Yahweh), then the answer is, 'No.")



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy




**For an example of an error of both the scribes and the teachers in the New Testament, take the doctrine of hell. The word 'hell' has been translated as that one word from three (or four) different words. They don't all mean the same thing. And NONE of them mean a place of eternal torment in fiery hell. So both the doctrine and the translation used to support the doctrine (or the translation being used to support the doctrine; I'm not sure which error came first), are in error and have led to a great lie about God and about His Son.

I am confused. :-s

Q: Is Christ God or a prophet?
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6522
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 360 times
Been thanked: 331 times
Contact:

Post #113

Post by tam »

alexxcJRO wrote:
tam wrote: Peace to you alexx,

tam wrote:
Question 2 - Why should you accept it, would be my question. I realize that some of William's questions had to do with Christianity, so perhaps that is why you brought this up. BUT... listening to Christianity is not the same as listening to Christ. Christianity (the religion) often teaches its people in contradiction to Christ. Proving that it (Christianity) is not listening to Christ and if people are then following it... well that would be the blind leading the blind.


Observation 3 - Christ is the One who reveals God as God TRULY is.


So we should ignore what the prophets said in the Old Testament. Why? Were they not the vessels though which God(Yahweh) spoke?

You do not have to ignore them, although it would be wise to keep in mind that what is written is subject to error (Jeremiah 8:8; Matthew 23:14**).

But if you want to know the truth about God, then you must look to Christ. He and His words come FIRST. Since He is the One the prophets pointed TO; He is the One the scriptures testified TO; and He is the One who God said to listen TO.

Christ is the One who is the Image of God. Not the prophets or men or the scriptures or nature or religion, etc.



If there is a contradiction (and how else would Christ have had anything to correct, if the people had gotten everything correct before then?), then go with Christ. Seek to understand whatever you think is in conflict (and may indeed be in conflict), according to what Christ revealed about His Father.



(Oh, in answer to your 'yes/no' question, is Christ God (where God = Yahweh), then the answer is, 'No.")



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy




**For an example of an error of both the scribes and the teachers in the New Testament, take the doctrine of hell. The word 'hell' has been translated as that one word from three (or four) different words. They don't all mean the same thing. And NONE of them mean a place of eternal torment in fiery hell. So both the doctrine and the translation used to support the doctrine (or the translation being used to support the doctrine; I'm not sure which error came first), are in error and have led to a great lie about God and about His Son.

I am confused. :-s

Q: Is Christ God or a prophet?
He is the Son of God. First born from God.


Is your son, YOU (if you have/had a son)? If you can understand that your son is not you, then why be confused that the Son of God is not God (Yahweh), Himself?



Peace again to you!

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Post #114

Post by alexxcJRO »

tam wrote:

He is the Son of God. First born from God.


Is your son, YOU (if you have/had a son)? If you can understand that your son is not you, then why be confused that the Son of God is not God (Yahweh), Himself?



Peace again to you!

I did not asked if Jesus is God(Yahweh).
I asked if Jesus is a god, like separate from Yahweh. Like two gods.

Q: So you are a polytheist?:-s
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6522
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 360 times
Been thanked: 331 times
Contact:

Post #115

Post by tam »

Peace to you alexx,
alexxcJRO wrote:
tam wrote:

He is the Son of God. First born from God.


Is your son, YOU (if you have/had a son)? If you can understand that your son is not you, then why be confused that the Son of God is not God (Yahweh), Himself?



Peace again to you!

I did not asked if Jesus is God(Yahweh).
You did. You asked "Is Jesus God", and later in the same post, you identified God as Yahweh:

Were they not the vessels though which God(Yahweh) spoke?


I answered that question (Is Jesus God): No.


Christ is the Anointed One; the Chosen One of Jah (the Messiah); the firstborn over all creation; the Tree of Life from in the Garden of Eden. His Father (God) made Him (not the other way around). Christ HAS a God.

I asked if Jesus is a god, like separate from Yahweh. Like two gods.
You did not ask that. But... Christ is above all things except His Father. He is the Holy One, where His Father is the Most Holy One.

They are one (in spirit) but two actual beings. One (the Son) is subject to the other (the Father).
Q: So you are a polytheist?:-s
No.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #116

Post by bluethread »

alexxcJRO wrote:

theology

plural theologies
1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world
2 a : a theological theory or system Thomist theology a theology of atonement
b : a distinctive body of theological opinion Catholic theology
3 : a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary


theological


1 : of or relating to theology
2 : preparing for a religious vocation a theological student

Theology means the study of God and of God's relation to the world. (this assumes God exists) Theological is relating to theology. An atheist does not believe God exists. Therefore an atheist whether he actively opposes theism(anti-theist) or not cannot have a theological position. 8-)
The OP asserts that theism is antithetical to science, critical thinking, and true morality. That is an assertion related to theology. Therefore, it is a theological position. I do not believe in naturally blue chicken eggs. However, any argument I make about naturally blue chicken eggs, is a position on naturally blue chicken eggs. My argument doesn't have to be in favor of them for it to be of or related to them.
As long we are discussing whether God hypothesis is a plausible one or not, as long as we are still discussing whether God is logically possible or not to exist we are not doing theology but philosophy.
Atheism is the rejection of theology aka there are no Gods available to study. Theology is the study of God or gods and assumes there is a God or gods from the start.
If that is the case then dieties can not be in opposition to science, critical thinking, and true morality, because they does not exist.
Also,
What atheist accepts theistic writings as authoritative? Common. What are you smoking? :-s
I did not say anything about theistic writings. All I said was that the assertion that theism is antithetical to science, critical thinking, and true morality is a theistic position. That is because it is of or related to theology. By the way, theology is a form of philosophy. For example, is the Euthyphro theology or philosophy?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15264
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Post #117

Post by William »

[Replying to post 110 by alexxcJRO]
So this * argument was addressing mainline Christianity.

*(Jesus is God.
Yahweh is God.
Holy spirit is God.
One will 3 manifestations.
Yahweh’s will’s is Jesus’s will and vice versa.
Yahweh’s directives from Deuteronomy are in fact Jesus’s directives.

C: Therefore they would be following Jesus’s orders).

But at the same time Jesus words from the New Testament say otherwise. He was not advocating for his followers to commit murder.

C1: Therefore we have a major contradiction.



Then you said but there are non-trinitarians which don’t believe Jesus to be God.

Correct, then the logical argument above would not work because the premise “Jesus is God� would vanish.

But still even if Jesus is just a prophet we still have a problem. He would be speaking in the name of Yahweh.

So Yahweh from the New Testament would not advocate for his followers to commit murder.

But the Yahweh from the Old Testament would advocate for his followers commit murder.

C2: Therefore we still have a major contradiction.
Okay - so you are not arguing Jesus did or didn't order his followers to commit murder or claiming that there is any record of Jesus doing so anywhere.

You are claiming there is 'contradiction'.

And apparently you are also asking people to explain why there is contradiction.


Ohh and you forgot about this:

You yourself said you cherry pick and ignore stories that show Jesus as not being so peaceful and loving.

You have no logical reasons for rejecting the stories that put Jesus in a bad spot and just accept those that look good.

Q: Care to explain why you reject the bad and only accept the good?
Because there are contradictions.

That is a logical reason for rejecting the supposed good things Jesus did with the supposed bad things.

That is one logical reason.

Another I have already mentioned is that Jesus warned his followers that multitudes would be deceived in his name.

Since the NT did not exist at the time of Jesus, if one were looking for logical ways in which deception can be injected into the mix (as per Jesus' warning) one would have to examine all such areas where this could be done, including the likelihood that the stories were tampered with and elaborated on, changed, added to etc...between the time Jesus was on the scene and the bible became an actual thing.

Of course, one would have to give logical reasons as to why one might suspect this being the case, in relation to those stories.

For example. It is not logical that Jesus would tell his followers to forgive and forgive and forgive and then also read where Jesus is being very unforgiving in relation to whipping the temple traders or cursing the fruitless fig tree.

These are 'contradictions' and therefore one must of necessity 'cherry-pick'. Since then you have argued that 'cherry-picking' is generically regarded as a negative practice, so it would have been more appropriate of me to use a more positive phrase so as to lesson risk of confusion.

What I was trying to convey was that one has to pick and choose because of the contradictions. Biblically speaking, this amounts to 'sorting the wheat from the chaff" and perhaps if I had used that phrase instead, it may have been more helpful? We shall see...

Also - while I remember - another possible reason for the inclusion of the story of Jesus whipping the merchants in the temple might be in order that Jesus is better able to be thought of as speaking of the OT idea of GOD when he referred to his 'father'. The association possibly being part of the deception Jesus spoke about. One has to delve very deeply to discover what might be what. Surface scratching won't cut it. :)

Over and above all that, it is obvious to me at least that one cannot simply say "there are contradictions so therefore it is all a pack of lies." Not that I am suggesting this is what is at the root of your complaint...often it has been proven to be at the root of similar complaints, and I wouldn't attempt to sully your reputation by assuming this is the basis of your intent.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Post #118

Post by alexxcJRO »

bluethread wrote:
The OP asserts that theism is antithetical to science, critical thinking, and true morality. That is an assertion related to theology. Therefore, it is a theological position. I do not believe in naturally blue chicken eggs. However, any argument I make about naturally blue chicken eggs, is a position on naturally blue chicken eggs. My argument doesn't have to be in favor of them for it to be of or related to them
If that is the case then dieties can not be in opposition to science, critical thinking, and true morality, because they does not exist.
By the way, theology is a form of philosophy. For example, is the Euthyphro theology or philosophy?

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic and accuracy.
:-s :shock: :?

Firstly,

Q: Dear sir do you understand that an atheist cannot study a non-existing God relation to the universe?

It’s illogical to say an atheist studies the God's relation to the world when he does not believe God exists.

It’s like saying an astronomer studies the interaction of black holes with the universe but he does not believe in the existence of the black holes or a geologist studies the forming of earthquakes, volcanic activity, mountain-building, and oceanic trench occur along tectonic plate boundaries but yet he does not believe in tectonic plates existence.

Secondly,

Here a few examples of theological positions:
http://www.mst.edu.au/theological-position/
http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/bcbsrth.html

The examples go along with the definitions and support my argument.

Thirdly,

Theology is more then philosophy.
Philosophizing whether a god concept is possible to logically exist is not theology for this questions the existence of God. To be theology one must accept God existence. And since an atheist does not believe. He cannot be making theology.
Therefore an atheist cannot have a theological position. 8-)
bluethread wrote: If that is the case then dieties can not be in opposition to science, critical thinking, and true morality, because they does not exist.
Straw man.
The op does not say that.
The op says: “As religion and superstition decline; science, critical thinking, and true morality can increase�.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Post #119

Post by alexxcJRO »

William wrote:


Ohh and you forgot about this:

You yourself said you cherry pick and ignore stories that show Jesus as not being so peaceful and loving.

You have no logical reasons for rejecting the stories that put Jesus in a bad spot and just accept those that look good.

Q: Care to explain why you reject the bad and only accept the good?
Because there are contradictions.

That is a logical reason for rejecting the supposed good things Jesus did with the supposed bad things.

That is one logical reason.

Another I have already mentioned is that Jesus warned his followers that multitudes would be deceived in his name.

Since the NT did not exist at the time of Jesus, if one were looking for logical ways in which deception can be injected into the mix (as per Jesus' warning) one would have to examine all such areas where this could be done, including the likelihood that the stories were tampered with and elaborated on, changed, added to etc...between the time Jesus was on the scene and the bible became an actual thing.

Of course, one would have to give logical reasons as to why one might suspect this being the case, in relation to those stories.

For example. It is not logical that Jesus would tell his followers to forgive and forgive and forgive and then also read where Jesus is being very unforgiving in relation to whipping the temple traders or cursing the fruitless fig tree.

These are 'contradictions' and therefore one must of necessity 'cherry-pick'. Since then you have argued that 'cherry-picking' is generically regarded as a negative practice, so it would have been more appropriate of me to use a more positive phrase so as to lesson risk of confusion.

What I was trying to convey was that one has to pick and choose because of the contradictions. Biblically speaking, this amounts to 'sorting the wheat from the chaff" and perhaps if I had used that phrase instead, it may have been more helpful? We shall see...

Also - while I remember - another possible reason for the inclusion of the story of Jesus whipping the merchants in the temple might be in order that Jesus is better able to be thought of as speaking of the OT idea of GOD when he referred to his 'father'. The association possibly being part of the deception Jesus spoke about. One has to delve very deeply to discover what might be what. Surface scratching won't cut it. :)

Over and above all that, it is obvious to me at least that one cannot simply say "there are contradictions so therefore it is all a pack of lies." Not that I am suggesting this is what is at the root of your complaint...often it has been proven to be at the root of similar complaints, and I wouldn't attempt to sully your reputation by assuming this is the basis of your intent.


Firstly,

Please don’t straw man me. I did not said it’s all a pack of lies. :shock: :?


Secondly,

Q: How do you know it’s not backwards, that Christians tried to make Jesus look more good? :-s

We well know there are things that were added in support of Jesus not the other way around.
http://conversationalatheist.com/christ ... the-bible/

We all know that throughout history the Talmud was banned, burned and censored by the Church and Christians.

http://thejewishreview.org/articles/?id=147

To escape the contradiction one can go the other way also.

To totally dismiss this possibility for no reason just because one has preconceived ideas about Jesus is illogical: confirmation bias fallacy, cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence.



“Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.�
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

“Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.�
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Post #120

Post by alexxcJRO »

tam wrote:
You did not ask that. But... Christ is above all things except His Father. He is the Holy One, where His Father is the Most Holy One. 

They are one (in spirit) but two actual beings. One (the Son) is subject to the other (the Father). 

Q1: Why do you mean there are one in spirit?

Q2: Can they have opposing views?(Yes/No question)

Q3: If no to Q2 it's like a hive mind(a unified consciousness, one will)?

Q4: If yes to Q2 wouldn't that mean two separate conscious entities? And wouldn't that make two gods?
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Post Reply