I’m an atheist and I can’t relate to any of the arguments listed above. My brand of atheism doesn’t waste time with the bible or anything having to do with the practice of religion.
That’s what I thought. Try reading the article.
You may think it is stupid, but in fact it is ordinary behaviour for human beings. We do not march in lockstep with regard to ideas: never have, and never will. What do you think, that every religious person has exactly the same opinions, handed down from above? That’s a very simplistic view of a complex phenomenon, and it’s no wonder you’re coming across poorly in this thread.
on the contrary. if being nice and trying to understand them, worked, it would be useful. but it doesn’t and it’s not. if you want to try and make the argument i should be more polite for the sake of politeness, go ahead, you will win that debate. but you won’t win the debate that being nice and understanding them changes anything.
you can not see the hypocrisy involved in accepting this part OF THE WORD OF TRUTH but rejecting this part of THE WORD OF TRUTH?
Well then we are at an impasse. I think understanding your opponent on a position is advantageous, you clearly do not. Though ironically I have a hell of a hard time understanding where you’re coming from.
That may be but there’s a reason why there has always been an intellectual class in any society, even among pre-historic cultures. They’re the ones who cut through limitations in common human behavior and reasoning. They’re the ones who tell others “this simply cannot be…”
They’re the ones who had the leisure time and resources to come up with and communicate these ideas, but even among the unwashed masses there is variation in religious belief and behaviour. Basically anything on vernacular religion, folk religion, the anthropology of religion, and the sociology of religion will back me up here. The extraordinary claim is that people simply accept and follow what they are told. (Try John Arnold’s Belief and Unbelief in Medieval Europe for a sample of how medieval Catholics went against the grain.)
As to hypocrisy, I disagree. I can see where you (other you, not the_diego) would make that alligation, but again, it relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of the phenomenon, to wit that it should be or ever was a unified whole. The Bible already comes with internal contradictions, to say nothing of areas where it fundamentally disagrees with social norms. The claim that the Bible is the Word of God and 100% true is like claiming that America is the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. It’s the rhetoric that lends power to the bits that are taken as true.
It’s a lot easier to just dismiss the whole thing as hypocritical nonsense, of course, and that’s your prerogative, but please recognize that as your own limitation, not theirs.
i grew up in the south in the 1970’s. dont tell me i dont understand them. i can quote the bible on any number of topics.
There is no god, only zuul!
I don’t really get bothered by arguments for atheism itself. But there’s one argument against Christianity which I find incredibly annoying:
“Christians are hypocrites because they claim to obey the Bible yet they eat pork, eat shellfish, wear mixed fibers, work on the Sabbath, don’t stone adulterers, etc.”
It betrays a total ignorance of both Jewish and Christian theology. The New Testament says that, since the death of Christ, the ceremonies of the Mosaic code are abolished. But even more fundamentally, the Hebrew scriptures specifically declare that the Law was given ONLY TO THE JEWS, and to no other nation. Gentile pig-eating is not sin, under either system.
The Devil can cite scripture to his purpose. What are you even still doing here if you have nothing to contribute? Do you seriously think any theist would have even a seconds doubt by the style of atheist debate you present?
when someone believes that the world is 6000 years old and rejects science out of hand, politely disagreeing really doesn’t work. when such a person says god was validated in killing all the amalkites, if your response is, oh “gee fred i disagree”, it will make no more impact than pointing out the red shift in galaxies and age of the universe. if, however, you say kill them all, even the children? what kind of monster orders the death of children? it’s PROBABLY not going to get them thinking but at least it challenges them more than saying “i disagree fred”. if they are going to change they need to be challenged, not deferred to.
actually it says both. it says i came not to change one letter of the law and it also says nothing shall change until the kingdom of heaven has come to pass.
You’re actually providing a pretty good example of the strawman argument in the options above, by defining the Bible as THE WORD OF TRUTH and then attacking Christians for not believing in what you’ve decided on their behalf that they must believe.
Also, it would probably behoove you to use capital letters at the beginning of sentences now and then if you’re going to argue from a position of intellectual superiority.
All of which is fascinating but utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand; I’m not interested in rehashing that debate which we’ve had 6000 times - I want to know what theists think. Since you clearly don’t give a toss about that the thread couldn’t be going any more off-topic; start a new thread on how nasty atheists need to be if that’s your point.
ETA; that was in reply to Robert163’s post behind my last one, not Smapti.
If you don’t relate to any of the others, surely you relate to “I don’t hurt anyone, don’t force my beliefs - leave me alone and MYOB”?
As a theist, my least favorite argument is that all theists are too stupid to see the truth and if only we had someone try to talk us out of our beliefs we could be just as enlightened as atheists. How does that snide little summary of this go “you can’t reason out of a position you didn’t reason yourself into”? Love it.
i obviously do not think the bible is the word of truth. the problem is selecting the parts you want and declaring those and only those as the word of truth. but since this requires logic and consistency of thought i’m pretty sure you won’t agree.
nothing could be more relevant. your whole premise is based upon false assumptions. it makes no sense to talk about how to be nicer to theists if being nicer to them doesn’t persuade them of anything.
You’re not reading the messages you reply to. If the ceremonial law only applies to Jews (as Weeping Wyvern said), then Jesus (assuming he existed; again, I am atheist) didn’t forbid gentiles from doing anything by saying that the law was not changed.