How can religion be evil?

731 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sapporo's picture
AJ777: Eyewitness testimony

AJ777: Eyewitness testimony is a type of direct evidence sir. Yes they are credible witnesses

Not of supernatural concepts such as gods they aren't.

If something is observable, by definition, it is happening within the laws of nature, otherwise it would not be able to happen.

AJ777's picture
Maybe that’s why God became a

Maybe that’s why God became a man, did miracles, was killed by men, was rerurrected, and ascended into heaven again all done in the natural world. The events described by the eyewitnesses in the New Testament occurred in the natural world. Where do laws of nature come from anyway, isn’t that a kind of miracle in itself.

Sapporo's picture
AJ777: Maybe that’s why God

AJ777: Maybe that’s why God became a man, did miracles, was killed by men, was rerurrected, and ascended into heaven again all done in the natural world. The events described by the eyewitnesses in the New Testament occurred in the natural world. Where do laws of nature come from anyway, isn’t that a kind of miracle in itself.

Laws are an inherent definer of any system.

So you admit your god is limited by the laws of nature.

But why do you think that carrying out actions within the laws of nature prove someone to be objectively moral?

arakish's picture
AJ777: "Maybe that’s why God

AJ777: "Maybe that’s why God became a man, did miracles, was killed by men, was rerurrected, and ascended into heaven again all done in the natural world."

Yet there is absolutely NO evidence this occurred.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
There are no eye witness

There are no eye witness testimonies in the bible to anything Jesus did, what on earth are you talking about? Not one single word was written about Jesus until decades after he was supposed to have died. Even if they were 200% authentic eye witness testimonies with signed affidavits, they still wouldn't represent objective evidence for anything supernatural, anymore than clais people have been beamed aboard alien space ships and probed by aliens.

"Where do laws of nature come from anyway, isn’t that a kind of miracle in itself."

Again your ignorance of word definitions is astounding.

miracle
noun
an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by ***natural or scientific laws*** and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

So the claim for a miracle is the very antithesis of a scientific law, which is a human creation that explains how phenomena of the natural universe function in a way we can understand.

Sheldon's picture
"The events described by the

"The events described by the eyewitnesses in the New Testament occurred in the natural world. "

No they didn't - Hitchens's razor applied.

Diotrephes's picture
AJ777,

AJ777,

"Maybe that’s why God became a man, did miracles, was killed by men, was rerurrected, and ascended into heaven again all done in the natural world. The events described by the eyewitnesses in the New Testament occurred in the natural world."

I'll bet that you can not cite one verse in the New Testament which says that a specific person says that he, or she, saw the resurrected Jesus character. You will find a lot of hearsay testimony but it's doubtful if you will actually find any first hand testimony.

You are a victim of a fairy tale.

edit for grammar

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

The events described by the eyewitnesses in the New Testament occurred in the natural world.

Please identify the eyewitnesses for this alleged event. You are galloping into my area now....there are NO contemporary accounts of a jesus figure as described in the gospels. None. In fact there are no contemporary accounts at all.

Please identify the eyewitnesses you claim and point me to their accounts.

arakish's picture
AJ777: "Eyewitness testimony

AJ777: "Eyewitness testimony is a type of direct evidence sir."

However, we are in the court of SCIENCE. And in the court of science, eyewitness testimony is inadmissible. Human memory is worst possible form of media for natural occurrences to be recorded on. Eyewitness testimony is 100% hearsay and is the worst possible form of evidence.

rmfr

AJ777's picture
Do you think science is the

Do you think science is the only way to discover truth?

Cognostic's picture
DO YOU THINK THERE IS A TRUTH

DO YOU THINK THERE IS A TRUTH WITHOUT EVIDENCE> PLEASE SHARE.

BTW - Science has nothing to say about what it true. The closest science gets to what is true are the LAWS.. Even these are not true in all circumstances and any scientist worth his shit knows it. So what is this Truth you are speaking of?

We regard things as true based on supporting evidence. We believe things according to the quality of the evidence supporting them and apportion out beliefs accordingly. We do not believe things blindly like you and then assert objective truth without facts or evidence.

Please share how you discover truth and what truth you know. I need a good laugh.

David Killens's picture
@AJ777

@AJ777

"Do you think science is the only way to discover truth?"

Science is not the only way to discover truth. But it has consistently proven that it is the most effective and consistent method. All other methods fall short of the ability of science to get to the truth.

arakish's picture
AJ777: "Do you think science

AJ777: "Do you think science is the only way to discover truth?"

In my honest scientific opinion, the answer is no. Science does not give a damn about what is true or false.

Now, the Scientific Method is bestest and greatest tool humanity has to discover as close as possible the true truth.

Why do you think religion is so opposed to science and the Scientific Method? Because all Religious Absolutists know their methods for discovering lies is as far from the true truth as one can get.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
"Eyewitness testimony is a

"Eyewitness testimony is a type of direct evidence "

No it really isn't if they're making unevidenced claims for the supernatural.

"Yes they are credible witnesses. "

I doubt it, no religious person is unbiased about their beliefs. Many of them have been shown to lie quite deliberately. lies for Jesus as it were.

"I suggest you read the books I mentioned."

No book can validate it's own claims, and it amazes how many theists seem unaware of this fact. I suggest you expand your reading, and try to develop some critical unbiased reasoning skills. If those books contained any credible evidence how come the best you can offer is the woefully flawed kalam cosmological argument with a large assumption tacked onto it?

AJ777's picture
I asked a question about

I asked a question about morality, and have been answering a few specific questions about Christianity as those here rightly assumed I believe the Christian world view is correct. I have not attempted to present a structured, fully faceted argument for the existence of a deity, or that the Christian God is that deity. There are resources I can direct you towards if you like.

“ I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” by Frank Turek
“Cold case Christianity” by J. Warner Wallace

arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

You are trying to make a joke right? Frank Turek? Hell my twin daughters were infinitely more intelligent when they were only 10 years old than Frank Turek ever has been. J Warner Wallace is about as intelligent as my twin daughters were at 9 years old.

Try again.

Why don't you read something other than obsolete, unsubstantiated, irrelevant texts about that irrelevant, barbaric, savage, offensive, and unsubstantiated, immoral Bronze and Iron Age religious texts about an imaginative Sky Faerie, a Magic Lich Virgin, and a Rather Comical Spook.

Try reading some real books written by real people known as scientists instead of believing the evil lies of your religion.

Aron Ra once said (paraphrased): “The Bible has been written and re-written and re-written and translated and re-translated and re-translated so many times there is no truth left in it.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
AJ777 "“ I don’t have enough

AJ777 "“ I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” by Frank Turek"

If the author doesn't even understand the dictionary definition of atheism then his book must be worthless. Apparently neither he nor you know what an argument from ignorance fallacy is.

LogicFTW's picture
@AJ777

@AJ777

Perhaps surprising to you, but you actually do not have to read anything to come to the easy conclusion that it is extremely unlikely your god idea exists in any form.

All you have to do is utilize basic survival skills you use every day, that skill being separating what is real and what is not based on evidence available to you.
Stop giving your religious idea a free pass on the skill you utilize to survive everyday. Do you cross the street because someone dead for 100's of years tells you its okay, or do you use your eyes and knowledge of the real world to figure out when it is safe to cross the street?

We both already know the answer to that, you use real world stuff you personally observe, you do not take some long dead persons advice on whether it is safe to cross a busy street or not, or you would not still be alive today.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

Your form of objective morality.

2nd Kings 2:23-24

He [Elisha] went up from there to Bethel. As he was going up by the way, some youths came out of the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldy! Go up, you baldy!” He looked behind him and saw them, and cursed them in Yahweh’s name. Then two female bears came out of the woods, and mauled forty-two of those youths.

Now I ask you. Does calling someone with a bald head "baldy" warrant the death penalty? To be mauled to death by two female bears?

Please tell me your Sky Faerie ain't Pure Evil.

rmfr

AJ777's picture
arakish, I’m not following

arakish, I’m not following how it’s possible for a non existent deity to make two bears do anything.

Sheldon's picture
Why do you keep answering

Why do you keep answering criticisms of your beliefs with the obvious but irrelevant fact atheists don't share them?

The criticisms apply to those who believe the bible to be true. It's like us answering every criticism of atheism from a theist with "but you're not an atheist"?

It's mind numbingly dumb.

Do you believe the bible or not? Do you think it's a moral guide? Do you believe a deity exists, and is perfectly moral?

If so answer the criticisms of those beliefs with some attempt at integrity instead of insulting everyone's intelligence with risible lawyers obfuscation.

You might also read the bible objectively instead of with an a priori bias towards belief. And do at the very least learn word definitions thoroughly before starting to try and debate things like morality, objective and subjective. As your contradictions here are inane.

Lastly do at least a cursory researchers of the topic, instead of simply parroting what you've been told or read about your religion by other apologists.

The Kalam cosmological argument is not evidence for a deity. And is a deeply flawed argument for a first cause anyway, not even an argument for a deity. A cursory look online could have saved your blushes here, but for you to produce it when asked for your best piece of objective evidence makes you appear woefully illinformed to the average poster here.

Don't dodge questions as this makes you look very dishonest and merely highlights your bias. Don't preach to atheists by repeating the same subjective belief over and over, whilst ignoring all objections and refutations, as again this just looks like blinkered closed minded bias.

If people reject your claims for evidence and take the time to exolain why, then do them the courtesy of addressing those objections, rather than the peurile lie they are "Not interested in evidence". As you mendaciously claimed about me.

In short learn to debate rationally and honestly. And if you're going to deny logic with superstitious counter arguments then please don't pretend you have logic to support your claims. Learn what common logical fallacies are, look up a list of them and try and eradicate them from your arguments and claims. Then be honest about the result.

arakish's picture
AJ777: "arakish, I’m not

AJ777: "arakish, I’m not following how it’s possible for a non existent deity to make two bears do anything."

Because you do. And it is making a point about how the Sky Faerie you believe in is the terrifying and immoral monster to ever haunt humanity in all of history, dating back to 3.7Ga BCE (when life first emerged on Earth).

And who is the one performing the ad hominem attacks?

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
"arakish, I’m not following

"arakish, I’m not following how it’s possible for a non existent deity to make two bears do anything."

You're saying you think the bible describes a non-existent deity? Otherwise this tired old duplicitous word game of yours is getting very old.

So if someone told you that exploiting children to make them steal for you was perfectly moral, and we should base our morality on this idea, and cited Fagin in Oliver Twist to support their claim, insisting it was real? Would you not care or speak out against it because they used a fictional book to try and support their claim?

AJ777, why is it immoral to murder children? Are you ever going to tell us? Or do you not even have any reason?

Fallen's picture
I don't think I will post on

I don't think I will post on this thread again. I'm not sure if I should be irritated or amused.

"Correlation is not causation." - For real?

Should I even have to describe the implications for religion that statement implies?

This is outside my batsh_t tolerance zone...

AJ777's picture
My point was to imply that an

My point was to imply that an imaginary God in your view can cause a bear to do anything doesn’t make sense.
These were not children either.

arakish's picture
AJ777: " These were not

AJ777: " These were not children either."

Yeah, that was WEB. However, in the original first English copy (my 1869 version) of the Old Testament...

2nd Kings 2:23-24

And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Beth-el: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children [youths in the WEB, but same DAMNED difference] out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, “Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.” And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare [tore] forty and two children of them apart.

Same questions still apply.

rmfr

Sapporo's picture
Next @AJ777 will be saying

Next @AJ777 will be saying that god killing thousands of thousands of children and goats in Noah's Flood was just a metaphor, and that god can be tailored to his purpose to be as moral or as immoral as he wishes it to be. But then, why does he resort to this objective morality coming from god argument?

Sheldon's picture
"My point was to imply that

"My point was to imply that an imaginary God in your view can cause a bear to do anything doesn’t make sense."

You're not an atheist, so by the standard you keep trying to set your comments on atheism are irrational.

"These were not children either."

Does murder stop being immoral if the victims are not children then?

Sheldon's picture
I feel your pain. Sadly this

I feel your pain. Sadly this is al too familiar lately with theists evoking claims and arguments they could disavow themselves of with a cursory look at a dictionary.

David Killens's picture
I understand Fallen. If

I understand Fallen. If stupidity was contagious, AJ777 would have reduced by intellect to one of a rock.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.