I want to find pro atheism anti Bible arguments

185 posts / 0 new
Last post
Randomhero1982's picture
Atheism hasn't provided

Atheism hasn't provided anything big? Except that obviously you are atheistic towards every other god mankind have ever conjured...

I would say that is pretty big, we've just gone one further!

And like the others have said, I have absolutely no problem with a god being real!

The issue is that we say, "well, can you prove it?"

And you (theists) have got precisely bugget all evidence to back your claims, other than logical fallacies.

And this is the real problem...

If the scientific community came out tomorrow and said there is 100% intelligent life on one of the moons of saturn or Jupiter... would you buy it?

What if these scientists said, "oh they're real, you cant see them or talk to them but you have to believe us!"

What if they then said that they created everything and are responsible for your coming in to being, but refused to offer evidence... other than an apparent mysterius sir isaac newton book?!

Now, what if we started punishing you all for not believing? If non belief in the aliens brought a stigma to your very being? Led to genital mutilation and massacres?

Wouldn't you be slightly aggrieved?

Cognostic's picture
@Elemenalenal: Pro Atheism

@Elemenalenal: Pro Atheism Arguments.

THERE ARE NO PRO ATHEISM ARGUMENTS.
YOU ARE MISTAKEN.

If you think there are, you have a faulty understanding of atheism. Atheism is a position on one thing and one thing only; "the existence of god or gods." Atheists do not believe in God or gods. That's it and nothing more. It is the theists making claims and the Atheists (Not arguing against them but simply asking for evidence that can stand against critical inquiry.)

The best argument in the world is no argument at all. You simply ask the theist to prove their assertion. The theists make all sorts of inane assertions.
1. Prophecy: The prophecies of the Bible are written 1. After the fact. 2. Without specific times, places or descriptions. 3. To fulfill vague interpretations of modern events. (Christians look at modern events and then go searching through the bible to see if anything can be twisted to fit events that are happening in the world today, Muslims especially like this one.

2. Answered Prayer: Prayer studies do not support this assertion. Pew research, a recent study, actually found people who were prayed for and knew about it did significantly worse in recovering from cancer.

3. Apologetics. Once you understand the apologetic being argued you will be able to spot the fallacy it is based on. This takes a bit of learning but there is no argument for the existence of god that can stand against logic or critical inquiry. Not one.

4. Personal experience: The argument from personal experience is actually the strongest theist position in my opinion. I can not argue that a theist did not have any claimed experience. If they tell me they spoke with god, I can not tell them "No you did not/" I can postulate, what might be more likely, you spoke with god or you are mistaken? Psych wards are full of people who are mistaken. I can ask, "How do you know it was god and not Satan trying to fool you?" *A very good question as I can insist it is Satan and not god since we are in na-na land.*
You can not deny they had an experience. At the same time, their experience is no reason at all for you to believe and they are in my mind, most likely mistaken as I have never seen evidence for the existence of god.

5, Humans have souls? WTF is that? Can you prove it. (Note, you are not arguing that there is no soul. You are arguing no evidence for a soul. You are not arguing for atheism but against Christian/Theist assertions. You are demanding they offer evidence for their assertion.) No one has ever proved the existence of anything called a soul. This is what you need to know and no matter how cool the Christian argument seems at first it will not hold up to critical inquiry, facts and logic. It just wont. No argument ever has. As soon as one does, we will all believe in souls. That will still say nothing about the existence of a god.

6. The resurrection: We have no evidence that Jesus even existed, let alone he was resurrected. You will hear names like Tacitus, Pliny The Younger, and others. These authors wrote decades after the death of Jesus. They were reporting what people said and were not first hand witnesses. Passages attributed to Tacitus are known forgeries. Nothing said about any of these authors stands against critical inquiry or facts.

7/ The disciples died in horrible ways for the truth. Like Jesus we actually have no evidence for their existence. Next, people have died for stupid shit all throughout history. It says nothing about the truth of the matter. Buddhists set themselves on fire. Muslims blow themselves the fuck up. By using this criteria every religion on the planet is probably true except for the most peaceful one. Jainism, the one faith where even swatting a mosquito is a sin.

OKAY. this list goes on and on and on. What is important to remember is that THERE ARE NO ATHEIST ARGUMENTS.; There are Christian assertions or Theist Assertions that do not stand against facts. logic. and critical thinking. The burden of proof is on the THEISTS to prove their claims true. Until they do that. the atheist simply suspends belief. "THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE YOUR CLAIM WITHOUT EVIDENCE SUPPORTING IT." (THAT IS THE ATHEIST POSITION!!! IT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT BUT A SIMPLE REQUEST THAT THE THEIST PROVE THE ASSERTION THEY ARE MAKING.)

Once you have an understanding of what atheism is, this will become second nature, You do not have "Atheist Arguments" What you eventually develop is to see the bullshit and fallacies contained in Christian, Muslim, and Theist assertions.. Once that is done, all you do is suspend belief until their burden of proof is met.

Sheldon has one of the best questions for theists on this site. "What empirical evidence do you have for the existence of your god?" It is the only question you need to know. There is no empirical evidence. As long as you understand that all claims by theists have thus far been debunked, you simply keep asking the same question in different ways over and over and over again as the theists jump through hoops trying to convince you that they are right.

NO ATHEIST ARGUMENTS..... JUST A REQUEST FOR THEISTS TO PROVE THEIR ASSERTION. (THAT IS ATHEISM)
________
Went back and read some of the other posts. Good stuff there too, one comment on morality.

MORALITY: If you get morality from a book, you are not moral. You are following the dictates of a god. You are seeking Heaven or trying to avoid Hell/ Think about this. If your mother tells you not to hit your brother and she will give you a cookie, and then you don't hit your brother and you get a cookie, have you been moral? NO! You have been seeking a reward. You have been selfish,

If your mother tells you that she will beat you if you hit your brother again and then you do not hit your brother because you do not want to get beaten, are you being moral? Of course not. You are avoiding pain. Again you are acting out of self preservation and selfishness.

A system of reward and punishment for following the dictates of a parental figure can not produce morality. Not even if your parent tells you "It's your choice, go ahead and do as you wish, you have free will." At best you are following moral dictates and avoiding pain and suffering or seeking a reward. THIS IS NOT MORAL.

Morality occurs when a person internalizes thoughts and behaviors that make them a moral being. A sense of fairness, a sense of empathy for others, a wish to be treated with respect and to respect others. Morality comes from the inside out.

God Wrote Morality on your Soul? If this were true we would not need a bible and Muslims would not be throwing people off of buildings. It's a bullshit potion and it takes us back to the free will bullshit that we previously discussed.,

NO THEIST ARGUMENT STANDS AGAINST CRITICAL INQUIRY AND LOGIC. ALL THE ATHEIST NEED DO IS ASK FOR EVIDENCE.

David Killens's picture
No one can prove, or disprove

No one can prove, or disprove a god. This argument falls within the realm of proving or disproving the existence of imaginary beings. Going down that rabbit hole only leads to a lose/lose proposition.

You can live a full and happy life without a god. A god is not required to feel all the wonderful positive emotions, even orgasms.

There are more effective ways to calm a troubled soul, and that is called trained medical professionals, such as psychologists and counselors.

Here is a biggy ..... Religion is based on fear. The fear of death, the fear of hell. For most atheists like myself, once you have finally cast off the shackles of religion, you have unloaded a LOT of fear, and your life is a lot better.

Religion teaches you that you are a second class citizen, unworthy and incapable of doing good things, or being incapable of enjoying the fine wonders of life.

The bible is the greatest and best multiple choice book ever devised. No wonder that there are over 33,000 different sects of christianity. The manner in which it is written, you can pick and choose any lifestyle or ethical position you desire. Cromwell justified the murder of thousands of Irish catholics because of his faith, slave traders rationalized that slavery was not "bad" because of the bible.

Atheism is just the rejection of just one question, and thus science is not required to support it. Yes, science does support many atheistic arguments. But if tomorrow the big bang and all of evolution was disproved, that does not, by default, prove a god.

cranky47's picture
" Religion is based on fear"

" Religion is based on fear"

True enough, but let's not forget guilt.

As Archbishop John Spong says "The church is in the guilt and control business"

No longer as blatant and extreme ,(as say from the 4th to 16th centuries) the Christian churches at least, are still very much about power and control .

Cognostic's picture
DAVID makes an excellent

DAVID makes an excellent point. "No one disproves god." Don't go there. If you assert god does not exist you are making a positive claim and now you have the burden of proof, not the theists.

A typical theist argument is "You can't prove there is no god." A reply that is fine is "You are right! And you can not prove there is a god so why should I believe?"

You will probably get Pascal's Wager after that. An idiotic apologetic argument that is easily debunked but I have written too much and will leave further comments to others. THERE ARE NO ATHEIST ARGUMENTS. THIS IS THE IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER.

Cognostic's picture
@Anti Bible: The best

@Anti Bible: The best arguments against the bible are history and facts.

Misquoting Jesus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfheSAcCsrE&t=3143s

How Jesus became God (1 of 3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IPAKsGbqcg

Mythical Jesus (Peer Reviewed Research)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79Lmmy2jfeo

Why Invent Jesus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTllC7TbM8M

Read something besides your bible and the facts will become clear.

xenoview's picture
Atheism is a lack of belief

Atheism is a lack of belief in any god or gods Theist claim there is a god, but have failed to provide objective evidence that a god is real.

Morals are subjective, even any morals give to christians by their god. If morals were objective, we wouldn't need laws or a god for people to know them.

The bible is the claim, not the evidence.

Calilasseia's picture
Just pausing to note this ...

Just pausing to note this ...

I haven't studied much from atheism

And boy, does it show.

Let's deal with the canards once and for all shall we?

atheism has a problem with God might being real

Wrong. The reason it's wrong, is because you manifestly don't know what atheism IS,/strong>.

Atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is a refusal to accept uncritically unsupported supernaturalist assertions That is IT. In short, it consists of "YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertions". In case you need to be told this, asking someone else to support their assertions isn't a "belief", it's the application of the rules of proper discourse to someone else's belief. I'll come to those rules in a moment. Before doing so, let's flush another tiresome supernaturalist canard down the toilet first, namely, the canard that refusal to accept a supernaturalist's unsupported assertions uncritically as fact, purportedly means treating the contrary assertions as fact. This again is plain, flat wrong. It's possible to be suspicious of both an assertion AND its contrapositive. Any elementary student of logic is aware of this basic principle.

Now, to those rules of proper discourse. Which are, as follows:

[1] Every assertion that is presented, possesses at that time the status "truth value unknown". Just in case you're tempted to make the elementary mistake here, this doesn't mean that an assertion does not possess a truth value, merely that at the moment of presentation, said truth value is undetermined.

[2] The epistemological deficit covered in [1] above, is remedied by testing the assertion in question. Until a proper test is devised for an assertion, and that test performed, that epistemological deficit will remain. Once that proper test is conducted, only then are we in a position to determine whether or not the assertion is true or false. Which brings us to:

[3] False assertions are discardable immediately, except for pedagogical purposes. Assertions found to be true, on the other hand, become our evidentially supported postulates.

[4] As a corollary of [2] above, if an assertion is untestable, then it too becomes discardable, except for pedagogical purposes. No one is obliged to regard an untestable assertion as anything other than discardable. An untestable assertion possesses zero epistemological utility value. See [1] for the reason why.

[5] Proper tests of assertions that are known to be reliable, and which are to be chosen wherever possible, include:

[5a] Error-free deductions within appropriate formal systems (see, for example, pure mathematics);

[5b] Consonance with observational data (see: the physical sciences).

Anyone wishing to propose an alternative testing methodology, must demonstrate in advance that said methodology reliably distinguishes between true and false assertions, and by doing so, provides us with epistemologically useful results. A methodology that fails to do this, is also discardable.

Apply the above to supernaturalist assertions, and it should become very quickly apparent, why many here regard said assertions with suspicion. Indeed, a corollary of applying those proper rules of discourse properly to assertions, is that when one does so, one dispenses with belief itself.

Movng on ...

objective morality

The moment I see this being mentioned, suspicions are aroused immediately. Part of the problem being that any genuinely objective moral assertion, if such an assertion exists, must necessarily be true or false regardless of the presuppositions of the observer. The fact that some of the greatest minds in ethical philosophy have had serious trouble alighting upon even one example of such an assertion, should be suitably informative here. Indeed, one of the rather annoying conclusions that has been arrived at in the world of properly constructed ethical philosophy, is that moral assertions have a habit of being dependent upon one's choice of ethical axioms.

This is, of course, before we cover the fact that there exists an abundant scientific literature, pointing to the evolutionary and biological basis of [1] our capacity for ethical thought, [2] our ability to act in accordance with the products of said ethical thought, and [3] the motivation to act thus. You'll find I've already covered this in some detail here.

Moving on again ...

atheism should believe ethics without any evidence

Poppycock. See the first part of my post, covering what atheism actually IS, and the following part devoted to the rules of discourse. Indeed, if you've never heard of consequentialist ethics, which is an attempt to provide an empirically tested basis for the adoption of ethical precepts, then you're in no position to assert this, even before we consider other reasons why your assertion is false.

Modern society bases it quite clearly on the ten Commandments (well, seven actually).

No it doesn't. Even an elementary examination of developed secular societies, demonstrates that mythological assertions have nothing to do, with either the ethical vision of said societies, or their systems of jurisprudence. Furthermore, some codes of ethical behaviour formulated before the emergence of Abrahamic mythologies, frequently have more to recommend them. See for example, the Code of Urukagina.

There is this belief in atheism for our right and wrong

BZZZZT!!! Wrong on so many levels.

One, atheists, when they're doing this properly, as I've stated above, dispense with belief altogether.

Two, We have plenty of evidence for people formulating ethical principles, and striving to act upon them. Documentation thereof is voluminous.

Three. See my linked post on the biological and evolutionary basis of ethical behaviour.

Tell me, what part of the words "observational data" do you not understand as being applicable here?

I think this covers relevant bases.

David Killens's picture
"This is important for me, so

"This is important for me, so please help with the most rational sense because I'm willing to convert my beliefs, just atheism hasn't yet provided anything big."

IMO the term "convert" is not appropriate. Atheism is just one thing, the lack of belief in a god or gods. It is not the denial of a god, nor is it a belief system. For example, when I was young I was told stories about Santa Clause and jesus. When I grew older, I finally realized that the guy in a red suit that flew around the world in one night and could go down chimneys was not real. I stopped believing in Santa, I realized it was just a fictitious character. And many years later I realized that a dude that walked on water and came back from the dead was also a fictitious character.

If you believe in any god, you are a theist. If you do not believe in any god, you are an atheist. This is not complicated or tricky and you do not have to make any decisions. You either believe, or you do not. IMO the only mid-point is when you wake up and say "hey, this bible and the stories in it don't make sense".

"atheism has a problem with God might being real"

Once again, atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. I can not speak for others, but once I ditched organized religion, I spent over forty years diligently searching for something, anything spiritual I could latch onto. I researched many faiths. I spoke to holy men of many faiths, I spent hours on my knees in churches praying for any revelation, I searched high and low for any evidence or proof of any god. If tomorrow a god showed up and convinced me it existed, I would not have any issues with the fact a god is real.

Cognostic's picture
@RE: "I'm willing to convert

@RE: "I'm willing to convert my beliefs."
I will mirror David's remarks. There is no conversion. There is nothing to convert to. There is just giving up nonsense and caring about what is true. Atheism has no problem with God. Prove your god is real and we will all believe it is real. Prove he is worth worshiping and we may even worship him. What proof do you have?

rat spit's picture
At OP:

At OP:

You’re a knob. And your lightly veiled misgivings towards atheist are a farce.

Unless you have DIRECT conversation with God (As I do; ahem) then fuck right off. No one gives a shit about your half baked arguments and your syphilitic rash of concerns about the “Almighty”.

Smoke a lot of acid and find God. He’s out there and he will talk to you if you’re willing to. Smoke enough LSD.

Apart from that, you’re a goat among a thousand other goats. You have nothing to add and nothing to take away from the issue.

Smoke LSD.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: OP

Re: OP

Howdy, Elemenalenal (whatever that means). Welcome to the AR. Looks like I'm a little late to this party, but I might as well go ahead and throw in my two cents worth anyway.

For starters, I am going to guess English is not your primary language. Therefore, I will try to take that into consideration, as there may be a few translation problems that muddle things a bit. Even so, it seems fairly apparent you really have no clue as to what atheism really is. Namely, an atheist simply does not believe in any god(s). Absolutely no different than your lack of belief in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. Also no different than your lack of belief in Allah (which is really just the same god as in the bible), Thor, Zeus, Odin, Loki, Ganesha, or any of the other thousands of gods that have been created by Man over the centuries. It ain't complicated.

As for the bible, I find it incredibly amusing that a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent being such as your god is such a LOUSY conveyor of what should be very simple instructions. Your god supposedly made the universe and everything in it, right? That includes his precious human pets. Yet, this reportedly PERFECT and ALL-POWERFUL god chooses to use a BOOK written by multiple anonymous authors during various time periods and then pieced together, edited, re-translated numerous times by countless different rulers over the course of several centuries. Oh, and during those time periods this "holy book" was starting its circulations, a VAST MAJORITY of the people inhabiting the Earth were TOTALLY ILLITERATE. Yessiree!... Your god is a fucking GENIUS... *shaking head in amusement*... And as for the bible being so "complicated", that just makes things worse for any defense for your god. Because, honestly, I was able to write in a more clear, concise, and comprehensive manner during my high school English classes. Sheesh!

I would continue on a bit, but with the entire bible thing being a bunch of nonsense in and of itself, there just doesn't seem to be much point in wasting time with anything else that stems from it. Although, if you really want my view on those other aspects you mentioned, please feel free to ask. Careful what you wish for, though... *chuckle*...

Sheldon's picture
The bible IS a "pro atheism

The bible IS a "pro atheism argument." As it makes demonstrably false claims and has represented these as immutable truths from an infallible deity.

However you're putting the clapped out wheezy apologist pony behind the cart. What objective evidence is there for any deity? Unless sufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated, why on earth would you believe any deity exists. Thus atheism is a default position, not a position that epistemology requires be evidenced, anymore than you'd believe in invisible unicorns until someone "proves" they don't exist.

"atheism has a problem with God might being real, "

No, not at all, theists would have to demonstrate evidence for that claim. What objective evidence can you demonstrate that any deity "might be real". Until such evidence an be demonstrated we don't even even know if a deity is possible, so how on earth can anyone assess how probable its existence is?

"I'm willing to convert"

You can't convert to not believing something, you either do or do not believe it, again what objective evidence for a deity is that belief based on?

"christianity doesn't have almost any real loss with God not being real"

You're using a version of Pascal's wager, it's been thoroughly debunked, I suggest you research that. If a deity doesn't exist then christianity is entirely false, I'm not sure how basing your entire worldview and morality on a complete falsehood isn't a problem to you, but it quite demonstrably is.

"atheism should believe ethics without any evidence that there is any apart from what modern culture has adopted from Bible"

I don't get any of my morality from the bible, nor should any half decent person who cares about the suffering of other sentient beings. The basic moral precepts against murder and theft are evident in all human societies, and predate christianity quite obviously, they're in the ten commandments ffs, christianity didn't exist when these were written according to your own bible, they're in the old testament. The rest of biblical morality is an horrendous mix of evil brutality that endorses and encourages things like murder, slavery, rapine, genocide, ethnic cleansing, sex trafficking women and girls taken as prisoners in conflicts, infanticide, human sacrifice, incest, etc etc etc.

Why any decent person would try and cherry pick the bible as a moral guide is quite beyond me. Its vile...give me secular humanist morality anyday.

Algebe's picture
@Elemenalenal:

@Elemenalenal:

I can't fully understand what you were trying to say in your original post, but I'll make a couple of comments.

The existence of god: You've never seen god. There's no empirical evidence for god. Even worse, you can't even define what god is. Your belief is based entirely on childhood indoctrination.

Morality: The true foundation of morality is what we call the "Golden Rule". That's as old as humanity, and it appears in every religious and philosophical tradition from ancient Egypt and Confucianism to Existentialism and even bloody Scientology. The great thing about it is that it doesn't require a god. All it takes is the innate sense of empathy that resulted from our evolution as social animals.

Sheldon's picture
Algebra "it doesn't require

Algebe "it doesn't require a god. All it takes is the innate sense of empathy that resulted from our evolution as social animals."

Well said sir, that right there kills religious arguments for moral ascendancy stone dead.

Why is it wrong to murder or rape somebody? Obviously because morality should involve empathy for the suffering of the victim that such appallingly cruel, and pernicious actions cause. Otherwise what kind of world would our "morality" produce?

I would not want to be murdered or raped, so how can my moral outlook not object to the murder and rape of others?

It's pretty funny when people cite the ten commandments though, as if it had never occurred to those humans that acts like rape, and murder were harmful, and not a good way to create a cohesive society, until a deity pointed it out to them, and even funnier if you believe this nonsense in the bible, they never seem to wonder or have a single question afterward, as to why that deity suddenly claims such acts are wrong?

Cognostic's picture
@RE: "I want to find pro

@RE: "I want to find pro atheism anti Bible arguments."

Atheism - Good
Biblical God beliefs - Bad

xenoview's picture
If a theist could prove their

If a theist could prove their god was real with objective evidence, then I would no longer be an Atheist to that god. But, it doesn't mean I would become a theist of that god.

Cognostic's picture
@Elemenalenal: "Don't you

@Elemenalenal: "Don't you think it's essentially important for people to honor their parents?"
FUCK NO! I have not seen of spoken to any of my parents or siblings in 25 years. My family is a family of assholes. They are under educated, father not even finishing high school, in and out of prisons, alcoholics, child abusers, and drug users. The best thing I ever did for myself was decide I wanted something better out of life. I left home at 16. I could not tell you if anyone in my family is still alive.

You are born into a family without a choice. Staying with that family is always a choice. You think parents deserve respect for popping out babies? Really? That is a fucking insane idea!

Fuck your god and fuck his tests! Fuck your inane moronic Biblical laws. Rebelling against my parents would have cost me my life in your model of morality. I would have been taken to the edge of town and stoned to death for my rebellion. Instead I have earned two university degrees, traveled the world, been a counselor and educator to hundreds of thousands, and had a very positive impact on this world. Something that would never have happened under your fucked up biblical law. You are demonstrably WRONG!

RE: "Thoughts come from something within." Something you should actually try to understand. Then religion and religious teaching attempts to control and shape them from without. A horrible thing to do to a human being. Religions limit potential, confine creativity, many times on a major scale. Religion kills potential by confining it to dogmatic beliefs and limited views of reality.

RELIGION IS MOST OFTEN DEMONSTRABLY WRONG: The dogmatic teachings rarely take into account that which happens in real life. Finally, most of the teachings are absolutely amoral. A woman raped must marry her rapist. Slavery is A-Okay with God, Children can be killed by parents, Women are less than men, this list is endless.....

GROW THE HELL UP AND SMELL THE SHIT YOU ARE SHOVELING.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
Motherhood is also a clear

Motherhood is also a clear sign that there is no god, I have been awake since 5am. lol

Yay, life choices.

Cognostic's picture
@TheBlindWatchmaker: Touche!

@TheBlindWatchmaker: Touche!!!

cranky47's picture
@elemenalenal

@elemenalenal

Sneaky way of trying to shift the burden of proof.

'As an atheist' I need demonstrate nor prove exactly nothing. I state only that I disbelieve in gods.

My disbelief neither entails, nor suggests nor infers any particular moral stance or any other philosophical opinion.

I think your post is disingenuous. If you are serious in your claim get off your arse and do some looking for yourself.

Cognostic's picture
@Elemenalenal: no no no....

@Elemenalenal: no no no.... You mean "elementary." Mommy has told you that several times now.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Elemenalenal - What is it

Elemenalenal - What is it with atheists expecting proof of God, when there is none and every theist agrees on it?

Just a cursory review of the AR forums would reveal that your statement is false; as there have been a large number of theists post purported proofs of god's existence.

Cognostic's picture
How did you get that bold

How did you get that bold text?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Cognostic - How did you get

Cognostic - How did you get that bold text?

For bold use:
Do it like <strong>this</strong>.

Gives:
Do it like this.
-------------------
For italics, it's the same but use <em>this</em>.

Gives: Do it like this.

Cognostic's picture
Elemenalenal: "Ethics

Elemenalenal: "Ethics Christians must follow are the commandments,"
You do understand that the commandments are Old Testament Laws and they were written for the Jews, not the Christians. What commandments do you think you are following?

If one follows these 10 rules, what kind of sadistic child torturer you think would come of it?
Easy Answer: What is the penalty for not honoring your child molesting father and abusive mother? For not honoring them, you will be taken to the edge of town and stoned to death. It is a fucking ridiculous commandment. You don't choose your parents and they are certainly not worthy of honor because some fantasy writing in a book.

Calilasseia's picture
No attempt on the part of our

No attempt on the part of our newcomer to address this I see ...

Cognostic's picture
Aron Rah on the commandments
A Gnostic Agnostic's picture
Argument I made:

Argument I made:

In order for any person(s) (or body) to mistakenly believe evil is good, "BELIEF" is the agency required.
(ie. "BELIEF" is the agency required to CONFUSE evil with good, and vice versa.)

If SATAN requires BELIEF in order that:
i. "Believers" "believe" that "belief" is a virtue, and
ii. "Believers" "believe" that SATAN is GOD (equiv: EVIL is GOOD)

it follows that "BELIEF" is NOT so much a VIRTUE as KNOWING:
WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHY, WHEN, HOW and/or IF
*NOT* to "BELIEVE"
and WHY is.

The distinction is "believing" vs. "knowing" what not to believe. If any of the "belief"-based assertions made by any religious entity can be 'known' to be certainly false, a person that 'knows' not to "believe" that assertion can never become "bound to believe" that SATAN is GOD (ie. evil is good). The distinction is in use of conscience: "belief" does not require it (ie. to question a particular held).

If God is all-knowing, does this include all-knowing of who, what, where, why, when, how and/or if *not* to believe something or someone? Wouldn't this be the distinction between a pure consciousness and one bogged down with (potentially false) "beliefs"?

Cognostic's picture
@A Gnostic Agnostic: RE:

@A Gnostic Agnostic: RE: "Agency" Belief is not an agent. You are the agent. Belief is the action you take. You have created a false dichotomy. Another fallacy. "Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions. A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong." You are the moral agent.

Why go to evil and good? Why not useful or not useful? Why not healthy or not healthy? Why not well being? You have constructed a false dichotomy.

RE: "Satan" "If SATAN requires BELIEF in order that:" Why would Satan require "belief" if he is real. Whether you believed or not he would just do his thing. "Belief" is a complete non-sequitur.

RE: " it follows that "BELIEF" is NOT so much a VIRTUE as KNOWING:" Here we are with another logical fallacy. Equivocation fallacy. Knowing is a subset of belief. You can not know anything without believing it to be true or true to some degree. Knowledge and belief are related and lie on the same continuum. Beliefs may or may not be true and do not require justification. We call justified true beliefs "true." They are backed with facts and evidence. Belief without evidence is ignorance.

RE: "The distinction is believing vs. knowing?" "Belief is not as much a virtue as knowing" Agreed. One can believe anything without facts or evidence. Knowledge requires actual evidence and facts to back it up so that it becomes "Justified True Belief."
Knowledge is just another kind of belief. Belief is allocated to the degree of evidence. We no nothing at 100%. Scientific theories are always subject to change as new information is discovered. A theory is the best possible explanation of the time. It is a belief based on facts, experiments, observations, repetition, and once it has stood the tests of critical inquiry, peer review and skepticism it becomes knowledge. (Justified True Belief)

RE: Satan and God. You are confusing metaphysical concepts "Satan and God" with philosophy and treating them as if they are real. This is simply nonsense. Satan and God may simply be placeholders for the concepts of good and evil but you have defined nothing. You actually spent time on this shit? I feel sorry for you.

Now you leap into "consciousness" without ever having mentioned it before. WTF? Do you have any idea at all how to organize your thoughts? Somehow we got from God is good to God is all knowing and we have never defined the god thing in the fist place outside of a substitute placeholder for "good."

ALL IN ALL ---- THE INANE RAMBLINGS OF A MAD MAN.... Perhaps you are in the wrong place. You want to be in a theist chat where they swallow the inane for breakfast.

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.