Objections to the Trinity

61 posts / 0 new
Last post
LogicFTW's picture
Yep, that statement is not

Yep, that statement is not 100% true, but it is 99.999999999999999999999999999 percent true in my book, which for all our intents and purposes for normal language, may as well be true.

In normal conversation, we set aside the fact that everything we say and think are not 100% perfectly true.

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
Okay, I was confused by what

Okay, I was confused by what you said, but I get it now.

Harry33Truman's picture
No statement can be

No statement can be absolutely true? But by making that statement you assume that it is absolutely true! Your statement contradicts itself, you cannot say that it is absolutely true that no statement is absolutely true.

LogicFTW's picture
Nope I do not assume that it

Nope I do not assume that it is absolutely true. I will admit, it was poorly worded.

Hmm how to put this...
To ourselves using thoughts and language, anything can be absolutely true or not true or some variation. But because they are just thoughts to ourselves they subjectively exist only in thought, saying how true these thoughts are is pointless because your own thoughts are bound by no rules.

We can share thoughts through language and communication, now our thoughts are limited by the confines of communication. And subject to the listener's/reader's own interpretation. Already the idea of perfect or imperfect is lost. This becomes even more extreme when you try to pose your unbound by rules thoughts to the real physical world that does not even have thoughts. The real world is, regardless of thought or language or communication we apply to it.

While our thoughts can be highly useful in prolonging our current biochemical bags in this state, (keeping ourselves alive,) our thoughts thoughts are just that, thoughts. We can have any thought, but there is only one actual reality irrespective of our thoughts.

All of this is just word/thought exercises or games. Chasing around agreed upon word definitions, to fit our own narrative.

Which why, in general theist like to deal in the metaphysical/subjective on god conversations, because it suits their narrative better. We atheist like to stick to evidence/reasoning, because it fits to our narrative better.

I also feebly argue for theist, in most things in their lives they stick to reasoning/evidence,(just like atheist do) just on this particular subject they do not.

jamiebgood1's picture
LogicForTW

LogicForTW
We're u a philosophy major? You have a very descriptive interesting take on the mind.

LogicFTW's picture
Was not a philosophy major,

Was not a philosophy major, but I definitely took some philosophy classes where I could, as allowed electives. It is a subject that is very interesting to me, and I have read several books on philosophy as well. As interesting as philosophy is, a major in it does not turn into a paying job, except maybe as a teacher of philosophy :)

Philosophy was the "first science" from which all other branches of science grew from. I am not sure how true that is, but nonetheless it is an interesting subject to me. In my early 20's I demanded some answers to deep questions that troubled me at the time, through philosophy and science I was able to arrive to answers that satisfied me. And I like to think helps me to enjoy and do well in life.

chimp3's picture
I was not addressing the

I was not addressing the nature of truth. I was grouping authoritarian religions under one umbrella. The OP is on an atheist debate forum trying to enlist atheists to debate the merits of his silly beliefs vs. a Muslims silly beliefs. His faith is no different than any other.

algebe's picture
@Unknown: "Think of it like

@Unknown: "Think of it like matter (solid, liquid, matter) or time (past, present, future)"

A metaphor is not evidence that something exists. In any case, there are five states of matter, not three, and the present is arguably just a boundary between past and future without any real duration of its own. You can remember the past and anticipate the future, but can you actually perceive the present? Try it.

But please do try to prove the existence of the trinity. I'm a big fan of Sky-Daddy, Sonny Boy and the Spook.

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
I said to assume accuracy, so

I said to assume accuracy, so in order to prove the existence of the trinity, I must proof that there are no inaccuracies between them. So bring on inaccuracies.

Nyarlathotep's picture
I said to assume accuracy, so

UnKnown - I said to assume accuracy, so in order to prove the existence of the trinity, I must proof that there are no inaccuracies between them.

Proving what you already assumed is called begging the question:

Begging the question - To beg a question means to assume the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy, in which an arguer includes the conclusion to be proven within a premise of the argument

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
Okay I may not have been

Okay I may not have been clear with what I was asking. I believe the Trinity because:
a. Facts to back it up.
b. It is internally consistent.
The "facts the back it up" are that this is what was claimed by Jesus to be true a.k.a historical accuracy then (a.) is true. However, since I am only concerned with the latter, not the former, I ask that you assume the former is true. I am asking for objections to the latter, which is inconsistencies, not inaccuracies. Any questions?

algebe's picture
@Unknown: "I said to assume

@Unknown: "I said to assume accuracy"

That's a pretty big assumption to start from.

" I must proof that there are no inaccuracies between them"

Are you saying that if the Trinity myth is internally consistent, it must be true? The Superman myth, the Harry Potter Myth, and the Star Trek myth are all internally consistent. How is your Trinity myth different from them?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Algebe - Star Trek myth are

Algebe - the Star Trek myth [is] internally consistent

That one might be debatable. :}

algebe's picture
Heretic!

Heretic!

I think most of the scriptural inconsistencies have been ironed out thanks to a little bit of time travel. At least the philosophy is still in line with the thoughts of the Prophet Roddenbery (peace be upon him).

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
For something to be true

For something to be true (simply, or at least what I believe), that 'something', in this case the Trinity, it must have:
a. Facts to back it up
b. Have no contradictions
When I say to "assume accuracy", I mean to ignore (a). I am only concerned with the latter. So when you say "Are you saying that if the Trinity myth is internally consistent, it must be true?", I say no.

SBMontero's picture
@UnKnown: Sorry, I don't

@UnKnown: Sorry, I don't think this theological discussion, because this is a theological discussion, has to do with the historical accuracy and precision of both books, that we know non-existent, has to do with seeing if one of the most insane and stupid assertions of Christianity is true, or false. We know it's false, but that doesn't make Islam true... ergo the discussion is trivial and doesn't make sense.

mykcob4's picture
You ask the impossible. It's

You ask the impossible. It's like asking me to believe the easter bunny is real. Islam and christianity are both false. I don't care if YOU want to argue against islam and for christianity. there is no proof that either is true. If you want to argue this you need to go to a site that welcomes this kind of bullshit. This is NOT the place for it.
Anything that an atheist could argue is the fallacy of both myths. we do not favor one over the other. It would like saying murder by gun is better than murder by a knife. STUPID THREAD!

Nyarlathotep's picture
UnKnown - assume that the

UnKnown - assume that the Bible and Quran are historically accurate, even though that might be inconsistent

Starting your argument with a contradiction probably isn't a very good idea.

Sky Pilot's picture
UnKnown,

UnKnown,

In order to prove that the Trinity is true you would have to prove that the biblical God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit exist together. We know how that will turn out. And even if you could prove that one or two of those entities did exist it wouldn't mean that the other one or two also exists. The easier way to prove that Jesus existed is to simply do the things that he said a believer can do. If you can't do that then you aren't a believer or Jesus doesn't exist (or he was a liar). In any case no has been able to do those things in 2,000 years so the idea that the Trinity exists is on very shaky ground.

Pitar's picture
The so-called Trinity was

The so-called Trinity was never resolved to cogent definition by the inventing bishops, nor their successors, and even the papacy itself resisted it in favor of a single god without such illogical and insufferable dilution.

Arius called it when he placed logic on the table at Nicea in 325 and painted the jesus as simply non-existent at some point and therefore unresolved as a god. His argument was that if jesus had a beginning and an end he was a creature of lesser substance than a god whereas Alexander wouldn't have any of that. Remember, this was the period that the church was attempting to paint jesus as a real man or a god, knowing he simply did not exist as either, but the story had already been in circulation for a couple centuries and needed some officiating to get right (per Constantine's order). Constantine heard the arguments, sided with Alexander and banished Arius. Imagine that, jesus became a god by political edict.

The Holy Spirit was a contrived concept, like all other religious trappings, and never fully understood by anyone, ever, ultimately remaining that way today. A search through its historicity reveals that defining terminology was purposely avoided such that it became understood to simply take it on faith and nothing more.

jamiebgood1's picture
Pitar

Pitar
these are bits of the Newsweek article on the Bible I've shared a couple times on this forum:

"Constantine was a brutal sociopath who murdered his eldest son, decapitated his brother-in-law and killed his wife by boiling her alive, and that was after he proclaimed that he had converted from worshipping the sun god to being a Christian. Yet he also changed the course of Christian history, ultimately influencing which books made it into the New Testament.But Constantine sided with those who believed Jesus was both God and man, so a statement of belief, called the Nicene Creed, was composed to proclaim that. Those who refused to sign the statement were banished. Others were slaughtered. After they had returned home and were far from Rome, some who signed the document later sent letters to Constantine saying they had only done so out of fear for their lives.
By that point, the primary disputes centered on whether Jesus was God—the followers of a priest named Arius said no, that God created Jesus. But the Bishop of Alexander said yes, that Jesus had existed throughout all eternity. The dispute raged on in the streets of Constantinople, with everyone—shopkeepers, bakers and tradesmen—arguing about which view was right. Constantine, in a reflection of his shallow understanding of theology, was annoyed that what he considered a minor dispute was causing such turmoil, and feared that it weaken him politically. So he decided to force an agreement on the question.
contantine convened a meeting in the lakeside town of Nicaea. Invitations were sent around the world to bishops and leaders of various sects, although not all of them. The group included the educated and the illiterate, zealots and hermits. Constantine arrived wearing jewels and gold on his scarlet robe and pearls on his crown, eager to discuss the true essence of a poor carpenter who had died 300 years before.

About 50 years later, in A.D. 381, the Romans held another meeting, this time in Constantinople. There, a new agreement was reached—Jesus wasn’t two, he was now three—Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The Nicene Creed was rewritten, and those who refused to sign the statement were banished, and another wholesale slaughter began, this time of those who rejected the Trinity, a concept that is nowhere in the original Greek manuscripts and is often contradicted by it.
At Nicaea, rules were adopted regarding the proper positions for prayer on Sundays—standing, not kneeling; nothing was said of the Jewish Sabbath or Saturday. Many theologians and Christian historians believe that it was at this moment, to satisfy Constantine and his commitment to his empire’s many sun worshippers, that the Holy Sabbath was moved by one day, contradicting the clear words of what ultimately became the Bible. And while the Bible mentioned nothing about the day of Jesus’s birth, the birth of the sun god was celebrated on December 25 in Rome; Christian historians of the 12th century wrote that it was the pagan holiday that led to the designation of that date for Christmas.

The majority of the time at Nicaea was spent debating whether Jesus was a man who was the son of God, as Arius proclaimed, or God himself, as the church hierarchy maintained. The followers of Arius marshaled evidence from the letters of Paul and other Christian writings. In the Gospel of Mark, speaking of the Second Coming, Jesus said, “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, he wrote that “there is but one God, the Father…and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ.” In his letter to Timothy, Paul wrote, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

To this day, congregants in Christian churches at Sunday services worldwide recite the Nicene Creed, which serves as affirmation of their belief in the Trinity. It is doubtful many of them know the words they utter are not from the Bible, and were the cause of so much bloodshed. (Some modern Christians attempt to use the Gospel of John to justify the Trinity—even though it doesn’t explicitly mention it—but they are relying on bad translations of the Greek and sentences inserted by scribes.)"

So the trinity was political agenda done by a tyrannical dictator.

SecularSonOfABiscuitEater's picture
"Think of it like matter

"Think of it like matter (solid, liquid, matter)"

If you're going to quote the Jesus of Orlando FL's Holyland from Bill Maher's Documentary "Religilous" at least you can give him credit.

Sky Pilot's picture
The idea of the Trinity is

The idea of the Trinity is based upon two verses, Matthew 28:19 = https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2028:19 = and Galatians 4:6 = https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Galatians%204:6.

The explanation is that God sent his son, Jesus, as a sacrifice. Jesus got killed. The holy spirit or holy ghost is Jesus (Galatians 4:6). So there's God, the son Jesus, and Jesus's ghost = the Trinity. IOW, the Trinity is one part God and two parts Jesus.

Remember, Jesus was a Pharisee and he believed in ghosts, spirits, angels, demons, and resurrection.

Sir Random's picture
To debate one theists beliefs

To debate one theists beliefs with a theist of another variety is the most pointless activity an atheist could possibly engage in. Just as getting in between two idiots arguing will only net you frustration.

jamiebgood1's picture
Tieler

Tieler
So true. Also I don't care to assume the trinity is real in any way. I find it incredible that people will dedicate their entire life to a purpose and not know who, what, why these books were created. I am guilty of doing just that. I think educating christians might be a good way to start debunking these delusions, and help them discover a valid useful purpose on this planet.

Tre Jenkins's picture
I dont disagree with anything

I dont disagree with anything you've said. My question to you would be: How does this prove christianity?

jamiebgood1's picture
tre

tre
I thought this topic was about the trinity?

charvakheresy's picture
This is a sired topic to

try a christian or Muslim forum.....

charvakheresy's picture
This is a weird topic to

This is a weird topic to debate. particularly at an atheist forum.

I am of a muslim background and a closeted atheist. And honestly I can barely tell the difference between any of the Judeo christian and Islamic religions. They seem like Windows software upgrades. (just the overall appearance has changes, the OS being just the same, maybe minor tweaks)

Why would anyone care about your semantics? Trinity, Divinity ..... its just all the same to us

Sky Pilot's picture
Charvak, This is a weird

Charvak, This is a weird topic to

Islam has a lot of Jewish Pharisee beliefs, like ghosts, spirits, angels, demons, resurrection, etc. It's also big on the circumcision thing. So was Mohammed (Uthman) a Jew?

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.