Atheism vs. Christianity

[Western-Ukraine]

If no written words in books are proofs then how can you believe anything?

Through falsification. When a claim is made, examine the evidence.

Christianity makes myriad claims, claims that either have no evidence, or which are flat out contradicted by the evidence.

You'd be better off putting your faith in a broken clock. At least those are right on occasion.

Many of Christianitys claims can be explained by the many books of the bible.

[Sociobiology]

Through falsification. When a claim is made, examine the evidence.

Christianity makes myriad claims, claims that either have no evidence, or which are flat out contradicted by the evidence.

You'd be better off putting your faith in a broken clock. At least those are right on occasion.

Many of Christianitys claims can be explained by the many books of the bible.

Just as the Norse can be explained by the Edda and the Hindu by the Vedas.

[The Borderline Borderlands]

Many of Christianitys claims can be explained by the many books of the bible.

Like π = 3 or the world wide flood thing? Yeah, those are demonstrably wrong. Indeed your Holy Scripture is mostly wrong, and demonstrably so.

But hey, how about you provide some examples?

[Satanic Kittens]

Both are wrong. Satan created the universe while drunk.

[The Universal World]

Honestly, I don't understand why there are even arguments between atheists and those who are religious. Atheists are the attackers of the argument, they demand physical evidence while religion is sheerly based off of faith. You cannot prove faith with something physical. Nor can you convince a bullheaded atheist who constantly attempting to prove a religious person (lets say Christian for example) wrong so he/she can feel better about him/herself and about his/her doubts everyday that they are attempting to cope with.

[Celritannia]

Both are wrong. Satan created the universe while drunk.

Seems legit.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Honestly, I don't understand why there are even arguments between atheists and those who are religious. Atheists are the attackers of the argument, they demand physical evidence while religion is sheerly based off of faith. You cannot prove faith with something physical. Nor can you convince a bullheaded atheist who constantly attempting to prove a religious person (lets say Christian for example) wrong so he/she can feel better about him/herself and about his/her doubts everyday that they are attempting to cope with.

Because people do horribe things as a result of that faith-based approach to life. Atheism is not a view that can ever be construed as warranting murder, while the vast majority of religions make quite a few demands for murder.

[The Borderline Borderlands]

Honestly, I don't understand why there are even arguments between atheists and those who are religious. Atheists are the attackers of the argument, they demand physical evidence while religion is sheerly based off of faith. You cannot prove faith with something physical.

Hang on, what was it that Christian guy said? Oh right:

Christianity is absolutely better.

Nor can you convince a bullheaded atheist who constantly attempting to prove a religious person (lets say Christian for example) wrong so he/she can feel better about him/herself and about his/her doubts everyday that they are attempting to cope with.

I'm not attempting to prove religious people wrong to feel better about myself. I'm opposed to the major world religions, because belief in those religions makes people do things I consider unethical.

That Christians happen to be wrong about their religion, I really don't care very much about. Sure it's sad they're deluding themselves. But that in itself is harmless to others.

[Pragia]

I know those promises will be kept because of Jesus' sacrifice to save the humankind.

Now prove it. Prove that sacrifice actually happened. Prove that "saved humankind". No, written words in books aren't proof.

Huh, I guess books are unreliable

I'll focus more on "somebody told me" sources

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Now prove it. Prove that sacrifice actually happened. Prove that "saved humankind". No, written words in books aren't proof.

Huh, I guess books are unreliable

I'll focus more on "somebody told me" sources

And you totally strawmanned him. He is perectly correct: being in a book is no proof at all of accuracy. Evolution is not true because darwin wrote a book about it. It is true because the fact of its existance is demonstrated far beyond the burden of proof at every level of biochemistry, peloentology, archaeology, microbiology, taxonomy, etc.

Also: try not to bring up a book asserting a heliocentric universe in an attempt to demonstrate accuracy of books. If you were unaware, the universe is not heliocentric.

[Pragia]

Huh, I guess books are unreliable

I'll focus more on "somebody told me" sources

And you totally strawmanned him. He is perectly correct: being in a book is no proof at all of accuracy. Evolution is not true because darwin wrote a book about it. It is true because the fact of its existance is demonstrated far beyond the burden of proof at every level of biochemistry, peloentology, archaeology, microbiology, taxonomy, etc.

Also: try not to bring up a book asserting a heliocentric universe in an attempt to demonstrate accuracy of books. If you were unaware, the universe is not heliocentric.

So would you say heliocentrism is more accurate than the terracentrism that was standard at the time?

Also, I already posted a series of proofs (sorry, wasn't on to defend it for too long, but the reply was addressed by another poster). Burden of proof lies in those making the claim against, or disproving the proofs brought in favor.

[The Alma Mater]

I know those promises will be kept because of Jesus' sacrifice to save the humankind.

What sacrifice would that be ? Being resurrected after 3 days, becoming immortal and the right hand man of the ruler of the universe, helping all your loved ones AND making sure you get worshipped for at least two thousand years in exchange for a standard execution seems like a pretty sweet deal to me.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

And you totally strawmanned him. He is perectly correct: being in a book is no proof at all of accuracy. Evolution is not true because darwin wrote a book about it. It is true because the fact of its existance is demonstrated far beyond the burden of proof at every level of biochemistry, peloentology, archaeology, microbiology, taxonomy, etc.

Also: try not to bring up a book asserting a heliocentric universe in an attempt to demonstrate accuracy of books. If you were unaware, the universe is not heliocentric.

So would you say heliocentrism is more accurate than the terracentrism that was standard at the time?

Also, I already posted a series of proofs (sorry, wasn't on to defend it for too long, but the reply was addressed by another poster). Burden of proof lies in those making the claim against, or disproving the proofs brought in favor.

"trivially less wildly inaccurate than the previous theory" isn't really a resounding support of heliocentrism.

I must have missed that post, but your assertions about burdens of proof are wrong. Your claims must be demonstrated, or they will be dismissed. I don't need to prove you wrong, you need to prove yourself to be correct. YOU are shifting the burden of proof.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Many of Christianitys claims can be explained by the many books of the bible.

Like π = 3 or the world wide flood thing? Yeah, those are demonstrably wrong. Indeed your Holy Scripture is mostly wrong, and demonstrably so.

But hey, how about you provide some examples?

Really people still think measurements of man made fountain, disprove the entire bible? How primitive.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Like π = 3 or the world wide flood thing? Yeah, those are demonstrably wrong. Indeed your Holy Scripture is mostly wrong, and demonstrably so.

But hey, how about you provide some examples?

Really people still think measurements of man made fountain, disprove the entire bible? How primitive.

That particular case is not actually correct. The real word used (in a book rewritten and translated multiple times over several centuries) is round, not circle.

The bible is still bullshit though. Talking snakes, giants, magic jews, bald magic jews that summon bears, etc.

[Pragia]

So would you say heliocentrism is more accurate than the terracentrism that was standard at the time?

Also, I already posted a series of proofs (sorry, wasn't on to defend it for too long, but the reply was addressed by another poster). Burden of proof lies in those making the claim against, or disproving the proofs brought in favor.

"trivially less wildly inaccurate than the previous theory" isn't really a resounding support of heliocentrism.

I must have missed that post, but your assertions about burdens of proof are wrong. Your claims must be demonstrated, or they will be dismissed. I don't need to prove you wrong, you need to prove yourself to be correct. YOU are shifting the burden of proof.

I did prove myself correct. If someone wishes to challenge them, then they should have their own proof to the contrary or attack the proofs given. I am shifting the burden of proof, as I have already given mine.

[The Rich Port]

Really people still think measurements of man made fountain, disprove the entire bible? How primitive.

That particular case is not actually correct. The real word used (in a book rewritten and translated multiple times over several centuries) is round, not circle.

The bible is still bullshit though. Talking snakes, giants, magic jews, bald magic jews that summon bears, etc.

Giant trees, global floods, miracles, the fact God is apparently defeated by iron chariots...

[The Rich Port]

I know those promises will be kept because of Jesus' sacrifice to save the humankind.

What sacrifice would that be ? Being resurrected after 3 days, becoming immortal and the right hand man of the ruler of the universe, helping all your loved ones AND making sure you get worshipped for at least two thousand years in exchange for a standard execution seems like a pretty sweet deal to me.

As much as I think Jesus was a nice, if complex, guy, I think the fact people focus on the Passion just fucks Christianity right in the ass.

God knows how many millions of people before Jesus were murdered in such a horrible way and nobody gave a fuck about them.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

"trivially less wildly inaccurate than the previous theory" isn't really a resounding support of heliocentrism.

I must have missed that post, but your assertions about burdens of proof are wrong. Your claims must be demonstrated, or they will be dismissed. I don't need to prove you wrong, you need to prove yourself to be correct. YOU are shifting the burden of proof.

I did prove myself correct. If someone wishes to challenge them, then they should have their own proof to the contrary or attack the proofs given. I am shifting the burden of proof, as I have already given mine.

If you mean the aquinas arguments you posted, you demonstrated nothing. Those arguments are routinely dismantled by an 8 year old with a basic understanding of the form of a deductive argument. They prove nothing except a massive hole in your critical thinking skills when it comes to your particular imaginary friend.

But because I know you didn't actually read the whole wikipedia article, because all five arguments are quickly obliterated there, I will attempt to educate you on this matter myself. Probably fruitlessly.

Unmoved mover and first cause are identical fallacious arguments utilizing special pleading, false premises, and then follow it up with a conclusion which is logically impossible if the premises were even true(the all things have causes/movers premise). If all things require such a cause, god requires a cause. All of the failure.
argument from contingency and degree are also virtually the same. False premises, nonsense categorizations, and special pleading to make the perfect/infinite thing god rather than a perfect ham sandwitch or an infinitely long nose hair.
The telelogical argument has not a single correct premise AND an invalid conclusion even if the premises were true, relying on special pleading like the others to assert that god must exist because(no explanation provided...).

You want to try making your own arguments, preferably ones that are not composed ENTIRELY of fallacy and bullshit?

[Pragia]

I did prove myself correct. If someone wishes to challenge them, then they should have their own proof to the contrary or attack the proofs given. I am shifting the burden of proof, as I have already given mine.

If you mean the aquinas arguments you posted, you demonstrated nothing. Those arguments are routinely dismantled by an 8 year old with a basic understanding of the form of a deductive argument. They prove nothing except a massive hole in your critical thinking skills when it comes to your particular imaginary friend.

But because I know you didn't actually read the whole wikipedia article, because all five arguments are quickly obliterated there, I will attempt to educate you on this matter myself. Probably fruitlessly.

Unmoved mover and first cause are identical fallacious arguments utilizing special pleading, false premises, and then follow it up with a conclusion which is logically impossible if the premises were even true(the all things have causes/movers premise). If all things require such a cause, god requires a cause. All of the failure.
argument from contingency and degree are also virtually the same. False premises, nonsense categorizations, and special pleading to make the perfect/infinite thing god rather than a perfect ham sandwitch or an infinitely long nose hair.
The telelogical argument has not a single correct premise AND an invalid conclusion even if the premises were true, relying on special pleading like the others to assert that god must exist because(no explanation provided...).

You want to try making your own arguments, preferably ones that are not composed ENTIRELY of fallacy and bullshit?

Obviously you didn't read the article because the arguments against are picked apart right afterwards

1-2. The whole point of it flew way over your head didn't it? Are things not caused by other things? The idea is that there must be an original cause/motion, and the point is that there must be at least one exception to the rule. Special pleading requires that the idea of a string of causes and motions be proven false. I post this comment because you posted yours, you posted yours in response to mine, etc.
3. Contingency and degree are not at all alike, if anything contingency is closer to cause and motion. Is the idea of all things requiring one another to exist false? Does the candles light exist without the candle? No, it does not.
4. Idea of Perfection=/=physically infinitely long nose hair. You also missed the point that Aquinas uses the Christian God as a placeholder, it is not special pleading to give something a name.
5. Tell me more about how things do not do things with result, how rocks are intelligent, and how acting towards a goal is not intelligence.

[Menassa]

Like π = 3 or the world wide flood thing? Yeah, those are demonstrably wrong. Indeed your Holy Scripture is mostly wrong, and demonstrably so.

But hey, how about you provide some examples?

Really people still think measurements of man made fountain, disprove the entire bible? How primitive.

#handbreadths

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

If you mean the aquinas arguments you posted, you demonstrated nothing. Those arguments are routinely dismantled by an 8 year old with a basic understanding of the form of a deductive argument. They prove nothing except a massive hole in your critical thinking skills when it comes to your particular imaginary friend.

But because I know you didn't actually read the whole wikipedia article, because all five arguments are quickly obliterated there, I will attempt to educate you on this matter myself. Probably fruitlessly.

Unmoved mover and first cause are identical fallacious arguments utilizing special pleading, false premises, and then follow it up with a conclusion which is logically impossible if the premises were even true(the all things have causes/movers premise). If all things require such a cause, god requires a cause. All of the failure.
argument from contingency and degree are also virtually the same. False premises, nonsense categorizations, and special pleading to make the perfect/infinite thing god rather than a perfect ham sandwitch or an infinitely long nose hair.
The telelogical argument has not a single correct premise AND an invalid conclusion even if the premises were true, relying on special pleading like the others to assert that god must exist because(no explanation provided...).

You want to try making your own arguments, preferably ones that are not composed ENTIRELY of fallacy and bullshit?

Obviously you didn't read the article because the arguments against are picked apart right afterwards

1-2. The whole point of it flew way over your head didn't it? Are things not caused by other things? The idea is that there must be an original cause/motion, and the point is that there must be at least one exception to the rule. Special pleading requires that the idea of a string of causes and motions be proven false. I post this comment because you posted yours, you posted yours in response to mine, etc.
3. Contingency and degree are not at all alike, if anything contingency is closer to cause and motion. Is the idea of all things requiring one another to exist false? Does the candles light exist without the candle? No, it does not.
4. Idea of Perfection=/=physically infinitely long nose hair. You also missed the point that Aquinas uses the Christian God as a placeholder, it is not special pleading to give something a name.
5. Tell me more about how things do not do things with result, how rocks are intelligent, and how acting towards a goal is not intelligence.

First bold: that is the definition of special pleading. Special pleading is a fallacy and renders any argument that contains it an invalid argument. If you don't special plead your god out of obeying your own premises, your conclusion is disproven by your premises.

3. They are nearly identical. They both assert that all things are X, that the existence of X requires that there exist a thing which is either perfect in trait X or infinite. Yes, the idea of all things requiring one another to exist is totally false. MLKJ died and the universe didn't stop existing. Your tautology about candles doesn't follow and doesn't seem to do anything.

4. the argument from contingency asserts(on an invalid argument with no true premises) that an infinite thing exists. It doesn't even attempt to show that it should be any particular thing, so it demonstrates the existence of an infinitely orgasmic dildo just as much as it demonstrates anything else. Which is not at all. the argument from degree is the same, but replace infinitely organismic dildo with perfectly proportioned thigh gap and ass. The arguments don't make any less sense. And if god is a placeholder, I demand that in ANY further use of his argument you must use the following in place of any stance god: [god, who feasts upon genital secretions]. Since it doesn't change the arguments, you should be fine with that. Right?

5. "All natural bodies in the world act towards ends." If you think that rocks act towards ends, you are an idiot. False premise.
"These objects are in themselves unintelligent." If you think that humans are unintelligent(or are somehow not natural?) you are an idiot. False premise.
"Acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence." So, If I make a small lego robot which folds paper in half, I have created an artificial intelligence, if this premise is true. Good thing that it's bullshit!
All three premises are false.
The conclusion is invalid because, even if all things acted towards ends and acts towards ends require intelligence, that could be explained by any arbitrary(or infinite) number of intelligences inherent in those things. It just special pleads that there has to be one intelligence doing all of it, then of course follows it up with the useless waste of words that is declaring the name of this unjustified thing that is invalidly concluded to exist.

Again: try some arguments that are not over 700 year old bullshit and fallacy stew.

[Benuty]

Through falsification. When a claim is made, examine the evidence.

Christianity makes myriad claims, claims that either have no evidence, or which are flat out contradicted by the evidence.

You'd be better off putting your faith in a broken clock. At least those are right on occasion.

Many of Christianitys claims can be explained by the many books of the bible.

Like how there is no prophecy of a "virgin" Mary?

[Benuty]

That particular case is not actually correct. The real word used (in a book rewritten and translated multiple times over several centuries) is round, not circle.

The bible is still bullshit though. Talking snakes, giants, magic jews, bald magic jews that summon bears, etc.

Giant trees, global floods, miracles, the fact God is apparently defeated by iron chariots...

Which is hardly relevant.

Ergo *Insert ex-Bishop John Spong clip here*.

[Coreyea]

Christianity, ALLLL DAY, Blood, reppin' my niggas.