Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Atheism - any contradictions or 'problems'?


Liquid Gardens

Recommended Posts

I expect that the answer is that the Universe exists in a Closed Timelike Curve. As such, it has no need for a prime cause, just as a circle has no need for a starting point.

The Universe is, has and always will be.

Amen.

To me that makes the most sense except for the prime cause part though, I think it has a purpose though with change as it's goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prove it..:)

You got this backwards. You claim the bible is historically accurate so it is YOUR burden to prove it.

Proofs of negations are meaningless. Eg, I claim you are being controlled by invisible spirits who make you write these fallacies - prove that I'm wrong!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what possible motive would anybody have for sitting down and "inventing" Jesus and Christianity?

I am a time traveler from the future, I was sent here by you to save you in the future, however, I need a lot of money in order to do so. Your future self told me to come to this time and collect all your possessions from you. Please give me all your financial info...after all, what possible motive could anybody have for sitting down and "inventing" this story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the biggest potholes Atheists need to look out for, is trying to convert other people "forcefully".

If there's one thing I can't stand is Christians trying to convert me, spouting the gospel all over me,and taking it upon themselves to "save" me.

You know who else did that....the Catholic Church during the Crusades, in The new world etc etc.

So to all Atheists I implore you, do not become Richard Dawkins, even though most of what he writes/says is brilliant, he's a very aggresive kind of atheist towards people

with religious beliefs.

Atheists,Agnostic,Religious doesn't matter, mutual respect of each other's viewpoints is all we need, doesn't matter how ridiculous it is.(and yes that means even the Scientologists and the Mormons *sigh*

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PA

What is your evidence that anybody who met Jesus was ever placed in a position to choose between being killed and recanting their teaching? We know from Pliny the Younger that such was offered by the Romans late in the First Century. He says he remembers that, and is doing it as he writes. But even his recollection is from at least a generation after the Crucifixion, and probably well after Nero's persecution (Pliny really was a youngster in those days).

There's no evidence that Nero cared what anybody taught. His victims were scapegoats. What mattered was that the general public didn't trust Christians, and believed that they might do something like arson. The only narrated deaths in the canon are Stephen and James, and in neither case is anything like what Pliny describes depicted as being offered to them.

I touched on this briefly in my last comment, but while today it may be tempting to say the Catholic church is rich, the fact remains that in the 1st Century AD they were not rich, and did not get rich. Instead they got persecution and death. It is a fallacy to point to the wealth of the modern church and use that as evidence that the biblical writers were lying, they were not rich.

Acts doesn't say whether or not they were rich. It certainly depicts them collecting money, and records a fatal quarrel over the apostolic share of the proceeds from a real estate deal. Right from the outset, Acts 1 shows them occupying quarters in the City of Jerusalem spacious enough for more than 100 people. What do you think something like that cost?

It's sort of like the Godfather series. Of course, the young Don-to-be Corleone is less wealthy early in his career than he is later on. However, he's doing the same kinds of things at the very beginning of his career as he does in more recent times. It is certainly not a "fallacy" to point out that there is ample reason for why he adhered to a pattern of behavior for so long. It pays, and he could see from direct expereince, right from the beginning, that it pays.

That is pays and that his wealth accumulates are what enables him to continue for so long in the same line of work. That it is rationally foreseeable that it might pay, compared with other economic opportunities available to him, explains why he got involved in the business in the first place. It is directly relevant to making an accounting of his career that his foresight was spot-on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is where the nothing from something argument part comes in and why people generally don't like it.

Theism in general though doesn't have any contradictions nor does atheism. Depending on how far you go on either side of the fence is when it starts to get strange and confusing.

*edited because didn't need the quote :P

I just finished going to considerable trouble pointing out the contradictions in theism. I guess it was a waste of time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion that "something" has always existed (either a God or the universe) has a built-in problem. How did whatever existed infinitely long ago get from there to here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion that "something" has always existed (either a God or the universe) has a built-in problem. How did whatever existed infinitely long ago get from there to here?

It just is or I don't know. Either answer works to stop the circular thinking. It will drive you mad if you think about it long enough.

Hence my avatar actually :P

Edited by Jinxdom
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the popes and all the crusades? Vatican City has enough wealth to feed the entire world, learned that on the history channel. Now why don't you prove that what they said is the truth?

As I've said before, I don't give a rat's ass about any Organised Religion because I don't need them to do my thinking for me. If they want to sit on their cash they can answer to God for it.

Jesus himself reminded us that- "You have one teacher, me" (Matt 23:10)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They edited what suits.. Hence why Christianity is split into so many groups.. They cannot agree with each other.

I know, they each read into various Bible passages only what they want to see; it's a vanity thing so they can claim "Only WE know the true meaning, and the rest of you poor dumb shmucks don't"

In other words they twist Bible verses out of shape and are therefore "spiritual perverts"-

"If anyone preaches a perverted gospel they're accursed" (Galatians 1:6-9)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

........I'm not sure in what capacity it's really correct to say that Jesus is really God then, unless he likes talking to himself.

....... I'd have started by removing the part concerning the Amalekites; God-commanded genocide is kind of a dealbreaker for me.

1- Yes, it beats me why a lot of christians think Jesus is God, bearing in mind he said himself he WASN'T God!-

Jesus said - "I am going to the Father, for my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28 )

Jesus said -"Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone" (Luke 18:19)

Jesus said - "Only God knows when Judgment Day will be, I don't know myself" (Mark 13:32)

High Priest asks - "Are you the Son of God?" Jesus replies - "I am" (Mark 14:61)

Jesus said - "I say nothing of my own accord, i only say what my father tells me to say.." (John 12:49)

"My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me" (John 7:17)

Jesus said to God the day before his execution- "Father...I am coming to you now" John 17:13

2- As regards God's Old T mass genocides, think of it as a culling process to remove them and their bad DNA from the human gene pool for the overall good of humankind. His message was "Shape up or I'll ship you out".. :)

Edited by Crikey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crikey said- "One minute atheists are telling us that the Bible has been edited, censored and tidied up over the centuries to make it look good, then the next minute they're telling us it's still full of contradictions!

Wish they make up their minds and tell us once and for all whether it's been prettied up or hasn't it?

Both statements are true. What is your problem with that?

The idea that the editing of the bible would necessarily lead to a contradiction-free book is entirely your own invention.

I don't understand mate. The Bible is so full of inconsistencies and contradictions that it can't possibly have been edited can it?

Even the Koran and Buddhism is full of them..:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christian martyrs were no different from martyrs of other faiths (such as Druids, whom the Romans really persecuted. Most of it (except for a short period under Diocletian) was made up by the Christians after they were in power.

A martyr is someone who dies for their beliefs. All that proves is that they believe.

I'm not in disagreement with that view. All I'm saying is that those earliest followers obviously did believe what they were preaching, because for many of them their fate was not riches but death.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theists believe that for everything there must be a creator. Hence, there must be a creator for god.

Since the religionists do not accept that, their simplistic argument about the creator does not work.

You're thinking in earthly material-universe terms mate.. :)

God is outside our petty laws of physics so it's difficult for us to realise that he's always existed, and always will.

A few of Jesus's quotes hint that our human minds struggle with great concepts like that-

"You hardly believe me when I tell you earthly things,so how would you believe me if I told you heavenly things?" (John 3:12)

"You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world" (John 8:23)

"I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going" (John 8:14)

Edited by Crikey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not in disagreement with that view. All I'm saying is that those earliest followers obviously did believe what they were preaching, because for many of them their fate was not riches but death.

The early Christians were not wealthy; mostly they were the poor and the lower ranks in the army, and of course quite a few slaves. Where did any get any idea otherwise?

Wealth did not come into the church until Constantine. Of course at that time it became the thing to be if you were up and coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PA

What is your evidence that anybody who met Jesus was ever placed in a position to choose between being killed and recanting their teaching?

Granted, my comments were based on the tradition that certain followers of Jesus were martyred. Peter, for example, is said to have been crucified upside down for his beliefs (he refused to be crucified the same way as Jesus). And yes, I understand that this is tradition and not necessarily backed up by other historical sources. Perhaps I was too forceful in my comment.

Nevertheless, the early Christian leaders were far from rich. The "retail deal" which ended up being fatal was not because the person refused to give money, the reason was because the person lied about not giving what he said he would. On the flipside, Paul is said to have spurned the money offered to travelling preachers (apparently it was a lucrative business). Instead he is said to have worked as a tent-maker to pay his way.

I've never seen the Godfather series, so I can't directly comment, but I get the meaning of why you posted. In short, I guess I would ask whether the early Christian leaders were really as rich as what you are arguing them to be.

~ Regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not in disagreement with that view. All I'm saying is that those earliest followers obviously did believe what they were preaching, because for many of them their fate was not riches but death.

First century Jerusalem. Not exactly renown for having the lowest mortality rate in the world, ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The early Christians were not wealthy; mostly they were the poor and the lower ranks in the army, and of course quite a few slaves. Where did any get any idea otherwise?

Wealth did not come into the church until Constantine. Of course at that time it became the thing to be if you were up and coming.

I didn't get that idea. I was responding to the claims made by others that Christianity started for *and I quote* - "power, an insatiable lust for power, riches and glory". And then as a follow-up for the quote when the argument against it was that several passages suggest that Christian leaders should not abuse their positions or be in it for money, the reply *again I quote* - "they lied".

But thank you for supporting my point, clearly and succinctly :tu:

~ Regards, PA

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just is or I don't know. Either answer works to stop the circular thinking. It will drive you mad if you think about it long enough.

Hence my avatar actually :P

My view is that when one runs into a logical impossibility, it is a good clue that there is a flaw in the assumptions. The assumption here is that something has always existed. This derives from the illusion of causation, something which both Hume and Kant demolished in their different ways. (Sorry for the philosophical name-dropping but this notion is so counterintuitive I feel I need to get some support).

I conclude that time had to have a beginning. This can be pushed back really far -- even way before the Big Bang, but there had to be a beginning. That doesn't mean there was once a time when there was no time -- it means that time started and there was nothing "before" it -- that "before the beginning of time" is meaningless.

I think our mathematics fools us, but it is our invention. The number line stretches from negative to positive infinity, or at least we think it does. It doesn't. Infinity is not a number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're thinking in earthly material-universe terms mate.. :)

God is outside our petty laws of physics so it's difficult for us to realise that he's always existed, and always will.

No, it's called special pleading. Faced with a problem? Pretend it doesn't apply.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheists,Agnostic,Religious doesn't matter, mutual respect of each other's viewpoints is all we need, doesn't matter how ridiculous it is.(and yes that means even the Scientologists and the Mormons *sigh*

So, does that attitude of yours include Nazis? Bolsheviks? The Manson Familiy?

You accept them all with the same loving acceptance? Or do you acknowledge that some beliefs should be criticised?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First century Jerusalem. Not exactly renown for having the lowest mortality rate in the world, ever.

And yet first century Christians were being persecuted for their faith. Some of these ways were more subtle than others. Jewish converts who turned to Christ would often find themselves being charged higher prices for goods and services by their Jewish colleagues who remained Jewish. That's only a small example, but it is still a form of persecution. If I wanted a loaf of bread and I was being charged $4 instead of $2 simply because I'd converted to a different belief, I'd be pretty PO'ed...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then as a follow-up for the quote when the argument against it was that several passages suggest that Christian leaders should not abuse their positions or be in it for money, the reply *again I quote* - "they lied".

We do see anti-religious feeling aimed at wealth, and there are preachers in it for the money. Early Christianity was, as you said, different. I think the stories of Jesus and the apostles are myths developed out of a nascent Messianic religion during the First Century and written down toward its end, but not for nefarious purposes. Indeed, anyone reading the New Testament can see that making money is about the last thing on their minds.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand mate. The Bible is so full of inconsistencies and contradictions that it can't possibly have been edited can it?

Why not? Where do you get the idea from that "edited" equals "no contradictions"?

Even the Koran and Buddhism is full of them.

Koran, yes. Buddhism? Dunno. Buddhism seemed like a pretty congruent system of thought to me. But I take your word for it. So what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You claim the bible is historically accurate so it is YOUR burden to prove it.

Proofs of negations are meaningless. Eg, I claim you are being controlled by invisible spirits who make you write these fallacies - prove that I'm wrong!

1- As Paranoid Android pointed out in post #61- "in the years immediately after Jesus, there was no colossus of a church, there were no riches and glory. There was death and persecution"

So why on earth would people sit down and "invent" Jesus and Christianity if it meant they were likely to be executed?

2- You say you could claim that spirits control Christians into writing fallacies. I could therefore say that demons control atheists like ventriloquists dummies to spout anti-christianity propaganda..:)

As a matter of interest, which bit of this do you think sounds demonic?-

"Love God, love one another, feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe the destitute, tend the sick, visit the prisoners, look after the poor"- Jesus of Nazareth (Mark 12:30, John 13:34, Matt 25: 37-40)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.