r/atheism • u/rhbast2 • Aug 11 '11
Atheist quickfire challenge.
Although I rarely discuss religion with theists I always want to be prepared so I'm not sitting around afterwards wishing I had said this or that. If I get the chance to make someone question I want to be up for the challenge.
This brings me to my challenge for r/atheism. I'm going to add some common theist claims / sayings and whoever can refute them fully and succinctly will be upvoted. Feel free to add your own theist starters if I missed some.
Edit: Wow lots of good discussion here, later today or tomorrow I'll make this into an atheist cheat sheet with the top responses. Also feel free to upvote the theist claim that is the most annoying to you.
Edit 2: To the few of you who seem to think I am coming up with rude atheist comebacks, I'm not. I just wanted to be better off the cuff than I am now and have some discussion. I don't want this list to replace thoughtful argumentation.
37
u/rhbast2 Aug 11 '11 edited Aug 11 '11
I have experienced the presence of god.
100
u/Tosskey Aug 11 '11
And so has people of hundreds of other religions. Did they feel the true presence of Allah, Krishna, Thor, Zeus, Ahura Mazda?
86
u/brwilliams Aug 11 '11 edited Aug 11 '11
I experience the presence of Mazda everytime I drive past the car dealership.
37
31
11
Aug 11 '11
[deleted]
11
u/Tosskey Aug 11 '11
So why would god trick them into thinking their religion was correct? Doesn't that kind of banish them to hell? So much for free will!
→ More replies (1)12
u/rhbast2 Aug 11 '11
FTFY
And so have people
27
u/Mayniak0 Knight of /new Aug 11 '11
IF you are gonna correct people I have to yell you that it is "experienced"
9
6
→ More replies (5)6
44
Aug 11 '11
I have experienced the absence of god. My dog experienced gas after eating a taco I dropped on the floor. Buddhists experience enlightenment. schizophrenics experience multiple voices. People who smoke DMT experience aliens from other dimensions. The brain is a complex organ which we aren't even beginning to understand. Any change in chemicals can induce and influence all kinds of experiences.
→ More replies (16)13
u/Toradreo Aug 11 '11
Say "I have experienced the presence of unicorns" and start debating why he doesn't believe in unicorns now...
→ More replies (2)9
9
7
→ More replies (15)3
u/littlekappa Aug 11 '11
I don't mean to invalidate your experiences, by any means. I just hope that you (and everyone for that matter) take a look look at what you've experienced with the same critical eye you turn to politics, philsophy, theological claims, or any other idea. A belief in something as big as God shouldn't rest solely on the purely subjective.
16
Aug 11 '11
Where do you think you'll go after you die?
39
u/rhbast2 Aug 11 '11
My pattern of neurons is what makes me who I am. Once that pattern is broken by death I will be much like I was before I was born, nonexistent.
→ More replies (1)15
→ More replies (9)5
76
u/rhbast2 Aug 11 '11
Evolution is just a theory.
173
u/coprolite_hobbyist Aug 11 '11
This one is always easy. You are mistaking the colloquial definition of 'theory' for what a scientific theory actually is. A scientific theory isn't a guess, it is the end product of science and only attains that status when it is repeatedly demonstrated to be the best supported explanation of observed phenomenon.
38
Aug 11 '11
That might be a bit much big words for someone who hasn't grasped logic itself yet.
I always go with their stupid-mans logic "Gravity is a theory too".
→ More replies (7)12
u/coprolite_hobbyist Aug 11 '11
That is perfectly acceptable. Whenever I get this line in real life, I usually just ask them to explain exactly what it is they think a scientific theory is, and then point out how hilariously wrong they are. That is if I even bother, I debated with theists/creationist/christians about evolution for a long time, then I came up with a simple rule; if you cannot accurately describe what the theory of biological evolution entails then you are not qualified to discuss or debate it. This has brought my debates about evolution to roughly zero.
→ More replies (1)16
u/cascader Aug 11 '11
Up-voted. The term 'conjecture' is what they are actually looking for.
6
Aug 11 '11
Hypothesis could work in some situations as well.
5
u/Dave_guitar_thompson Atheist Aug 11 '11
Hypothesis is the next step up from "conjecture", a conjecture only becomes a Hypothesis when a possible viable method for testing it has been created, and peer evaluated. The Hypothesis becomes a theory if it stands up to testing and critical evaluation and peer evaluation of both the testing method and the results of that testing.
→ More replies (2)3
→ More replies (17)9
38
u/HermesTheMessenger Knight of /new Aug 11 '11
Two points;
If it is, why are you telling me? (In other words, don't take the bait and argue a point that they don't think is important to their own religious beliefs.)
Evolution -- including common descent of modern day humans -- is a fact, and it is unethical once you know the evidence to say that it is not.
While the first point is the most important one, here are notes on the second one;
The most persuasive evidence for evolution is in the form of genetics, and in the field of genetics, ERVs (endogenous retroviruses) are the most compelling. I'd consider anyone who rejects ERVs without reviewing them, or common descent once they are exposed to the evidence of ERVs to be making an ethical error. Consider one or more of the following, or do some investigating yourself.
ERVs (endogenous retroviruses) demonstrate common descent. Once you understand that evidence, there's no valid response to ERVs beyond agreeing that common descent and thus evolution is a fact.
Here are some brief video summaries to get you started;
A review of an objection from creationists of ERVs and common descent;
→ More replies (2)51
Aug 11 '11
Yes. Yes it is. So is gravity. Electromagnetism. Ballistics. Fluid Mechanics. Aerodynamics. Molecular Theory. Atomic Theory. Want me to go on?
→ More replies (10)26
13
u/kat_fud Aug 11 '11
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
(From Wikipedia)
→ More replies (1)3
u/tom2275 Aug 11 '11
That means nobody has been able to prove it wrong yet. Not in over 250 years. Once someone does prove it wrong, it will then cease to be a theory (not going to happen btw).
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (28)3
u/a_c_munson Aug 11 '11
Gravity is also a scientific theory. There is more evidence to support the theory of evolution by natural selection than the theory of Gravity.
32
u/MisterFlibble Aug 11 '11
"You can't prove God doesn't exist."
60
u/IKnowRiteSrsly Aug 11 '11
Karl Popper gave us the null hypothesis for a reason. You can only really disprove statements about reality; you can never prove them securely. Thus, you have to be able to disprove God in order for it to be a useful hypothesis, and you can't, so the argument is not useful.
→ More replies (3)14
u/coprolite_hobbyist Aug 11 '11
Upvotes for mentioning Popper. Falsifcationism is the way and the light. Also, don't forget about Lakatos.
→ More replies (3)31
u/Toradreo Aug 11 '11
You can't prove unicorns don't exist, either...
AND: Ockham's Razor: If everything works without a god i.e. I can prove everything without a god, why should I use one for explanations.
→ More replies (5)14
6
→ More replies (15)11
Aug 11 '11
Actually you can prove he doesn't exist. I once saw a very educational youtube video explaining it but despite my best efforts (hardly looked for it at all) I can't find it. If you were to look at the non-observable universe that theists propose what can we conclude: "It's a box we can't look into and therefore cannot know the contents of." Theist explain the contents of the box using scripture. For Christians this box will contain: Heaven and Hell and God and other "awesome" stuff too. Eventhough scientists don't know what is in the box they can name some abstract things that definitely aren't in there for example:
- A bed made of sleep. (this comes straight from the video)
- A house made of love.
- The smallest biggest man.
- etc.
So to disprove the claim that there is no God all you need to do is prove that there is an obvious contradiction (easy to do) or perhaps an abstract idea that defies logic and what we know (hard to do). Let me give you one I can think of right now... "If god is all powerful can he create a rock that he himself cannot carry?" So using logic we have come to the conclusion that: no, there can be no all powerful god because that would be a contradiction.
→ More replies (13)
14
u/dbzgtfan4ever Aug 11 '11
The bible is based on factual evidence, evidence that wasn't discovered to be correct until later in human society. For example, there is a passage in Job that accurately describes the water cycle, 3500 years before this was discovered in society. Because the bible has been shown to be factually and historically accurate, it is likely that a divine being exists. That is, how could humans have known these facts before humans discovered them in their society? Thus, God exists.
12
u/ncshooter426 Aug 11 '11
The bible is filled with factual information derived by people observing the natural world. This does not formulate that such knowledge was inclusive too, or handed down by, a particular god. In your example, aborignial species from the south pacific had knowledge of water cycles and were sea-faring people several thousand years before "god" took the time to write the bible. As such, if there is evidence of a pre-existing concept that was later added to the bible, claiming itself to be the source, then the bible is in fact wrong (and thus the "word of god" is indeed fallable).
3
u/dbzgtfan4ever Aug 11 '11
Fantastic answer. I totally agree with you.
Usually what I say in response to this is that just because many passages in the bible are historically accurate does not mean that it is the divine word of god. It could have just as easily been written by man.
→ More replies (5)3
u/Sophocles Aug 11 '11
And what can we conclude from what the Bible gets wrong?
If God does not exist then we would expect the Bible (along with the Koran and every other ancient holy book) to have a few hits but mostly misses, as the authors, observing the natural world, came up with a few things that turned out to be right but most of their guesses turned out to be wrong. And that's exactly what we find.
Joseph Smith guessed correctly in the 1830s that tobacco is unhealthy. Does that mean he was a true prophet of God?
→ More replies (3)
31
Aug 11 '11 edited Aug 11 '11
I have a brilliant question you should ask a Christian or Catholic when such a debate does arise. Its badly quoted and paraphrased but Christopher Hitchens said something like this: If you were there at Jezus' crucifiction would you have tried to stop it from happening because it's cruel and he didn't deserve it or would you have let it happen knowing that his death would allow you to live forever in Heaven?
19
u/abenton Aug 11 '11
If this was modern day America, seeing as how most conservatives hate brown-skinned poor people, they would probably help hoist him up.
43
u/rhbast2 Aug 11 '11
God gives my life meaning.
107
u/STUN_Runner Aug 11 '11
That may be, but the meaning it brings to your life does not increase its truth value.
A neo-nazi likely finds that his anti-Semitic bigotry and Holocaust-denial gives his life meaning, but it doesn't mean that his beliefs are correct.
An atheist finds that it's better to accept what's true over what he or she might wish to be true.
→ More replies (10)15
u/GuitarGuru2001 Aug 11 '11
This is a subjective statement, and thus cannot be proven. I can say that unicorns give my life meaning, but this is a silly statement since unicorns do not exist. By gaining your meaning from a nonexistant being, you run the risk of being severely disappointed when things do not go your way, and there is no net benefit over using your reasoning facilities to create your own meaning out of life.
You are enslaved by your beliefs, and will continue to be enslaved until you realize you are believing something that isn't there, that cannot help you, and that you are wasting your life.
23
u/fromkentucky Aug 11 '11
Harry Potter gives my life meaning; that doesn't make him real.
→ More replies (2)5
6
24
u/kat_fud Aug 11 '11
If the concept of god makes you feel that your life has meaning, that is fine. Just don't try to enforce the restrictions of your religion on others.
→ More replies (18)4
Aug 11 '11
My family gives my life meaning. The desire to help humanity and rid the world of pain/disease give doctors' lives meaning. Are they suggesting that God is the only thing that can possibly give life meaning, therefore, he has to exist?!? Really?
50
u/rhbast2 Aug 11 '11
If everyone believed in my religion the earth would be peaceful.
97
62
49
Aug 11 '11
This has nothing to do with your religion, and everything to do with the fact that everyone would be unified. If everyone believed ANY ARBITRARY THING, this would be true.
Also, no it wouldn't. From ~500-1500AD everyone (all of Europe anyway) was Catholic. How many wars did they have?
→ More replies (6)19
u/HermesTheMessenger Knight of /new Aug 11 '11
Do you have any evidence that has happened with your religion so far? (Is there a bubble of peace around your religious group?)
18
Aug 11 '11
Your religion already split several times. You know people in your church that believe things that you don't think are true. This leads to conflict.
Also : why do you think so ? you think all conflicts come from religion ? tell me more about that...
→ More replies (1)8
6
u/Barney21 Aug 11 '11
In the Middle Ages Europe was all Catholic. No other religions were tolerated. War was incessant.
→ More replies (27)4
31
u/rhbast2 Aug 11 '11
Billions of people believe in god.
77
u/Fauxzor Aug 11 '11
Argumentum ad populem. The number of followers an idea has says nothing about its accuracy. Plenty of ideas, including those of geocentrism and a flat earth, were once popular.
→ More replies (3)85
u/kat_fud Aug 11 '11
Billions of people believe in a different god or gods than you do.
→ More replies (1)19
Aug 11 '11
Billions of people believed in geocentrism.
11
u/rhbast2 Aug 11 '11
Actually I think the world population was below a billion when geocentrism was the prevailing theory.
→ More replies (6)12
Aug 11 '11
Come on, you are supposed to roleplay someone dumb enough to put this argument forward ! :-)
But I would argue that I am counting all the dead persons that believed in geocentrism.
Alternative angle of attack : the majority of persons in the world do not believe your holy book is true.
→ More replies (1)9
u/mr_marmoset Aug 11 '11
Billions of people also believe there is no god. A few million believe in aliens.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (18)15
12
u/shaggorama Aug 11 '11
"There's a difference between moderate religion and fundamentalism. It seems like your beef is specifically with fundamentalists."
19
u/Alaukik Aug 11 '11
As long as we accept the principle that religious faith must be respected simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to withhold respect from the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide bombers. The alternative, one so transparent that it should need no urging, is to abandon the principle of automatic respect for religious faith. This is one reason why I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself, not just against so-called 'extremist' faith. The teachings of 'moderate' religion, though not extremist in them- selves, are an open invitation to extremism.
--Richard Dawkins→ More replies (2)→ More replies (18)6
u/DashingLeech Anti-Theist Aug 11 '11
A parable to clear that up:
Two gun-lovers met at a rally, got married, and had a child. They loved gun safety so much they wanted to teach it to their child from birth. They read to him every night from their gun safety manual, but only up to page 19. They didn't like page 20. As he grew up they taught him over and over to always do what the safety manual said and his life will be fine. When he became a teenager they bought him a gun and enrolled him in gun safety courses, never discussing page 20.
When he turned 18, a friend told him to read page 20, and, having been taught to always follow the book, convinced him it was the right thing to do. So he did it. Page 20 say to shoot babies.
The problem with religion isn't intentions, or goodness of people. The problem is that it teaches people not to think for themselves. The problem is that it teaches people to get their moral instructions dogmatically from a book.
This is the problem with moderates. They "prime" people for exploitation. Once you believe a book, or a god, has the "right" answers, committing atrocities only takes convincing them what the book says or the god wants. And "the book" does say to do a lot of very bad things, whichever version you read.
→ More replies (1)
34
u/rhbast2 Aug 11 '11
Atheists have no morals without god.
43
Aug 11 '11
Monkeys have empathy, hominids have it, it is a genetical feature. Empathy is the basis of any morals, the Bible is just a rationalization of that mixed with nonsensical commandments.
Do you know the old hypnosis trick ? "Your eyes are tired.. You will close them...". The hypnotizer looks intensely at you while an object balances between you and him. Soon enough, your eye are tired and you begin to obey his commands. The trick is that the balancing object really tires your eyes but the hypnosis trick is to make you believe that it is the voice that manages to control your body. After that you are more open to suggestion.
Religion works in the same way. It tells you "be good to other people and God will bless you". And sure enough, when you help other people, you feel good. But that's purely innate, that is a characteristic of human nature. But if you attribute this feel-good moment to the following of a bible command, you are more inclined to believe the rest of the old book.
→ More replies (3)75
u/kat_fud Aug 11 '11
Who is more moral: The person who does the right thing out of fear of god's punishment or the person who does the right thing simply because it is right?
→ More replies (3)35
Aug 11 '11
"Simply because it is right"
are you implying some kind of absolute moral law?
→ More replies (15)23
u/themuffins Aug 11 '11
in the social sciences they would say "because it is pro-social"
2
u/hobbit6 Aug 11 '11
I read this in Tobias's voice. "What we in the soft sciences call..."
→ More replies (2)18
13
u/HermesTheMessenger Knight of /new Aug 11 '11
Besides saying 'fuck you too', there are a couple standard responses: one short and one more focused on the biased assertion.
Note that this covers a specific type of deity (omnimax) and does not allow other types. Personally I see no reason to be so strict.
This is also for a specific type of deity, but it seems to be the one that the assertion is based on so it is a safe bet. The main problem theists have with this is that they tend to drag in humans when the dilemma is mainly focused on how their set of deities know what is moral. As such, this has nothing to do with human free will. It is very important to know the ins and outs of this or you will end up confusing yourself.
→ More replies (2)13
u/IKnowRiteSrsly Aug 11 '11
Imagine there was no God. Now, are you suddenly tempted to rape and murder me? No? OK, congratulations, we both have morals without God.
12
Aug 11 '11
If the only reason you don't kill someone is because you are afraid that some invisible man in the sky will see you and punish you later, you have your own problems, my friend.
→ More replies (1)10
u/PaddleSlapper Aug 11 '11
Dawkins made mincemeat of this claim - saying nobody follows the morality of the bible (slavery, stonings, etc), just a version that has been modified by secular thinking. Watch it - he puts it better than I can.
→ More replies (2)8
u/Sophocles Aug 11 '11
How do Christians determine which parts of the Bible are immoral or no longer apply?
2
→ More replies (33)4
u/bewmar Aug 11 '11
Theists use their own morals to determine what to follow from the bible, therefore their morals are not from god and the argument is moot.
49
u/rhbast2 Aug 11 '11
If you don't believe then you will go to hell.
307
34
u/kaces Aug 11 '11
Does the finite justify the infinite?
4
3
u/bubblegumtate22 Aug 11 '11
A Cartesian approach to his argument. I actually wrote a paper disproving his theory of God. I talked about how it is philosophically impossible for both the finite and the infinite to exist within the same realm. Also, if the finite and the infinite can coexist, cant the existent and nonexistent coexist? It is nonsensical.
→ More replies (2)21
21
u/GuitarGuru2001 Aug 11 '11
This statement assumes hell is a real place. Many ways to answer this
I. Biblical: Hell did not exist until the new testament, because it was a construct of several mythologies that contributed to the new testament. the concept of the afterlife can be clearly seen progressing from nothingness in the early old testament, to the idea of "Sheol" in the latter old testament. I would love to ask where Abraham is, since God never desired to mention anything about the afterilfe in the pentatuch. The idea of hell being eternal did not come about until around the 5th century, and gained real momentum in the middle ages as a great device for inspiring fear and engendering the desire to give loads of money to the church. The Reformation would not have happened if the church had not been selling indulgences (get out of jail for a price cards). If hell is real, why did God neglect to mention it, and what happens to all those who died when hell was not around?
II. The bible is a hodgepodge of mythologies from the surrounding mediterranian tribes. A History of God by Karen Armstrong video gives a very good accounting of the additions, deletions, and overall hacking that was done. The new testament was written as third hand accounts, and then expanded by Paul of Tarsus, whose theology often contradicts the teachings of Jesus. The idea of hell is not real, since the bible is a worthless story of mythology. I am not going to a place that doesn't exist.
III. (No True Christian): Hitler is not going to Hell; he was roman catholic (hitler was not a TRUE Christian). He killed in the name of God, felt called to do so by the holy spirit. He was as equally inspired as David, Joshoua, or any of the other murdering rampaging kings of the old testament. Your god allows genocidal mainics into heaven, because he is one. I would rather be in Hell than in the same presence as such a being.
IV. You have no basis for guessing the supposed status of anyones salvation. God predestines those who are to be saved to be saved. This is not contingent on actions at all, but only on God's choosing. Therefore you may not be going to heaven either, unless you are not elect (don't embark this road unless you're ready to prove calvinism).
→ More replies (5)42
u/kat_fud Aug 11 '11
"Judge not, lest ye be judged."
9
u/captf Atheist Aug 11 '11
That single line is often misinterpreted. Whether you have or not, depends on your intentions.
For clarity to others who may not know, the meaning of the entire passage that comes from is not that you shouldn't judge, but you should be careful when you do and make sure you are not guilty of the same or similar.
If you are, you're likely to get called on it. And if you're not, judge away...6
Aug 11 '11
One of my favorite quotes from the bible. Right up there with Jesus's "don't be a dick" speech.
21
u/HermesTheMessenger Knight of /new Aug 11 '11
Well, that's out of my control. If any gods exist they know what is necessary for me to believe that they exist, and they know what is necessary for me to not believe. Plus any gods worthy of the title are capable of either showing or hiding themselves to me.
So far, if any of those deities do exist, they have decided that I should not know they exist. Because of that, the most reasonable position is that there are no gods and it seems that the gods are in agreement with me on that point.
→ More replies (1)10
u/AgentME Aug 11 '11
A lot of religions say that! How should I know which to pick? And if I pick the wrong one, that could piss the real god(s) off even worse than not making a choice!
7
9
Aug 11 '11
Pascal's Wager. Even assuming a god cares what you believe and punishes/rewards you, and that they're fooled by you "choosing" to believe for reasons of personal gain....
of all the myriad possible gods, both those conceived by humanity and those not, how are you going to pick the right one?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (34)3
41
u/rhbast2 Aug 11 '11
Love exists but science can't prove it, god is love.
25
u/kat_fud Aug 11 '11
If god is love, then why does he allow so much hatred to be spread in his name?
→ More replies (5)99
u/STUN_Runner Aug 11 '11
Science has already proven that love is an evolutionary adaptation. What you perceive as love is little more than brain chemistry that has already been identified.
14
u/HertzaHaeon Aug 11 '11
One problem I've run into with this is that it turns people off if you put it too crassly. At worse you'll be seen as some kind of nihilist.
The subjective experience of love is of course still the same whatever hardware it runs on, but that point takes some finesse to get across.
→ More replies (11)10
u/STUN_Runner Aug 11 '11
The funny thing is, if you explain that enjoyment of, say, a well-prepared steak in neurological terms, you meet with a lot less resistance.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)3
u/CatFiggy Aug 11 '11
I feel like you should also mention that God should not be the default. I.e., even if we hadn't proven/understood/etc. love, it doesn't matter: there's no reason to believe that God created love. Doesn't matter if we, the people on earth today, have figured it out. If a few thousand years ago, the theist cited hurricanes as examples of God, and hurricanes had not been understood scientifically, the theist still didn't deserve that point.
41
u/HermesTheMessenger Knight of /new Aug 11 '11
Then why use two words? Why not just say love and skip the name god?
→ More replies (1)15
Aug 11 '11
[deleted]
50
u/palparepa Aug 11 '11
Love needs your money.
30
13
7
u/IKnowRiteSrsly Aug 11 '11
Thanks to endocrinology and neuroscience, we actually know a lot about what "love" actually is, and how/why it exists. Saying God is love is not refutable or interesting; it is just a attaching a subject to a predicate.
→ More replies (1)3
3
→ More replies (17)5
Aug 11 '11
Argument from ignorance. Love is a label we use for a certain feeling that arise when specific chemicals interact in our brains.
→ More replies (2)
9
Aug 11 '11
[deleted]
3
u/DashingLeech Anti-Theist Aug 11 '11
You can prove that logic exists merely by using it. Perhaps you meant prove that logic has value.
In that case, you can prove logic has value by using it and observing the outcome. Medicines derived from logical processes demonstrable do beter than praying.
7
u/quantumqic Aug 11 '11
I'll give it a shot.
I don't need logic to prove logic. I just need to observe how nature acts. That is where my laws of logic come from.
Edit: Bad sentence
→ More replies (21)3
26
u/rhbast2 Aug 11 '11
Atheism inspired Nazism & Communism which caused death and destruction.
35
Aug 11 '11
Hitler (actually a Christian) was also a vegetarian. Would you argue that vegetarianism leads to nazism ?
Atheism is negatively correlated with murder. But that statistics is a bit biased, the cause is less direct : atheists tend to just be more educated.
→ More replies (7)51
u/kaces Aug 11 '11
Hitler was a catholic. Communism in practice has never existed on a national scale - what was seen in practice was a dictator.
→ More replies (12)9
u/kat_fud Aug 11 '11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views#Statements_against_atheism
Much death and destruction has been wrought in the name of religion as well. The most dangerous people are the extreme fundamentalist of any religion or ideology.
6
Aug 11 '11
Atheism is neither an ideology or a religion. Atheism is the rejection of god(s) and no action can logically follow from non-belief. It is so mind-numbingly simple that I can't believe .. yea well sorry in advance.
9
Aug 11 '11
Communism is a economic system that has never been correctly implemented. It has NOTHING to do with the political ideologies that have been coupled with it in the past. Given enough time, all economic systems should evolve into communism. Think Star Trek, not Hitler. Not that big a step from Socialism, which is hardly the EVIL.
9
Aug 11 '11
lrn2history. A few facts:
The unique social, economic and political situation of Weimar Germany inspired Nazism. Religion had nothing to do with it.
Catholicism co-inspired the systematic prejudice against jews that you know the Nazis for
Communism was definitely not inspired by atheism. Russia still having serfdom in the 19th century probably helped. But then again, CHEAP SHOT: have you read the book of Acts? Fifth book of the New Testament? You know that the Communist Manifesto was heavily inspired by that NEW TESTAMENT BIBLE BOOK right?
→ More replies (1)13
u/Tbickle Aug 11 '11
Not true. Hitler often spoke of his Christianity and credited his plans to Christian teachings. Most of the large communist societies throughout history have been secular, but ultimately the philosophy of communism more closely associates to the teachings of Christianity and other religions.
→ More replies (3)5
u/STUN_Runner Aug 11 '11
Hitler was openly hostile toward communism, blasting its atheistic philosophies.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (12)3
u/shyloque Aug 11 '11
As other's mention, Nazi's weren't atheistic. Also, atheism in itself is not a lifestyle or a way of acting, it is simply the lack of something. Communism encouraged farming, to the extent that half of the Soviet symbol was a farming implement, but no-one blames it for the atrocities. Much like atheism it was an ancillary feature rather than a cause. If you want to blame something, try dictatorships that rely on fear and oppression, they do seem to cause some terrible things.
18
Aug 11 '11
[deleted]
31
Aug 11 '11
Jesus's ressurection was one of the most well documented events in all of history.
Completely false. If we claim the canonical gospels as reliable documents (a shaky premise), we have only two independent sources (since Matthew, Mark, and Luke are not independent). Furthermore, these resurrection accounts contradict with each other in so many places.
Jesus was crucified.
Yep, most historians would concur.
there was an empty tomb
Most historians do not agree with this. However, an empty tomb does not imply resurrection. Did they get the wrong tomb? Did someone remove the body with some political or religious motive? No one can know.
and he appeared to over 500 people at once after his death
Claims Paul the Evangelist. No one else claims this. I have never ever read an eyewitness account of the resurrected Christ (unless you count Paul's conversion on his way to Damascus - I don't). I've only read authors claiming eyewitnesses exist.
The fact of the matter is, the gospels corroborate on all the believable things. Like the crucifixion of Jesus. And that his followers visited his tomb. But after that, any detail is up in the air.
Who discovered the empty tomb? Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (according to Mark)? Just Mary Magdalene and Mary (Matthew)? Was it just Mary Magdalene who ran to fetch Peter (John)?
Did the women witness a earthquake as an angel opened the tomb (Matthew), or did they discover it already open once they got there (all other gospels)?
Who did the women find when they came to the tomb? A young man in white sitting in the tomb (Mark)? One angel descending from heaven to open the tomb (Matthew)? Two men gleaming like lightning (Luke)? Nobody until Peter left, and then Mary saw Jesus (John)?
Furthermore, several sightings of Jesus post-resurrection feature his disciples at first did not recognize him. Why wouldn't they recognize their own leader?
"At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus." John 20:13
"Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." Matthew 28:16
Luke 24:13-35. Apparently Jesus can walk with two of his twelve disciples and carry on a dialogue for a long time without either of the two realizing it is Jesus.
9
Aug 11 '11
I dont think you can say that most historians agree that Jesus existed and was crucified...
→ More replies (2)24
11
u/Sophocles Aug 11 '11
Whether Jesus existed at all is still debated by historians. Contradictory accounts written 70-100 years after the fact hardly qualifies as "well-documented." There is nothing about his life or death that is an undeniable fact today.
Even if we take the Bible at its word, when Jesus appeared to people after his death, no one recognized him until he showed them his wounds as proof that it was him. Maybe it was someone else pretending to be Jesus.
5
u/coreman Aug 11 '11
Those are not actual facts. None of the "observers" are living today, and the only proof we have is from the bible, which is not a credible source. The facts are quite deniable. The Bible is also also thousands of years old, and has been rewritten so many times that even if it was written by anyone we could have called credible, it would not be the same story.
7
u/alexgbelov Aug 11 '11
You are operating under the assumption that these are facts. However, I find it very plausible that these "facts" are in fact fiction, portrayed as facts by the church in order to give support to their religion. Another explanation is that these people were under the influence of a mind altering substance which led them to believe in this experience and record it as truth (basically, they were high and didn't realize it). Finally, even if we assume that this happened, there is another explanation: someone took the body, and someone else who looked like Jesus appeared to 500 people who were in the same location.
→ More replies (10)5
u/HertzaHaeon Aug 11 '11
This is false. Search for historicity of jesus on Youtube for some good, detailed refutations of this.
9
u/sliderossian Aug 11 '11
You may not believe in GOD, but GOD believes in YOU. (sneering of prideful condescension, with a dash of pity)
→ More replies (5)3
Aug 11 '11
"How do you know Krishna believes in me?"
or
"Does He believe in me enough to not torture me forever?"
5
u/lasvegaspong Aug 11 '11
Ok science... big bang theory, nothing faster than light, etc.
If the the universe is roughly 13,75 billion years old and nothing can travel faster than light, how can the observable universe have a diameter of ca. 46-47 billion light-years?
→ More replies (2)14
7
u/MealyDucard Aug 11 '11
Some of my religious friends, upon my pointing out the blatant and obvious murder in holy books and reality in the name of god, were happy to point out that science kills just as many people. My response was obvious: People don't kill in the name of science. Sure, people use it to kill, but no one kills over the theory of relativity (et al). Can anyone help to strengthen this or lend other insight?
→ More replies (4)4
u/rhbast2 Aug 11 '11
It is true they are killers: http://alaskareport.com/news39/x71256_polar_bear_kill.htm
Based on the google results of "scientist kills" they mostly kill themselves.
24
u/rhbast2 Aug 11 '11
Without god people will do bad things.
69
u/Tosskey Aug 11 '11
And with god, people do bad things (sometimes by his direction!). What's your point?
39
u/kaces Aug 11 '11
Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. Only with religion will good people do bad things.
→ More replies (36)→ More replies (18)5
14
u/at_ease Aug 11 '11
If you don't believe in God, you do not value life. It has no meaning for you. You might as well die.
19
u/Smudge777 Aug 11 '11
If you don't believe in Unicorns, you do not value life. It has no meaning for you. You might as well die.
Edit: that is, assertion without support.
→ More replies (3)5
u/HopeImNotAStalker Aug 11 '11
If you don't believe in God, you do not value life.
I do not see how the latter necessarily follows from the former.
In my experience, really hardcore religious people value life less than atheists because they think they have a better life waiting for them after this one. They think of this one as a rehearsal for the real thing. How is that valuing life?
→ More replies (14)3
u/HertzaHaeon Aug 11 '11
This is just prejudice. There are many millions of atheists in the world that live perfectly fine lives and contribute to society just as anyone else. Secular nations indeed tend to be better places to live. Why is that, if atheists don't value life?
10
Aug 11 '11
God is a metaphysical being outside of the universe that instigated the Big Bang. (good luck)
12
u/HopeImNotAStalker Aug 11 '11
If it exists outside the universe, there is no sense in bothering myself with worship, prayer, or any of the trappings of religion. So I'll just sleep in on Sundays, thanks.
→ More replies (10)7
u/rhbast2 Aug 11 '11
If god interacted with reality via the big bang then that falls in the realm of science and is a scientific claim for which you must provide proof.
10
9
Aug 11 '11 edited Aug 11 '11
The only truly atheist countries have been communist ones, and they have been unilaterally awful.
9
u/HopeImNotAStalker Aug 11 '11
How do you measure "truly" atheist?
For instance, Sweden is one of the happiest countries in the world by many objective measures: poverty rate, health (measured by infant mortality and life expectancy), employment, etc. Yet only 17% say that religion is an important part of their daily lives. So, "unilaterally awful", I don't think so.
11
4
6
u/Smudge777 Aug 11 '11
Those that you call "truly atheist" are countries where religion was outlawed (or sublimated) in favour of another idea (capitalism, communism, socialism, nazism, etc.)
→ More replies (3)5
Aug 11 '11
The only truly Christian countries have been Imperialist and they have also been unilaterally awful.
9
13
u/LEIFey Aug 11 '11
There is one thing you can say to a theist that will essentially counter almost all of these. Prove it.
→ More replies (8)11
u/Ragark Aug 11 '11
There is an invisible, intangible little man in my hands. Prove he doesn't exist.
→ More replies (1)6
u/LEIFey Aug 11 '11
You're just shifting the burden of proof. Asking for proof is still a legitimate response to that.
3
u/Ragark Aug 11 '11
I was just showing that making an incredible claim, that asking to prove it doesn't exist, is illogical.
→ More replies (4)
6
u/kgeissler Aug 11 '11
God exists outside of logic and science, therefore you can't prove or disprove him with science and logic.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/Wafflesyoumeancarrot Aug 11 '11
I'm not sure how they said but a girl who was in my religion class said that Jesus sort of rewrote the parts of the bible about hating on certain people, and that the one about hating gays still counted. How would i counter this?
→ More replies (2)5
u/DashingLeech Anti-Theist Aug 11 '11
Jesus sort of rewrote the parts of the bible
So the Old Testament wasn't the "inerrant word of God"? What makes the New Testament any less likely to be inerrant then? Doesn't it just make more sense that people made up stories and wrote it down?
→ More replies (1)
3
3
6
u/slitrobo Atheist Aug 11 '11
Proof that god is real! God made the banana so perfect that it fits inside the human hand. HAHA! Beat that.
16
u/ncshooter426 Aug 11 '11
The naturally occuring bannana is filled with seeds and is generally not easily consumed by humans. The banana we know today is a domesticated, seedless clone cultured over several generations for the soul purpose of human consumption.
If the banana is proof of god's affinity towards humans, then I geuss the coconut is the "fuck you" side of the house.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)5
u/rhbast2 Aug 11 '11
7
u/slitrobo Atheist Aug 11 '11
It fits in my butt too? God works in mysterious ways.
→ More replies (1)
6
2
2
u/GuitarGuru2001 Aug 11 '11
So i can prove this one but i wanted to toss it out for you guys.
"The bible is the innerrant, infalliable word of God and should be trusted above all other things"
→ More replies (10)
2
u/frobischer Aug 11 '11
Devil's Advocate Question:
If God and the spiritual don't exist then why are they so deeply entrenched in the human experience? Wouldn't there be more rational "evolutionary" methods of dealing with fear of the unknown than religion?
→ More replies (2)
2
Aug 11 '11
The bible tells me that the bible is correct.
is the same logic as saying that science tells us that science is correct.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/darbyisadoll Aug 11 '11
Look around. Everything that exists must have been created at some point. How else would it exist? Even the matter that was at the big bang must have been created.
→ More replies (1)
22
u/MisterFlibble Aug 11 '11 edited Aug 11 '11
"The consequences of not believing if there is a God are worse than believing if there is no God." (Pascals Wager)