Atheist and the nativity

starrystarry

fawd1 wrote: »

I'm not offended by any particular reference to Christianity, I'm hugely offended by the fact that anyone and I do mean anyone at all can call any religion based on faith a mythology. Who exactly do you think you are to tell people that what they believe in is rubbish? The only way you could know for sure whether or not any of it is true is if you were a deity yourself. So tell us, are you a god, or just condescending?

When you're able to show me some evidence that your religious beliefs are true, I'll stop viewing religion as mythology.

I'm not bothered if people believe in religion, no skin off my nose, as long as they don't expect me to show any more respect for those beliefs than I would show to someone who believes in mermaids. You don't get any special treatment here, if you believe in something you have no evidence for then you're in the same category as mermaids I'm afraid.

And I'm not, and never will be, prepared to keep quiet if something you say is factually incorrect. E.g. natural disasters would be reduced if people behaved differently.

fawd1

dirtysexymonkey wrote: »

the same tacitus who wrote about boudicca's revolt, so clearly? except that hed never been to britain and gained most of his stories (which is what they are) from his son in law, a roman soldier. now what would a roman soldier be doing next to boudicca during her pre-battle speech?

you say writings from the period and claim its like you discussing your grandfather, except its really not. its more like you discussing your great-great-great-great grandfathers third cousin from australia. you ignore that humans live much longer now than they did then.

Fair enough, but the reality is that if someone was written about as a historical figure no more than 100 years after their death and continuously referred to as Christ (christus etc..) then surely we could accept that he existed. Whether he was the son of god or not, feel free to argue. The historical records we have of Christ are as good as any we have of historical figures in that era. Did none of them exist?

Person_one

fawd1 wrote: »

Are you sure? you argue there is no proof for religion, there is also no proof against it.

Once again, please consider Russell's Teapot.

b_girl

onlyroz wrote: »

These would be the same reasons that a religious person would give - because I believe atheism is a better way of life and I would like more people to experience these benefits. For example:
- I live my life knowing that I am responsible for my actions
- Knowing my life is finite (i.e. there is no afterlife) I have a greater motivation to live life to the full and leave a positive legacy
- I am free to develop my own moral code, and do things because they are good, rather than because I am afraid of what will happen in the afterlife

Absolutely no disrespect to you, but if you want believers to adopt an atheist view similar to yours do you think the best way to go about it is by belittling them, making out their beliefs are based upon 'crap' (as was previously mentioned in this thread) and showing that you seem to have no tolerance for others' faith? I'm sure people would be much more likely to listen if these views when presented in a way that doesn't completely bad-mouth their belief system.

onlyroz

fawd1 wrote: »

Your desire to take away a source of happiness and hope to others, however well intentioned your reasons might be, aren't the sign of a hugely kind person.

Just because belief in God is comforting doesn't make it true.

onlyroz

b_girl wrote: »

I'm sure people would be much more likely to listen if these views when presented in a way that doesn't completely bad-mouth their belief system.

Why is it, then, that most political campaigns turn into mud-slinging contests?

fawd1

onlyroz wrote: »

Just because belief in God is comforting doesn't make it true.

no, but removing the belief when it's needed makes it cruel, whatever you beliefs

looby75

dirtysexymonkey wrote: »

when religious people claim that mankind has been around since the dawn of time - what do you expect?

that is one of the most monumentally stupid things ever to be uttered.

Not all religious people believe that you know.

Oh and while you are back online would you care to elaborate further on your comment

and actually i think its highly laughable that you of all people are calling anyone arrogant.:rotfl:

I'm genuinely interested in exactly what I've said that makes you consider me so arrogant?

erichamster

fawd1 wrote: »

Actually again, you can. You just have to ACTUALLY READ the religious textbooks. Nowhere in Christianity (new testament, relates to Jesus) does it condone killing, or harming, or rejecting. The problem with fundamentalist religious fanatics, is that they listen to part one of the bible (The Old Testament) but forget the part that discusses Jesus' teachings(the fundamentals of Christianity)

Ok then discounting all the horrible and morally repugnant parts of the Old Testament because as we all know, that was just the first draft right? God didn't really mean it when he sanctioned the killing of innocent men, women and children, didn't you know? It was all a big joke! Of course, and on what basis have you decided that you can just discount all of that by the way? Oh don't tell me god told you in a dream!

Anyway assuming you just can, while obviously a huge improvement on his 'father' Jesus is not quite the lamb he is represented as:
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39)

Also there is the whole sado-masochistic idea of atonement for original sin The sick idea that all babies are born with original sin which must be cleansed (and which jesus had to die for for some reason) is very much tied up with the new testament.

daska

erichamster wrote: »

Of course you can choose to believe in whatever you choose

Have you changed your mind? Earlier you said "I don't think you can decide to believe in something you don't."