|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Nice judgmental OP.
There are a couple threads on this forum about the whether Jesus existed historically. Why don't you post to them or read them instead of posting an attack OP. I am a loony because I acknowledge that there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ? You expect me to accept his existence on faith alone?
What I take from this is that these people (anti-theists) are willing to close their minds to any reasonable evidence or discussion
Go to the Jesus existence threads and present this reasonable evidence.EvC Forum: The Existence of Jesus Christ Espescially look at the posts by Kapyong. Amongst the anti-theists, and by that I mean people typically regarded as fundamental atheists or religion-haters in general, there flows a set of core beliefs and behaviors that define them as a group in the same manner that members of religious denominations hold to tenets that define their membership. Despite claims of being rational, many anti-theists most often present arguments about religious matters that are irrational and unreasonable, and even seek out religious topics to which to apply these irrational, unreasonable argumentsi.e., they target dissenting opinions with irrational, unreasonable garbage arguments. The great danger, here, of course, is that their belief in their own 'unreasonable reasoning' prevents reasoning with them on any matters relating to religion about which they've already formed their beliefs: They cannot be reasoned with in matters where they are behaving blindly unreasonably. All I can say is wow. Projection much. You are doing the same thing here that you accuse others of. Do you think no one has a right to criticize religion? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Reasonable to claim that a logical fallacy supports your argument? It's reasonable, yes, to claim that your fallacies support the arguments of your opponents, in so far as your opponent is arguing that you have not supported your own argument. When you make a claim and support it with an argument, but it turns out that the argument is fallacious, then you've not supported your claim.
Total lack of ANY evidence on your part is evidence for my position.. If "TheJackel"'s argument is that you don't have any evidence for the existence of Jesus, then yes, a lack of evidence on your part is certainly support for his position. If that's not his argument, then you'll have to supply more context from these discussions before I can arrive at any judgement.
As I said in the OP, fundamental atheists are convinced of the rationality of their irrational positions. You've yet to demonstrate any degree of irrationality, though. These atheists, after all, may be convinced that their positions are rational because they're rational positions; you've yet to supply any evidence to the contrary.
If the matter up for discussion was why fundamentalist Christians are deluded into thinking the Genesis account is entirely accurate, and Buz pops in claiming that it's not a delusion, his testimony carries no weight. Nobody's testimony carries any weight, because none of us are old enough to personally testify to the events recounted in Genesis. But if Buz had evidence that the Genesis account was accurate, he'd have all the standing in the world to present it, and those who rejected that evidence without consideration based on their judgement of Buz as a person would be the ones in error, not Buz. You can hardly disqualify people from advocating their own positions on the grounds that they believe in themselves. On that basis we'd have to exclude you from this thread.
The same goes for you in this thread if you are going to admit, by way of behavior, to being one of those fundamental atheist loonies. I'm not admitting to being a "fundamentalist atheist loony." I'm telling you that I'm a supporter of a position you seem to have no ability to refute - that there was, in fact, no such person as "Jesus Christ."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
rejecting conclusions based on critical, historical research is something else. What research? Please be specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
This thread isn't about Jesus.
This thread is about fundamentalist atheism. Fundamentalism penetrates all spheres of belief and non-belief. The presumption that being an atheist precludes one from being a fundamentalist is not only ridiculous, but a sentiment typical of fundamental atheists. Anyone who wants to deny the existence of fundamentalist atheism is free to do so, but then there is little reason for them to continue participating in a discussion on the matter. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
This thread isn't about Jesus. Then you can't proceed from the basis that denial of the historicity of Jesus is de facto unreasonable. If "fundamentalist atheism" exists, you'll have to provide examples of it that are more than just atheists denying the historicity of Jesus, since that's not actually unreasonable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
This thread isn't about Jesus. But you base your whole argument on Jesus. Without Jesus you have no argument. As of yet you have provided no evidence of fundamentalist atheism and if you can provide no evidence for Jesus you argument for fundamentalist atheism completely falls apart. You claim fundamentalist atheist do not accept clear obvious evidence but you refuse to show us the evidence. It seems you want people to accept your beliefs on faith alone.
Anyone who wants to deny the existence of fundamentalist atheism is free to do so, but then there is little reason for them to continue participating in a discussion on the matter.
Bullshit. Do you think that discussions should only be with people that accept your faulty premise? Would be kind of a worthless discussion if all you had were yes men participating. If you are going to propose topics like this, grow some stones and defend them. You have lots of assertions, either defend them or concede you cannot defend them. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
To that end, you should probably acknowledge the controversial nature of the term 'fundamentalist atheist' and your idiosyncratic characterisation of what a fundamentalist is.
There are no fundamental dogmas in atheism. You might argue that there are anti-theistic notions which some anti-theists stick to dogmatically and it is to this you are referring to - but these aren't notions that should define anti-theism so can hardly be called 'fundamental'. The idea that the crucifixion is a myth may be held dogmatically by someone, but it is not necessary to have this belief to be an anti-theist by anyone's standards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
You might argue that there are anti-theistic notions which some anti-theists stick to dogmatically and it is to this you are referring to - but these aren't notions that should define anti-theism so can hardly be called 'fundamental'. The idea that the crucifixion is a myth may be held dogmatically by someone, but it is not necessary to have this belief to be an anti-theist by anyone's standards. Very good, Modulous! Thank you for addressing the topic. According to you, there aren't any specific 'dogmatic' (previously called 'fanatic', as well) standards, if you will, in any spheres of anti-theism (except, perhaps, the obvious: 'there are no gods', but that isn't something I want this thread to devolve into). As you use the term 'fundamentalism', I too would be cautious applying it toward any groups like atheists/anti-theists. The notion of 'defining' characteristicscharacteristics shared by all members of the groupmay be overstepping the evidence. I had mostly made use of this definition:
quote: But if my use of a word is hindering discussion, let me reverse the claim; taking the denial of an historical Jesus, do you suppose that, though not shared by all anti-theists, that all people who share it are likely to be anti-theists/extreme atheists? Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
If "fundamentalist atheism" exists, you'll have to provide examples of it that are more than just atheists denying the historicity of Jesus, since that's not actually unreasonable. I provided two examples in the OP. That you failed to examine my evidence is hardly my problem. You can take a horse to water... but something something even if you shove his fucking nose in the god damned pond he can still refuse to drink... or another. I'll give you a hint, the FA thread had nothing to do with Jesus, but was related to what I said in the OP about it:
quote: Start from scratch shall we? Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Bullshit. Do you think that discussions should only be with people that accept your faulty premise? Would be kind of a worthless discussion if all you had were yes men participating. Like I said, if we started a discussion on why Creationists cling to the Genesis creation myth and a 6000 year old Earth, creationists dropping by to tell us it is because it's truethe earth really is that youngwould hardly be of any value to the discussion; and we certainly wouldn't have to take time away from our discussion to deal with their trolling. I started this thread to discuss the same attitudes held by extremist anti-theists, and so far, the majority of replies to this thread have been extremist anti-theists popping in to say 'nuh uh; no I'm not!'. You can understand why, like their Creationist counterparts, I've little desire to take them seriously. I'm looking for some honest discussion here, preferably with people who aren't so obstinate as to think ignorance a purely religious phenomenon. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I provided two examples in the OP. No, you didn't. You provided examples of how you have a congenital ability to grapple with topics.
... the OPer in that thread has been arguing for and clinging to a set of ridiculous beliefs regarding the origin of the OT God, most notably that he was originally worshipped as a volcano (or something like that). Where is your example of an atheist who asserts that the Old Testament God was "originally worshiped as a volcano"? Please be specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Like I said, if we started a discussion on why Creationists cling to the Genesis creation myth and a 6000 year old Earth, creationists dropping by to tell us it is because it's truethe earth really is that youngwould hardly be of any value to the discussion Sure. Because we've already had the discussion about the historicity of the Genesis myth, and they lost. Similarly, we've already had the discussion about the historicity of Jesus, and you lost. Your side, anyway. That obviates the possibility of having a discussion predicated on rejecting as "unreasonable" any position that Jesus was not historical. If you'd like to defend the position that it's unreasonable to deny the historicity of Jesus, you'll need to open a new thread for that and address the unanswered refutations of that position. Until then you'll find that any attempt to assume the historicity of Jesus is so well-established as to be an act of lunacy to deny it is met by people telling you "well, no, actually it's not." At such time as you actually win that debate you can use it as the basis for future discussions. Until then you're putting the cart before the horse, and making yourself out to be the one who won't listen to reason.
I started this thread to discuss the same attitudes held by extremist anti-theists, and so far, the majority of replies to this thread have been extremist anti-theists popping in to say 'nuh uh; no I'm not!'. "Warning: Persons denying the existence of robots may be robots themselves."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wy_EUn5bQ0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
and so far, the majority of replies to this thread have been extremist anti-theists popping in to say 'nuh uh; no I'm not!'. So, since I question whether Jesus is a historic figure I am an extremist anti-theist? So this is the criteria to meet your definition? Lets see. Jon - Has no evidence and not willing to present evidence for his dogmatic beliefs. Therefore rational theist. Theodoric - Does not see any evidence and willing to consider any evidence given. Radical extremist anti-theist. Is that right? This whole thread is you being what you accuse people of. By trying to expose extremist anti-theists you are exposing yourself as an extremist anti-atheist. Your whole argument is that anyone that questions the existence of Jesus is some extremist looney. That people do not accept your beliefs on faith means there is something wrong with them. Your hypocrisy is astounding.
You can understand why, like their Creationist counterparts, I've little desire to take them seriously. I'm looking for some honest discussion here, preferably with people who aren't so obstinate as to think ignorance a purely religious phenomenon. And when you got nothing you resort to insults. Stay classy my friend. I am trying to have an honest discussion, but you have put up a wall. Your definition of an "anti-theist"(whatever that truly is) is so ridiculous that it must be addressed before what your attempted topic is. You do not want a frank discussion, you are hoping for an atheist bashing thread as shown by your ridiculous definitions and your unwillingness to defend your definition of what an anti-theist is. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Interestingly it turns out that there have been serious suggestions that Yahweh was originally a volcano god. I haven't done the research to see how good the evidence is, but I think you are being a bit too quick to dismiss it as simply ridiculous.
And again, I think that I need to remind you that the OP as written was not about singling out a few cranks, it was supposedly about views that are more or less mainstream amongst "anti-theists". And arguing that a large majority of people who reject a historical Jesus are anti-theists does not show that. (If you can't see the logic, then think of Harold Camping's recent Rapture prediction - all, or virtually all - of the people who believed it would be Christians, yet could you say that more than a tiny proportion of Christians actually believed it ?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
How does not accepting that Jesus existed make me an anti-Islam, buddhist, Tao, Jain, Hindu or Sikh?
The whole premise you are building is christian centric. Christianity is just one group in the theistic world. Maybe if you based your idea of anti-theist on something more reasonable I might be able to agree with you on some level. But to posit that someone is anti-anything because they do not take your beliefs on faith is just plain asinine. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024