Athiests' Feelings Toward Christianity

[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Theokhoth

Rationality is subjective. Hence, anecdotal evidence; a person could be the sole witness to a murder, and nobody in the world could believe her, but that does not mean she is irrational. She just can't prove what she saw to somebody else.

A test that can be performed individually is more credible than a claim of spiritual experience. It doesn't matter how to perfectly apply it. Doesn't relate to this debate.

Of course it does. If we don't know how to perfectly apply it, then why bring it up? What use does it have? Does it even exist?

Rationality uses logic.

Yes.

Logic is systematic evaluation of trues and falses.

In part.

It is a mathematical process.

Basically.

And we all know, no matter how hard the math problem is, done correctly, anyone will always yield the same answer.

If we were to use pure logic, this would be correct. But we do not. We implement subjective rationalisations into every logical thing we do, thus leading to many rational answers. Mathematics is the one and only exception to this.

Thousands of other religions...one mistake plus some imagination can yield thousands of different results.

"Mistake" is subjective here.

Besides, this point was addressed already. Add the clause, God has to do the action and make the laws of logic exist at the same time. The status of paradox is returned.

If God is omnipotent in the way you're trying to say then God defines what logic is; God in essenceis logic, and God can be and do whatever He wants. Thus, no paradox. I'm tired of going over this again and again.

Discussion has no distinct sides.

Sure it does. I talk, you talk, I talk, you talk.

Debates don't always end in agreement.

Yes they do; otherwise they never end.

Nor are they supposed to.

Yes they are. It's why they exist.

Due to misapplication of logic.

2. I don't see the point in breaking my arguments down sentence by sentence because they were originally put into groups since they build on from one another.

3. "In part" and "basically", if that's all you have to respond with then withhold them because they don't contribute anything.

4. A logical mistake is not subjective.

5. Then we ask God to define logic as we know it during his performance of the desired action. Again, returning the status of paradox.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="unholymight"] Rationality can have three degrees: 1. Not rational at all. None of the logic was correctly applied. 2. Perfectly rational. Logic was correctly applied all the time. 3. Rational on parts. Logic was correctly applied for a portion of the time but at some step(s) logic was incorrectly applied. Therefore, religious people would never be perfectly rational. Why religion is irrational I have given the three reasons: lack of evidence, improbability, and contradictions. They would fall under category 3, since it is unlikely that someone would apply all their logic wrong all of the time. It follows that only atheists have the potential to be fall under category 1.unholymight

Logic and rationality are separate concepts. They're related, but they aren't the same.

Logic cannot be partially correct. It is either applied correctly or it is not.

Evidence, like I have said several times, is subjective, and thus is not logical, since logic is objective. Evidence can be used logically, but it is not logical in and of itself.

Improbability is the same, and it can be argued that there is no such thing as improbability outside of pure mathematics.

Contradictions are the only thing that are a part of logic.

Next, we still don't know how logic and rationality can be "perfectly applied," and this sounds more like speculation than an actual formula.

Finally, to claim that a certain group of people (atheists) have a monopoly on logic and rationality is in itself illogical and irrational.

1. You appear to be treating them as one and the same, so I am saying that they are not.

2. Okay.

3. Anecdotal evidence is still evidence; it's meant to convince the individual experiencing it rather than a collective. The kind of evidence you describe is scientific evidence (which is hardly objective). . .and science does not touch religion. In addition to this, to fall back on scientific evidence to define logic and rationality is circular reasoning, since, as you yourself stated (and I agree), logic and rationality are the foundations of science; not the other way around.

4. There are plenty of lines separating math and real life; subjective experience, for example, prevents math from being objective outside of the conceptual realm.

5. How do you correctly evaluate every step?

6. To make this claim is to claim that only atheists can be rational; in this case you claim that atheists have the monopoly on logic. Logic cannot be both correctly applied and incorrectly applied at the same time.

[QUOTE="WhiteSnake5000"][QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

To tell you the truth, I've never seen ANTHING that's been perfectly rational, be it a concept, policy, or idea.

Hot-Tamale

Not to some insane gynecologist dude.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="WhiteSnake5000"]I'm sorry believing in something that contradicts the time line of the universe is completely illogical when it comes to existence, reality, and rationality. WhiteSnake5000

What is the timeline of the universe? That's what you need to define before you can start stating that things are illogical.

If you don't want to define what the timeline is, then bringing it up is a waste of time because until we know what it is, it's a useless concept.

I'm a Christian and I believe the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. Is that significantly younger than the scientific consensus?

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

[QUOTE="WhiteSnake5000"] 1+1=2. Perfectly rational. cowboymonkey21

Not to some insane gynecologist dude.

A gynecologist is a doctor who plays with women's vaginas. :|

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="unholymight"] Credibility can be determined through rationality.

Rationality is subjective. Hence, anecdotal evidence; a person could be the sole witness to a murder, and nobody in the world could believe her, but that does not mean she is irrational. She just can't prove what she saw to somebody else.

A test that can be performed individually is more credible than a claim of spiritual experience. It doesn't matter how to perfectly apply it. Doesn't relate to this debate.

Of course it does. If we don't know how to perfectly apply it, then why bring it up? What use does it have? Does it even exist?

Rationality uses logic.

Yes.

Logic is systematic evaluation of trues and falses.

In part.

It is a mathematical process.

Basically.

And we all know, no matter how hard the math problem is, done correctly, anyone will always yield the same answer.

If we were to use pure logic, this would be correct. But we do not. We implement subjective rationalisations into every logical thing we do, thus leading to many rational answers. Mathematics is the one and only exception to this.

Thousands of other religions...one mistake plus some imagination can yield thousands of different results.

"Mistake" is subjective here.

Besides, this point was addressed already. Add the clause, God has to do the action and make the laws of logic exist at the same time. The status of paradox is returned.

If God is omnipotent in the way you're trying to say then God defines what logic is; God in essenceis logic, and God can be and do whatever He wants. Thus, no paradox. I'm tired of going over this again and again.

Discussion has no distinct sides.

Sure it does. I talk, you talk, I talk, you talk.

Debates don't always end in agreement.

Yes they do; otherwise they never end.

Nor are they supposed to.

Yes they are. It's why they exist.

Due to misapplication of logic.

unholymight

2. I don't see the point in breaking my arguments down sentence by sentence because they were originally put into groups since they build on from one another.

3. "In part" and "basically", if that's all you have to respond with then withhold them because they don't contribute anything.

4. A logical mistake is not subjective.

5. Then we ask God to define logic as we know it during his performance of the desired action. Again, returning the status of paradox.

1. Because objective evidence doesn't exist. However, whether or not she can prove what she saw has no bearing on what she saw, and whether or not her believing what she saw is rational.

2. Every argument is built on foundations. If I find a flaw in the foundations, I go for that rather than the entire argument. The rest of the argument falls apart from there, since an argument cannot be built on false premises. This saves a ton of time and writing while still achieving the desired result.

3. I'm agreeing with you for the most part.

4. I didn't say it was. Your use of the word "mistake" was in the context of rationality, not logic.

5. God isn't required to answer.

I'll be going to bed soon, and I'd rather go to bed relaxed instead of all tense, so I'll leave this topic.

[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Logic and rationality are separate concepts. They're related, but they aren't the same.

Logic cannot be partially correct. It is either applied correctly or it is not.

Evidence, like I have said several times, is subjective, and thus is not logical, since logic is objective. Evidence can be used logically, but it is not logical in and of itself.

Improbability is the same, and it can be argued that there is no such thing as improbability outside of pure mathematics.

Contradictions are the only thing that are a part of logic.

Next, we still don't know how logic and rationality can be "perfectly applied," and this sounds more like speculation than an actual formula.

Finally, to claim that a certain group of people (atheists) have a monopoly on logic and rationality is in itself illogical and irrational.

Theokhoth

1. You appear to be treating them as one and the same, so I am saying that they are not.

2. Okay.

3. Anecdotal evidence is still evidence; it's meant to convince the individual experiencing it rather than a collective. The kind of evidence you describe is scientific evidence. . .and science does not touch religion. In addition to this, to fall back on scientific evidence to define logic and rationality is circular reasoning, since, as you yourself stated (and I agree), logic and rationality are the foundations of science; not the other way around.

4. There are plenty of lines separating math and real life; subjective experience, for example, prevents math from being objective outside of the conceptual realm.

5. How do you correctly evaluate every step?

6. To make this claim is to claim that only atheists can be rational; in this case you claim that atheists have the monopoly on logic. Logic cannot be both correctly applied and incorrectly applied at the same time.

[QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"][QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

Not to some insane gynecologist dude.

Hot-Tamale

A gynecologist is a doctor who plays with women's vaginas. :|

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

[QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"]You sure you know what a gynecologist is?:?scorch-62

A gynecologist is a doctor who plays with women's vaginas. :|

Why would an insane gynecologist be any different than any other insane person? I'm just talking about crazyness here... :|

[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

A gynecologist is a doctor who plays with women's vaginas. :|

Hot-Tamale

Why would an insane gynecologist be any different than any other insane person? I'm just talking about crazyness here... :|

But, why did you mention that the insane person was a gynecologist if it is irrelevant?... :|

[QUOTE="unholymight"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Theokhoth

2. I don't see the point in breaking my arguments down sentence by sentence because they were originally put into groups since they build on from one another.

3. "In part" and "basically", if that's all you have to respond with then withhold them because they don't contribute anything.

4. A logical mistake is not subjective.

5. Then we ask God to define logic as we know it during his performance of the desired action. Again, returning the status of paradox.

1. Because objective evidence doesn't exist. However, whether or not she can prove what she saw has no bearing on what she saw, and whether or not her believing what she saw is rational.

2. Every argument is built on foundations. If I find a flaw in the foundations, I go for that rather than the entire argument. The rest of the argument falls apart from there, since an argument cannot be built on false premises. This saves a ton of time and writing while still achieving the desired result.

3. I'm agreeing with you for the most part.

4. I didn't say it was. Your use of the word "mistake" was in the context of rationality, not logic.

5. God isn't required to answer.

[QUOTE="WhiteSnake5000"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

What is the timeline of the universe? That's what you need to define before you can start stating that things are illogical.

Theokhoth

If you don't want to define what the timeline is, then bringing it up is a waste of time because until we know what it is, it's a useless concept.

I'm a Christian and I believe the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. Is that significantly younger than the scientific consensus?

The basis and morals that Christianity represent are more or less...a good thing for mankind. Do unto others...thall shalt not kill...things like that are all good. But things that religions in generalbring,areintolerance, holy wars, mass killings based on a big guy in the sky who doesnt like "non-believers", and so on. The fact that im supposed to "burn in hell for eternity" just because I dont believe in this Jesus, doesnt make me want to believe any more. I just dont see how somebody could give into such a thing. On the otherhand, most people are raised with religion in their homes. I know I was dragged to church every sunday when I as younger. But for me it was almost like Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny. Someday...you just have to grow up.

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

[QUOTE="scorch-62"] I think that's why he asked. Doesn't make any sense.chessmaster1989

Why would an insane gynecologist be any different than any other insane person? I'm just talking about crazyness here... :|

But, why did you mention that the insane person was a gynecologist if it is irrelevant?... :|

It's a long story, I just watched this horror movie called 'Dead Ringers,' which is about insane twin gynecologists. You should really see it, it's very disturbing.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

Why would an insane gynecologist be any different than any other insane person? I'm just talking about crazyness here... :|

Hot-Tamale

But, why did you mention that the insane person was a gynecologist if it is irrelevant?... :|

It's a long story, I just watched this horror movie called 'Dead Ringers,' which is about insane twin gynecologists. You should really see it, it's very disturbing.

Uhhh, no thanks, I'll pass... :|

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

But, why did you mention that the insane person was a gynecologist if it is irrelevant?... :|

chessmaster1989

It's a long story, I just watched this horror movie called 'Dead Ringers,' which is about insane twin gynecologists. You should really see it, it's very disturbing.

Uhhh, no thanks, I'll pass... :|

No.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

It's a long story, I just watched this horror movie called 'Dead Ringers,' which is about insane twin gynecologists. You should really see it, it's very disturbing.

Hot-Tamale

Uhhh, no thanks, I'll pass... :|

No.

Is that what the dude here wanted when he posted this? Dudes talking about Gynecologists? If your going to post...stick to the subject. And before you call ME out on it like I know you probably would...Yes...this is off the subject. I posted one a few minutes ago. Read it and tell me what you think. Thanks.

Is that what the dude here wanted when he posted this? Dudes talking about Gynecologists? If your going to post...stick to the subject. And before you call ME out on it like I know you probably would...Yes...this is off the subject. I posted one a few minutes ago. Read it and tell me what you think. Thanks.

KcurtorMas

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Uhhh, no thanks, I'll pass... :|

WhiteSnake5000

No.

Word. Cronenberg is a great man (and a hardcore atheist, just for purposes of this discussion). Videodrome and Crash are my other favorite movies from him. Still need to see Eastern Promises and The Brood.

You haven't seen horror movies until you've seen Cronenberg movies! That's the truth.

I'm an athiest, but I believe that everyone has a right to their own beliefs.

I don't shove my beliefs down anyone else's throat, and I expect the same degree of courtesy in return.

9 pages already? I've lurked here since the days of el_arab and hatesmichaelmoore but i dont remember if it happens this fast.Godless_Liberal

You've been a member since March 8, 2009. >_>

[QUOTE="Godless_Liberal"]9 pages already? I've lurked here since the days of el_arab and hatesmichaelmoore but i dont remember if it happens this fast.chessmaster1989

You've been a member since March 8, 2009. >_>

I dislike the focus put on the supernatural elements of the Bible and how it takes away from Jesus' teachings. Which is why I think everyone should read the Jefferson Bible. I just wish it wasn't written in "thy, thou, hast, etc." language, that makes it so dry and boring.

I really think Jesus' message is lost among all the superfluous supernatural superstition.

I don't dislike religion, I just don't subscribe to those beliefs. Also, I'm not atheist, but rather a strong agnostic (I think it's theoretically impossible to determine the existence of God).

Not that I don't like some Christian's as people.

Christian's fail to realize that morality comes from within and not a work of fiction.

I think it's self-depricating that one could believe you have to be religious to do charitable things. "Religion has also done good things" -- like, without religion, we would all be raping and pillaging in the streets.

The Golden Rule aspect of the Bible is something that's incoded in our DNA. Mostly, Christian idealology is dangerous and hate inducing.

Religion is the greatest practical joke, ever. It makes me sad that we never made it passed the Bronze Age.

*It's hypocricy in its purest form. The Pope preaches against materialism and wealth but carries around a staff with a gold crucified Jesus.

It pisses me off when the followers attempt to debate on the probability of the religion without even looking at the epistomological proven facts and instead turn a blind eye to them and continue to try and impose their religion on others. You can't debate with people like that. I have no problem with the rerigion though.

It pisses me off when the followers attempt to debate on the probability of the religion without even looking at the epistomological proven facts and instead turn a blind eye to them and continue to try and impose their religion on others. You can't debate with people like that. I have no problem with the rerigion though.

BumFluff122

The ensuing conversation will God would be epic.:lol:

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

It pisses me off when the followers attempt to debate on the probability of the religion without even looking at the epistomological proven facts and instead turn a blind eye to them and continue to try and impose their religion on others. You can't debate with people like that. I have no problem with the rerigion though.

FFCYAN

The ensuing conversation will God would be epic.:lol:

might have something to do with the last 2000 years of burning us at the stake

The holding back of science

the degradation of society that it causes

ect

Christianity is a brainwash. But wait - I don't really care.

I can't see why so many Athiests dislike Chrisianity (I mean the religion itself, not the ignorant people who won't listen to what is said.). The basis of Christianity is for the good of mankind. For example just because I don't believe in Buhdism doesn't mean that I dislike the religion. For the Athiests who dislike Christianity what do you dislike about it?

Not To Mods: If you feel this topic is trolling or flame baiting please lock.

CorTilt

I don't mind the religion, it's just the people that come round knocking on your door and shouting stuff in the street that annoys me. You rarely see any other religion doing that, it's just the Christians that feel they have to chuck their beliefs in everyones faces.tofu-lion91

[QUOTE="tofu-lion91"]I don't mind the religion, it's just the people that come round knocking on your door and shouting stuff in the street that annoys me. You rarely see any other religion doing that, it's just the Christians that feel they have to chuck their beliefs in everyones faces.Lansdowne5

[QUOTE="CorTilt"]

I can't see why so many AthiestsdislikeChrisianity (I mean the religion itself, not the ignorant peoplewho won't listen to what is said.). The basis ofChristianity is for the good of mankind. For example just because I don't believe inBuhdism doesn't mean that I dislike the religion. For the Athiests who dislike Christianity what do you dislike about it?

Not To Mods: If you feel thistopic is trolling or flame baiting please lock.

chessmaster1989

I've got nothing against Christianity itself. If people want to believe in God, let them. It's when they start imposing their beliefs on me/society that I get irritated...

Plenty of good can be had without religion. Like say, if a fat person is losing alot of weight real fast with exercise and proper diet, the person does not need weight loss pills if they are already losing weight quickly. Thats how I look at religion. And it's chrisians like Bill O'Reilly that I hate the $#%^&$# most.

I'm an atheist and i dont have anything against God (the christian one). In fact i'd be happy if there turned out to be one because this world of ours is a bit boring without a touch of "magic" ;) But christianity sickens me. Some religions are fine tho...Pessu

Yes, I think most religions "create" a god to fit their "recruiting" needs.

I don't hate the religion, just the hypocritical people that worship it.

I don't have a problem with religion (well most of it), it's some of the religious people and what they do in their god's name I have a problem with.