Exposing Atheistic Myths

[ruby sparks]

Sin is a concept invented by the Christian church to keep the faithful in a state of perpetual enslavement. The Bible tells us that God created humans with a sinful nature, we are born that way and we have no choice in the matter. What kind of a fuckwit god would create defective people and then expect them to overcome their defect and be perfect? What kind of a fuckwit god would create gays, transexuals and Democrats, and then expect them to act differently from their natures? And since we are all created in this fuckwit god's image, as the story goes, this fuckwit god must also be gay, transexual and a Democrat. Does your fuckwit god forgive himself for being a sinner?

The blindingly obvious answer to this contradiction is that Biblegod is a fictional character, a monster created by our superstitious ancestors who had no better answers. They knew very little about the world they lived in, and at least they had an excuse to invent and worship this fuckwit god. What is your excuse?

I also could not have put that better myself.

With two small caveats regarding the first sentence. I don't think Christianity came up with the idea of sin, and I don't think it was deliberately thought up to enslave believers, though some may have used it for that.

 

[steve_bank]

half life reveals himself to be be a consumer of extreme tabloid internet content and conspiracy theories.

I agree sin is a general concept as well as rebirth. A common theme in literature and movies.

Sin is what takes you out of a natural state of physical and emotional health and well being. Christianity sees it as the influence of outside agents like devils and Satan out to ensnare and corrupt. Buddhist look at it psychologically, we create our own pain and suffering. The way out is not through an outside agent, aka God, it is through understanding yourself and how you are influenced by surroundings. We create our heavens and hells.

 

[Treedbear]

...

The spirit is what inhabits us. God is a spirit with no body. We have bodies with a spirit. This is why our cells get replaced every day and we have all new cells all the time but the same mind. The immaterial mind can not be replaced by cells. This proves it's beyond nature.

The reason I believe the mind I have now is the same mind that I had yesterday is due to my memories, that can only be the result of my past experience, and by the knowledge of its continuity of being, which is the basic test for what it means to be anything.

Just think why you were born into your body and not someone else's. No reason in a natural world why "you" were born in this time period and not some other time period. Why didn't we have different parents? Why do you believe we only get one life if you popped up randomly here in this life? Why can't you pop up randomly again in thousands of years?

Very heavy stuff.

None of those points are valid arguments for the existence of a non-corporeal spirit. The fact that they are so contrary to reality is a strong argument against it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

. We have bodies with a spirit. This is why our cells get replaced every day and we have all new cells all the time but the same mind.

Uh huh..... hey, can you tell me the rate at which nerve cells are replaced?
If our brain is replaced regularly, it does make it hard to imagine our mind stsying the same, yeah.

The immaterial mind can not be replaced by cells. This proves it's beyond nature.

Heh.. you use 'prove' stupidly.

If our mind is immaterial, how did so many sailors get drunk every time we came into port?

Just think why you were born into your body and not someone else's.

i wasn't born into this body.
I have spent a good 50* years crafting the person in this body

No reason in a natural world why "you" were born in this time period and not some other time period.

a meaningless claim.

Why didn't we have different parents? Why do you believe we only get one life if you popped up randomly here in this life?

you are easily impressed by your self importance.

Why can't you pop up randomly again in thousands of years?

how do you know we do not?

Very heavy stuff.

nope.
Difficult to clean off the boot, but not all that heavy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

... snip ...

Very heavy stuff.

That was hardly heavy. But then some people mistake feel good fluff for meaningful thoughts.

These types of responses are stupid!

If what I said is hardly heavy, then surely you should've had no problem refuting it.

Since you didn't, your comment was fluff.

Says the guy who hides from a BUNCH of his own threads when they go over his head....

 

[Rhea]

Sin is a concept invented by the Christian church to keep the faithful in a state of perpetual enslavement. The Bible tells us that God created humans with a sinful nature, we are born that way and we have no choice in the matter. What kind of a fuckwit god would create defective people and then expect them to overcome their defect and be perfect? What kind of a fuckwit god would create gays, transexuals and Democrats, and then expect them to act differently from their natures? And since we are all created in this fuckwit god's image, as the story goes, this fuckwit god must also be gay, transexual and a Democrat. Does your fuckwit god forgive himself for being a sinner?

The blindingly obvious answer to this contradiction is that Biblegod is a fictional character, a monster created by our superstitious ancestors who had no better answers. They knew very little about the world they lived in, and at least they had an excuse to invent and worship this fuckwit god. What is your excuse?

This is like asking, "What kind of fuckwit parents keep cookies in the fridge, then get mad at the child for eating the cookies before dinner?"

We all have a choice. Some people hear the Gospel and their lives are transformed. Others hear the Gospel and make fun of it. It's free will.

It’s more like wha kind of fuckwit parent puts a loaded gun on he table just so they can get mad and smack the toddler for reaching for it and claim they had no culpability when the kid gets it and shoots their baby sister.

 

[DBT]

We all have a choice. Some people hear the Gospel and their lives are transformed. Others hear the Gospel and make fun of it. It's free will.

Nothing to do with 'free will.' Using logic and reason is not a matter of choosing to believe this over that just because it happens to be appealing in some way.

 

[Treedbear]

...
We all have a choice. Some people hear the Gospel and their lives are transformed. Others hear the Gospel and make fun of it. It's free will.

Not according the the founder of Protestantism -

Luther came to understand justification as entirely the work of God. This teaching by Luther was clearly expressed in his 1525 publication On the Bondage of the Will, which was written in response to On Free Will by Desiderius Erasmus (1524). ...

On the Bondage of the Will -

Erasmus' argument

Despite his own criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church, Erasmus believed that the church needed reformation from within and that Luther had gone too far. Erasmus had asserted that all humans possessed free will and that the doctrine of predestination was not in accord with the teachings contained in the Bible. He argued against the belief that God's foreknowledge of events was the cause of events, and held that the doctrines of repentance, baptism, and conversion depended on the existence of free will. He likewise contended that grace simply helped humans come to a knowledge of God and supported them as they used their free will to choose between good and evil—choices which would lead to salvation through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Content of Luther's response

Luther's response was to reason that sin incapacitates human beings from working out their own salvation, and that they are completely incapable of bringing themselves to God. As such, there is no free will for humanity because any will they might have is overwhelmed by the influence of sin. ...

So, at least when it comes to salvation and the ability to choose between good and evil, there is no free will.

 

[jab]

In this thread, I will be exposing common atheistic myths. Anyone want to try to stump me?

Sure. Say one true thing about atheists.

Intellectually lazy.

Speaking of which, your initial myth is intellectually lazy and intellectually hypocritical when it comes to theist "thought".
Thus, yawn, is God a "thing"? If so, what caused God? If not a "thing", what is God--no thing?

 

[Politesse]

Luther is hardly the founder of all Protestantism. Folks like Halfie tend to think of Lutherans and Anglicans as Catholic Lite. It's certainly true that he saw free wiil as no path to virtue, though. A trap if it existed at all.

 

[Treedbear]

Luther is hardly the founder of all Protestantism. Folks like Halfie tend to think of Lutherans and Anglicans as Catholic Lite. It's certainly true that he saw free wiil as no path to virtue, though. A trap if it existed at all.

What's your take on Protestantism? Does it have any foundational principles?

 

[Politesse]

What's your take on Protestantism? Does it have any foundational principles?

My take (though I actually know a lot more about Lutheranism itself than the other branches):

Yes and no.

No, in that it is fundamentally reactionary; Protestants are Protestants because they jointly oppose the Roman Church and certain of its dogmas, but have never been unified by any common beliefs about what specifically should replace the Vatican. Rather, their split resulted in enormous diversification among Christian beliefs, especially at the time. The earliest Protestant years were quite wild- you had large scale socioreligious experiments like the Geneva community, or renegade disaster cults like that which resulted in the siege and destruction of Muenster. Protestant groups often disliked each other as much if not more than their presumed shared foe, resulting among other things in many ugly cases of religiously motivated double-crossing during the Thirty Year's War. Much as,in our time atheists are atheists because they jointly reject the Abrahamic faiths, not because of any particular shared philosophical positions between them.

Yes, in that over time certain ideas have emerged as rough consensus or at least statistical preponderance among most Protestant groups. Some Lutheran ideas to be sure (justification by grace alone through faith), but also some that came from other places (the widespread popularity of textual inerrantism, for instance, or the idea of a "personal savior" and "the sinner's prayer" which would have made Luther shit a goddamn brick). You have some funny points of commonality like a shared Biblical canon and an (oft-overlooked but imo heavily influential) shared corpus of popular hymns and worship music.

 

[Ruth Harris]

What's your take on Protestantism? Does it have any foundational principles?

My take (though I actually know a lot more about Lutheranism itself than the other branches):

Yes and no.

No, in that it is fundamentally reactionary; Protestants are Protestants because they jointly oppose the Roman Church and certain of its dogmas, but have never been unified by any common beliefs about what specifically should replace the Vatican. Rather, their split resulted in enormous diversification among Christian beliefs, especially at the time. The earliest Protestant years were quite wild- you had large scale socioreligious experiments like the Geneva community, or renegade disaster cults like that which resulted in the siege and destruction of Muenster. Protestant groups often disliked each other as much if not more than their presumed shared foe, resulting among other things in many ugly cases of religiously motivated double-crossing during the Thirty Year's War. Much as,in our time atheists are atheists because they jointly reject the Abrahamic faiths, not because of any particular shared philosophical positions between them.

Yes, in that over time certain ideas have emerged as rough consensus or at least statistical preponderance among most Protestant groups. Some Lutheran ideas to be sure (justification by grace alone through faith), but also some that came from other places (the widespread popularity of textual inerrantism, for instance, or the idea of a "personal savior" and "the sinner's prayer" which would have made Luther shit a goddamn brick). You have some funny points of commonality like a shared Biblical canon and an (oft-overlooked but imo heavily influential) shared corpus of popular hymns and worship music.

And then you have the Baptists, who loudly deny being Protestants. Most Baptist churches today insist that their denomination has existed as a separate entity since the time of the apostles, in particular John the Baptist. They say that the name was not always Baptist but that those who held to a certain view of the scriptures and the practice of the faith were in fact “baptistic”. The most aggressive of those holding this view are called Landmark Baptists and they proclaim that all other churches are apostate and members of those churches are not saved - including, amusingly enough, other Baptist churches.

Baptist foundational principles include “no creed but the Bible”, “soul competency” and “priesthood of the believer”. “No creed but the Bible” is why you don’t see a recitation of the Apostles Creed or similar writings at most Baptist services – but the Southern Baptist Convention is inching ever closer to having a creed in the form of the Baptist Faith and Message, as it is being used to enforce doctrinal conformity in many groups. “Soul competency” is the Baptist refutation of the Catholic stance on infant baptism; it simply means that the only person responsible for individual salvation is the individual, not a church or their family. “Priesthood of the believer” is another refutation of Catholic doctrine that confession to a priest is required for forgiveness of sins.

Ruth

 

[Politesse]

What's your take on Protestantism? Does it have any foundational principles?

My take (though I actually know a lot more about Lutheranism itself than the other branches):

Yes and no.

No, in that it is fundamentally reactionary; Protestants are Protestants because they jointly oppose the Roman Church and certain of its dogmas, but have never been unified by any common beliefs about what specifically should replace the Vatican. Rather, their split resulted in enormous diversification among Christian beliefs, especially at the time. The earliest Protestant years were quite wild- you had large scale socioreligious experiments like the Geneva community, or renegade disaster cults like that which resulted in the siege and destruction of Muenster. Protestant groups often disliked each other as much if not more than their presumed shared foe, resulting among other things in many ugly cases of religiously motivated double-crossing during the Thirty Year's War. Much as,in our time atheists are atheists because they jointly reject the Abrahamic faiths, not because of any particular shared philosophical positions between them.

Yes, in that over time certain ideas have emerged as rough consensus or at least statistical preponderance among most Protestant groups. Some Lutheran ideas to be sure (justification by grace alone through faith), but also some that came from other places (the widespread popularity of textual inerrantism, for instance, or the idea of a "personal savior" and "the sinner's prayer" which would have made Luther shit a goddamn brick). You have some funny points of commonality like a shared Biblical canon and an (oft-overlooked but imo heavily influential) shared corpus of popular hymns and worship music.

And then you have the Baptists, who loudly deny being Protestants. Most Baptist churches today insist that their denomination has existed as a separate entity since the time of the apostles, in particular John the Baptist. They say that the name was not always Baptist but that those who held to a certain view of the scriptures and the practice of the faith were in fact “baptistic”. The most aggressive of those holding this view are called Landmark Baptists and they proclaim that all other churches are apostate and members of those churches are not saved - including, amusingly enough, other Baptist churches.

Baptist foundational principles include “no creed but the Bible”, “soul competency” and “priesthood of the believer”. “No creed but the Bible” is why you don’t see a recitation of the Apostles Creed or similar writings at most Baptist services – but the Southern Baptist Convention is inching ever closer to having a creed in the form of the Baptist Faith and Message, as it is being used to enforce doctrinal conformity in many groups. “Soul competency” is the Baptist refutation of the Catholic stance on infant baptism; it simply means that the only person responsible for individual salvation is the individual, not a church or their family. “Priesthood of the believer” is another refutation of Catholic doctrine that confession to a priest is required for forgiveness of sins.
I
Ruth

Indeed! Though the "priesthood of the believer" is another Lutheran tidbit that has escaped into the wider Protestant complex, it is very much interpreted to mean quite different things. My partner came from a SBC background, and apostate though he now is, our conversations on faith, childhood, and society over the years have been quite an eye-opening glimpse into the enormous gap that can exist between one Protestant manifestation and another.

 

[steve_bank]

Being transformed is not unique to Christianity.

People are transformed by Buddhism, Islam, Transcendental Meditation and a host of other things.

In the 70s there was The Divine Light Mission, run at the time by a teenager who inherited from a relative. From India. It was utterly bogus and a sham, it was for profit. The family got rich. I knew a woman who said it transformed her life.

The Mooonies, a Christian cult out of South Korea. There was an ashram-house of American Sikh onverts although they were not accepted by mainsteam Siks. Mean grew beards, wore cerimaonil daggerrs, and wore tirbans. The guru dcided who married who.

Then the Rajneshis in Antelope Oregon in the 80s. A cult under an Indian guru who fled India for tax evasion. Yet garmered a following in Europe and USA. I saw then wearing around Portland. Dressed in red wearing the guru's picture around their neck.

A long list.

It is not what you believe but how you believe it.

A lot of Christianity is a Jesus cult. Utter adoration and worship.

A line from the comedy group Firesign Theater. 'Give them a light and they will follow it anywhere'.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Being transformed is not unique to Christianity.

People are transformed by Buddhism, Islam, Transcendental Meditation and a host of other things.

Veganism, jogging, a car crash, someone else' death, a midlife crisis, birth of a child, Star Wars.... people are easily impressed.

 

[skepticalbip]

Emotional (spiritual ecstasy) transformation of teen girls seeing the Beatles:

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Luther is hardly the founder of all Protestantism. Folks like Halfie tend to think of Lutherans and Anglicans as Catholic Lite. It's certainly true that he saw free wiil as no path to virtue, though. A trap if it existed at all.

If one reads Luther's "Bondage of the Will", Luther is very plain about free will. "Free will is impossible". Luther goes through the bible with a fine comb and finds free will is not supportable.

This puts Luther in a bind. If free will is impossible, does that mean God is responsible for all that happens? Yes. Including all moral evil? Yes. Luther whines he wishes he was not born a man who had to contemplate this problem.

He finally abandons reason and rationality. God is incomprehensible. God is inscrutable. When one accepts that the Bible is revelation, the only true and trustworthy revelation, sola scriptura, and follows up on that by examining the Bible as to the existence of free will, the whole exercise crumbles away in our hands.

 

[Treedbear]

Luther is hardly the founder of all Protestantism. Folks like Halfie tend to think of Lutherans and Anglicans as Catholic Lite. It's certainly true that he saw free wiil as no path to virtue, though. A trap if it existed at all.

If one reads Luther's "Bondage of the Will", Luther is very plain about free will. "Free will is impossible". Luther goes through the bible with a fine comb and finds free will is not supportable.

This puts Luther in a bind. If free will is impossible, does that mean God is responsible for all that happens? Yes. Including all moral evil? Yes. Luther whines he wishes he was not born a man who had to contemplate this problem.

He finally abandons reason and rationality. God is incomprehensible. God is inscrutable. When one accepts that the Bible is revelation, the only true and trustworthy revelation, sola scriptura, and follows up on that by examining the Bible as to the existence of free will, the whole exercise crumbles away in our hands.

If both sides would just agree on the idea that we are each free to be what we are and no more than what we are free will would cease to be an issue. IIRC even untermenche agreed with me on that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A lot of Christianity is a Jesus cult. Utter adoration and worship.

Since when was protestantism a Jesus cult? Those folk worship Paul.