Common theist argument: "You know, I used to be an atheist myself..."

[funinspace]

He's really our Creator. We didn't magically spring to life from some primordial ooze.

See, that's where my alarm sounds. I don't believe we 'sprang magically' from the ooze, or anything else.
No one I know of teaches 'magically springing.' This is a creationist lampooning of some scientific speculation, which is OKAY for him to hold, now. Really. It just doesn't make sense that when he was a militant atheist, he thought the science said 'magically sprung' from ooze. So it doesn't make sense for him to argue against it as part of his retelling of his own pilgrim's progress.

Hey, they are just following the lead of some of their early founders, like who ever decided to have Josephus drooling over Jesus, even though by all evidence Josephus remained a Jew. Such laughable fakery...

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ."

 

[Wiploc]

He's really our Creator. We didn't magically spring to life from some primordial ooze.

See, that's where my alarm sounds. I don't believe we 'sprang magically' from the ooze, or anything else.

It's actually self-parody. It's theists who think there was magic, and that we came from the clay.

 

[lpetrich]

On Josephus's alleged evidence:
The Testimonium Flavianum • Richard Carrier
The Josephus Testimonium: Let's Just Admit It's Fake Already • Richard Carrier

One would expect Josephus to have had a much more jaundiced view of Jesus Christ, like he did of such self-styled prophets as Theudas and "the Egyptian".

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The tell is usually something like the complexity argument above, or the probably even more common "I realized I didn't have any morals and could do anything". They are always based on some strawman position that no atheist actually holds.

I so wish this to be true, but sociopaths do exist. And perhaps some of the weaker minded ones are kept from surfacing through religion. But I would wager heavily that sociopaths are more likely to use and abuse others with religion than to be kept "good".

I don't have data to back that up other than my own bias. Anybody now of any?

 

[Rhea]

The tell is usually something like the complexity argument above, or the probably even more common "I realized I didn't have any morals and could do anything". They are always based on some strawman position that no atheist actually holds.

I so wish this to be true, but sociopaths do exist. And perhaps some of the weaker minded ones are kept from surfacing through religion. But I would wager heavily that sociopaths are more likely to use and abuse others with religion than to be kept "good".

I don't have data to back that up other than my own bias. Anybody now of any?

You appear to be implying that sociopaths are all atheist so they can justify their sociopathy. I don't believe sociopaths have any trouble whatsoever being religious and assuming the religious doctrine validates their sociopathy. They are sociopaths.

Or are you implying that just these "former atheists" are all sociopaths because they are claiming the excuse? In which case why are they converting back?

Not sure at all what the existence of sociopaths has to do with actual atheism or theists lying about atheism. Can you clarify?

 

[skepticalbip]

The tell is usually something like the complexity argument above, or the probably even more common "I realized I didn't have any morals and could do anything". They are always based on some strawman position that no atheist actually holds.

I so wish this to be true, but sociopaths do exist. And perhaps some of the weaker minded ones are kept from surfacing through religion. But I would wager heavily that sociopaths are more likely to use and abuse others with religion than to be kept "good".

I don't have data to back that up other than my own bias. Anybody now of any?

You appear to be implying that sociopaths are all atheist so they can justify their sociopathy. I don't believe sociopaths have any trouble whatsoever being religious and assuming the religious doctrine validates their sociopathy. They are sociopaths.

Or are you implying that just these "former atheists" are all sociopaths because they are claiming the excuse? In which case why are they converting back?

Not sure at all what the existence of sociopaths has to do with actual atheism or theists lying about atheism. Can you clarify?

I would go further. Religious leaders like Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson, etc., etc. were all religious nut cases.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The tell is usually something like the complexity argument above, or the probably even more common "I realized I didn't have any morals and could do anything". They are always based on some strawman position that no atheist actually holds.

I so wish this to be true, but sociopaths do exist.

Not sure at all what the existence of sociopaths has to do with actual atheism or theists lying about atheism. Can you clarify?

No need to read anything in. Just notice what I was responding to (the bolded). Some theists who say they would be rapists and murderers without religion, acrually may be telling the truth. Most, as World traveler says are engaging in a straw man (I should hope).

 

[Rhea]

No need to read anything in. Just notice what I was responding to (the bolded). Some theists who say they would be rapists and murderers without religion, acrually may be telling the truth. Most, as World traveler says are engaging in a straw man (I should hope).

Gotcha. Thanks.

KInda scary - and makes me wonder if next time I hear one of them say that (and you’re right, they do!) I will be compelled to ask them, “Oh, you are a sociopath and religion holds you at bay? Do you have psychiatric care?”

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No need to read anything in. Just notice what I was responding to (the bolded). Some theists who say they would be rapists and murderers without religion, acrually may be telling the truth. Most, as World traveler says are engaging in a straw man (I should hope).

Gotcha. Thanks.

KInda scary - and makes me wonder if next time I hear one of them say that (and you’re right, they do!) I will be compelled to ask them, “Oh, you are a sociopath and religion holds you at bay? Do you have psychiatric care?”

Exactly. It's a pretty terrifying thing when they admit to having no moral sense aside from obedience to power.

 

[Learner]

It's actually self-parody. It's theists who think there was magic, and that we came from the clay.

Its not so strange imo, if you take the viewpoint that we are made from the same elements found in the earth e.g. ashes to ashes , dust to dust etc.. (to be moulded like clay).

Genesis 2:7

7 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Genesis 3:19

19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, tll you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's actually self-parody. It's theists who think there was magic, and that we came from the clay.

Its not so strange imo, if you take the viewpoint that we are made from the same elements found in the earth e.g. ashes to ashes , dust to dust etc.. (to be moulded like clay).

Genesis 2:7

7 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Genesis 3:19

19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, tll you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Well yes, we are the earth and the earth is us. No big shakes. But what are magic, magic aliens and souls composed of other than stupidity in the form of religion?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Its not so strange imo, if you take the viewpoint that we are made from the same elements found in the earth e.g. ashes to ashes , dust to dust etc.. (to be moulded like clay).

No, it's pretty strange.
Science does tell us that matter is made of elements, and we can confirm that our elements are the same as the rest of the elements around us, but science also tells us, our experience shows us, that molded clay doesn't have the parts necessary to get up and walk around.
Even if we assume meticulous molding of the clay, sifting through the atoms to make the desired molecules, there's still that magic step of magic breath animating the clay by introducing the Spirit.
That the difference between a fish and a rock is not as great as the difference between us and that rock. Because the fish isn't animated by the magic breath.

The authors of The Books impart spirit, or LIFE, only to those creatures which breathe through nostrils. That's why those are the only animals Noah had to rescue. And why the olive branch was green after being submerged for most of a year. It wasn't alive. Not in the biblical account.
But the same science that says we're made of earth elements also says that fish and trees are alive, without magic breath.

So, yeah, cherry picking the science to support the superstition doesn't make it any less strange.

 

[Learner]

Well yes, we are the earth and the earth is us. No big shakes. But what are magic, magic aliens and souls composed of other than stupidity in the form of religion?

Its nice to see you get the viewpoint ... dust , although, I personally don't agree with the magic of time.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Well yes, we are the earth and the earth is us. No big shakes. But what are magic, magic aliens and souls composed of other than stupidity in the form of religion?

Its nice to see you get the viewpoint ... dust , although, I personally don't agree with the magic of time.

So you don't understand the science, either. Got it.

 

[Learner]

So you don't understand the science, either. Got it.

I understand we have been trying in the lab for some time, but unfortunately this is the only conclusion (that is sensible to look credible) when NOT being able to create life in the lab from the basic materials.

How much brains does one need to have a fair valid opinion , with the knowledge of ... unable to do in the lab?

 

[Worldtraveller]

So you don't understand the science, either. Got it.

I understand we have been trying in the lab , but unfortunately this is the only conclusion (that is sensible to look credible) when NOT being able to create life in the lab from the basic materials.

Really? Based on what?

 

[Learner]

Really? Based on what?

Do you mean, when I said the conclusion that it requires a lot of time (or that life was actually created in the lab)?

Based on ... it hasn't been done .. yet (making life from non organic elements) the part missing in thought, has to be time (via various processes).

 

[Keith&Co.]

So you don't understand the science, either. Got it.

I understand we have been trying in the lab for some time, but unfortunately this is the only conclusion (that is sensible to look credible) when NOT being able to create life in the lab from the basic materials.

How much brains does one need to have a fair valid opinion , with the knowledge of ... unable to do in the lab?

How many attempts do you think are necessary before we can change 'haven't done in the lab' to leap to 'unable to do in the lab?'

I mean, if we've been trying for, what, 100 years? to replicate something that took the Earth a few million years? What do you use as the milestone to say, "Okay, there. That's it. When we did THAT, we established that it's impossible."

 

[Lion IRC]

It's actually self-parody. It's theists who think there was magic, and that we came from the clay.

Its not so strange imo, if you take the viewpoint that we are made from the same elements found in the earth e.g. ashes to ashes , dust to dust etc.. (to be moulded like clay).

Genesis 2:7

7 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Genesis 3:19

19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, tll you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Learner doesn't think this is 'magic'.
I don't think this is magic.
Where does Wiploc get the idea that theists appeal to magic?

Magic would be the sort of spooky, unexplained, spontaneous, 'abiogenesis' of the gaps which still baffles science to this very day.

Speaking of which...Happy Birthday Charles Darwin.
Please accept this lovely watch as a token of our appreciation for your life's work.

 

[abaddon]

Learner doesn't think this is 'magic'.
I don't think this is magic.

You're trying to make words mean different things than what they mean, so you can pretend that theism's central problem ("instead of looking for a real answer we'll attribute it to spirits/magic") is science's problem.

The definition of magic is "the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces". A mysterious, outside-of-nature spirit breathing life into a lump of clay is by definition magic.

You're likely going to want to say (again) that the spirit in question is natural. But to be natural it would have to be a feature of nature, not an alleged maker of nature that is transcendent to nature and its laws (ie, supernatural).

Where does Wiploc get the idea that theists appeal to magic?

It's what the whole theism vs atheism discussion is about. Persons who rely on intuited, ancient, magical notions (God did it) versus persons who realize that the theist's magical being is a muddleheaded explanation for anything.

Magic would be the sort of spooky, unexplained, spontaneous, 'abiogenesis' of the gaps which still baffles science to this very day.

No. Just because there isn't a complete theory doesn't mean scientists are appealing to mysterious forces. But this twist on words and truth is typical of creationists because they repeatedly make an appeal from ignorance: scientists don't know so therefore magic-riddled metaphysical shit made up by ancient ignoramuses must be true.

In all cases where a well-demonstrated explanation has been found for phenomena, it's been a natural explanation with no immaterial spirits involved. This is what's credible and reasonable to continue expecting. To point at areas where the search is still ongoing and proclaim "so scientists fail! therefore my magical answer is more credible!" is superstitious persons resisting learning because they want to stay safe inside their little bubble of belief.

Yeah, a pocketwatch is obviously intentionally designed. Which is exactly why it's distinct from evolved nature that clearly has a lot of chance elements involved in it. This has been discussed thoroughly before. You, as necessary to maintain the comfort of being stuck inside your bubble, keep repeating the fallacious thinking. And it's not even a matter of atheism versus theism, but of reason versus intuitive magical thinking.