Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

[Fitz]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
Incorrect!
Water is wet is an idea that stands on its own.
Flying pigs is an idea that does not stand on it's own.
The ideas of Plato, Socrates and Aristotle stand on their own.
The ideas of "scripture" like the walking on water guy and the magic sky daddy do not stand on their own.
Get it? Bet not!!

Someone has obviously never read Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates.

[Fitz]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong! The concept of hearsay and legend absolutely does apply to "oral tradition" because that is exactly what it is.

Historians know that oral traditions are very reliable conduits of hiostorical knowledge and differ sharply from story telling and legends in both substance and practice.

The Gospels were first person accounts made by people who were eye witnesses.. They have as much veracity as the letters of Paul...that we have zero evidence were written by Paul and you fail by your own inconsistant "standard" that you established to make a point that has now backfired on you.

The reason for this is simple. Unlike serious minds that dont doubt the historical existance of Jesus.. they are apporaching the subject the same way the apporach any historical figure.

You however have a deep seated bias against religion and want to mock figures like Jesus, in that persuit you end up engaging in arguments that hold impossible to maintain "standards of proof" that resonable people dont apply and that you cannot apply with any consitancy or accuracy..

Nice Job painting yourself into a corner.

[polymath257]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
Someone has obviously never read Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates.

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, while clearly great thinkers for their time, made a lot of mistakes. Socrates made many very basic logic errors in his questioning. Plato's version of the ideal world is clearly wrong in many ways. Aristotle was better than Plato because he at least considered the real world worthy of explanation, but he was wrong about most of his physics (for example). His ideas about causality are fundamentally flawed.

These three are important because they got us working towards a better understanding of ourselves and the universe around us. But, as the ones making the first steps, they did not reach that goal and they fell into some troubles that were not fixed for thousands of years.

So where were we again?

[Jumper]

Yea I guess THAT shut them up!

[pinch111]

Seems to me that many are losing the plot, and the whole debate/argument.Atheism will not replace religion,Agnosticism will.

[Fitz]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, while clearly great thinkers for their time, made a lot of mistakes. Socrates made many very basic logic errors in his questioning. Plato's version of the ideal world is clearly wrong in many ways. Aristotle was better than Plato because he at least considered the real world worthy of explanation, but he was wrong about most of his physics (for example). His ideas about causality are fundamentally flawed.
These three are important because they got us working towards a better understanding of ourselves and the universe around us. But, as the ones making the first steps, they did not reach that goal and they fell into some troubles that were not fixed for thousands of years.
So where were we again?

We were at the point were I concede you as far and away the most worthy advocate on this board. Clearly your fellow travelers have not read much of anything much less "Humes Dialogues concerning natural religion"..

[Ooogah Boogah]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
Someone has obviously never read Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates.

Fine! So all of their ideas did not stand on their own, just the important ones did. So what?

[Ooogah Boogah]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
Historians know that oral traditions are very reliable conduits of hiostorical knowledge and differ sharply from story telling and legends in both substance and practice.
The Gospels were first person accounts made by people who were eye witnesses.. They have as much veracity as the letters of Paul...that we have zero evidence were written by Paul and you fail by your own inconsistant "standard" that you established to make a point that has now backfired on you.
The reason for this is simple. Unlike serious minds that dont doubt the historical existance of Jesus.. they are apporaching the subject the same way the apporach any historical figure.
You however have a deep seated bias against religion and want to mock figures like Jesus, in that persuit you end up engaging in arguments that hold impossible to maintain "standards of proof" that resonable people dont apply and that you cannot apply with any consitancy or accuracy..
Nice Job painting yourself into a corner.

Wrong on virtually all counts. The authors of the Gospels did not meet Christ. They are not eyewitness accounts. Pedal your BS somewhere else.

http://www.deusdiapente.net/science/gospels.p...
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

[Ooogah Boogah]

pinch111 wrote:

Seems to me that many are losing the plot, and the whole debate/argument.Atheism will not replace religion,Agnosticism will.

Nobody cares about that point. The difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic is very small in most discussions.

[Ooogah Boogah]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
Historians know that oral traditions are very reliable conduits of hiostorical knowledge and differ sharply from story telling and legends in both substance and practice.
The Gospels were first person accounts made by people who were eye witnesses.. They have as much veracity as the letters of Paul...that we have zero evidence were written by Paul and you fail by your own inconsistant "standard" that you established to make a point that has now backfired on you.
The reason for this is simple. Unlike serious minds that dont doubt the historical existance of Jesus.. they are apporaching the subject the same way the apporach any historical figure.
You however have a deep seated bias against religion and want to mock figures like Jesus, in that persuit you end up engaging in arguments that hold impossible to maintain "standards of proof" that resonable people dont apply and that you cannot apply with any consitancy or accuracy..
Nice Job painting yourself into a corner.

From: http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

30 C.E. to appx. 73 C.E
The conflict between the Hellenism and the traditions of ethnic Judaism was nowhere more obvious than in the northern part of Palestine, which had been so often subject to conquest and which, being on the major trade route between Asia Minor and the Transjordan, was constantly subjected to foreign influence. This northern region apparently didn't even consider itself to be Jewish, but rather a separate nation that had been annexed, apparently involuntarily, by the Maccabean kings of Israel. So here you have Hellenized Semitics under the influence and control of Jewish kings, looking elsewhere for philosophical guidance. It was a volatile mix.

Into this little region, called Galilee, was born a stubborn iconoclast. He resented the Roman occupation but accepted its rule. He was an intellect who understood at least the rudiments of the Cynic school of Greek philosophy and the complex theology of the Semitic Jews around him. But he would have none of it. He felt that there had to be a better way to live. He grew up a suburb of the capital of Galilee, in a place called Nazareth. His name was Jesus.

At least, that's the mythology that has grown up around this figure. For all his influence on the world, there's better evidence that he never even existed than that he did. We have absolutely no reliable evidence, from secular sources, that Jesus ever lived, or that any of the events surrounding his life as described in the four Gospels ever happened.

Indeed, when scholars apply the Negative Evidence Principle, it begins to look like the Jesus we know from the New Testament is the result of late first-century mythmaking.

The Negative Evidence Principle is, of course, not foolproof. It is not a proof in itself, but is rather a guideline, a good rule of thumb. How useful and reliable it is, of course, is subject to debate among logicians. Here's how the N.E.P. works - it states that you have good reason for not believing in a proposition if the following three principles are satisfied: First, all of the evidence supporting the proposition has been shown to be unreliable. Second, there is no evidence supporting the proposition when the evidence should be there if the proposition is true. And third, a thorough and exhaustive search has been made for supporting evidence where it should be found.

[Jumper The Wise]

I wonder who would jump out of window first if they thought they could fly.An Atheists or a Agnostic?

[Ooogah Boogah]

Jumper The Wise wrote:

I wonder who would jump out of window first if they thought they could fly.An Atheists or a Agnostic?

Both would be after the Christians since the Atheist and Agnostic would want to see verifiable evidence it were possible first.

[polymath257]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
We were at the point were I concede you as far and away the most worthy advocate on this board. Clearly your fellow travelers have not read much of anything much less "Humes Dialogues concerning natural religion"..

Hume is one of the better ones in my mind, although I lean more to Ayer and the positivists. Kant made a valiant effort, but still was subject to too many assumptions that were later found to be wrong.

[Givemeliberty]

Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive they deal with two different sides of the coin. You can be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist. An agnostic theist or a gnostic theist.

It amazes me how people lack the IQ to understand this.

Or more likely many non believers run from the atheist title because of the stigma put on the term by theists. Personally I won't allow theists to have that much control over me.

pinch111 wrote:

Seems to me that many are losing the plot, and the whole debate/argument.Atheism will not replace religion,Agnosticism will.

[MUQ]

Reason Personified wrote:

<quoted text>Being a primate scares you, doesn't it? Care to claim that you are not?
It is easy to prove, yet I would put $100,000 cash on the line, saying you would not have your blood and DNA mapped to prove otherwise. Get used to it ape-boy, human is ape, human is primate.

That proves my case, you are not "fully evolved"....may be if you were to live amongst apes and primates, they might understand you better!!

[Educated What]

Givemeliberty wrote:

<quoted text>Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive they deal with two different sides of the coin. You can be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist. An agnostic theist or a gnostic theist.

It amazes me how people lack the IQ to understand this.

Or more likely many non believers run from the atheist title because of the stigma put on the term by theists. Personally I won't allow theists to have that much control over me.

IQ? Bwahaha! Yet you are married to a theist and I am sure she controls you.

[Educated What]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>That proves my case, you are not "fully evolved"....may be if you were to live amongst apes and primates, they might understand you better!!

Reason Personified is petrified.

[Givemeliberty]

You don't see apes blowing themselves up to kill other apes like Muslim swine do.

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
That proves my case, you are not "fully evolved"....may be if you were to live amongst apes and primates, they might understand you better!!

[Reason Personified]

Jumper The Wise wrote:

I wonder who would jump out of window first if they thought they could fly.An Atheists or a Agnostic?

The vapid hole, of course.

If we thought* we could fly, we would first get clearance, then we would taxi out to the runway. It will be you alone going out the window.

* We would be certain as to whether we had, had any lessons. We would be certain as to whether we had any certification. So while you are thinking you can fly we would know, whether we could. In fact some of us can, there are valid pilot's licenses issued to several of us.

[Thinking]

In a world of 7 billion people that is hardly surprising.

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
Someone has obviously never read Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates.