Chuchulainn vs. the Wishful Thinkers, err, Atheists

Post Reply New Topic

the theists' arguments all boil down to:

1. believe because i believe it
2. my book is true because it says it is.

Ok, its this simple. If you want to believe in an entity, thats fine. What reasons do you have to believe?
Does he/she communicate with you?
Have they ever appeared before you?
In what ways have they done anything useful for you?
What obvious signs are there?

Even if an entity does exist, but does not acknowledge you in these ways then they are not worth your time. When you try to get in touch with them, and get no responce they are obviously either ignoring you or dont exist. Even if one does not exist, they can still be harmful to you. Not all are however. To find out what is real? Well, try everything imaginable and something will work for you, not just appeal to you. Ive already failed once after succeeding.

At this point I can't be sure if you're serious or trolling. Either way, that's not evidence. It's not data that can be used to formulate testable hypotheses. So, there's no further call to debate.

Your requirement is symptomatic of modern Western society; we have lost our way. Time was Christian awe and witness was an almost communal yet intensely individual experience. A Christian could relate his epiphany to his fellow man and expect to be understood. Now we are so cold, methodical—like the computers we use. Your atheistic and oh-so-scientific reasoning can do nothing to bring you comfort or to bring you closer to your brethren. It is easy to be smug when you think you wield the perfect tool, but reason alone cannot know all the divine mysteries that even Albert Einstein admitted to. Our society has traded it away, though. With all due respect, I am ashamed for you.

I shall pray that one day His love and grace shall bring you holy redemption.

Peace be with you.

Let's re-declare Tony's question though. You stated that atheists are close to demonic and such. When you were asked for a proof for that statement, you brought up revelation through biblical study and praying.

A proof is a theory or item that rules out any other options but that one option that is the true one.
Your "proof" (revelation, praying and all that jazz) is not a proof at all as your "proof" cannot be scientifically measured. Therefor it becomes a personal belief rather than an acceptable proof. Unless you can prove your prophetic experiences or revelations, there is still room for debate and other options (such as "god does not exist") cannot be ruled out. So your challenge would be: prove your revelations and prove your connections to god... unless I see a concrete proof I remain sceptic about religions and gods.

If you believe in the Bible and in God and find emotional strength in that: very fine for you. But don't you think your theories would be received less unfriendly if you would also respect other's peoples opinions? This hostile attitude towards atheists is not going to make us all grab a bible and go to church.

Your definition of proof, or evidence (the word originally used), is too narrow. Evidence is facts that persuade. For a believer, divine revelation is the most powerful of evidence.

My requirement is symptomatic of a discriminating mind. If you want me to believe in Christ, tell me why. Prove to me that your way is the right way. Why not Judaism? Islam? Buddhism? Hinduism? Satanism? Atheism? etc.


Not all truth needs to come from religion. Science tells me how the planets orbit the sun, how plants convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, and a great many other things. I do take comfort in the fact that I have an understanding of how the universe works. Is it a complete understanding? Of course not.

Also, science has little to do with "bringing me closer to my brethren." I don't believe anyone ever said it did.



I don't think I'm being smug, and I never said I thought science was a perfect tool. And you can keep your "shame," because I don't care what you think of me. Don't make assumptions. You know nothing about me.

You are correct though, reason has its limits... and any responsible scientist will readily admit that. For example, due to the inductive nature of most of science, we can never really say we know something to be absolutely 100% true. When Newton published his equations on gravity, everyone thought he had it solved. Then Einstein comes along and shows that Newton wasn't quite right after all. In another few hundred years, maybe someone will show that Einstein made a few errors.

If anyone is being smug, I'd say that it's you, coming here acting like you have all the answers, casting atheists as demons, telling people how "ashamed" you are for them, and doing absolutely nothing to support your statements besides saying "divine revelation has shown me the truth."


That may be true. However, I doubt that the majority of the people opposing you here are believers. Therefore, you may require alternate evidence to convince them that your position is the correct one.

The fact that atheists admit that rainbows come from the refraction of light by water droplets, rather than from the mind of 'God,' does not mean that atheists appreciate less, or are less moved by, said rainbow. That atheists attribute emotions to neurotransmitters and hormones rather than to an immaterial 'soul' does not mean that atheists are incapable of falling in love, or sacrificing for their children out of love, or feeling the agony of the loss of a family member.

I think that the ultimate argument ends up being that man without a soul and higher meaning is an empty being. There is no argument that atheists do not feel these feelings, but the ultimate argument is that the emotional framework for reality makes little sense without underlying element of the soul as we do not relate to the world as we describe it, we do not act as if our loved ones are only the results of chemical processes, we make them human. Now, this point can be debated back and forth, but it really relates back to the entire underlying element of human irrationality and our inability to derive ourselves from a purely material world but also from an unknown element. We figure out what we ought to do without a good reason.

I tend to agree with you. We cannot physically measure metaphysics, and the entire debate of religion goes back to metaphysical assumptions and presuppositions. His arguments seem to be based more upon a sense of incompleteness in the materialist assumptions, which is an understandable argument if the points are taken as valid, but useless if the initial assumptions are the ultimate linchpin, which they seem to be. The issue is that an atheistic world view is incompatible with all other world views and that neutral viewpoints do not truly exist, which means that all it falls down to is "I assume X, well, I assume Y".

All arguments on metaphysics boil down to metaphysical assumptions. Such is the nature of the game, some posit that their assumptions are better than others, however, really, any assumption of truth or knowledge is probably best seen as some form of dogma. There are merely assumptions about the unknowable.

I live in a predominantly religious country, catholic actually. Everyone is baptized and brought up to be god-fearing individuals. I now am an atheist. I don't hate my parents for having me baptized rather i thank them for protecting me as a child because they are only ensuring that if ever i get lost or something similar to a war or the holocaust may happen, i will never be left out and will always belong somewhere. That i think is the only logical reason for religion. People need to understand that we live in different times now. Greater people before us have made changes and discoveries that lessened the need for us to pin our hopes on miracles and prayer. Even if there is a god, wouldn't he be proud that we made such an accomplishment? It's less work for him.

Last edited by hoqnq on 23 Oct 2007, 4:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

i'm white protestant.

Did anybody else notice how Angelus-Mortis wrote so much in response to what NeantHumain said, but NeantHumain seems to have completely ignored it. Who does he respond to instead? Whoever wrote the shortest response to his nonsense! How cowardly is that?

i'd say lazy is more the correct adjective....not cowardly.

It could be both.
I mean, I'm very lazy, but if somebody wrote that much about me, I would feel the need to read it all and respond to it.
I would have a hard time doing that though if I was as wrong as Neatwhatever is.
Luckily, I am always right.