Atheism is a Joke.

Very good. The only problem, in your myth, the heavens came first, followed by the earth, followed by light.

You are stretching credulity to the LIMIT to attempt to link the fable to the reality.

 

Thanks, but why are you completely ignoring it then?

No it isn't. Atheism describes the characteristic of not believing in the existence of a god or gods. It is the opposite of theism, which describes the characteristic of believing in the existence and a god or gods. Neither of those terms automatically imply anything else.

If you wish to question, challenge or simply condemn any specific claims, say which claims you're referring to. Don't just imply atheism encompasses some negative set of statements then use that to attack every single human being who happens to not believe in gods.

Only as much as any other non-Christian belief is. Most atheists really have nothing against Christianity. Many atheists follow the same basic morality as your average Christian. A few probably more so. There are even atheist Christians, who obviously don't accept the divinity of Jesus but do support and hold to Christian morality.

The world is really nothing like as straight forward as the simplistic labels you want to apply to it.

 

You keep posting the same (*)(*)(*)(*) over and over.

The reason is because you don't want to give up living in a fantasy world.

 

Well not exactly there is multiverse theory demonstrated by physics so well this universe is likely one of an infinite number of them, therefore even if there is a divine sort of thing going on is it tied to this universe or more than one? In fact with infinite universes and parallel ones to ours there likely are infinite divine beings to so again which one do you want me to believe in if any? Of course one can say what makes that better than god how did all that start well who can tell its not likely we would ever know.

As for Pangea they were not the super continent had rivers, lakes and the like so it was NOT all in one place.

 

Q: What, if anything, came before the big bang?
A: We have no idea. And what's more, there is pretty much no way of knowing. It's been postulated that time actually began with the big bang, but others have proposed ideas like a previous "big crunch" from a previous universe.

But either way, so what?

You misinterpreted his comment. I don't think anyone who says something like that doesn't portend to understand the big bang. Hell, we understand the Genesis account, as written. What we don't believe is the veracity of the Genesis account. Because someone writing a story about an omnipotent god creating things is reasonable; that actually happening as described in Genesis is not.

No, that's not the connotation of atheism in its current usage. It's not the etymological meaning either. So I don't know where you're coming from.

No. We all have postulates and axioms. This is, however, fundamentally different from faith, and especially different from faith as you hold it. We take these as a starting point, and try to minimize them as far as possible, to take as little as possible on faith, and leave them to be changeable if it turns out they were wrong. This is in no way analogous to the faith held by the religious.

 

But why is atheism a joke I could turn around and refute that by looking at the Judeo-Christian faiths the ones that are pretty much the big ones currently.

Simply put you report the god being is there and widely regarded as morally good in and of itself and communicates this good to your followers through the holy texts and those of faith that transmit this good to mankind. I think I got that right? Okay then explain this just using the Torah the basic text core to all three faiths since its foundational it seems: God in the Torah in Genesis picking one tale wiped out two cities for being evil and before that he said to one of his holy men he would spare the cities if he found five just men in the the city of Sodom after some debate. Okay here is the issue they had to have had slaves in the city it was a common practice and you can't deny that its historical slavery in that time was common - so I assume you will agree there were slaves in Sodom. So if they were there and a fair proportion were men then is it a just act to assume they could willfully do evil acts they were just doing what they were told or face punishments maybe death. So there were in all modern terms innocent men as well as women and children (little ones) in the cities. So what kind of god would blast them and lie to a follower like he did and be just.

I would think this gods moral code would trump the Nuremburg legal precedents and what the UN agreed to in various documents signed by the nations of the world, I think I would find blasting slaves and children over the offenses of the owners immoral. But god gets a pass?

I could go on. Now atheists like myself look at things as what hurts us, other people, society and can be demonstrated to be undesireable or desireable or neutral. Say our nation thinks about going to war I personally place that bar high will attacking stop a direct threat to the US, is it a UN action where we are assisting in a moral action using force to do greater good, is the sacrifice of our soldiers worth the overall costs expected and is the war a moral one to be waged with morality. The last wars that fit my standards I would support in WW2 and maybe Korea and the 1st Gulf War the latter two were UN authorized and supported. The former a war to defend the nation for invasion and conquest and to stop madmen from doing greater evil on the innocent. On other issues I tend to be neutral and atheists generally are gay marriage just is not of interest if the parties are adults and citizens they deserve the right to marry if opposite sex couples can, no one is harmed and marriage is stabilizing and seen as good by most people.

 

are you sure you're in the right place? That's what happens here on the PF everyday...making a joke out of christians.

 

Treat it as a statement, but not an arguement. The arguement is You.

 

Your posts make very little sense...

 

Any educated person would see your kind of '"christian"
as a sort of sour joke,

Thomas Jefferson:

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. "

 

To those who cannot read and retrieve sense from sentences.
There was a statement:
Atheists, atheism and everything connected to it is a joke.

There was a joking response:
After this arguement there will be more followers of yours! (Ha-ha)

And there was my post:
The author of this post is the best arguement for a statement made by topiccaster.

Now tell me was it so difficult to retrieve this sense for three short posts?

 

Tom was right. It indeed is.

The quality of an argument that every educated, sensible blonde will agree with you cries about Tom's righteousness!

 

Your assesment needs a little tweaking, lol. You ask for us to go by the Torah. If there were slaves and they figured predominately in the story it would have been mentioned in scripture. Remember scripture is written to relay an idea in most cases, but important details are not left out. So if slaves existed they were as wicked as the violent wicked homosexual masters. (that rioted because Lot would not give up the angels) .If anyone slave or master had been righteous God would not have destroyed the city. The bible tells us that the cities inhabitants thought of nothing but wickedness continually. It did not say some of the citizens, the bible does not say the 'masters not the slaves'..etc, no it said the 'inhabitants', it even specifically pointed out succinctly five goodins' [sic] did not exist. So the way I see it was if the story is not parable and is supposed to be a literal historical tale and if the bible is true as I do, I have to assume that the slaves were as bad as everyone else. BTW the story may be parable or at least partly so all the men were homosexual according to the bible.

That is the most difficult concept to explain to non believers. 2000 to 5000 years ago what was moral or ethical may not be moral and ethical today. So its unfair to judge the people of those days by modern standards.

reva

 

But we can extend today facts to what happened long ago, coz our forum has the same people's nature which it was centuries before. Sexual pervertions don't result in kids. Perverts by "nature" try to seduce ones and to shut up those who don't agree with them. So sexual pervertion by nature makes it only a question of time when Sodom will be just reconstructed. And there will be no innocent kids around. Maybe a few Lolitas with innocent sexy eyes...
Moralty of society was truely different. And it was changed by Christ himself. A moral thing used to be a principle of just. Which means that if your neighbour took an eye from you then you will be able to take an eye from him. Not the head not his life. Just an eye. This principle still lives as a rudimentary belief in our court system. But event there it fades more and more in front of Christ's idea of mercyfulness. He told that if you are hit into one cheek - you can make it convinient for the aggressor to hit you into the other. And this will make you more powerful then your enemy. Love your enemy, he said. And this moralty system is not yet reached. Although it's been almost 2000 years after this goal was spoken of. Instead we are rebuilding ancient Sodom hoping that God died in the beginning of 20th century as was reported by some fascist philosophers.

 

Actually, it's smarter to NOT argue with the pesky Atheists. I'm done with them. I'm not going to spend my time day and night here with you jokers. You've all lost every argument in the past and have proven nothing. therefore it's smarter to just call you all a JOKE.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, it's smarter to NOT argue with the pesky Atheists. I'm done with them. I'm not going to spend my time day and night here with you jokers. You've all lost every argument in the past and have proven nothing. therefore it's smarter to just call you all a JOKE.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, it's smarter to NOT argue with the pesky Atheists. I'm done with them. I'm not going to spend my time day and night here with you jokers. You've all lost every argument in the past and have proven nothing. therefore it's smarter to just call you all a JOKE.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, it's smarter to NOT argue with the pesky Atheists. I'm done with them. I'm not going to spend my time day and night here with you jokers. You've all lost every argument in the past and have proven nothing. therefore it's smarter to just call you all a JOKE.

 

It is not about believers and non believers but mostly it has to do with new nations , they have very limited understanding of time and the farthest they can go are 400-500 years where people spoke a language almost identical to theirs and held practices that are still very close to modern ones. For members of nations that can go back 2-3 or 4000 years it is easier to understand that those people had a different language, a different religion, different morals ,values, lifestyles and gave different weight to patriotism, sex , slavery and so on.

 

Even if your synopsis of the the Sodom events were correct, today we see the sodomy and Welfare to Single Mothers with illegitimate kids when we "look at things as what hurts us, other people, society and can be demonstrated to be undesireable" realize that America is near destruction by internal choas/economic crisis/crime and/or external destruction by enemies eager to cut our throats as we become unstable and weak.

The fire bombs of the muslims are accompanied with cries that God told them to destroy secular sexually pornographic America and the West.
The lesson in Genesis about sexual proiscuity and destruction is ear marked by the mention of Gayness out in public and acceptable.
This state of the sexual mores can only exist when the Straight community is equally as promiscuous as the men who create "The Life" of homosexuals.


Genesis is saying. ..."look at things as what hurts us, other people, society and can be demonstrated to be undesireable"....

 

Your observation above supports a dfiferent point of view, that the Bible "is not about believers and non believers but mostly it has to do with" civilization and the three types of Social Contracts possible between peoples who organize themselves for mutual benefits.


The Bible immediately tells us that there are the Hebrew Patriarchs that oppose the sexually permissive pagan societies, i.e.; Gentiles, which are essentially matriarchy by comparison.

The Social Contracts different in particular in regard to the sexual mores.

We could use Islam of today as an example of what God tells patriarchs to believe, compared to the secular West where feminism has gathered enough momentum to reduce men into boys in alarming numbers as fatherless children see their Single Mom as the strength of their household.

In 32AD, the third type of Social Contract was proposed and then exectued as a 1000 year reign of Universal Christianity during the Dark Ages when monasticism repressed sexual expression of every type, while promoting an equal but separate relationship between men and women who could not be promiscuous nor divorced.

 

If i understand what you say yes the bible is a reflection of the civilisation that created it and for that it can not reflect modern needs and social values.
Pagan societies were not matriarchal they just saw female sexuality as confirmation of the divine , do not forget that in many societies prostitutes were considered from higher social class than other women in Athens to some short of holy in Babylon and Corinth ( Greek word for them translates as "slaves of god" or "submissive to god") .
Abrahamics had a very good understanding of how breeding programs work , for a population to expand the ratio must be close to 4 women for each men so penis based religions spread around the glob and they still are. All their beliefs around sexuality are based to this equation 4 to 1 .
Monasticism was a good way to place fertile people out of the picture, with European population skyrocketing , forests cut down to the last tree , grasslands over cultivated into barren , rivers contaminated by unstable soil and diseases spreading out like wild fires every now and then the lesser kids around the better for everyone. You may call it a social contract but in reality it was just practical.

 

Calculus is probably a joke to those too dim to understand it.

 

The more they obsess, the more we know they are talking about themselves.

It shameful for someone to be exposing himself so.

 

You ignore that the Hebrew are specified as patriarchs.

The Gentiles are a reference to all the other nations surrounding these Hebrew patriarchs.
The word Gentile in Hebrew means homosexuals and/or dogs with the emphasis on the sexual connotation of that idea of dogs.

The contrast between the two types of societies, the only two the Old Testment mentions, separates the patriarchs which proscribes rules for sexual mores and the treatment of women very much along the lines of modern day Sharia in Islamic patriarchies, from themore feminized West of today.

By contrast with Islam, the West is a matriarchy, as were those other of the two ancient possibilities for a civilized peoples.


Weak, feminized matriarchies fall to invading patriarchies just as the OT tells us those Hebrews attacked their neighbors:


Then, the New Testament uses this Sociology to predict history, in light that people will not change their behaviors and calamity after calamity will befall every Golden Age:


Rev. 17:3 So he carried me away (in the spirit of thought), into the wilderness (of my imagination) and I saw (as if) a woman, ...



.... (those who have Institutionalized a system of sexual seduction into a failed matrimony), sit upon a scarlet coloured beast (of a brazen and corrupt sexually misdirected economic system: [Dan 3:1-5]), full of names of (Pagan) blasphemy, having seven heads:
(which existed in (1) Egypt, (2) Assyria, (3) Babylon, (4) Persia/Mede, (5) Greece, (6) Rome (7) the whole of Western Culture to follow)...







... having ten horns upon these seven heads:
(1. Undivided Empire; capital Rome: [305 AD],

2. Western Roman Empire: (Romulus Augustus): [to 476 AD],

3. Eastern Roman: Byzantine Empire, [1453 AD]

4. Charlemagne, [800 - 1000 AD]

5. Holy Roman Empire, [1200 AD-1492 AD]

6. Italy, [Renaissance, 16th century]

7. Spain, [17th century]

8. France, [18th-19th Century]

9. Britain, [19th-20th century]

10. Nazi Germany, [20th century])


11. America next…?

 

Oh wow, someone actually thinks that the west is a matriarchy. That'd be hilarious if it wasn't so depressingly wrong.

 

not to all of us

 

Maybe you will help me out to see any maths (whether Calculus or not doesn't matter) in the statement:
"I'm sure this cogent and profound argument will win you a tsunami of new believers".
Everyone's invited.