continued discussion Atheist~Christian. How do you know? Gaslighting. Delusion. How many Jesuses?
Nah ah aaaah... You still haven't answered my questions. Play fair, come on.
This is a continuation of the discussion with @abolitionist here.
Reality Time
Abo, what's happening is this:
Instead of discussing honestly, you've created another imaginary character – THE NIHILIST. You've superimposed THE NIHILIST onto me because you think you have a good argument against nihilism. I've already told you I'm not a nihilist.
Smokescreen effect or gaslighting
You are debating someone that does not exist (at least not in this series of discussions). You're being dishonest.
More imaginary characters
I know you like talking to imaginary characters, but it's difficult for me to engage with fictional beings and even more so for me to become a fictional being for the sake of your game.
I've already discussed my world view, repeatedly. Try to concentrate when you read.
Delusional
Looool. My views and opinions are heavily supported by reality and logic. Yours are totally contradicted by reality and logic. You are the delusional one.
Back to how I know
Just for you, I've created this little pic to use instead of the BOLD paragraph.
I made one for you too. You're welcome :)
Just for fun...
how do you know the gospel according to Mark was written by someone who KNEW that Jesus was real?
how do you know Mark wasn't just a propagandist?
how do you know that Rabbi Saul (Paul)'s hallucinations and imaginary conversations with SPACE JESUS were REAL, rather than brought on by a dodgy batch of mushrooms or food poisoning or mental illness?
how do you know the prophet Muhammad was having REAL visions and conversations with God? Could he have been a liar or suffering from Acromegaly?
Will the real dang Jesus please stand up?
Josephus (1st century Jewish historian) writes about loads of different Jesii (Jesuses). Jesus BarAbbas, Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus, Jesus ben Gamaliel, and many many more...
Fun fact
Nazareth did not exist before the 2nd century C.E.
Recommended further study for beginners
Watch Monty Python's Life of Brian
Other eclectic articles
Another movie recommendation although not for beginners at all since it's quite a heavy information dump is Zeitgeist, that movie changed my life.
Thanks Luna. I haven't seen Zeitgeist. Think I'll check it out. Will I need to wear a tinfoil hat?
cheers
No tinfoil hat needed! and the other guy said it was stupid so now you know it's pretty good :-D
"guy said stupid ... you know it was pretty good" buahaahahaha
Hahahah yes. No higher recommendation than that XD
@lunaticpandora
Thanks for recommending Zeitgeist. I just finished watching it. Wow! What a great documentary. Loved it. I'm part way into Zeitgeist 2 now. Woooooo. Awesome!
Glad you enjoyed it :-D told ya it was pretty good!
Hell yeah! I'm pretty sure @abolitionist only watched the first minute or so then had a cognitive dissonance situation and rage quit :D
Loved the bit about Jesus. Hadn't heard it in terms of the zodiac before. Really, thanks.
Oh, the 2nd one is talking about Venezuela and the economic assassin and stuff. Very interesting...
Laters :D
"tinfoil hat" buahaahahahah
love me some Anj
Zeitgeist is one of the stupidest and most embarrassing things that anyone has ever done. The fact that you find it compelling is a terribly sad commentary on your level of education and intelligence.
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/search/label/zeitgeist
I respect your opinion but dislike the way you express yourself.
I can't control that, but I would certainly exhort you that grownups generally get past "tone" to interact with ideas.
I understand that, i was trying to be civil and was sort of impressed for the attack on my movie recommendation and i just checked your posts and i think the level of education and intelligence that we should be questioning here is on your side anyways.
Tone matters. People are more likely to be receptive to your ideas if you don't first attack them.
A'oo!
It's not as sad or embarrassing as and adult believing in imaginary sky fairies.
Tone matters. People are more likely to be receptive to your ideas if you don't first attack them.
hehehehe
Where have I heard that before XD
You know, you attacked me first and were very rude. I always align my attitude to that of the person I speak with.
Laters
Where did I attack you?
How was I rude?
Let me guess - you'll avoid these questions like you've avoided the others I've posed.
when we first started speaking. Maybe it wasn't your intention but that's how it came across to me (and others)
One shouldn't have to point out that disagreeing with someone is not the same as being rude.
btw... I've avoided none of your questions. It's you who deflects and avoids and circles
Let the reader judge. I'm comfortable with that.
One of the claims seems to be that atheism inevitably leads to nihilism. I don't really see the connection here. I'm sure there are plenty of atheist nihilists (hell I think I'm probably borderline nihilist lol, at least on things of no consequence to others in society). But it's not a logical conclusion. Plenty of writing points to the contrary (e.g. @anjkara). And it's pretty clear that the conclusions drawn by @abolitionist don't match you. Although maybe you have to prove you won't eventually end up that way lolllll. Nothing to prove really. That straw man is quite an easy target. Glad you aren't like that.
Thanks Eon. Ah, proving a future version of me hahaha. That's gonna be tricky. I don't see the connection either. That's why I'm wondering why he keeps on about it lol.
cheers
I'd be very interested in hearing how atheism doesn't logically and inescapably result in nihilism. Please show me.
Maybe I missed the place where you showed the connection. I feel all I need to do is point at examples of atheist that aren't nihilists.... And I believe @anjkara when she said she isn't. And just look at all the other happy publishing atheists out there. Eh. I mean it's not solid proof I'll admit but I think the burden on proof of really on you to show this. Logically... I don't really see how it follows.
"Atheism results inescapably in nihilism" is not at all the same statement as "all atheists are nihilists" or even "more than zero atheists are nihilists".
If you disagree with the former statement, please let me know how meaning and value exist in an atheistic universe. I don't think that simply imagining that something (like value, or like meaning) comes into existence simply by the power of your imagination.
Is it not the same statement as "atheists will eventually turn nihilist?" If that's not what you are trying to claim then I don't really see the point of continuing. If it is, then my point still stands. Although you know, I'm not going to be able to chase every single public atheist to their death bed to see if they became nihilist.
As for your other point, do we not derive our own meaning and value with respect to the society in which we live? You can totally derive such things even from a selfish or survivalist point of view. I mean to open that up as a possibility. It's certainly easier to turn to God though I'm not sure I want the Christian God (I may have already mentioned that before)
No, it is not the same. Atheists actually live in God's universe and so know deep down that stuff actually does matter. Thus they have an overriding interest, though most will acknowledge neither its existence nor its source, not to profess nihilism or consistently adhere to it. People are not ideologies. People are often inconsistent, and atheists necessarily so, since they live in God's universe and yet profess their Creator doesn't exist.
I look forward to your describing the process by which things pop into existence just because we believe in them.
I know you don't. Nobody does, actually, outside of repentance. We are fundamentally evil beings, in rebellion against God. Only by His grace does anyone turn to Him.
Oh interesting. You're starting from the base that we live in God's universe so that atheists in that world are just in denial.
Or you know, values are ever changing out of necessity, because otherwise a group of people cannot live in harmony. You'd think that it isn't a coincidence that societies across the world came up with oddly similar values. Right... Because they are all gods creatures and this played out like a bad game of telephone.
The real question is whether it's possible for these values to have developed naturally or not. To you, they must have been inspired by God. To me, it's a natural, ever changing process. And you can see elements of group behavior in other animals that have similar characteristics, and you might wonder how that came to be as well. God? Or simply small adjustments over time that are done to improve survival?
Yes. That is because we are trying to reason and think rationally, and the only possible foundation of reason and intelligibility is that Jesus is Lord.
So what you're saying is that:
--child rape was once good
--preferring lies to truth was once good
--adhering to theism was once good
--throwing atheists in big pits covered with deadly snakes was once good
Correct?
And how did you come to this conclusion about values ever changing? How do you know?
But it isn't a moral duty to live in harmony with others, correct?
I'd say a more real question is whether other people even exist and whether your senses are reliable.
Lol! I recently read 'the god delusion'. Interesting book i would reccomend it
I loved that book. Also, a really good one is GOD IS NOT GREAT by Christopher Hitchens. I've got this as an audiobook. Great for long drives. Love Hitch's voice :D
cheers
I dont know that one but im going to search it up now! Cheers!
That book is a ludicrous and pathetic attempt by someone who made their money and prestige in one topic to cross over into territory with which he is totally unfamiliar and woefully unprepared, and it shows.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/dawkins-delusion.html
If you're talking about Dawkins, you're completely off base. He's a highly qualified scientist and fellow at Oxford University, England (one of the world's most respected educational establishments). He is completely qualified to talk about evolution and the crazy notion of creationism.
Just read the review in question. "Qualified" he may be - the terribleness of the book should tell you quite a lot about just what such "qualifications" actually signify.
And I was referring to his philosophical and metaphysical diatribes. He's definitely not qualified to make any such statements.
Hmm. I don't know about that tbh.
I do know that it's an awesome book, very educational, well researched, thorough. Fun to read too. I loved it. Suppose it all comes down to personal taste.
He's not my favourite atheist, like. I don't think he's the best at debating. He's too polite :P
Laters Abo
It isn't surprising that you find such an ignorant and poorly reasoned work to be "awesome" and "thorough".
Why isn't it surprising? Are you trying to accuse me of ignorance and poor reasoning too?
Congratulations @anjkara! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDo not miss the last announcement from @steemitboard!