In The Name of Allah The Most Gracious The Most Merciful
13:(2) Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; is firmly established on the throne (of authority); He has subjected the sun and the moon (to his Law)! Each one runs (its course) for a term appointed. He doth regulate all affairs, explaining the signs in detail, that ye may believe with certainty in the meeting with your Lord.
I just want to emphasize what CRUSH3Rdlux said earlier. Satanists are NOT atheists. It would be ridiculous to say so. Atheism is a disbelief in god and the supernatural, satan included.
I get so frustrated when I hear people compare satanism with atheism.
A true atheism is a believe in no god. Thought many people rally behind it because they believe religion is ignorant ,prejudice, has a sheep-like mentality, and the cause of wars. In reality it is the human condition that causes these and people always use a justification like religion to rally behind. So in those people that follow atheism( for the above mention reasons) reasons are they them selfs doing the same. More so the ones that so prejudice toward people who do not believe same thing.
You cant be a satanic atheist? In order to be a satanist you would have to track back to satan being lucifer, which was created BY GOD.... that wouldnt make any sense to jump straight to the end..... and besides, satan would become the god-figure, which removes the idea of being an atheist anyway, because the person still believes in a supreme being
Haha I need to get stereotypes out of my head. I was like is he really texan???? Holy shit aren't they all like freaky religious. haha sorry I know it's not true but stereotypes are sometimes just drilled into your brain.
The classes you have taken MUST be from a Christian standpoint, since you so eagerly defend your myth from another.
You know what theology means, & what it derives from & what language?
And now you feel offended like a crybaby when someone who is smarter than you calling you out on your BS, not even sure what is kosher in Christianity at all....
No, it was done by an Agnostic teacher. Furthermore, most of my studies were independent, so yeah they probably were from a Christian standpoint, so what? Furthermore, Kosher is a Jewish practice not a Christian one.
Wow, you're an idiot. Christians aren't Jews, we do not adhere to their 512 Commandments, only to Jesus teachings and the 10 commandments. Wow, what a moron. Read on Christian theology you moron.
There you go. You admit that your studies have been done on a bias base. that is not what one should do if studying anything.
Is it Kosher by Christians to break ALL your 10 commandments? Chrstgianity is nothing more than a weird sect deriving from Judaism. So how goes it with the Christian Kosher cherry picking your religion based on your prejudices and ignorance? ;-)
You don't have much a sense of humor either. I can see that now. You're too soft & dim to understand a joke when you see one.
If you studied comparitive politics an an Atheist, you're studying on a bias base? Yeah, because you don't belive in any of these, and you think they are all myths and false? Yeah, I guess I'm biased, now quit the bullshit and prove me wrong?
Christianity is not a sect of Judaism, Jesus is not a prophet of Judaism (lol, fail). Cherry picking? No, you're making a special pleading fallacy. How can I tell a joke, everything you say is taken as a joke by me. You're a joke.
You best study religion from an unbias state if you take it for what they are: Myyths! You can't study comparative religion if your mind is already set on one myth. And i wasn't alway an atheist. It came to me one night, and then I found out truth about religion during travels to India, USA, Australia, South America & all of Europe. They have all their conceptions of some formative belief.
Sorry, I meant religion. I also take a comparitive politics class. Taking it as myths is a biased state in itself, it assumes they are flase without any unituitive or analytical examination (LMAO, you really aren't a bright one aren't you). You cannot study comparitive religion, if your mind is already set that they are all wrong (rofl).
Now, all you're doing is commiting to red herrings. You haven't proven any of my statements wrong, you're just an idiot.
Well, can you prove that these myths are not myths? If you can prove scientifically that virgin births can happen, & that ressurections have happened, then they are not myths. You should stay away from using long and difficult words. They only confuse you kid.
So what would you consider as proof that your faith is not a myth?What is the terms of proof that you would be satisfied with? Would you consider the writings of bronze age men, none of them witnesses to the biblical events at face value?
What myths? Christianity? Yes, the texts themselves are more historically eliable than Pliny the Younger, Plato's texts, or any other text of the anquity. Yes, scientifically virgin births can happen, self-fertilization of eggs (transvestial genetic mutations). I'm a kid? Yeah, they probably confuse an idiot like you, but I like your foolish arrogance. What is the evidence, history, science, philsoophy---> get it right you moron.
Neither does the existence of a savior named Jesus.
So what's the difference?
Did Hercules exist? Zeus? Osiris? Krishna?
There are NO phsyical or scientific evidence that Jesus was son of god. there may have been a dude named Jeshua living at the time. But you can't use the bible as evidence, since these claims are just as loonie as every other religious supernatural claim. Come back when you've learend the meaning of the word deduction....
What? I just toldyou that the NT is more reliable than any other writings of antiquity, if you accept Alexander the Great, you HAVE to accept Jesus, because Jesus is around 10 times more reliable in terms of time.
Hercules exist? No, it doesn't claim to exist either, osiris is a God not a person, Krishan another God not a person. These gods are disproven by Science. Tell me why I can't use the Bible as evidence? Historically it's accurate, refute it.
Was this written by unbiased eyewitnesses with scientific backrounds and not colored by their superstitions?
Come on lad. don't come with mindless circle argumentations. It doesn't help you god delusion no matter howe much you cringe on behalf of your imaginary friend...
Why not study some history instead, not colored by a book that has been written, rewritten, interpeted and screwed up so many times, that it would make any creationsit head spin LMAO
Scientific backrounds? Ypu're an idiot, history cannot be empirically verified, you can't go back in time and scientificaly and empirically prove that a ceirtain event happened, that's why we have texts. History is a social science not a natural science you ignorant trash.
Also what do you mean by unbiased? The eyewitnesses were people who LIVED and followed Jesus, and saw what he did. Unbiased? What the fuck does that even mean. You use too many compositional fallacies.
There are more reliable texts of the New Testament than any other text of antiquity, I really don't care abour red herring fallacies or any of your bullshit if you're not going to disprove me.
The precision of the expansion rate of the Universe is 1:10^60. That is, 1 in 1 followed by 60 zeros or decimals places. That is the same as taking the probability of taking dimes lining them up all across north america and to the moon and doing it a couple of millions times and multiplying the odds of taking one marked dime out of those and multiply it by 2.
This is but only 1 constants, there are many like it.
It shows that since the Universe cannot logically be a product of chance, and since it does not follow necessity (I can explain that if you want me to, it's basically gauge theory and the unceirtanty and probabilistic nature of the splitting of the four fundamental forces during the planck epoch of the Big Bang).
Then it logically follows that there must be a teleolgoical purpose for existence, threfore God.
It's not a leap, you haven't explained it's a leap. You're claiming two things. That it had to do so for a Universe to exist (which is not true, I have explained this already) or you're claiming it was chance. You're claiming it was chance most likely.
If you believe it was chance, then it's more reasonable to believe in a flying spaghetti monster than atheism. I'm just stating the obvious, what they call your condition in psychology is "denial".
First, they aren't probabilities, I only say they are probabilities to make the point more understandable. The figures are calculated by scientists and physicists, and they express the precision of the constants. The actual probability is not known, but he precision of th econstants for allowing a Universe are freaking precise to a point where the human mind is belittled.
Also, it isn't a leap. It is a leap to think it wasn't a sentient being. Now explain why I'm wrong, and you're right?
so because it happened as certain way there must be an intelligent overlord?
precision is found in nature with no creator, a perfect eample would be crystals or snowflakes, very prcise, but they required no creator, so to assume that because there was precision that there was a creator is a leap
No, because it happened in an extremely precise way, a precision so powerful that in Einsteins words:
"All systematic human thinking is but a mere reflection to it"
There must be an intelligent "overlord". I wouldn't call God an overlord though. Precision is found in nature without a creator? LMFAO, snowflakes and crystals are not precise? How does the word precise even fit into that? Now you're arguing badly, before you were just in denial, now you've reached the "I say stupid things".
also because the universe is the way it is because of the constants work for this one does not nessacarily mean that other physical laws with diffrent consants cannot create another universe similar to ours in regards it's continued exsistance for more than and it's ability to have life
No, if the value of ceirtain constants were different, it wouldn't create a Universe similar to ours. You're just guessing now, and you obviously don't know what you're talking about. I think I'm done here, you obviously won't change your mind, and don't want to change your mind. You remind me of a young earth creationist denying evolution, it's quite funny because you resort to the same techniques. You go off tangent, make dumb points that make no sense, it's just funny overall.
I said similar to ours in that it dosen't collapse back into itself and it has to potential to have life, and since it is likely our universe came from a singularity the possability of it exploading several times and collapsing back into the singularity is alwys a possiblity, maybe this is just one lucky occurance among many, and also there is always the possability that their is a law that big bangs must follow
The Constants of which I speak of allow for matter to form, or for energy to non-entropic and usable. If these constants were different, life wouldn't form at all, so what are you arguing?
Then you argue from an oscillatory Universe. It was disproven in the 70's, it's not a 'good possibility", once again talking about what you don't know anything about. Also, you're using the inverse gambler's fallacy here, and we can easily destroy your argument with occam's razor.
Fine tunning for life also assumes all possible life will be exactly like earth's (I.E. carbon based with DNA) nd it is also subjective anthropomorphism by assuming that all gaps in scientific knowledge are god (I.E. god-of-the-gaps)
No, the fine tuning argument I'm making is that the Universe exists at all, let alone stable enviorment like the one we see on earth. Nice try with your special pleading fallacy, but it was easy to point out your fallacy.
Also, where did you get that I made a god of the gap argument? I actually used scientific knowledge to point that there is a God, not a lack of scientific evidence. Wow, you're sounding more and more fallacious each comment, it's irritating.
god-of-the-gaps was made when you assumed god made the universe fine tuned because science does not yet know, and the fact that we have a "stable" enviorment on one small rock among potentially trillions is not that crazy, and that the universe exsist at all is not nessicarily a miracle, the multiverse theroy is indeed spoken of and Michio Kaku has indeed said that, also our universe could exsist under diffrent constants
Wow, that's not what God of the gaps is. Wow, that was one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard. god of the gaps is an argument opposing methodological naturalism, in where natural phenomenon is attempted to be explained by the supernatural. The existence and creation of the Universe is not a subject of empirical verfication or observation, therefore the principles of science do not apply and neither does the god of the gaps.
your making the assumption that science could never possibly know which is a giant leap considering that we have no way of knowing our future at this time, also your making the assumption that the big bang is not a natural event, spagetti monsters are spoken in jest not as science, and if the multiverse does end up being true we could potentially see big bangs happening
I'm not making an assumption, I know. If you knew anything about philosophy of science, you would know that the method of science has nothing to do with the origins of the Universe. I'm not making any leap, you assume people are making leaps when you don't understand what in the hell you're talking about.
Take a class on philsoophy of science, and cure this damn ignorance of yours, it's pretty damn annoying.
The Big Bang is a cosmolgoical theory also known as the standard model of cosmology. The Big Bang only explains the natural processes post planck epoch, the Big Bang says nothing on the origins of the Universe.
Now you're assuming things about scientific theories too? Next you're going to say evolution explains the origin of life and not of species. You're a failure trying to pass as if you know something, and you're looking pretty damn stupid at this moment.
IF we can observe it happen then it seems logical that we could also observe it before the BB, evolution explains how species become diffrent species, not the origin of life, thats abiogensis, and your the one failing considering your resorted to telling me to stab myself
So Multiverse can be potentially true, but God can't? LMAO, ever hear of Occam's katana (razor)? Yeah, stab yourself and the multiverse theory a couple of thousands of times, and then come back to me.
There is evidence supporting Multiverse how? LMAO, there is so much evidence supporting God, but you would rather create an ad hoc model to fit your denial.
We can observe nature coming to existence? How? If nature doesn't exist for natural beings like us to exist? Your coming up with failure scenarios. Also, the stabbing was metaphorical, you obviously didn't get the joke. parsimony= occam's razor.
I never said we yet have conclusive evidence of them multiverse, and observing a diffrent universe come into exsistance, yes i did actually get the joke it wasent difficult to understand, and I still see no evidence for God
So if there is no evidence supporting it, then why make an argument out of it? Especially when my argument complies with occam's razor philosophically.
Also, you don't see the evidence because you don't want to see it. We call what you have "denial" in psychology. I'm sorry but there is so much evidence showing there is purpose and order in the Universe, the existence of laws themselves. Well that's the argument, honestly I'm an agnostic, I just like debating atheists.
it wasen't the main point of my argument unlike yours, i know what denial is, you're repeating yourself now, and if there is so much evidence why can't you show me any?
Also, you made a giant fallacy believing that science will find out. The origins of the Universe is not a subject of scientific inquiry. Science only studies how the laws work and function as they are, science does not reveal how they came into existence because existence of the natural is not a natural event.
Also, spaghetti monsters are spoken of by scientists. Shut the hell up, and give me the evidence, those are your only two options. You're starting to irritate me.
I also find it funny that you resort to disproven theories and logical fallacies, all to avoid accepting the possibility of the creator. Is it really that hurtful to you? LOL
no one ever said this was the only universe, so the inverse gambler's fallacy may not apply, and as for the Oscillatory universe, the constants turn out diffrently from each big bang is always a possibility, and therotical physist have said that that diffrent universes with diffrent physical laws can exsist
So you're postulating multiple Universes? Evidence for this where? Also, physicists have not said anything, yes if some physical constants are different the Universe can exist, but the constants I'm talking about can't be different.
You're makign the bare assertion fallacy that physicists are claiming that the constants of which I speak of are the ones they mentioned, therefore you're quoting out of context as well.
who says that universes being created do not follow some sort of laws? because it happened to be "precisely" even though it is just one of many probabilities that could've happened, the only differnce is that this on happened to happpen
Why should I prove the existence of your god wrong? You are failing over & over again, & have no grasp of logics, and are getting offendedwhen I call your JUDEO prophet a myth. Jesus was a Jew, and a Messiah for Jews. Yet you insist on you Paulinian claim that he was a son of god. Christianity in the beginning consisted ONLY of Jews. So, christianity was in the beginning a small Jewish sect, until Paul decided to go further. At James' , Jesus brother's disapproval.
Are you stupid, I guess you are, or maybe you just have short term memory loss. Scroll down and realize we aren't talking about what you're thinking. No grasp of logics? I have a minor in philsoophy, you're an unedcuated laymen trying to pass zeitgeist arguments as plausible (lol).
I am not offended, if it comes from an idiot like you, but I wouldn't be offended at all because I know what's true.
I insist on the "paulinian claim"? What does that mean? I'm not even a trinitarian you moron, furthermore that was a special pleading fallacy (yes, you contradicted logic, so much for me not grasping logic).
Jesus was a Jew, so? Judaism is not Christianity, nor is it a sect of Judaism. Christians don't adhere to Judaistic commandments like not eating ceirtain sea foods, or stoning homosexuals (people like you) and bad children(yeah, you too).
The one who wanted the disiples dead. And then on his way to Damascus got a "vision". Andsuddenly became a convert. He was considered a liar by James. Ever read the gospel of Thomas?
Ever read anything else but the f4 official ones?
Early Christianity was Jewish. What else should it be? You think that Jesus wanted to make a whole new religion? did he preach to the whole world, or just his own people at the time?
I've alread y given you proofs that the bible & christianity is based on other myths. Yet you don't recognise those proofs. You have not given the terms of pproof. Yet you have the bloody nerve to call me a moron. That is by deafult a sign of shorcomings of basic logic 6 lack of cognitive analysis.
If one claims that the bible is true, and demand proof that it's not a myth is a major fallacy.
You either swallow AL the myths of the bible, or conceive it as a myth from the bronze age.
Jesus spoke to the whole world, Jew and Gentile. have you even read the Bible? What proofs? Mithra and Osiris? LMFAO, i already prove them wrong you ignorant shit.
You have the mental capacity of a fucking beaver if you can't remmeber. You're either lying, or you're on dumb piece of trash.
Atheists are more kind, compassionate and law abiding than religious people. They are good because they like to, not because they are threatened with hell.
America's constitution and creation were mainly based on the ideas of John locke. Almost all the framers of the Constitution were Christian, with the exception of two nominally Christian Deists (Jefferson and Franklin). Oh yeah, and Locke said Atheists should be excluded from the social contract, the political theory our country is based on.
Lets not forget that Plato in "the republic" told us to kill Atheists. Should I kill you?
I just wanted to crush your little optimism, Atheism is still irrational. Atheism is like communism, if it is stopped it will crumble. 'it bears the seed of its own decay', once people figure out how to stop Atheism, it won't be long till it crumbles. Just look at communism, and the Soviet Union, Atheists are a joke. =p
I don't think a man like george kenna who helped us in the cold war, a memorable person in history would acre what you think. I myself really don't care what you think, you have anime in your favorites I definately don't value your opinion.
How was that an appeal to authority? that also isn't an ad hominem, I refuted your opinion with my opinino and I put an insult just for the fun of it. Also you're using strawmen fallacies because I used no fallacies, also you're using the fallacy from fallacy. You're a moron.
george keena (establishing authority) said xyz. does not establish xyz as valid.
fallacy from a fallacy would assume i am saying your conclusion is false. it may be, it may not be, but you haven't established anything until you use a non-fallacious argument.
So is it rational to believe in talking snakes & talking bushes?
Is it rational to believe in virgin births? A myth borroed from 6 other myths that Xtians either no nothing about or refute as myths
Is it rational to bnelieve in ressurection, "miracles" and Christian polytehism (trinity) while refuting the myths of other religions for having some of the same?
Is it rational to believe that the world was created in 6 days and this planet is 6000 years old?
Talking snakes and bushes? No, but you're using a special pleading fallacy, because there are more Christian evolutionists than Christian Creationists worldwide. Less biblical literists than allegorical interpretations by Christians.
Polytheism? Trinity? Only shows you don't understand a word of what you're saying, and only making yourselflook more and more of an idiot every word you write. Good luck with that though. FSM>Atheism.
I know exactly what I am talking about. Trinity is putting three entities into one. three god as one. and that my mate was something that was ammended by the Church fathersin Nicea in 325..So polytheism is also a part of Chrstianity. They're just putting three into one.
Then again, it's not easy to differ between evolution christians & creation christians. I see no much difference. you still believe in the same myth of a godly Jesus born by a virgin. So what's the difference?
Polytheism is the belief in many and different gods. The Christian trinity (not all Christians are triniatarians, look at Isaac Newton and the arianism). It's a theosophical perspective that all three are different manifestaions of the same God. Think of it like Horus, he is the god of many things. except in Horu's account there are more gods, and he is a apntheon of nature, contradictory to the methdological naturalism of scientific inquiry.
The council of Nicea, that established the orthodoxy of Christianity as an insitution, it's an interpretation not all Christians believe in the Nicean creed. The thing is, that tot hink it was a polytheistic addition to Christianity, is irrational, and the belief in the trinity existed before the Nicean council.
Also, St. Augustine and Origen of Alxeandria, father's of the Church were not biblical literists (aka not YECs).
Not all Christians believe in a virgin birth of Jesus, but mind explaining and proving it's a myth? do you have evience that it's a myth? Virgin birth is possible, there are women that can fertilize their own eggs (they have both male and female organs), if you want to take a natural look at it?
It can be supernatural, but prove that it's a myth? Or are you blabering around with your usual ad hominems?
If not all Christians believe in the virgin birth, they might as well turn buddhist. Since some of the texts banned in Nicea have some things that coincides in buddhism
If you can refute the existence of Zeus, Osiris, Mithra & a.o. having virgin births as a part of their mythology, how plausible is it that this particualr story about Jesus is not a myth like anything else?
Remember, these stories were written by bearded men in the Bronze age, were halluciantions was a common phenomenon...
Zeus did not have virgin birth moron. Osiris was a father, he was a god and he was not born. No mention of Osiris having a virgin birth (where in the hell are you getting this crap, I'm readin straightout of comparitive religion texts).
As for Mithra being a virgin, it's a myth from modern zeitgeist conspiracists, like Joseph Campbell. Mithra (according to religious texts) "arose spotanously from a rock in a cave".
Zeus did not have virgin birth moron. Osiris was a father, he was a god and he was not born. No mention of Osiris having a virgin birth (where in the hell are you getting this crap, I'm readin straightout of comparitive religion texts).
As for Mithra being a virgin, it's a myth from modern zeitgeist conspiracists, like Joseph Campbell. Mithra (according to religious texts) "arose spotanously from a rock in a cave".
If you are Christian you should be the last one to talk about emprical eveidence.
YES! Read the bible! That's your proof.
One of the foundatuioons of Christianity is the belief in virgin birth. So, if youu don't believe in virgin brith, then you are not Christian.
About hte others, Zeus was a father impregninating some woman who gave bruiith to Hecules. I was poinint out the other myths, & you parse words as if you have anything to gain from it, save from making an idiot out of yourself...
"If you are Christian you should be the last one to talk about emprical eveidence."
*cough* ad hominem *cough*
I have read the Bible, I have taken many courses on biblical theology, and comparitive relgiion. I'm a major in Physics minor in philsoophy and future medical geneticist. The virgin Birth is not as imporatn as you make it seem, and so far you have only fed yourself false information on the mythology of different religions.
I was pointing pout the myths that Chrisitans are trying to refute, and then put forth their own myth as sacred and truth.
Logic is not your strongest virtue is it?
First you claim that not all Christians believe in virgin births, then you you want me to prove it's a myth and then call me a moron when showing you myths of other deities. I think yoou should demand your tution back since you obviously think that one myth is more true than the other..
You want me to refute those myths? Those myths represent nature as gods, contrary to Science and methodological naturalism (which is that natural events have natural causes, natural events are not gods). Therefore these myths are false.
Actually I wanted to specialize in logic and epistemology if I wasn't going to become a medical geneticist, nice ad hominem though. ;) I'm a Christian I don't believe in virgin birth, refute me theologically.
I hold the virgin birth to be an allegorical and figurative story explaining how Jesus was above human averageness even if he was of humble origins. Unlike the ressurection, there is no way to know exactly if she was a virgin or not, and meant to be interpreted. The ressurection, though, had more than 400 eye witnesses mentioned as crowds (none of that in virgin story).
You still have to prove Christianity is a myth. *coughs* extra 21st chromosome *coughs*.
You were pointing out the myths? Just merely arbitrarily pointing it out? No, first of all that was not your intention, second of all why would you do that?
"If you can refute the existence of Zeus, Osiris, Mithra & a.o. having virgin births as a part of their mythology"
You explciitly referred to these myths as "having virgin births as part of their mythology". So mind clearing up that load of crap you just shitted?
Red Well my favorite has always been the American Atheists "A" symbol, if that's not obvious enough. lol But lately...I dunno...It's like....it's changing.
Some satanists are atheists? How does that work? Most so-called satanists are looking to antagonize and don't know much of what they are talking about. The hardcore ones, who do believe, are theists, as they must also accept the existence of the christianist god in order to worship Satan. They are just as delusional as the christianists and are most definitely not atheists. Wish you a lot of fun at the convention.
rhabdoviridae - Thanks! Yes many Satanists have gone out of their way to tell us Atheists that they don't actually believe in any real devil or gods. They say that for them, Satanism is more of a philosophy. So I say okay, if they say they're godless, that's good enough or me. But yes, it is a bit perplexing...
Thing i find disturbing bout satanists is they say they are atheist but then they use black magik,so how can they claim to be atheist?as atheist's dont we reject superstition and majik?i wonder if their claims are all but a cover story.
How could you possibly be a satanist if you are an atheist? o.O
That just makes no sense.
KeistasZmogelis 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In The Name of Allah The Most Gracious The Most Merciful
13:(2) Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; is firmly established on the throne (of authority); He has subjected the sun and the moon (to his Law)! Each one runs (its course) for a term appointed. He doth regulate all affairs, explaining the signs in detail, that ye may believe with certainty in the meeting with your Lord.
77705000000000000000 1 year ago
You couldn't possibly be a satanist and an atheist at the same time could you?
sanechipmunks 1 year ago
I just want to emphasize what CRUSH3Rdlux said earlier. Satanists are NOT atheists. It would be ridiculous to say so. Atheism is a disbelief in god and the supernatural, satan included.
I get so frustrated when I hear people compare satanism with atheism.
wsaysfgh 1 year ago
@wsaysfgh Most Satanists I have talked to about their beliefs say that they don't believe in a literal Satan. That it's really a philosophy.
aajoeyjo 1 year ago
A true atheism is a believe in no god. Thought many people rally behind it because they believe religion is ignorant ,prejudice, has a sheep-like mentality, and the cause of wars. In reality it is the human condition that causes these and people always use a justification like religion to rally behind. So in those people that follow atheism( for the above mention reasons) reasons are they them selfs doing the same. More so the ones that so prejudice toward people who do not believe same thing.
cortezawwris 1 year ago
You cant be a satanic atheist? In order to be a satanist you would have to track back to satan being lucifer, which was created BY GOD.... that wouldnt make any sense to jump straight to the end..... and besides, satan would become the god-figure, which removes the idea of being an atheist anyway, because the person still believes in a supreme being
CRUSH3Rdlux 1 year ago
i chose scarlet A
themegapacman 1 year ago
Haha I need to get stereotypes out of my head. I was like is he really texan???? Holy shit aren't they all like freaky religious. haha sorry I know it's not true but stereotypes are sometimes just drilled into your brain.
xxDaemonGirlxx 1 year ago
@ogirv101
The classes you have taken MUST be from a Christian standpoint, since you so eagerly defend your myth from another.
You know what theology means, & what it derives from & what language?
And now you feel offended like a crybaby when someone who is smarter than you calling you out on your BS, not even sure what is kosher in Christianity at all....
bohemianwriter1 2 years ago
@bohemianwriter1:
No, it was done by an Agnostic teacher. Furthermore, most of my studies were independent, so yeah they probably were from a Christian standpoint, so what? Furthermore, Kosher is a Jewish practice not a Christian one.
Wow, you're an idiot. Christians aren't Jews, we do not adhere to their 512 Commandments, only to Jesus teachings and the 10 commandments. Wow, what a moron. Read on Christian theology you moron.
ogirv101 2 years ago
There you go. You admit that your studies have been done on a bias base. that is not what one should do if studying anything.
Is it Kosher by Christians to break ALL your 10 commandments? Chrstgianity is nothing more than a weird sect deriving from Judaism. So how goes it with the Christian Kosher cherry picking your religion based on your prejudices and ignorance? ;-)
You don't have much a sense of humor either. I can see that now. You're too soft & dim to understand a joke when you see one.
bohemianwriter1 2 years ago
@bohemianwriter1:
If you studied comparitive politics an an Atheist, you're studying on a bias base? Yeah, because you don't belive in any of these, and you think they are all myths and false? Yeah, I guess I'm biased, now quit the bullshit and prove me wrong?
Christianity is not a sect of Judaism, Jesus is not a prophet of Judaism (lol, fail). Cherry picking? No, you're making a special pleading fallacy. How can I tell a joke, everything you say is taken as a joke by me. You're a joke.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Wjhat the hell are you raving about politics for?
You best study religion from an unbias state if you take it for what they are: Myyths! You can't study comparative religion if your mind is already set on one myth. And i wasn't alway an atheist. It came to me one night, and then I found out truth about religion during travels to India, USA, Australia, South America & all of Europe. They have all their conceptions of some formative belief.
bohemianwriter1 2 years ago
@bohemianwriter1:
Sorry, I meant religion. I also take a comparitive politics class. Taking it as myths is a biased state in itself, it assumes they are flase without any unituitive or analytical examination (LMAO, you really aren't a bright one aren't you). You cannot study comparitive religion, if your mind is already set that they are all wrong (rofl).
Now, all you're doing is commiting to red herrings. You haven't proven any of my statements wrong, you're just an idiot.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Well, can you prove that these myths are not myths? If you can prove scientifically that virgin births can happen, & that ressurections have happened, then they are not myths. You should stay away from using long and difficult words. They only confuse you kid.
So what would you consider as proof that your faith is not a myth?What is the terms of proof that you would be satisfied with? Would you consider the writings of bronze age men, none of them witnesses to the biblical events at face value?
bohemianwriter1 2 years ago
@bohemianwriter1:
What myths? Christianity? Yes, the texts themselves are more historically eliable than Pliny the Younger, Plato's texts, or any other text of the anquity. Yes, scientifically virgin births can happen, self-fertilization of eggs (transvestial genetic mutations). I'm a kid? Yeah, they probably confuse an idiot like you, but I like your foolish arrogance. What is the evidence, history, science, philsoophy---> get it right you moron.
ogirv101 2 years ago
You haven't answered me my question. Do you believe in unicorns and fire breathing dragons as well?
bohemianwriter1 2 years ago
@bohemianwriter1:
No flying dragons and Unicorns have no philosophical or scientific evidence, God does. Red Herrings make you look foolish.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
Neither does the existence of a savior named Jesus.
So what's the difference?
Did Hercules exist? Zeus? Osiris? Krishna?
There are NO phsyical or scientific evidence that Jesus was son of god. there may have been a dude named Jeshua living at the time. But you can't use the bible as evidence, since these claims are just as loonie as every other religious supernatural claim. Come back when you've learend the meaning of the word deduction....
bohemianwriter1 2 years ago
@bohemianwriter1:
What? I just toldyou that the NT is more reliable than any other writings of antiquity, if you accept Alexander the Great, you HAVE to accept Jesus, because Jesus is around 10 times more reliable in terms of time.
Hercules exist? No, it doesn't claim to exist either, osiris is a God not a person, Krishan another God not a person. These gods are disproven by Science. Tell me why I can't use the Bible as evidence? Historically it's accurate, refute it.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
Can you back that up?
Was this written by unbiased eyewitnesses with scientific backrounds and not colored by their superstitions?
Come on lad. don't come with mindless circle argumentations. It doesn't help you god delusion no matter howe much you cringe on behalf of your imaginary friend...
Why not study some history instead, not colored by a book that has been written, rewritten, interpeted and screwed up so many times, that it would make any creationsit head spin LMAO
bohemianwriter1 2 years ago
@bohemianwriter1:
Scientific backrounds? Ypu're an idiot, history cannot be empirically verified, you can't go back in time and scientificaly and empirically prove that a ceirtain event happened, that's why we have texts. History is a social science not a natural science you ignorant trash.
Also what do you mean by unbiased? The eyewitnesses were people who LIVED and followed Jesus, and saw what he did. Unbiased? What the fuck does that even mean. You use too many compositional fallacies.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@bohemianwriter1:
There are more reliable texts of the New Testament than any other text of antiquity, I really don't care abour red herring fallacies or any of your bullshit if you're not going to disprove me.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
I'm sure if you repeat that enough times, it might become ture... In you head...
Ha! Ha! Ha!
bohemianwriter1 2 years ago
@bohemianwriter1:
Is that why you fail to refute it? My point, don't respond.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
Why should I have to refute your delusion?
Why not give somet angible proof of any biblical "truth"?
Why should I have to metion that the 4 gospels contradicts each other on several places?
Why should I have to refute the crucifiction & ressurection?
You won't take any proof as proof anyway?
When you have the nerve to consider other myths as myths & then claim that particularly your delusion should be more plausible than others?
Show me a reliable txt that proves the bible
bohemianwriter1 2 years ago
@ogirv101
where is this scienitfic evidence for God?
Takua38000 2 years ago
The precision of the expansion rate of the Universe is 1:10^60. That is, 1 in 1 followed by 60 zeros or decimals places. That is the same as taking the probability of taking dimes lining them up all across north america and to the moon and doing it a couple of millions times and multiplying the odds of taking one marked dime out of those and multiply it by 2.
This is but only 1 constants, there are many like it.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
how is this evidence of a deity?
Takua38000 2 years ago
It shows that since the Universe cannot logically be a product of chance, and since it does not follow necessity (I can explain that if you want me to, it's basically gauge theory and the unceirtanty and probabilistic nature of the splitting of the four fundamental forces during the planck epoch of the Big Bang).
Then it logically follows that there must be a teleolgoical purpose for existence, threfore God.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
no, the fact that it is unlikely that it expanded at the rate it did does not mean a deity exsist, and making that leap is quite an assumption
Takua38000 2 years ago
It's not a leap, you haven't explained it's a leap. You're claiming two things. That it had to do so for a Universe to exist (which is not true, I have explained this already) or you're claiming it was chance. You're claiming it was chance most likely.
If you believe it was chance, then it's more reasonable to believe in a flying spaghetti monster than atheism. I'm just stating the obvious, what they call your condition in psychology is "denial".
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
why is that ?
It is a leap that a sentient being controls the outcomes of probability, also how did you calculate these odds?
Takua38000 2 years ago
First, they aren't probabilities, I only say they are probabilities to make the point more understandable. The figures are calculated by scientists and physicists, and they express the precision of the constants. The actual probability is not known, but he precision of th econstants for allowing a Universe are freaking precise to a point where the human mind is belittled.
Also, it isn't a leap. It is a leap to think it wasn't a sentient being. Now explain why I'm wrong, and you're right?
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
so because it happened as certain way there must be an intelligent overlord?
precision is found in nature with no creator, a perfect eample would be crystals or snowflakes, very prcise, but they required no creator, so to assume that because there was precision that there was a creator is a leap
Takua38000 2 years ago
No, because it happened in an extremely precise way, a precision so powerful that in Einsteins words:
"All systematic human thinking is but a mere reflection to it"
There must be an intelligent "overlord". I wouldn't call God an overlord though. Precision is found in nature without a creator? LMFAO, snowflakes and crystals are not precise? How does the word precise even fit into that? Now you're arguing badly, before you were just in denial, now you've reached the "I say stupid things".
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
also because the universe is the way it is because of the constants work for this one does not nessacarily mean that other physical laws with diffrent consants cannot create another universe similar to ours in regards it's continued exsistance for more than and it's ability to have life
Takua38000 2 years ago
No, if the value of ceirtain constants were different, it wouldn't create a Universe similar to ours. You're just guessing now, and you obviously don't know what you're talking about. I think I'm done here, you obviously won't change your mind, and don't want to change your mind. You remind me of a young earth creationist denying evolution, it's quite funny because you resort to the same techniques. You go off tangent, make dumb points that make no sense, it's just funny overall.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
I said similar to ours in that it dosen't collapse back into itself and it has to potential to have life, and since it is likely our universe came from a singularity the possability of it exploading several times and collapsing back into the singularity is alwys a possiblity, maybe this is just one lucky occurance among many, and also there is always the possability that their is a law that big bangs must follow
Takua38000 2 years ago
The Constants of which I speak of allow for matter to form, or for energy to non-entropic and usable. If these constants were different, life wouldn't form at all, so what are you arguing?
Then you argue from an oscillatory Universe. It was disproven in the 70's, it's not a 'good possibility", once again talking about what you don't know anything about. Also, you're using the inverse gambler's fallacy here, and we can easily destroy your argument with occam's razor.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
Fine tunning for life also assumes all possible life will be exactly like earth's (I.E. carbon based with DNA) nd it is also subjective anthropomorphism by assuming that all gaps in scientific knowledge are god (I.E. god-of-the-gaps)
Takua38000 2 years ago
No, the fine tuning argument I'm making is that the Universe exists at all, let alone stable enviorment like the one we see on earth. Nice try with your special pleading fallacy, but it was easy to point out your fallacy.
Also, where did you get that I made a god of the gap argument? I actually used scientific knowledge to point that there is a God, not a lack of scientific evidence. Wow, you're sounding more and more fallacious each comment, it's irritating.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
god-of-the-gaps was made when you assumed god made the universe fine tuned because science does not yet know, and the fact that we have a "stable" enviorment on one small rock among potentially trillions is not that crazy, and that the universe exsist at all is not nessicarily a miracle, the multiverse theroy is indeed spoken of and Michio Kaku has indeed said that, also our universe could exsist under diffrent constants
Takua38000 2 years ago
Wow, that's not what God of the gaps is. Wow, that was one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard. god of the gaps is an argument opposing methodological naturalism, in where natural phenomenon is attempted to be explained by the supernatural. The existence and creation of the Universe is not a subject of empirical verfication or observation, therefore the principles of science do not apply and neither does the god of the gaps.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
your making the assumption that science could never possibly know which is a giant leap considering that we have no way of knowing our future at this time, also your making the assumption that the big bang is not a natural event, spagetti monsters are spoken in jest not as science, and if the multiverse does end up being true we could potentially see big bangs happening
Takua38000 2 years ago
I'm not making an assumption, I know. If you knew anything about philosophy of science, you would know that the method of science has nothing to do with the origins of the Universe. I'm not making any leap, you assume people are making leaps when you don't understand what in the hell you're talking about.
Take a class on philsoophy of science, and cure this damn ignorance of yours, it's pretty damn annoying.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
so even if it is possible to observe a big bang science should say nothing about it? also you ARE making assumptions
Takua38000 2 years ago
The Big Bang is a cosmolgoical theory also known as the standard model of cosmology. The Big Bang only explains the natural processes post planck epoch, the Big Bang says nothing on the origins of the Universe.
Now you're assuming things about scientific theories too? Next you're going to say evolution explains the origin of life and not of species. You're a failure trying to pass as if you know something, and you're looking pretty damn stupid at this moment.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
IF we can observe it happen then it seems logical that we could also observe it before the BB, evolution explains how species become diffrent species, not the origin of life, thats abiogensis, and your the one failing considering your resorted to telling me to stab myself
Takua38000 2 years ago
So Multiverse can be potentially true, but God can't? LMAO, ever hear of Occam's katana (razor)? Yeah, stab yourself and the multiverse theory a couple of thousands of times, and then come back to me.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
I never said that God can't be true, just that there is no evidence to support this
Takua38000 2 years ago
There is evidence supporting Multiverse how? LMAO, there is so much evidence supporting God, but you would rather create an ad hoc model to fit your denial.
We can observe nature coming to existence? How? If nature doesn't exist for natural beings like us to exist? Your coming up with failure scenarios. Also, the stabbing was metaphorical, you obviously didn't get the joke. parsimony= occam's razor.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
I never said we yet have conclusive evidence of them multiverse, and observing a diffrent universe come into exsistance, yes i did actually get the joke it wasent difficult to understand, and I still see no evidence for God
Takua38000 2 years ago
So if there is no evidence supporting it, then why make an argument out of it? Especially when my argument complies with occam's razor philosophically.
Also, you don't see the evidence because you don't want to see it. We call what you have "denial" in psychology. I'm sorry but there is so much evidence showing there is purpose and order in the Universe, the existence of laws themselves. Well that's the argument, honestly I'm an agnostic, I just like debating atheists.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
it wasen't the main point of my argument unlike yours, i know what denial is, you're repeating yourself now, and if there is so much evidence why can't you show me any?
Takua38000 2 years ago
Also, you made a giant fallacy believing that science will find out. The origins of the Universe is not a subject of scientific inquiry. Science only studies how the laws work and function as they are, science does not reveal how they came into existence because existence of the natural is not a natural event.
Also, spaghetti monsters are spoken of by scientists. Shut the hell up, and give me the evidence, those are your only two options. You're starting to irritate me.
ogirv101 2 years ago
I also find it funny that you resort to disproven theories and logical fallacies, all to avoid accepting the possibility of the creator. Is it really that hurtful to you? LOL
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
no one ever said this was the only universe, so the inverse gambler's fallacy may not apply, and as for the Oscillatory universe, the constants turn out diffrently from each big bang is always a possibility, and therotical physist have said that that diffrent universes with diffrent physical laws can exsist
Takua38000 2 years ago
So you're postulating multiple Universes? Evidence for this where? Also, physicists have not said anything, yes if some physical constants are different the Universe can exist, but the constants I'm talking about can't be different.
You're makign the bare assertion fallacy that physicists are claiming that the constants of which I speak of are the ones they mentioned, therefore you're quoting out of context as well.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Also, you forgot to mention that crystals and snowflakes only exist because of already existing laws of nature.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
who says that universes being created do not follow some sort of laws? because it happened to be "precisely" even though it is just one of many probabilities that could've happened, the only differnce is that this on happened to happpen
Takua38000 2 years ago
@ogirv101
complexity does not imply a designer
Takua38000 2 years ago
I never mentioned complexity, I mentioned precision.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Why should I prove the existence of your god wrong? You are failing over & over again, & have no grasp of logics, and are getting offendedwhen I call your JUDEO prophet a myth. Jesus was a Jew, and a Messiah for Jews. Yet you insist on you Paulinian claim that he was a son of god. Christianity in the beginning consisted ONLY of Jews. So, christianity was in the beginning a small Jewish sect, until Paul decided to go further. At James' , Jesus brother's disapproval.
bohemianwriter1 2 years ago
@bohemianwriter1:
Are you stupid, I guess you are, or maybe you just have short term memory loss. Scroll down and realize we aren't talking about what you're thinking. No grasp of logics? I have a minor in philsoophy, you're an unedcuated laymen trying to pass zeitgeist arguments as plausible (lol).
I am not offended, if it comes from an idiot like you, but I wouldn't be offended at all because I know what's true.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@bohemianwriter1:
I insist on the "paulinian claim"? What does that mean? I'm not even a trinitarian you moron, furthermore that was a special pleading fallacy (yes, you contradicted logic, so much for me not grasping logic).
Jesus was a Jew, so? Judaism is not Christianity, nor is it a sect of Judaism. Christians don't adhere to Judaistic commandments like not eating ceirtain sea foods, or stoning homosexuals (people like you) and bad children(yeah, you too).
ogirv101 2 years ago
You remember the apostel Paul, don't you?
The one who wanted the disiples dead. And then on his way to Damascus got a "vision". Andsuddenly became a convert. He was considered a liar by James. Ever read the gospel of Thomas?
Ever read anything else but the f4 official ones?
Early Christianity was Jewish. What else should it be? You think that Jesus wanted to make a whole new religion? did he preach to the whole world, or just his own people at the time?
bohemianwriter1 2 years ago
A question:
Do you believe in unicorns, fire breathing dragons, the tooth fairy, or the Easter bunny?
bohemianwriter1 2 years ago
I've alread y given you proofs that the bible & christianity is based on other myths. Yet you don't recognise those proofs. You have not given the terms of pproof. Yet you have the bloody nerve to call me a moron. That is by deafult a sign of shorcomings of basic logic 6 lack of cognitive analysis.
If one claims that the bible is true, and demand proof that it's not a myth is a major fallacy.
You either swallow AL the myths of the bible, or conceive it as a myth from the bronze age.
bohemianwriter1 2 years ago
@bohemianwriter1:
Jesus spoke to the whole world, Jew and Gentile. have you even read the Bible? What proofs? Mithra and Osiris? LMFAO, i already prove them wrong you ignorant shit.
You have the mental capacity of a fucking beaver if you can't remmeber. You're either lying, or you're on dumb piece of trash.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Comment removed
Goldeberg94 2 years ago
Oh god it must suck to be an atheist in texas.
NuLLx42 2 years ago
I know a few, they really do have it rough.
snoman99991 2 years ago
Atheists are more kind, compassionate and law abiding than religious people. They are good because they like to, not because they are threatened with hell.
superCatia 2 years ago
"Law abiding" != moral
If "Pray to god every god damn day" were a law, you'd be hard pressed to find a law abiding atheist. Just sayin :P
NuLLx42 2 years ago
Yeah, you are right. I was not thinking on those crazy countries where you are forced to worship by law!
superCatia 2 years ago
Atheists FTW!
bombarderoazul 2 years ago
The A stands for America, lmao, all this time i thought it stood for Atheism, silly ol' me....
Markyboiiiiii 2 years ago
The little A in the center is for "America," yes. The large A formed by the center vertical broken band stands for "Atheism."
aajoeyjo 2 years ago
@Markyboiiiiii:
America's constitution and creation were mainly based on the ideas of John locke. Almost all the framers of the Constitution were Christian, with the exception of two nominally Christian Deists (Jefferson and Franklin). Oh yeah, and Locke said Atheists should be excluded from the social contract, the political theory our country is based on.
Lets not forget that Plato in "the republic" told us to kill Atheists. Should I kill you?
ogirv101 2 years ago
TexasFreethought ?
HA HA HA that's funny
what will you do when they secede? You'll be burned at the stake,
AuShawster 2 years ago
'Atheism is senseless" -Issac Newton
I just wanted to crush your little optimism, Atheism is still irrational. Atheism is like communism, if it is stopped it will crumble. 'it bears the seed of its own decay', once people figure out how to stop Atheism, it won't be long till it crumbles. Just look at communism, and the Soviet Union, Atheists are a joke. =p
ogirv101 2 years ago
appealing to authority is fun!
what seed is that, why will it crumble?
pyr666 2 years ago
It's a metaphor you moron. You do know who George Kennan is? I think freshmen in High school know about him, I doubt you don't know who he is.
ogirv101 2 years ago
and it's a terrible metaphor.
pyr666 2 years ago
I don't think a man like george kenna who helped us in the cold war, a memorable person in history would acre what you think. I myself really don't care what you think, you have anime in your favorites I definately don't value your opinion.
ogirv101 2 years ago
an appeal to authority and ad hominem in the same comment. nice.
pyr666 2 years ago
How was that an appeal to authority? that also isn't an ad hominem, I refuted your opinion with my opinino and I put an insult just for the fun of it. Also you're using strawmen fallacies because I used no fallacies, also you're using the fallacy from fallacy. You're a moron.
ogirv101 2 years ago
george keena (establishing authority) said xyz. does not establish xyz as valid.
fallacy from a fallacy would assume i am saying your conclusion is false. it may be, it may not be, but you haven't established anything until you use a non-fallacious argument.
pyr666 2 years ago
Without metaphors, religion would crumble...
hedgehoghoodlum 2 years ago
We are not taking about religion at the moment.
ogirv101 2 years ago
ご免なさい！
hedgehoghoodlum 2 years ago
So is it rational to believe in talking snakes & talking bushes?
Is it rational to believe in virgin births? A myth borroed from 6 other myths that Xtians either no nothing about or refute as myths
Is it rational to bnelieve in ressurection, "miracles" and Christian polytehism (trinity) while refuting the myths of other religions for having some of the same?
Is it rational to believe that the world was created in 6 days and this planet is 6000 years old?
bohemianwriter1 2 years ago
@bohemianwriter1:
Talking snakes and bushes? No, but you're using a special pleading fallacy, because there are more Christian evolutionists than Christian Creationists worldwide. Less biblical literists than allegorical interpretations by Christians.
Polytheism? Trinity? Only shows you don't understand a word of what you're saying, and only making yourselflook more and more of an idiot every word you write. Good luck with that though. FSM>Atheism.
ogirv101 2 years ago
I know exactly what I am talking about. Trinity is putting three entities into one. three god as one. and that my mate was something that was ammended by the Church fathersin Nicea in 325..So polytheism is also a part of Chrstianity. They're just putting three into one.
Then again, it's not easy to differ between evolution christians & creation christians. I see no much difference. you still believe in the same myth of a godly Jesus born by a virgin. So what's the difference?
bohemianwriter1 2 years ago
@bohemianwriter1:
Polytheism is the belief in many and different gods. The Christian trinity (not all Christians are triniatarians, look at Isaac Newton and the arianism). It's a theosophical perspective that all three are different manifestaions of the same God. Think of it like Horus, he is the god of many things. except in Horu's account there are more gods, and he is a apntheon of nature, contradictory to the methdological naturalism of scientific inquiry.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@bohemianwriter1:
The council of Nicea, that established the orthodoxy of Christianity as an insitution, it's an interpretation not all Christians believe in the Nicean creed. The thing is, that tot hink it was a polytheistic addition to Christianity, is irrational, and the belief in the trinity existed before the Nicean council.
Also, St. Augustine and Origen of Alxeandria, father's of the Church were not biblical literists (aka not YECs).
ogirv101 2 years ago
@bohemianwriter1:
Not all Christians believe in a virgin birth of Jesus, but mind explaining and proving it's a myth? do you have evience that it's a myth? Virgin birth is possible, there are women that can fertilize their own eggs (they have both male and female organs), if you want to take a natural look at it?
It can be supernatural, but prove that it's a myth? Or are you blabering around with your usual ad hominems?
ogirv101 2 years ago
If not all Christians believe in the virgin birth, they might as well turn buddhist. Since some of the texts banned in Nicea have some things that coincides in buddhism
If you can refute the existence of Zeus, Osiris, Mithra & a.o. having virgin births as a part of their mythology, how plausible is it that this particualr story about Jesus is not a myth like anything else?
Remember, these stories were written by bearded men in the Bronze age, were halluciantions was a common phenomenon...
bohemianwriter1 2 years ago
@bohemianwriter1:
Zeus did not have virgin birth moron. Osiris was a father, he was a god and he was not born. No mention of Osiris having a virgin birth (where in the hell are you getting this crap, I'm readin straightout of comparitive religion texts).
As for Mithra being a virgin, it's a myth from modern zeitgeist conspiracists, like Joseph Campbell. Mithra (according to religious texts) "arose spotanously from a rock in a cave".
ogirv101 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bohemianwriter1:
Zeus did not have virgin birth moron. Osiris was a father, he was a god and he was not born. No mention of Osiris having a virgin birth (where in the hell are you getting this crap, I'm readin straightout of comparitive religion texts).
As for Mithra being a virgin, it's a myth from modern zeitgeist conspiracists, like Joseph Campbell. Mithra (according to religious texts) "arose spotanously from a rock in a cave".
ogirv101 2 years ago
@bohemianwriter1:
"were halluciantions was a common phenomenon"
Empirical evidence for that nonsense?
ogirv101 2 years ago
If you are Christian you should be the last one to talk about emprical eveidence.
YES! Read the bible! That's your proof.
One of the foundatuioons of Christianity is the belief in virgin birth. So, if youu don't believe in virgin brith, then you are not Christian.
About hte others, Zeus was a father impregninating some woman who gave bruiith to Hecules. I was poinint out the other myths, & you parse words as if you have anything to gain from it, save from making an idiot out of yourself...
bohemianwriter1 2 years ago
@bohemianwriter1:
"If you are Christian you should be the last one to talk about emprical eveidence."
*cough* ad hominem *cough*
I have read the Bible, I have taken many courses on biblical theology, and comparitive relgiion. I'm a major in Physics minor in philsoophy and future medical geneticist. The virgin Birth is not as imporatn as you make it seem, and so far you have only fed yourself false information on the mythology of different religions.
ogirv101 2 years ago
You are the gift that keeps on giving.
I was pointing pout the myths that Chrisitans are trying to refute, and then put forth their own myth as sacred and truth.
Logic is not your strongest virtue is it?
First you claim that not all Christians believe in virgin births, then you you want me to prove it's a myth and then call me a moron when showing you myths of other deities. I think yoou should demand your tution back since you obviously think that one myth is more true than the other..
bohemianwriter1 2 years ago
@bohemianwriter1:
You want me to refute those myths? Those myths represent nature as gods, contrary to Science and methodological naturalism (which is that natural events have natural causes, natural events are not gods). Therefore these myths are false.
Actually I wanted to specialize in logic and epistemology if I wasn't going to become a medical geneticist, nice ad hominem though. ;) I'm a Christian I don't believe in virgin birth, refute me theologically.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@bohemianwriter1:
I hold the virgin birth to be an allegorical and figurative story explaining how Jesus was above human averageness even if he was of humble origins. Unlike the ressurection, there is no way to know exactly if she was a virgin or not, and meant to be interpreted. The ressurection, though, had more than 400 eye witnesses mentioned as crowds (none of that in virgin story).
You still have to prove Christianity is a myth. *coughs* extra 21st chromosome *coughs*.
ogirv101 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bohemianwriter1:
You were pointing out the myths? Just merely arbitrarily pointing it out? No, first of all that was not your intention, second of all why would you do that?
"If you can refute the existence of Zeus, Osiris, Mithra & a.o. having virgin births as a part of their mythology"
You explciitly referred to these myths as "having virgin births as part of their mythology". So mind clearing up that load of crap you just shitted?
ogirv101 2 years ago
Hey Joe! You'r awesome! -
Best wishes from Denmark!
Robertotehman 2 years ago
Speaking of symbols, I want one of those FSM necklaces. They're cool. RAmen!
Tineafa 2 years ago
Hey, Joe! I hear that those fox news jerks are biased a lot, aren't they?
rationalway 3 years ago
Yeah just a bit. I sure don't watch them though, so if they ever change...I might not hear about it. lol
aajoeyjo 3 years ago
Great video, bravo.
catalyst8 3 years ago
Free thought in Texas ! ROTFLMFAO !
lordpimpd 3 years ago
Yep, it's true. Some of the most active local Atheist groups in the US of A are located in Texas.
aajoeyjo 3 years ago
if im ever in texas, we should hang out
louisvillian502 3 years ago
Joe, what's your favourite atheist symbol? What's the most versatile?
RedDaVincy 3 years ago
Red Well my favorite has always been the American Atheists "A" symbol, if that's not obvious enough. lol But lately...I dunno...It's like....it's changing.
aajoeyjo 3 years ago
Some satanists are atheists? How does that work? Most so-called satanists are looking to antagonize and don't know much of what they are talking about. The hardcore ones, who do believe, are theists, as they must also accept the existence of the christianist god in order to worship Satan. They are just as delusional as the christianists and are most definitely not atheists. Wish you a lot of fun at the convention.
rhabdoviridae 3 years ago
rhabdoviridae - Thanks! Yes many Satanists have gone out of their way to tell us Atheists that they don't actually believe in any real devil or gods. They say that for them, Satanism is more of a philosophy. So I say okay, if they say they're godless, that's good enough or me. But yes, it is a bit perplexing...
aajoeyjo 3 years ago
Thing i find disturbing bout satanists is they say they are atheist but then they use black magik,so how can they claim to be atheist?as atheist's dont we reject superstition and majik?i wonder if their claims are all but a cover story.
killedfetus 3 years ago
excellent vid..wish i could be there in austin
StonerMike84 3 years ago
"To get online, with a computer, and to complain about science. It doesn't make sense."
Well said! This was a good vid- informative!Thanx! :)
ShortbusMooner 3 years ago
Fantastic video as usual Joe, I think the symbol is perfect for the free thinking nature of an Atheist. Excellent video Joe
iharrison30 3 years ago
Thanks for the great video Joe. I never knew about the Atheist symbol, I feel uninformed, but hey at least I am learning!
TheBlueHour 3 years ago
Great video. Atheism needs to grow or take over and it will as long as intelligence is allowed.
FreeBDesh 3 years ago
Nice video Joe! I never knew the broken band meant that, you taught me something today :)
And learning new things is always good.
Great way to spread the message, keep up the good work.
AlderDragon 3 years ago