Top products from r/atheist

Argh. Numerology. It's like every logical fallacy for numbers rolled into one.

I highly recommend you pick up a copy of Innumeracy.

What if atheism said, "There is no evil." Not that atheism is a unified doctrine.

However I know that mankind has existential questions and eternity on his heart and mind.

I would argue that religion has not retreated anywhere even though the "God of the Gap's Fallacy" is quite popular . The house of religion and the house of science are currently separate and apart. Western Civilization has only been around about 2,000 years and science still has a long way to go. Many things that science teaches today will be supplanted by new learning. Eventually I predict the two houses Science and Religion will harmoniously merge together, but not until further into the future when science gets some of the basic fundamentals figured out.

If you are intellectually bright and well versed in science, I recommend this book by Sheldrake:

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Set-Free-Paths-Discovery/dp/0770436722

This is the most difficult book I have ever read and looks at what we believe to be true (dogmas) and takes it through the lenses of multiple ism's (materialism) and asks really, really tough questions.

Here is a link to his censored TED talk: https://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg

Yes, the enlightened folks at TED took down his talk because it was so provocative in deconstructing what science believes. Basically, the scientific community want apeshit nuts and accused him of spreading lies, misinformation, and unscientific nonsense.

Check out the censored TED talk and reply back.

>You think it was divinely inspired, that doesn't make it true. And it >isn't "so historically accurate", there is literally zero historical >evidence of the existence of Jesus until decades after his >supposed death, and even those sources don't agree on things. >Josephus, the first person to write about Christ, isn't even >considered by historians to be entirely real (it was later added to) >and was anti-Roman propaganda (before he switched sides and >became an advisor to Vespasian).

I'm showing you proof that it is inspired. As far as historical evidence, even Richard Dawkins believes that Jesus is a historical figure. Your view that Jesus didn't exist is by far the minority view in scholarship. I think you're a victim of reading too many atheist websites instead of doing any serious research. What is your standard of historical evidence, because I guarantee that 50 percent of history would have to wiped out to meet it. It isn't like a crime scene where you can find fresh blood or fingerprints you know. As an example, no one really doubts that King Arthur existed but the earliest historical evidence we have that mentions him by name came 400 years after his death. The evidence for His life is actually very good.

>No, it doesn't. It means you have writing that later made-up >bullshit conforms to in some ways (meanwhile other parts of
>Messianic Prophecy are completely absent, like reuniting the tribes
>of Israel, and giving Israel back to the Jews).

We have a complete copy of the book of Isaiah which is dated before the birth of Christ, so you're not correct.

>You are using circular reasoning to claim truth. You have nothing >to back it up but your silly little book that is so historically >inaccurate we can't even use it as a reference book for history. >The book outright makes up shit like the Exodus, says people lived >for hundreds of years, and states the Jews were monotheistic >hundreds of years before they actually were. It also gets the time >of Abraham wrong by 1000+ years, so there is that too.

Have you ever seen this film?:

https://www.amazon.com/Patterns-Evidence-Exodus-Kevin-Sorbo/dp/B010X3MV78/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1524622114&sr=8-1&keywords=exodus+patterns

http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Translated-Ferguson-Hackett-Classics/dp/0872205878

Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" series is the first thing that comes to mind

Also any book or series that approaches the world for a rational, scientific perspective could also be considered to have an atheist subtext I suppose.

> Those aren't decisions in a free will sense.

Decision making and "free will" are different discussions. The concept of free will could take us down a separate rabbit hole, so for now I'll say that humans, being more intelligent and living more complex lives than animals, have a vastly greater amount of options for any scenario. This gives us a sense of freedom to choose whatever we want, but we are still confined to what's physically possible or what we can imagine, and the choices we make are based on some level of reasoning.


> I'm not dismissing this.

It sounded like it when you said "Oh but you don't believe that."


> That disturbs the chemicals in our brains.

That's not too far from accurate. You can Google and find studies that show your brain can be rewired by traumatic events and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) attempts to adjust that wiring through practice. Here's one article that's related: Scientists Have Discovered How Traumatic Experiences Actually Rewire The Brain. To this point, everything you experience is because of your brain, even your concept of God. This book's a little simplistic in the beginning but the neurology part is good: The "God" Part of the Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God


> only societies that do certain things have any chance of surviving

This argument doesn't logically follow my statement of "right and wrong is subjective". Societies fall for various reasons having nothing to do with morality; natural disasters, for one. How broadly are we using the term "societies"?

> What is Right is determined by what ultimately brings us closer to synthesis. Unity with God.

That's your opinion, which I'm open to hearing evidence or reasoning for. Which God? Everyone's concept of a god is slightly different than the next. How's that not subjective?


> morality is objective

Objectivity requires no influence by personal feelings or opinions. It implies a pure fact. If person 1 thinks killing is always wrong, person 2 thinks it's wrong unless it's for X reason, and person 3 thinks it's never wrong but can always be justified, then those are three subjective points of view. If you're saying outside of that there is an objective stance on it, how is one to know it and that it's not their own subjectivity?

Its truly pathetic that an "editorial" like this, which is nothing more or less than christian evangelism, is allowed on Fox News.


> I was mad at my father for beating my mother. I was angry at a man who worked on our farm and sexually abused me from ages 6 to 13. All of this led to me to really despise God, religion and anything to do with the church.

I question whether this is even true. Who "hates God" because they're being abused (unless you were actually being abused by a priest?) Who "hates God" if they are (as he claims he was) an agnostic? It just suspiciously sounds like he's recapitulating (and personalizing) the claim that atheists aren't atheists, they're just people who insincerely deny the existence of god and actually "hate" god. This is a great start, for a "scholar" to even lie (or be lying to himself) about his own origin story.

> The historical evidence really indicated that Jesus died, was buried, and rose on the third day.

Yeah... Pretty sure he's referring to the bible itself. He's being so stingy in this sources! So we have to just take his word for it? Why not unveil (just a little of) this tsunami-like evidence?!

His book is on Amazon, and the reviews (all 5-star) are predictably amusing:
https://www.amazon.com/New-Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785242198

I'm always amazed how baldly christians phrase their own dilemma:

> According to the Apostle Paul, if Christ did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is false, and Christians are to be pitied (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17). But if Jesus did rise, then Christianity is true.

christians have a very difficult time convincing me that jesus was ever taken off the cross. the point of the execution by crucifix wasn't just the torture unto death, it was leaving the corpse on the crucifix to decay and to desecrate the corpse. it's perplexing that this historical fact isn't widely known.