Atheists Contradictions.

T

The Penguin Slayer

New Member
1. There are no absolutes.
When you hear this statement there are many ways you can make the stater (is that a word) look foolish, but that statement is a contradiction to itself, merely because it is a statement. To be atheisticly (there are two types of grammer, correct and mine) correct, you must say, "it is my oppinion that there are no absolutes." The reason is because a statement must be true or false absolutely.

2. There is no right or wrong, it depends on the person.
If there is no right or wrong, then why do atheists get frusterated when they are told about biblical morality. If morality depends on the person, then it can't be wrong for Christians to tell them what the Biblical role model is (and judge them is they would say.)

3. There is no truth.
Aside from the fact that Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life. To say this you must be lying, because it can't be true, based on the fact that there is no truth.

These are the ones I could think of at the moment, if you know anymore, tell me, or if you disagree.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]1. There are no absolutes.
When you hear this statement there are many ways you can make the stater (is that a word) look foolish, but that statement is a contradiction to itself, merely because it is a statement. To be atheisticly (there are two types of grammer, correct and mine) correct, you must say, "it is my oppinion that there are no absolutes." The reason is because a statement must be true or false absolutely.
Click to expand...

If I may make an assumption, perhaps DV was talking about morality, not everything and anything. It is true in general terms there are absolutes. "I shot a man", which is untrue, is absolutely false. In terms of morality, however, there are few absolutes. E.g, "I shot a man". What for? Was it because he had a car you wanted and you shot him so he wouldn't run for it and tell the police? Or was it a cop who shot a criminal who was treatening to kill someone else? There are near limitless examples of moral situations where a single action can be good/bad for different reasons.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]2. There is no right or wrong, it depends on the person.
If there is no right or wrong, then why do atheists get frusterated when they are told about biblical morality. If morality depends on the person, then it can't be wrong for Christians to tell them what the Biblical role model is (and judge them is they would say.)
Click to expand...

Speaking personally, the only thing that frustrates me is the seemingly absurd notion that a person can ONLY be moral if they use the Bible's morals as a guidline. Why? What if someone who was born to atheistic parents and never experienced religion of any kind was sent to school? Are you suggesting that child would knife everyone who came near simply because the Bible hadn't told him that was wrong? I don't recall anyone saying the Bible's morals, or saying that you use them is wrong.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (The Penguin Slayer @ Oct. 15 2004,7:01)]
Click to expand...
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]1. There are no absolutes.
When you hear this statement there are many ways you can make the stater (is that a word) look foolish, but that statement is a contradiction to itself, merely because it is a statement. To be atheisticly (there are two types of grammer, correct and mine) correct, you must say, "it is my oppinion that there are no absolutes." The reason is because a statement must be true or false absolutely.
Click to expand...

I wish this actually made sense :p

You asked me in another thread if I believed in absolutes...what absolutes are you referring to? Moral absolutes? Theistic absolutes? Absolute zero?

By the way, to be grammatically correct, grammer should be spelled GRAMMAR.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]2. There is no right or wrong, it depends on the person.
If there is no right or wrong, then why do atheists get frusterated when they are told about biblical morality. If morality depends on the person, then it can't be wrong for Christians to tell them what the Biblical role model is (and judge them is they would say.)
Click to expand...

Where exactly are you getting this stuff from?

I've never said there is no right or wrong. There IS right and wrong, there ARE moral and ethical standards. Atheists get frustrated when confronted with anything Biblical because there is no proof for the existence of God. Thus, Christians believe in an absolute standard of morality posited by a being that can't be proven.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]3. There is no truth.
Aside from the fact that Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life. To say this you must be lying, because it can't be true, based on the fact that there is no truth.
Click to expand...

Exactly why do you believe this statement? What has led you to believe that atheists believe there is no truth? I ask this because you are incredibly INCORRECT in your position. There ARE truths. Evidence/reason/proof leads one to TRUTH.

I'm sorry, but this thread is utter nonsense. THIS was the reason I started the Atheist thread. You have no idea what you're talking about. Your points are convoluted and incorrect. They have no basis or logic behind then. Please understand that this is not a personal attack (as I believe this thread is) but an observation. Your positions are horribly uneducated and misguided. They are, quite simply, WRONG.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (ByblosHex @ Oct. 15 2004,8:22)]Wow... Athiesm sounds pretty moronic.. even more moronic now then I ever thought lol. :: fades away ::
Click to expand...
Awww, thanks for gracing us with your presence Byblos!

Unforunately I doubt you have placed much, if any, actual THOUGHT into atheism. If you had, you would realize it is FAR from moronic.

Try cracking those gates a bit wider.

By the way, thanks for turning your text back to black!
 
We've already been through this...you weren't REALLY an atheist, you simply assumed the title.

Like Christians that claim to be Christian because they go to chuch once a month.
 
You also considered yourself an atheist since you were born.

Yet how can a newborn understand theology?

Sorry Byblos, but even at your ripe old age of 17, you STILL don't fully grasp theology.

So how could you truly understand what it meant to be an atheist? I don't think you fully understand what it means to be a Christian yet (though I think you are trying).

Please don't get upset, I would say the same thing to anyone. You are just now beginning to understand, you haven't reached your pinnacle yet.
 
What it means to be an Athiest is to not belive in God.... And When I was born I didnt belive in God.... so I was an Athiest..

God doesnt care how old you are or how full of yourself you are.

Matthew 18:2-4:
"He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: ' I tell you the truth unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.' "

Once you get that through your head your life will become a lot easier.
 
WHOA, hang on, hang on.

We can wrestle this topic till we're blue in the face in another thread.

Let's try and stay on topic here, shall we? Especially since we've already been through this in another thread.
 
Well how can I speak about this topic if you do not understand what Athiest means?

Atheist

\A"the*ist\, n. [Gr. ? without god; 'a priv. + ? god: cf. F. ath['e]iste.] 1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

2. A godless person. [Obs.]

Syn: Infidel; unbeliever.

You see.... I was an Athiest by English definition, and we ARE speaking English here aren't we?
 
What exactly is your preoccupation with speaking English?
smile.gif


Let's look at your definition, shall we?

One who disbelieves or denies

How can a baby have the cognizant capacity to disbelieve or deny the existence of a God? DISBELIEF and DENIAL of a God are far beyond the abilities of a child.
 
Did I say senseless? No.

I said not cognizant.

Cognizant meaning, "knowledgeable of something especially through personal experience".

A child cannot fully understand the meaning of an omnimax being much less decide to believe in one.
 
What has led you to that conclusion?

Babies can't walk, feed themselves or control their bodily functions. Yet you believe they have the ability not only to comprehend an omnimax being, yet decide whether or no to believe in one?
 
I didnt say babies.. I said Children. Up to like 10 your a child I guess. I definitly didnt have a clue when I was unable to walk.
But I could comprehend and create sentences at 5 and I could understand that cars are heavy.. so sure i could understand that there was or was not a God.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (ByblosHex @ Oct. 15 2004,10:28)]
Click to expand...
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I didnt say babies.. I said Children. Up to like 10 your a child I guess. I definitly didnt have a clue when I was unable to walk.
Click to expand...

Yet you said

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]And When I was born I didnt belive in God.... so I was an Athiest
Click to expand...

So which is it?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]But I could comprehend and create sentences at 5 and I could understand that cars are heavy.. so sure i could understand that there was or was not a God.
Click to expand...

Say what? How intelligent were these sentences that you could create at 5? Stringing together sentences is NOT the same as understanding the nature of an omnimax being.
 
You got me... I guess I couldnt say when I was born. But WHen I was 5 I could have very well disbellieved.

You can never understand the nature of God. He is infinite our brains limited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top