Recent Activity

Defaultblog-thumb

Faceless Atheist commented on (one of the many) Weak Atheist Arguments on March 25, 2009, 5:13 PM

so than we should also believe that aliens have visited our planet? There are numerous accounts that testify to such visits, so it passes your test for truthfulness.

Defaultblog-thumb

Faceless Atheist commented on A question for you christians. on March 25, 2009, 4:38 PM

All sins may be forgiven, but you have to repent in life. There is nowhere in the bible or in the qur'an that says we will get a chance to change our minds after we die. I can not believe you are attempting to deny that these religions are mutually exclusive. Jesus allegedly said "I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me" (john 14:6). Seems pretty straight forward, if you don't follow him you won't get into heaven. And as for the qur'an, "5.14. From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done." Again, rather straight forward. Christians are wrong. "5.73. They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them." I can only imagine that this "penalty" is hell. You can't really believe that followers of other religions can get into heaven, or at least you can not truly call yourself a christian or muslim while believing this. Both "holy" books make it clear that they alone are correct, and that people who follow other gods are doomed to suffer in hell for their mistake. There is indeed a major conflict here, and I think you are simpleminded if you don't realize it.

Defaultblog-thumb

Faceless Atheist commented on (one of the many) Weak Atheist Arguments on March 25, 2009, 7:41 AM

More proof than a God who made himself flesh to die on the cross for our sins? Wheres the proof again? Or should I say the proof of the proof.

Defaultblog-thumb

Faceless Atheist commented on (one of the many) Weak Atheist Arguments on March 25, 2009, 7:39 AM

“I say it is the people that validate their own opinions” I think that this is impossible. The term validate means that one is looking for someone else to support and lend credibility to his opinions, and when one sees his message echoed in religious texts than he sees “god” as validating his opinion. “so the blame is still placed on the weakness/ignorance of the individual, and not the scripture itself.” No, the blame should be placed on all those support the books claim of divine authority. Those who perpetrate the myth that the bible is gods word are to blame for those who are divinely inspired by it, regardless of the goodness/evil of the resulting actions. “Of course I will answer 'no'. My belief in G-d is what G-d led me to believe about Him/It” But my point is that your views on god are inherently personal. You may believe “god” led you to these views, but anyone can say/believe this, even those who you claim distort scripture to find a message that isn’t really there. “we should fight against the ignorance that seeks to justify it's own intent.” This is what I am doing by fighting against religions. “If it is not divinely authoritative to you, why would the book itself be at fault? It would just be words on a page. Your concern should be with the ones misusing it.” No my concern is with those that perpetrate the myth of divine authority in scripture.

Defaultblog-thumb

Faceless Atheist commented on Disproving Jesus Existed on March 25, 2009, 7:24 AM

"Since God is an abstract concept outside of oneself then it is intelligent to try to grasp it, correct?" No. The idea can be pursued intelligently, but belief in the abstract notion of "god" is not inherently intelligent because the idea is abstract. Not all abstract ideas are intelligent. The flying spaghetti monster is an abstract idea, so are russell's teapot and social darwinism, but none can be supported intelligently. I think the idea of an all-knowing omnipotent being who is completely good is illogical despite its abstractness, and that it too is impossible to support intelligently.

More