Atheist talking points

Fine. Church father Origen.

copticchurch.net/topics/patrology/schoolofalex2/chapter03.html

>But do you really believe this?
100% I do. Spiritual text shouldn't even be classified as Historical or Secular text IMO.

Dude they believe that the desert fucking priests that wrote that bullshit 4000 years before ancient rome were "inspired by god". So it doesn't matter what the original intent was because they can say god influenced the writing to make it appear literal to the people at the time, but symbolic to modern man.

The truth is, the only thing that makes it
seem symbolic is that its been translated a million times. If you read the old testament in hebrew it comes off exactly as crazy as scientology.

Ancient man is the man who considered it symbolic though. Think about Plato. Think about everyone. It was the modern dolt who couldn't understand the manner of which ancient man conveyed knowledge (through stories and allegories) and thought it was all literal.

Don't get me wrong. The writings are VERY mystical, so if you don't believe that than it doesn't really matter.

>crazy
What makes something "crazy"?

>Hebrew
>Old testment
There's your problem. Read the Greek or Latin Vulgates or GTFO.

Well but if it's only symbolic, and now you already now what it means, why do you still need it for? The bible that is.

What it's symbolic for (transcendence of the soul and metaphysics) is more important. Also the Bible is a collection of text written over many centuries. Some books are better than others.

He did take the bible literally.

patheos.com/blogs/atheology/2016/09/the-history-of-early-biblical-interpretation-as-a-weapon-and-a-shield/

>patheos
lol

Something that no one would be able to take seriously forba second.

Great horned beasts that roamed the earth in genesis? Well ok maybe. But "unicorns"? Nah

Heaven existing in some sort of other worldly spiritual dimension that we cant comprehend? Idk, death is scary, maybe i could belive in that. A "firmament" of water that literally exists above the sky cieling and causes rain the roof leaks? That you literally swim through to fly into heaven? Ficking retarrrrded.

Even the whole "vessel" thing, meaning body, is bullshit. The original language would imply that jesus literally set foot inside a fucking ship to ascend into heaven.

>fedora jr is born
>his father starts telling him a tale so he doesn't trust strangers
>and thus, the wolf said...
>you're retarded dad, wolves do not speak

Fedora wasnt a smart kid, but he was smug as fuck.

And don't Homer and other writers afford symbolic interpretations as well? I ask this because Philo and Origen were specifically influenced by Platonism writers, and the platonists used to apply the exact same hermeneutic strategies to Homer as Philo and Origen apply to the bible. Almost as if Philo and Origen saw it, liked the idea and did the same thing, except they changed the base text.

According to the vitae, Boniface had never relinquished his hope of converting the Frisians, and in 754 he set out with a retinue for Frisia. He baptized a great number and summoned a general meeting for confirmation at a place not far from Dokkum, between Franeker and Groningen. Instead of his converts, however, a group of armed robbers appeared who slew the aged archbishop. The vitae mention that Boniface persuaded his (armed) comrades to lay down their arms: "Cease fighting. Lay down your arms, for we are told in Scripture not to render evil for good but to overcome evil by good."[24]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Boniface#

No. Origen specifically wrote that only Jews took the bible literally.

Did you have such considerations when your father told you about little red hood and the big bad wolf or did you understand it was meant to teach you not to fuck with strangers.

Pacifism is a thing.

*Good thing. Dependent on context.

...

>in his Apology for Origen, [Pamphilus] demonstrates from indisputably authentic texts that Origen defends God’s direct creation of the first man, Adam, and of Eve from one of Adam’s ribs; he accepts the literal truth of Enoch’s translation to heaven, Noah’s flood and the Ark, the Tower of Babel, Abraham’s hospitality to angels, Abraham’s [sic: Lot’s] wife changed into a pillar of salt, the ten plagues of Egypt, the passage through the Jordan, the rock struck by Moses, Joshua’s making the sun stand still in the sky, the stories of Balaam, Gideon, and Deborah, Elijah’s assumption into heaven, the resuscitation of the son of the Shunamite woman, the backward movement of the shadow under Hezekiah, and the historicity of Daniel, Judith, and Esther. A multitude of Origenian texts confirm that in the overwhelming majority of instances, Origen believed in the historicity of the literal accounts of scripture. (Erasmus’s Life of Origen, 54-55)

Nice second-hand source. Too bad Origen wrote himself repeatedly the contrary. The title says it all, apology for Origen. Origenism was almost considered a heresy at one point. Of course they would backpedal on some issues.

So the bible is only as true as aesop's fables? I agree with that completely.

Some of the stories teach a good moral lesson. Most boil down to "trust the authority of the kingdom of isreal/ 'god' with your life, or else". Kinda like every single other religion.

That's because discussing religion is stupid, its almost as bad as discussing philosophy.
>you can't prove God
>You can't disprove God
Then its over.

No. A Lot of is mystic and spiritual. You should understand a lot of fables have esoteric interpretations as well. The tale of Golden shovel comes to mind most of all. If your reward wasn't heavenly what would you gain from telling the truth?

>...Celsus, secretly wishing to attack the Mosaic cosmogony which indicates that the world is not yet ten thousand years old but is much less than this (ὁ Κέλσος λεληθότως βουλόμενος διαβαλεῖν τὴν kατὰ Μωϋσέα kοσμοποιΐαν, ἐμφαίνοντα μηδέπω μυρίων ἐτῶν ἀριθμὸν ἔχειν τὸν kόσμον ἀλλὰ πολλῷ τούτου λειπόμενον), agrees with those who say that the world is uncreated, although he hides his real intention . . . Nevertheless unintentionally Celsus fell into proclaiming [as is truly the case] that the world is quite recent, and not even ten thousand years old
- Contra Celsum 1.19-20

Straight from Origen himself, defending a young earth.

Golden ax I mean. lol

>41. He next speaks as follows: Then they tell of a flood and a prodigious ark holding everything inside it, and that a dove and a crow were messengers. This is a debased and unscrupulous version of the story of Deucalion I suppose they did not expect that this would come to light, but simply recounted the myth to small children. Here also see the unphilosophical hatred of the man towards the very ancient scripture of the Jews. For he had nothing to say against the story of the flood; and he did not even realize what he could have said against the ark and its measurements. For if we follow the opinion of the multitude and accept the statement that the ark was three hundred cubits long, fifty wide, and thirty high, it is impossible to maintain that it had room for all the animals on earth, fourteen of each clean and four of each unclean animal. He merely says it was prodigious, holding everything inside it. But what was prodigious about it? It is related to have taken a hundred years to build; at the bottom its length was three hundred cubits and its breadth fifty cubits, and it contracted in dimensions until at the top, which was thirty cubits high, it ended by being one cubit square. Should we not rather admire a construction which resembled a very large city? For when we square the measurements, the result is that it was ninety thousand cubits long at the bottom, and two thousand five hundred broad.3 Should we not admire the planning which made it firmly built and able to endure a storm which brought such a flood? Moreover, it was not smeared with pitch or any such substance, but was made watertight with asphalt. Is it not amazing that survivors of every species were brought inside by the providence of God in order that the earth might again possess the seeds of all animals, and that God used a most righteous man to be the father of all born after the flood?
- Contra Celsum 4.41

Here he defends a literal Noah's ark.

The idea of "young earth" isn't fair because ancient man had no indication at all of how old earth was. Most people used whatever they could to make clues of the situation. It's not like before Darwin a group of people was like "hey, the earth is clearly older than 10000 years because X."

Where does that state he thought the arc held every animal?

>Is it not amazing that survivors of every species were brought inside by the providence of God in order that the earth might again possess the seeds of all animals, and that God used a most righteous man to be the father of all born after the flood?

...

So one example? Out of the whole bible? Hardly a monolithic book. Or a monolithic declaration of biblical literallism.

...

...

...

...

...

discussing God is a meme

when "God" is cognitively meaningful then we can talk, until then you're just jerking each other off trying to make yourself cum

spirituality is for the individual to be shared with the group and not the other way around, if you choose to be non-secular that is between you and your decision

also i love Michael Whelan

I'm not familar with all of Origen's work, I was just posting some passages that corroborate If he believes the "Mosaic cosmogony" is accurate and takes Noah's ark that literally I think it's safe to say everything else in that source isn't so farfetched.

...

All hail the Heavenly Crab.

taste likes crab, talks like people

See

69

88

If a story is only symbolic, why does it matter if its true?

I get that there is a certain ethical and moral truth/wisdom to "love thy neighbor". Thats all well and good, but if nothing in the bible actually happened, and their just a bunch of metaphorical fairy tales to help us understand how to be good people, why are you so convinced that jesus christ was some kind of special entity. Why is it wort it to have a specific set of beliefs? Just be a deist, if you must, that taked inspiration from mythologies from all over history and culture.

Was the cross jesus was nailed to also metaphorical? Was the temple burning down metaphorical? How about the destruction of isreal? Were the assyrians a metaphor? The slavery of jews in egypt?

All of this bullshit is just back pedaling because no one thinks that whales can talk any more.

Ok i get that the samurai fedora guys are funny but definitions for "god" are so varied how can you not be an atheist or at least smart enough to just make up your own god

I'm reading his homily on Noah's Ark now. To be fair, Origen didn't think it was impossible, but otherwise has little to say about it, and thought that one should ascend from the literal meaning to the spiritual meaning. He interpreted the story as a prefiguration of Christ and the final judgement.

They didn't think that Jesus being nailed to the cross was metaphorical because there were eye witnesses and disciples that witnessed the risen Christ, according to the tradition they had received. But the OT including the Egyptians and Assyrians, yes, as I have already posted itt and you sir didn't bother to read.

I'm not even Christian. I'm just trying to represent their position fairly.

>Complaints atheists use American christian stereotypes
>Uses American atheist stereotypes
Amazing thread

>their position
I mean of some of the early church fathers.

Modern American Protestants have different views, obviously. And so on and so forth.

But there's historical evidence that shows the assyrians did in fact conquer Judea and isreal.

And eye witnesses is the dumbest shit ever. What about the eye witnesses that watch mosses part the red sea?

The Ahmadiyya movement believe that Jesus had survived crucifixion and had migrated eastward towards Kashmir to escape persecution. He went on to spread his message to the Lost Tribes of Israel after he had carried out his mission to the Israelites. Living up to old age, he later died a natural death in Srinagar Kashmir.

The Ahmadiyya Movement consider that Jesus was only a mortal man and a genuine prophet of God, born to the virgin Mary, in line with contemporary Islamic views on Jesus. Ahmadiyya however diverges away from the majority Islamic view that Jesus was raised up to Heaven and remains alive.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Ahmadiyya_Islam

man i love how there is pretty much no fedoras or creationists here in europe

*are

The thing is this. In the same way a lot of theotrical scientist think we live in a computer simulation, the idea is that humans have the capability to advance to higher state of existence once we die.

>Was the cross jesus was nailed to also metaphorical?
No. The idea behind Christ dying on the cross is that he had his will perfectly aligned to the will of God. Christ was a special individual who made a sacrifice out of love and offered to those who accept him and his teachings sharing oneness with him in the next life.

Jesus speaking John 14 "Let not your hearts be troubled; belive in God, belive also in me.In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were no so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may also be."

St. Paul in Ephesians 2: "And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who wear near; fro though him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows int a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit."

Christian talking points
>Thinks new atheism is representative of the majority of atheists both contemporary and historical
>Responds to all atheist arguments with one word "fedora". As if every atheist wears a certain hat.
>Thinks youtube videos are a valid substitute for arguments.

>Was the temple burning down metaphorical?
Yes and no. The Jews don't currently have temple, which the Romans destroyed after the fact during the Roman Jewish wars. From a Christian perspective the Jewish covenant is no longer valid, thus the temple lost it's function. It happened that the physical building was destroyed later.

Well observed.

I guarantee you that every Christian posting fedora memes actually was a fedora-wearing atheist 5 years ago.

Muslims are creationists.

Well it's a different religion from Christianity. Then there are the Gnostics, Manichaeans...

Atheists don't know how to interpret, stop speaking you hack.
The Earth is young, that does not mean that the Bible is absolutely literal.

You do realize that it is a collection of writings, yes?
>arguments are good because of this hat i wear
Yes, some atheists wear a colander on their head, or a MLP or Undertale snapback, or a steampunk tophat, but regardless of the hat worn, the hat embodies the same ideals.
15, actually.

>Yes, some atheists wear a colander on their head, or a MLP or Undertale snapback, or a steampunk tophat, but regardless of the hat worn, the hat embodies the same ideals.
My point was as far as Veeky Forums goes you don't actually know anything about them let alone their choice of headgear.

And in using "fedora" as an argument you out yourself as having massive hangups about atheists that you like to project onto whoever you happen to be speaking to.

I was one, how do I not know what they are like? I spoke to several dozens when I was one (on forums). I've heard all their terrible arguments, and every single one is worse than the 'fedora' argument. Thus, the 'fedora' argument will stop being used as soon as they move onto a set of arguments that weren't solved a dozen different ways several hundred years ago.

The fedora thing is several years obsolete, it's almost Chuck Norris tier.

fuck you constantine you fucking greek fuck

So? Are you saying Chuck Norris couldn't roundhouse kick his fedora whilst still wearing it AND have it land back on his head after it has passed through a wormhole generated by the force of said roundhouse kick?

>I was one, how do I not know what they are like?
This is what you need to understand about projection. It has everything to do with projecting things you dislike about yourself (or former self) onto other people.

> I've heard all their terrible arguments, and every single one is worse than the 'fedora' argument. Thus, the 'fedora' argument will stop being used as soon as they move onto a set of arguments that weren't solved a dozen different ways several hundred years ago.
The thing you also need to understand is that you haven't really changed. You're an atheist anymore but you're still annoying smug and ignorant, you've just swapped what belief systems you cling to and what ones you shit over.

In truth, no, posting a picture of a hat isn't better than actual arguments against god. This is exactly the kind of caustic, self-righteous mentality that made everyone hate new atheists. It ignores the actual intellectual tradition behind these beliefs in favour of an overly simplistic "other" that they can just knock down to stroke their own ego.

Converting religion isn't going to change this. If people are going to stop being smug dicks that no one likes they need to do some actual introspection rather than just deciding their lack of belief in a certain thing was the cause of all their personal failings.

No, this is not projection, it's emphasizing but also seeing the same nonsense in others.
>smug and ignorant,
Why is 'ijyant' the humanist insult of choice?
There is no intellectual tradition behind atheism. Do you genuinely think I haven't read these people?

If anybody is smug, it is you.

>this is not projection
Sure thing, friend.

>Why is 'ijyant' the humanist insult of choice?
I'm not even a humanist, that was just a massively ignorant to say.

>There is no intellectual tradition behind atheism.
>If anybody is smug, it is you.
Right, yes. You want to act as if the total of atheist tradition from Diagoras to Russell and everyone in between is worse than hat memes, that's not smug at all.

user, I can tell you're hurting. But using belief or lack of as a shield for your ego is not the answer and it never was.

>I'm not even a humanist, that was just a
massively ignorant to say.
You are, you just reject the title.
The entire atheist tradition is worse than hat memes, their tradition is based upon worse memes and worse arguments.
>Sure thing, friend.
>user, I can tell you're hurting.
Not smug at all. No.

>There is no intellectual tradition behind atheism. Do you genuinely think I haven't read these people?
I guess not.
Here's a starting point maybe:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_philosophers
Debunk all of "these people" before you can dismiss them.

The fact is you think you come across as wise when you actually come across as stupid. You assume you are powerful and convincing but you actually undermine your argumentative credibility by your ignorance. But you can't notice because you feel self-validated by lashing out at the Other.

& Humanities strike again.

A list of philosophers is not an intellectual tradition. Trash is trash, not tradition.

Once again, they all rely upon trash arguments that had been answered a dozen different ways a hundred or more years ago.
>omg ur ijnaaant

>You are, you just reject the title.
See you're doing it again. You're taking things you don't like about the way you used to be and projecting on to me. I'm not a humanist, nothing I've said in this thread has even pointed towards a support of humanism, you're just making assumptions about me that really come from within. In truth I am a massive racist social-Darwinist.

>The entire atheist tradition is worse than hat memes, their tradition is based upon worse memes and worse arguments.
This is what I'm talking about. You reflexively shit all over the beliefs of others by saying smug things that just aren't true. And more importantly I think you know it's not true.

No, David Hume is not worse than hat memes.

>Not smug at all. No.
You know I speak the truth, condescending or no.

no ur MOM is trash jej

I mean when the topic is specifically about religion.

>In truth I am a massive racist social-Darwinist.
Still a humanist. If you are an atheist of any sort, and not an actual nihilist and misanthrope, then you are a humanist, someone that makes Maldoror look like a saint. You're just a selective humanist. I don't distinguish, you're all selective in your love.

>No, David Hume is not worse than hat memes.
Yes he is, his 'arguments' are fucking awful and barely fit his own philosobabble.
>the world sux so aquinASS was wrong because i only experience a sux world even though im a jolly hedonist no one understands me ;c

>And more importantly I think you know it's not true.
>You know I speak the truth, condescending or no.
Armchair psychobabble.

>they all rely upon trash arguments that had been answered a dozen different ways a hundred or more years ago
Is that why Christianity is declining

Christianity is not declining.

It is in places that matter, i.e. Europe and the U.S.

> If you are an atheist of any sort, and not an actual nihilist and misanthrope, then you are a humanist
Flawless logic. It's not like humanism is itself a well-established system of beliefs besides "not believing in god".

>Yes he is, his 'arguments' are fucking awful and barely fit his own philosobabble.
He's not though. David Hume was a brilliant and widely acclaimed man, even if you don't agree with him just pretending he isn't doesn't make this any less true. Also I love how you bring up Aquinas in the next breath who did indeed acknowledge that some atheist arguments are good.

>Armchair psychobabble.
user, tacking "-babble" onto everything you disagree with is not an argument. It's very immature.

>europe and us matter
if you dont fall for a simplification of 'humanism', then ur jus stupid

becus hume is popular, then ur stupid
if u mention a person, then u mus agree wit dem all ting