Monicks: Unleashed

Thinking Critically


Signs you might already be an atheist

… or that “it’s [NOT] turtles all the way down.” LULZ! (◕‿~)✿


Share:Share on Facebook0Share on StumbleUpon12Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Tumblr0Share on Google+0Digg thisPin on Pinterest0

15 Responses to Signs you might already be an atheist

  1. If you assume that the ancient hebrew word for “winged” must have referred to members of the class Aves, a designation created in 1676….

    ….you might be obnoxious.

  2. Richard says:

    I intended to essentially leave the same comment as David, just without the name-calling. The term ‘mammal’ is a term created by humans. God was not subject to it long before it even existed.

    Further, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, therefore we must defer to Hebrew definition. ‘Bird’ was the description of any winged creature including even insects. The English translation may leave something to be desired as it can cause confusion in such a way. But this does not bother Christianity in the slightest.

    But I agree. If you abide this line of thinking without researching the topic, it can likely cause atheism. Anyway, I hope you have a nice day. 🙂

  3. And your point?

    Are you ready to defend to the firmament?
    Are you ready to defend a talking snake?
    Are you ready to defend people being 800 years old?
    Are you ready to defend a 6,000 year old earth?

    If you’re not, what is your point? Divine word is divine or it isn’t.

  4. Richard says:

    My point was that central theme of the original argument does not stand firmly, that of course being that God acknowledged bats as birds and not mammals.

    I am not sure what point you think you are raising in mentioning some of the miracles of the Bible, for they are simply irrelevant to what was said.

    Though I would never posture the possibility that some things like a talking snake could occur naturally. However, on a theistic view; a view of the world that God and the supernatural do intervene in, then the miracles of the Bible obviously become more plausible because they are not naturally occuring but of supernatural influence.

    Further, I need not defend the view that the earth is 6000 years old. There are any number of manners in which to perceive the creation account, some of which align with an old earth. I am agnostic in that regard, so it follows that I need not defend it, nor are my beliefs compromised by it.

    If you reply I would like to offer some advice to enhance our conversation. Please ensure you have an understanding of what I have said, of the issue that you are speaking of, and most importantly, please do not travel asunder of the boundaries of mutual respect.

  5. I completely understand, you’re an idiot, Richard. You wish to parse the conversation into a defensible position while ignoring the greater context.

  6. Richard says:

    Where exactly do you think the conversation begun? I demonstrated that I did not need to answer your questions, as they were irrelevant to the topic. But I went on to do it anyway.

    You, however, have failed to answer any of my rebuttals. You instead replied with typical indignation in substitution of valid argumentation.

    Therefore the following of my points stand.
    1 – Referring to a bat as a bird is no contradiction in that context.
    2 – The age of the earth is relative in a theological context.
    3 – Miracles in the Bible are irrelevant to the central issue of this topic.

    Though you do make a good point when you said… Oh wait, nevermind. I started reading my response to you. You have no good points. It was you, not I, that diverted from the topic of discussion in an effort to profess yourself wise. Doing so has instead rendered you a fool.

    Scroll up and reread the conversation until that which I have explained becomes apparent to you. After that, proceed to ignore that logic and again accuse me of diverting the topic despite that I indulged in both the main topic and your sub-topic diversions. To finalize your next stupid comment, simply make a pseudo-clever remark that is not at all reflective of what I have said. In essence, please change the truth of this conversation to what resembles that which you wish it was.

    Oh wait, you already did that. My bad. Alright, instead, just ignore my unanswered points, pretend that you are justified in calling me names and in turn, make yourself appear to be a coward for avoiding that main topic.

    OH WAIT. You did that too. It appears that you have hit the atheism trifecta. What’s next? You’ve clearly won the miracles debate, Hume. Ask me some more infallible philosophy. Maybe the impenetrable ‘Who designed the designer?’

    All I asked from you was respect. Grow up. Maybe next time we can have an adult conversation.

  7. Therefore the following of my points stand.
    1 – Referring to a bat as a bird is no contradiction in that context.
    2 – The age of the earth is relative in a theological context.
    3 – Miracles in the Bible are irrelevant to the central issue of this topic.

    Are you shitting me? You’re assuming your points are valid and then you want to proceed. Either the ‘divine’ word is divine or it’s flawed. Spoiler: It’s flawed.

    Apologist redefinition aside, You’re just wrong on so many levels. A Bat is not a bird, the age of the Earth is relevant to reality, the miracles are neither supported by evidence or reason.

    Belief in the “holy” text is completely idiotic.

  8. “A Bat is not a bird”

    A bat is not a member of the class Aves. A bat does, however, have wings.

    Grow up.

  9. Richard says:

    You have wretched reading comprehension. It’s a little annoying. That is why I said earlier “Please ensure that you have an understanding of what I have said and what you are talking about.” I did not assume that my.points were valid. They were uncontested therebg rendering them valid. Though even now they are under poor fire.

    1 – The Hebrew definition of the word bird just means a winged creature. This was long before the concept of a mammal ever existed. It does not bother Christianity.
    2 – The age of the earth IS relevant to reality, i agree. I did not at all contradict that. Focus. I said that it is relative in regard to the Bible.
    3 – I am not going to get into a Does God Exist debate with you, as you have struggled to comprehend the difference between an English and Hebrew translation. I can scarcely imagine how you would behave and all of which you would.misread in an expansion. Also I just don’t care enough. If you want to read some arguments, do your homework, student. If God is supported, miracles are supported.

    You won’t though. You will continue to live in your deluded bias world wherein not believing in God actually makes you a smart guy. Spoiler: it doesn’t. I have tried to anticipate some of the things opposition might say so that I might prepare in advance.

    However I did not expect the sophomoric debate tactics displayed here. Actually, it quite gives sophmores a bad name. I contend that the reading comprehension you have displayed and the baseless, unsupported points you have raised would receive a failing grade in a sophmore class.

    You are the atheist poster child. You are an exemplar of the unsophisticated argumentation on the internet.

  10. And again, you restrict the topic on hand to a sliver of the total argument. Attempting to restrict a discussion to a sliver is dishonest and misleading.

  11. Mike says:

    You assume that every word in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. It is a text mean to expand one’s mind and possibly provide some form of a moral compass. i have studied the Bible for many years and i am not a Christian. But there is no need to be an ass.

  12. Life is inevitable to setbacks and failures, and with tears wash with regret, as with smiles to meet new challenges.

  13. “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.” – Jefferson

  14. setbacks and failures, and with tears wash with regret, as with smiles to meet new chall

  15. every word in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. It is a text


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers:

%d bloggers like this: