I’m not religious but I’m a massive Trump and Q follower. I see lots Christians on the board, any other atheists around here?
How do you view the religious factor in the Q movement?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (252)
sorted by:
This is a classic attempt to redefine the historical meaning of Atheisms to hold the more tenable (soft?) position of "Lack" of Belief.
A = Greek for "No" Theism = Greek for "God"
This is known as the "New" Atheism. A redefined version of historical Atheism
Whatever it is is what I am. I don't believe in God but don't make the statement there isn't one. I'm not convinced by ancient texts written by dudes that didn't know where the sun went at night.
The universe is vast and beyond anything we can imagine. It could have a god out there somewhere but it could also have space breathing sharks with lasers mounted on their heads.
But when it comes to the bible, it's not even an original story.... Jesus wasn't the first virgin birth nor was he the first one crucified and rose from the dead. To me, it's not convincing and that god isn't worthy of my endorsement.
Jedi handwave. Just because they didn't understand modern cosmology doesn't mean they couldn't speak the truth. Nothing in the Ancient biblical text contradicts modern science anyway, so this is really a moot point and designed to smear the authors of the OT.
Yeah, okay, Dr Evil.
The assertion that the NT was copied from earlier Egyptian/Babylonian/Zoroastrian myths has been debunked thoroughly.
ALL of the manuscripts that we are in possession of regarding those ancient myths POSTdate the New Testament documents. Which means, they most likely copied from the NT writers. Mainly because Christianity (at the time) was THE most popular and fastest growing religion. These flailing religions, most likely, wanted wanted a piece of the action, so they anachronistically wrote the Christian themes into their own narratives.
It's funny to me how I'm the one with the outlandish ideas... But yours (talking snakes, donkeys, being swallowed and living in a "fish," a global flood, the ark, the dead rising again, zombies (Mat 27:52-53) etc etc etc... are perfectly acceptable.
As far as dates go, there are texts that predate the Bible the same concepts. None of the data is convincing enough to me. Hearsay may be good enough for you and good enough in a court of law, but in the realm of provable science, it's meaningless.
These are the tired, old rebuttals straight from the New Atheist's playbook. Try reading something other than Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens. Something with some substance. You should really look into Anthony Flew. He's an Atheist with real substance, rather than vitriolic assertions and misunderstood ramblings of ancient literature's styles and structures.
If you can believe that the Universe came into existence from nothing (and I mean Nothing - not a vacuum like Laurence Krauss proposes), then you've kind of already believed in the biggest miracle of all. All other miracles after that become small fry stuff.
You only have three options:
1 = Atheism 2 = Theism 3 = Anti modern Science