The Stephen Fry problem

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
They're certainly a rare breed sir.

Just now, in another thread, we have the plain daft statement from a theist that there is overwhelming evidence to support the Resurrection of Jesus. (I repeat 'overwhelming' ) and that they dismiss all the other Gods due to lack of evidence.

It is wishful thinking and bordering on plain delusional to believ ...[text shortened]... s notion that they have given fair consideration of the evidence other religions have to offer).

Originally posted by @romans1009
People whose professions require them to review evidence came to that conclusion as well.

Try Googling “Sir Lionel Luckhoo” for starters.

From the 'Atheist Republic':


'When a person says, “Without God, life has no meaning,” what he’s really saying is: “I want to believe that life has meaning, and I can’t imagine how that’s possible without God, so I want to believe that God is real.” While this desire is understandable, it’s neither convincing nor necessary. It’s possible to have a meaningful life without any religious convictions, and relying on religion to provide your life with significance can be psychologically damaging.

When you seek validation and meaning from outside sources, you risk being failed by the same institution that previously gave meaning to your life. Moreover, the culture of religion can lead to identical group thinking and loss of objectivity. When actions are informed by beliefs, false beliefs can give rise to dangerous or harmful actions. 

Part of the beauty and wonder of being alive is the opportunity to make your own choices and create your own meaning. Instead of having a predetermined “destiny” or some powerful guiding hand calling the shots in your life, you are free to seek your own meaning and value by making your own choices and discovering your own unique path.

There is no single outside force imposing meaning on the events of your life. There is no evidence whatsoever that people’s life events conform to some sort of divine plan or predestination. Life is, objectively, meaningless; given the size and scope of the universe and our tiny role within it, it’s absurd to think that we might have any sort of cosmically vital role.

The lack of external meaning to our lives can grant us a pleasant sense of freedom. Rather than being tethered by an outside force, we are free to explore the universe, seek answers to profound questions or enjoy simple pleasures. We have the ability to create meaning for our lives by setting worthwhile goals, working to improve the lives of those around us, enjoying our time on earth, making connections to other humans and loving our families. All of these activities are worthwhile, and none of them require the existence of God.' 


Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
From the 'Atheist Republic':


'When a person says, “Without God, life has no meaning,” what he’s really saying is: “I want to believe that life has meaning, and I can’t imagine how that’s possible without God, so I want to believe that God is real.” While this desire is understandable, it’s neither convincing nor necessary. It’s possible to have ...[text shortened]... ilies. All of these activities are worthwhile, and none of them require the existence of God.' 


Originally posted by @freakykbh
It's wrong on so many levels, the rightness of its few points is completely lost.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Tell us about some of those erroneous levels.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Biggest obstacle to reason: the claim that life is meaningless and we ought to put meaning into it.

Wut?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
You think having the freedom to find our own meaning in life is an obstacle to reason?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
From the 'Atheist Republic':


'When a person says, “Without God, life has no meaning,” what he’s really saying is: “I want to believe that life has meaning, and I can’t imagine how that’s possible without God, so I want to believe that God is real.” While this desire is understandable, it’s neither convincing nor necessary. It’s possible to have ...[text shortened]... ilies. All of these activities are worthwhile, and none of them require the existence of God.' 


Originally posted by @romans1009
This whole article’s a red herring because it’s based on a faulty premise of why people believe in God.

Atheists are never more nonsensical than when they’re trying to characterize the thoughts and motivations of believers. Why? Because atheists are trying by carnal means to explain spiritual matters.

Bad!

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
The general atheist position itself is an incredulity fallacy with a hint of narcissism. "I can't imagine it's true, therefore it's not true."

Originally posted by @bigdoggproblem
Whereas theism is humble enough to say that God made humans special and gave us dominion over the earth. 😛

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
The bible says Adam and Eve chose not to heed God's warning of certain death, in the pursuit of the knowledge of evil ways. The bible says that when Adam and Eve made that choice, they ushered in the curse of pain, suffering and evil.

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
Well. Unless you are prepared to argue that animals are on equal or greater terms with humans, why is it selfish or conceited to believe humans are special? I mean, we don't seem to have met up with any superior alien species yet. So, until then...... we're uniquely THE rulers of this planet (spiritual matters aside).

Originally posted by @apathist
The fruit was forbidden but they partook anyway. That doesn't support your claim that I objected to.

Stop blaming eve. She was adam's second wife, created specifically to obey her man.