tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.comments2023-09-30T06:42:31.235-07:00Advocatus AtheistTristan Vickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05348780254008374268noreply@blogger.comBlogger486125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-69907959072895281552022-04-02T19:03:03.137-07:002022-04-02T19:03:03.137-07:00“I would like for you to get to yourself, slow dow...“I would like for you to get to yourself, slow down and honestly ask yourself, Do I really believe that I am a worthless, bastardized being and that when my body dies I will simply cease to exist?”<br /><br />Well, I’m not a bastard because I know who my father was. But, yes, when we die we join back into the cosmos just as the wave of the ocean – which has shape, form, and function – one day ceases to exist and joins the great vast ocean.<br /><br />If that thought scares you, think of it like this. You will feel and sense everything as you would before you were ever conceived by your parents. That is – the nothingness of pre-existence and the nothingness of a post-existence are two sides of the same coin. It is only that brief flash of existence that is the coin’s thinly lit edge where we experience all life and existence. And then, in a flash, it’s gone again. But we won’t know it beyond the memories we leave behind. I can only imagine it is as peaceful and calm after death as it is before life.<br /><br />“(Pardon me if I have assumed the idea that you do not believe in any afterlife).”<br /><br />No, you are correct. I don’t believe in any afterlife of the metaphysical or supernatural variety. So, that is an accurate assumption.<br /> <br />“I want to tell you my dear friend that you are not a worthless, bastardized being and that you have a Creator that loves you and cares enough for His creation as to not leave it wandering with no purpose or definition.”<br /><br />This is false. I’ve been presented with no evidence for the thing you speak of. How can something that doesn’t exist be capable of love? And, moreover, even if it should exist, how would you know personally that such a being loves me specifically? I think you are falling into the trap of assuming more than you technically can given the state of the evidence and the fact that the question of such a beings existence remains entirely unanswered.<br /><br />The rest of your comments read as hollow preaching (no offense). But apologetic talk is often a trained response and doesn’t show or demonstrate original thinking so much as it just parrots commonly shared views among the like-minded. It’s fine to have community and feel a part of something bigger than yourself, but please realize, not everybody wants that. Sometimes, people just like to be lonely monks living on a mountain top meditating and living a peaceful life of nature and serenity.<br /><br />I hope I answered your questions adequately. Sorry it too me so long to reply. I don’t discuss religion much any more these days. I sort of got bored with it.<br /><br />But I wish you well on your own journey for truth and the answers. I’m content that I’ve found most of the answers I’m looking for, although the pursuit of better reasoning and more logical thinking is always an ongoing endeavor. As is the pursuit of self-improvement, mindfulness, and finding an inner peace.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />The Advocatus Atheist<br />Tristan Vickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05348780254008374268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-9082055125200350912022-04-02T19:02:41.188-07:002022-04-02T19:02:41.188-07:00You asked:
“First of all I understand you, your a...You asked:<br /><br />“First of all I understand you, your arguments are not uncommon. Out of curiosity, is your work stimulated by the desire to know the truth, existentially speaking?”<br /><br />Yes, in part. It’s partially an innate desire to know the truth of things, but it’s also more about using reason pragmatically. I don’t think we can be given a gift as special as the ability to have consciousness and reason and then not use it.<br /><br />And when I strive toward a more logical, more consistent view of the universe, God shrinks away to nothing.<br /><br />Other people have differing opinions on the nuanced philosophical questions, but this is good. Anything that challenges the status quo gives us more things to reason through and can, in the long run, strengthen our reasoning skills.<br /><br />Secondly, you mentioned:<br /><br />“It seems that to question the validity of the notion of "God's" existence inevitably prerequisites the collapse of any belief of truth at all.”<br /><br />Why would the non-theistic or agnostic worldview presuppose nihilism? <br /><br />I don’t think that’s accurate.<br /><br />I don’t believe any metaphysical assumption is necessary regarding truth apart from perhaps our ability to decipher it. More specifically, if there is anything such as an objective, ultimate truth, I think we would more than likely come to it by logic and reason regardless of whether or not God exists.<br /><br />You went on to say that<br /><br />“If one doesn't believe that true or false exists, then what is existence altogether?”<br /><br />Well, ultimate truths and the fact of existence are different questions. I don’t know what you’re trying to ask here. But they are unrelated, for the most part.<br />Tristan Vickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05348780254008374268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-87733922863632979922022-04-02T04:45:20.724-07:002022-04-02T04:45:20.724-07:00Even if you say it's dependent on choice, then...Even if you say it's dependent on choice, then you'd have to acknowledge that the choice then must fall upon the woman and her doctor (a medical professional) on what the best course of action for the child would be. If there are medical complications that necessitate an abortion, then this would be a choice the woman would need to make in respect to her life and health.<br /><br />Unborn things don't yet have choices. And you might see that as tragic, but that doesn't change the fact that putting protections on non-existent things is nonsensical. Then again, a lot of pro-lifers argue that the fetus has ensoulment. And that's an entirely non-scientific and non-medical argument meant to try and bypass the science that proves their life at conception claims bogus.<br /><br />Most pro-choice people don't want abortion either. In fat, the majority of pro-choice people are against abortion whenever better options are available. The the fact remains, whenever you outlaw abortion, women's lives are put in danger and abortion rates go up.<br /><br />Whenever abortion is available, women's lives are safeguarded and abortion rates go down. <br /><br />If pro-life people understood the dynamics between health, happiness, and security better -- they might not argue from emotional appeals and might actually argue from well-informed opinions. But, when your starting arguments hinge on supernatural assumptions -- it's much harder to get to scientific facts. Tristan Vickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05348780254008374268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-30886469563499513212019-10-09T12:35:12.275-07:002019-10-09T12:35:12.275-07:00Pro-life...I believe that women have rights over t...Pro-life...I believe that women have rights over their own bodies. When they use that right and it creates another life they have accepted the moral responsiblity to care for and nurture that life from conception (can't really exist without that being untampered with) at least through delivery. They can then hand over that responsibility to other care givers if they choose. The small number of women who are violated and become pregnant have a responsibility forced upon them and the full legal weight of the law should fall upon the person who has committed the crime. However, the life of a child should not be forefeited. Horrible? Yes. Desired? No. But in the fulfillment of giving life there may still be hidden joys and redemption for the initial victim.You'retoosmarttobethatdumbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12624303434455482731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-19329168696064503342019-10-09T12:23:37.329-07:002019-10-09T12:23:37.329-07:00The testimony of Paul was that he was obsessed wit...The testimony of Paul was that he was obsessed with killing and imprisoning Christians. He brought as much pressure to bear upon them as he could in order to get them to renounce Jesus Christ. Within a three day span he became the greatest evangelist and apologist for the person that he hated the most. Why did he change? He says he had a real encounter with Jesus Christ who had been put to death brutaly and publicly. He says his change was due to the fact that Jesus spoke to him, and a man came and prayed for him. Saul became Paul and was used to changed the world. He spent his entire life, and gave his life, for this message. His testimony and existence alone are a powerful proof of the reality of the Christian faith. You'retoosmarttobethatdumbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12624303434455482731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-54805245300879178012014-04-14T15:45:36.561-07:002014-04-14T15:45:36.561-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-65369651657647397002014-04-13T06:59:36.790-07:002014-04-13T06:59:36.790-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-3483689841098440262014-04-01T01:31:38.825-07:002014-04-01T01:31:38.825-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-81787068835274688792014-03-31T00:05:48.466-07:002014-03-31T00:05:48.466-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-72924393982848414942014-03-21T01:53:23.429-07:002014-03-21T01:53:23.429-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-72199896845647275802014-03-14T16:59:13.824-07:002014-03-14T16:59:13.824-07:00Mr. Vick:
First of all I understand you, your arg...Mr. Vick:<br /><br />First of all I understand you, your arguments are not uncommon. Out of curiosity, is your work stimulated by the desire to know the truth, existentially speaking? It seems that to question the validity of the notion of "God's" existence inevitably prerequisites the collapse of any belief of truth at all. If one doesn't believe that true or false exists, then what is existence altogether? I would like for you to get to yourself, slow down and honestly ask yourself, Do I really believe that I am a worthless, bastardized being and that when my body dies I will simply cease to exist? (Pardon me if I have assumed the idea that you do not believe in any afterlife). I want to tell you my dear friend that you are not a worthless, bastardized being and that you have a Creator that loves you and cares enough for His creation as to not leave it wandering with no purpose or definition. Please don't take me wrong, I am not being sarcastic nor do I feel any condemnation for you. I am honestly grieved and saddened by this lie that I myself almost fell prey to believing at one point in life. I appreciate your quest for truth, I myself am alongside you in that desire except I have found it. Audacious statement some may say, but I know that I have a Father that loves me and cares deeply about the condition of His creation. The Kingdom of Heaven is like a treasure which a man stumbles across in the dessert. Once he finds it, he buries it far underneath the earth, returns to his home and sells everything that he has in order to purchase the plot of land where the treasure was found. All of his neighbors and family think that he is crazy because he spends his entire life's earnings on what appears to be a dry wilderness. So it is for everyone that enters into the Kingdom of Heaven. I may never speak with you again or make any other comment on your page but I hope to see you there, you are not forsaken my friend. Excuse the imperfection of speech and semantics, I hope that my heart will communicate with yours.<br /><br />Israel Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-82906709426996743412013-12-09T09:29:26.310-08:002013-12-09T09:29:26.310-08:00I observe extreme emotional investment on both sid...I observe extreme emotional investment on both sides of the argument. My family is a mix of Lutherans and Neo-Catholics. The holidays are a hoot. I cannot fathom why the beliefs of early man have previaled so long. I assume there is a brain chemistry imbalance reponsible for this mental illness called religiosity or even extreme atheism. (humor) A good dose of metaphysics always calms me. I like to put Decartes before the horse, so to speak. Also, Life of Brian seems to fulfil my religeous needs. <br />"Brian: ...Will you please listen? I'm not the Messiah! Do you understand? Honestly!<br />Woman: Only the true Messiah denies his divinity!"<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-89239127303726734542013-08-22T23:22:00.334-07:002013-08-22T23:22:00.334-07:00Because biblical chronology is messed up, we have ...Because biblical chronology is messed up, we have to assume that the order here matters.<br /><br />You're right however that we cannot be certain as to whether or not it came first. We could let the chronology slide, since there is no actual way to prove it.<br /><br />But the problem is not mine. You have to prove that it was NOT the first. The *assumption that is was not the first not withstanding. <br /><br />Otherwise it may very well be a REAL contradiction. You are simply dismissing it based on your desire to believe that the sermon on the mount wasn't his first sermon, but this is just an assumption. One which would need to be VERIFIED for your objection to stand. Tristan Vickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05348780254008374268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-83826045112068464602013-08-22T23:16:55.413-07:002013-08-22T23:16:55.413-07:00It's more of a case when a biographer tells th...It's more of a case when a biographer tells the SAME event but leaves out a VITAL element which he should not have omitted under any circumstances which, may not be a contradiction, but CERTAINLY is a discrepancy worth raising a few red flags. Tristan Vickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05348780254008374268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-38425644880423271622013-08-22T23:15:42.797-07:002013-08-22T23:15:42.797-07:00Actually, Paul's actions still contradict Jesu...Actually, Paul's actions still contradict Jesus' command not to baptize but merely to preach.<br /><br />You have to read into the context too much to get around it and say, well, Paul was simply following his Christian right to baptize on a personal basis. But what prevents Paul from going onto the next house and baptizing. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. We cannot know for certain.<br /><br />It's all a conjecture after the facts. The fact is, the contradiction of actions remains.Tristan Vickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05348780254008374268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-68939436727628064982013-08-22T23:12:21.000-07:002013-08-22T23:12:21.000-07:00It is irrelevant whether or not Paul *knew he was ...It is irrelevant whether or not Paul *knew he was writing scripture. The objection stands.Tristan Vickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05348780254008374268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-39986699769332501302013-08-22T23:11:42.680-07:002013-08-22T23:11:42.680-07:00It seems besides the point. But if Socrates', ...It seems besides the point. But if Socrates', Plato's, and Confucius' writings were written down, does it not raise a valid question as to the missing source material of Jesus?Tristan Vickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05348780254008374268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-39400055343279422082013-08-22T23:10:08.791-07:002013-08-22T23:10:08.791-07:00That was a typo. Thanks for the catch. I will amen...That was a typo. Thanks for the catch. I will amend it asap.Tristan Vickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05348780254008374268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-17298175969514235592013-08-16T20:41:52.540-07:002013-08-16T20:41:52.540-07:00In contradiction number 6, the words "first s...In contradiction number 6, the words "first sermon" don't appear in the texts you mentioned. Where does it say that it was His "first sermon?" Can't Jesus preach the same message twice in different locations anyway? So, how again is your evidence a "contraction?" So far, you're 0 for 6. Most scientists and mathematicians would suggest your hypothesis that the Bible is full of contradictions and discrepancies is false. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-46171527716333147552013-08-16T20:36:26.300-07:002013-08-16T20:36:26.300-07:00In your 5th contradiction, you seem to think if on...In your 5th contradiction, you seem to think if one biographer tells about an event and another biographer does not tell about an event that that warrants a "contradiction." I'm pretty sure if I asked your mom and dad to write a biography about you, there would be events that your mom would mention that your dad would not mention. Thus, to say your mom or dads biography has "contradiction" is dishonest. And selecting which New Testament criticisms that warrant your atheistic agenda and ideas is called dogma--the same dogma I'm sure you're against in the religious community. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-63640193398445072042013-08-16T20:28:18.911-07:002013-08-16T20:28:18.911-07:00In contradiction number 4, you evidently forgot to...In contradiction number 4, you evidently forgot to read all of 1st Corinthians 1. Paul just said he baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. Perhaps a contextual reading would enable you to defend your allegations claiming so many "contradictions and discrepancies." I'm sure I could read any of your works and pick apart your ideas. For example, in the above book preface you claim that, "Could you still, in good conscience..." believe that such-and-such. You can't answer what conscience and energy is. You can see what it does, but you cannot tell us what it is. At least, at the University of Oxford, 400 physicists could not tell a mathematician what energy is. Does that warrant disbelieve? Of course not. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-89505387078726756602013-08-16T20:21:03.481-07:002013-08-16T20:21:03.481-07:00In your third contradiction, you made another inco...In your third contradiction, you made another incorrect assumption. Paul didn't know he was writing Scripture. Thus, when 1st Tim says that "all SCripture," it was, at that time, referring to the Old Testament. Then you turned your rebuttal from being against Scripture do being against Christians. Therefore, contradiction number three is invalid. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-57639053674904639762013-08-16T20:17:42.343-07:002013-08-16T20:17:42.343-07:00In your second contradiction you are making severa...In your second contradiction you are making several assumptions: 1) That all of Jesus' sayings were written down. That could hardly be true. 2) There was no New Testament when Paul was speaking to the people. So how could you make a claim regarding his truthfulness? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-74409073374315788622013-08-16T20:14:29.719-07:002013-08-16T20:14:29.719-07:00I'd just like to comment on your "Bible C...I'd just like to comment on your "Bible Contradictions" page. On the very first one, you said that, "Matthew 1:17 list fourteen..." I read Matthew 1:17 and it doesn't list any of them. And in Matthew 1:2, there's 14 listed right?: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, and David. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-67133048778253016702013-02-24T00:19:29.557-08:002013-02-24T00:19:29.557-08:00, Wait till ya get reallyy cheated on, you seem li..., Wait till ya get reallyy cheated on, you seem like a good kid, stop justifying evil, imagine there were no internet, you are a man, survive. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com