What if . . .

[DLH]

Too bad your religion makes you so self indulgent.

Too bad for me or too bad for you?

Your illusions about "What is god...", here let me explain...
aren't particularly new in my life. People have been telling me that they know more about God than I do for my entire 60+ years existence. Somehow, y'all never manage to convince me that you are smarter than I am.

I couldn't possibly care less.

Sorry you missed out on the most Christian part of Western civilization, Christmas. Even back when I was an atheist I understood that part.

Christmas is pagan. It wasn't commonly accepted by Christians until the 1840s.

 

[TomC]

Christmas is pagan.

So are miracle working demi-gods.

Christian theology is built on Greco-Roman traditions.

Here's the big difference. The pagan traditions are more moral than the Christian traditions.
Tom

ETA ~But you couldn't possibly care less. Your illusions are all that matters. Have a good, Christmas free, life."

 

[DBT]

You must know that the bible isn't evidence for the truth of whatever is written within its pages?

Oxford definition of truth: a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

I don't understand why atheists, at least possessing some capacity for logical thought, can say this so confidently as if it means anything. Ideology, I suppose, is the reason. The atheists take the ideology of the theists and reflect it like a fractured mirror.

The Bible is evidence for and against the truth of whatever is written within its pages. If it were in a court of law, it would be utilized as both.

If I say Gandalf is the Headmaster at Hogwarts and Dumbledore is a wizard of the white order (formerly grey) who rides a white steed named Shadowfax the primary evidence is what source? That statement, regarding Gandalf and Dumbledore, is evidence of the facts regarding the fictional characters. It is also inaccurate and therefore untrue. This can be established through whatever is written in the pages of their respective sources. Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter books.

The Bible is evidence for what it says. It is also a collection of books by over 40 different authors over a very long period of time. Like a science text. The Bible is far more harmonious throughout than a much shorter period of science texts would be, but that's another story. The point is that you can use the Bible as evidence for the truth of whatever is written within its pages far more reliably than you could a science text, so the argument you're making is not only myopic but also moot.

Myopic and moot! That's atheism.

You are running in a different direction. The issue here is circular reasoning, begging the question, where whatever is written in the Bible or any book is not evidence for the truth of what is written.

 

[Shadowy Man]

You must know that the bible isn't evidence for the truth of whatever is written within its pages?

Oxford definition of truth: a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

So, what is true is that which is accepted as true. Hmm.. .but what is true?

 

[DLH]

You must know that the bible isn't evidence for the truth of whatever is written within its pages?

Oxford definition of truth: a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

So, what is true is that which is accepted as true. Hmm.. .but what is true?

What is accepted as true. Do you mean what is the definition of true? The same dictionary defines true as in accordance with fact or reality; accurate or exact; loyal or faithful.

Reality I covered here.

Fact is defined as a thing that is known or proved to be true; information used as evidence as part of a report or news article; the truth about events as opposed to interpretation.

Prove is defined as demonstrating the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument. Etc. etc.

Atheists always demand proof, evidence, truth, because it means nothing and can't really be provided outside of ideological fixation.

 

[Shadowy Man]

You must know that the bible isn't evidence for the truth of whatever is written within its pages?

Oxford definition of truth: a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

So, what is true is that which is accepted as true. Hmm.. .but what is true?

What is accepted as true. Do you mean what is the definition of true? The same dictionary defines true as in accordance with fact or reality; accurate or exact; loyal or faithful.

That's a lot of different definitions, can you pick one you prefer?

Reality I covered here.

But this feels like more of the same semantic obfuscation. Like you're equating "the reality of the situation", which could be a feeling of the mind, to "external reality", which is something that can be measured by devices. Similar to how you're defining "god" in a way that it could be "Jimi Hendrix, guitar god" and "Jesus Christ, son of the Bible God".

Prove is defined as demonstrating the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument. Etc. etc.

And what methods do we have to demonstrate truth?

Atheists always demand proof, evidence, truth, because it means nothing and can't really be provided outside of ideological fixation.

I don't understand this comment, except perhaps as just a railing against atheism and science, which you indicated earlier you view as just another religion ("ideological fixation"?)

 

[DLH]

You must know that the bible isn't evidence for the truth of whatever is written within its pages?

Oxford definition of truth: a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

So, what is true is that which is accepted as true. Hmm.. .but what is true?

What is accepted as true. Do you mean what is the definition of true? The same dictionary defines true as in accordance with fact or reality; accurate or exact; loyal or faithful.

That's a lot of different definitions, can you pick one you prefer?

A lot of different definitions of different words or are you talking about different definitions of the word true? All of them are accurate and true. It depends on the context. Sometimes etymology is just as important. Words are just sounds we agree upon. Their meanings, definitions, etymologies evolve.

Reality I covered here.

But this feels like more of the same semantic obfuscation. Like you're equating "the reality of the situation", which could be a feeling of the mind, to "external reality", which is something that can be measured by devices. Similar to how you're defining "god" in a way that it could be "Jimi Hendrix, guitar god" and "Jesus Christ, son of the Bible God".

It is semantics, but not obfuscation. Why do you think you distinguish between the difference between reality as applied to a situation or external? Obfuscation or clarification and context?

Prove is defined as demonstrating the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument. Etc. etc.

And what methods do we have to demonstrate truth?

Well, it says it right there. Evidence or argument.

Atheists always demand proof, evidence, truth, because it means nothing and can't really be provided outside of ideological fixation.

I don't understand this comment, except perhaps as just a railing against atheism and science, which you indicated earlier you view as just another religion ("ideological fixation"?)

I'm not railing atheism or science. I think them both useful. I was criticizing how those things are abused or neglected for ideological means. Religion, science and atheism are just human constructs.

 

[steve_bank]

Religion and science are both constructs in a broad sense but they are not the same.

The metaphysical abstractions of science are connected t physical reality through Systems International. Science is based on the meter, kilogram, and second. The MKS system. The units and symbols of science are completely defined and not subject to interrelation.

A kilogram meter, and second are the same wherever you go. It does not change with religious beliefs or philosophy.

Contrast to religion and your debate of what god is.

Ancient humans learned to control fire and put an edge on stone to cut. Not modern science but science non the less.

It is an understatement to say our modern culture rests on modern science,. Turn off the electricity and within a few days there is no food and no water and no economy.

Newton one of the greatest scientists of all time was a Christian. Even under duress Galileo never rejected Chrtianity.

I worked with engineers who were Creationists. Trained in science. Major Catholic schools have science programs as do Christian school like Brigham Young. My Catholic high school seduction in science was first rate.

Your rants about atheist and science vs region generally has no foundation.

There are the wacky Christians who rant because science conflicts with issues like Creationism and Noah's flood. Genetics and archeology pretty much refute the literal belief in the Adm and Eve story.

Irreligion adapts. Back in the 90s the pope wrote given the evince evolution may be part of god'spaln.

 

[DBT]

You must know that the bible isn't evidence for the truth of whatever is written within its pages?

Oxford definition of truth: a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

So, what is true is that which is accepted as true. Hmm.. .but what is true?

What is accepted as true. Do you mean what is the definition of true? The same dictionary defines true as in accordance with fact or reality; accurate or exact; loyal or faithful.

Reality I covered here.

Fact is defined as a thing that is known or proved to be true; information used as evidence as part of a report or news article; the truth about events as opposed to interpretation.

Prove is defined as demonstrating the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument. Etc. etc.

Atheists always demand proof, evidence, truth, because it means nothing and can't really be provided outside of ideological fixation.

Claiming that what is written in the bible is evidence that proves its supernatural stories is false. These stories have not been established as fact, and lacking evidence, can only be believed on the basis of faith.

 

[DLH]

Claiming that what is written in the bible is evidence that proves its supernatural stories is false.

Not only false but stupid. I wouldn't make such a stupid claim.

These stories have not been established as fact, and lacking evidence, can only be believed on the basis of faith.

Many of the stories have been established as fact with evidence and have nothing or little to do with faith in the text. Only the supernatural aspects of it require faith. Don't have faith? Not a problem. Don't believe them? Problem solved. Want to drown me in your ideological fixation with an argument about it. Sorry. Not interested. Why would I be? Just because you're wrong? I don't care about that. Because you're ignorant of the text and how evidence is used? Not my problem.

We can have a discussion on why we think what we think and insult each other like a bunch of silly grade schoolers or grouchy old men, and lord knows I've been involved in many of those, but I don't care in any real or meaningful way and neither do you. That should be transparent.

 

[DBT]

Claiming that what is written in the bible is evidence that proves its supernatural stories is false.

Not only false but stupid. I wouldn't make such a stupid claim.

Not overtly, but it appears to implied when someone gives the bible authority on spiritual or supernatural matters.

These stories have not been established as fact, and lacking evidence, can only be believed on the basis of faith.

Many of the stories have been established as fact with evidence and have nothing or little to do with faith in the text. Only the supernatural aspects of it require faith. Don't have faith? Not a problem. Don't believe them? Problem solved. Want to drown me in your ideological fixation with an argument about it. Sorry. Not interested. Why would I be? Just because you're wrong? I don't care about that. Because you're ignorant of the text and how evidence is used? Not my problem.

The question is, what exactly has been established as fact and what hasn't. If the key elements of the bible, God, Jesus, salvation, etc, has not been established as fact, where does that leave the believer?

We can have a discussion on why we think what we think and insult each other like a bunch of silly grade schoolers or grouchy old men, and lord knows I've been involved in many of those, but I don't care in any real or meaningful way and neither do you. That should be transparent.

It's just a simple matter of justification of belief, and the reasons why people believe.

 

[steve_bank]

BLH under duress goes from bible believer to data believer. Religion is nonsense, Yahweh is my god, and god is just a title.

The word I grew up with was 'scatterbrained'.

informal. : a person who is forgetful, disorganized, or unable to concentrate or think clearly. The English, who had raised eccentricity and poor organization to a high art, and placed the scatterbrain on a pedestal, loathed such Middle European things as rules, conventions, and dictatorships.

What makes data true? Are data facts?

 

[unapologetic]

Disclaimer: I only read the first page of this bullshit.

1. What if Jehovah doesn't literally exist?
2. What if Jehovah does literally exist?

(1) That is not a 'What If'. That is the reality I live in. So it's a nonsensical question.
(2) Then he's a monster, a tyrant. And I'd already be dead or hiding someplace where lightning can't reach me.

3. What if Jehovah is literally existence itself?

(3) Then we couldn't even think otherwise. I (an atheist) exist, therefor jehovah doesn't.

I just want you to define the thing you dogmatically claim doesn't exist.

Define 'supreme being' any way you want. Defining it does not make it exist. I reject the concept of a supreme being no mater how it is defined.

Maybe you are just mining the forum for ideas?

Like a brain infection

OK. I'll except that as a definition of god/jehovah. Thanks for answering your own question.

 

[Elixir]

Somehow, y'all never manage to convince me that you are smarter than I am.

Sorry you missed out on the most Christian part of Western civilization, Christmas. Even back when I was an atheist I understood that part.

So, you’re starting to understand.

 

[steve_bank]

What if

Santa Claus was not just a myth.
The Earth is really flat.
The Sun really goes around the Earth.
Disease is really caused by evil spirits in the body, not bacteria and virus.
What if DLH actually knew what he was talking about.

 

[DBT]

Yet there are people who believe in some of the things on the list.

 

[steve_bank]

Apparently my 'atheist ideology' is too overwhelming for BLH to respond to my posts.

He can't hide behind YAWOO forever.

 

[DBT]

But, but, but.....Mohammad truly is the prophet of God, the Quran says so.

 

[WAB]

"Because it's WRITTEN, that's why!!!







Aw shit, the administration told me I've just used up all of my Monty Python references...now how am I going to be funny?

 

[unapologetic]

"Because it's WRITTEN, that's why!!!

So few people back then could read, and write ... those that could must REALY KNOW what's going on.

The common masses back then were just as dumb as the MAGAots are today.