Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which is where you often hear 'because it's written in the bible' as evidence.
Yeeess...In fact the Bible comes earlier as evidence. Knock down the Bible and you get 'Historical support' for the Bible. Knock that down and you usually leap straight to 'Who made everything, then?' as a way of proving God and then using God to prove the Bible, since the Bible failed to prove God.
Rota and VP and Mystic and the other Sortagod believers are not really a Problem for us. Our pitchforks, torches and nooses to be brought out with a lot of Hollywood rentamob rhubarb on the very night we top 51% in the polls are not for them.
But they are part of the whole proveanysortsgod argument. Any "God" label will do for the leap of faith back to validating the Bible which is turn proves that the "God" is actually Biblegod.
So, just as (as I watched on an Austin Atheists video just now, it is necessary to be vigilant against continual attempt to smuggle Creationism into Scientific credibility, it in necessary to be on the alert for invalid attempts to wangle "God" as an accepted a priori. Of course a valid argument for "God" would be fine. But there hasn't been one yet.
The single most common tactic I encounter is people trying to flip the burden of proof (onus probandi in Latin because it has been an accepted axiom in settling a dispute for eons) because they have an actual printed book with a nice leather binding.
So you agree that your belief is at best on equal footing with beliefs you dismiss.
What belief? What beliefs do I dismiss?
I think you are confused in that regard.
I am entertaining possibilities which are non verifiable through any known method of science. If in your estimate this makes me a 'believer' then you see me differently than I know my self.
I am entertaining possibilities which are non verifiable through any known method of science. If in your estimate this makes me a 'believer' then you see me differently than I know my self.
From your posts, I get the impression that you believe that collective consciousness is what others perceive as God. Perhaps I misunderstand, but that is the crux of what I think you believe (that collective consciousness is a real thing) and what you dismiss (God of the Bible).
The single most common tactic I encounter is people trying to flip the burden of proof (onus probandi in Latin because it has been an accepted axiom in settling a dispute for eons) because they have an actual printed book with a nice leather binding.
They do indeed. And I feel - a lot do not agree with me - that there is a case for Theism saying: 'This is a book like other books with stuff in it. Why do you consider the other books seriously and not this?" In other words, if we say it not believable, I fee a burden of proof to make a case for that rejection.
For the claim of a cosmic spirit -not perhaps even related to the Bible - we have no burden of proof because there is no evidence worth a damn (though various ontological claims are made and duly debunked). Neither is there any good reason to say it doesn't exist. Just that there is no reason to say it does.
But, with the Bible, aside the question that we know a myth when we see it there is - I feel - the need to make a case why it isn't believable. Well - I reckon that claim has been discharged. I feel that I can make a compelling case as to why NONE of the Bible - as regards god -claims - can be believed, though I think there was a Jesus, a Paul, an Exile, a siege of Jerusalem by Assyria. But not a flood, not an exodus, not a Daniel making predictions in the 5th c BC. Not a nativity and no resurrection. And I make a case for it that I think is good - convinces me, anyway.
The stakes are higher. The burden of proof was accepted by me, but discharged. It means that there is no reason to say 'We don't know'. I am not agnostic in any meaningful sense about the god of the Bible or the wonder working divine Jesus. Just as I say 'There is no Santa, there are no fairies and no leprechauns', there is no Biblegod.
Don't know what you are talking about while spewing it as a biblical truth. Typical of a non thinking adherent who denies the chance to think for themselves.
Btw, ignorance is no joke, although yours if funnier than most.
I see you were not able to Forget. Well neither have I forgotten, I must have hit another nerve on your tribal-factionist instincts, sorry you chose such ignorance and self-servitude.
Bibliolaters only undue themselves, they are a danger to themselves, and are greatly pitied because they bow before images in their minds based on interpreted writing (ink and wood) and lack the education to imagine having faith (believe and loyalty) in other religions and other writings.
They will find that their imaginations based on ink and wood are just that. That they truly only bow before the thoughts they chose to think while feigning loyalty outside of themselves to remove blame from themselves for their thoughts and actions. Most of these worshipers of self-chosen writings would -without the carrot of immortality, and the stick of hell- not give a second care to any source of Goodness that didn't buy off their cheap hearts.
Indeed, it is clear that Satan is portrayed as a meaningless and imbecilic micromanager in the physical idol of many Christians, and Yahweh is portrayed as an impregnator of his own earthly mother, while the "resurrected Jesus" is portrayed as having a wounded and incomplete body (holes in his hands), which is the definition of a Zombie that is a corpse resurrected from the dead while retaining the wounds and damage suffered during the dying process. I would expect honest Christians (the few there are) to understand that if they believe that the myth found in some of the four gospels demonstrates how God will perform "bodily-resurrections"... they are not in for a pretty sight.
Otherwise, you can explain to me and every reader how that is not so.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 08-06-2015 at 12:04 AM..
From your posts, I get the impression that you believe that collective consciousness is what others perceive as God. Perhaps I misunderstand, but that is the crux of what I think you believe (that collective consciousness is a real thing) and what you dismiss (God of the Bible).
Nope. I think it might be what is going on but have no need to believe that is what is going on.
Nope. I think it might be what is going on but have no need to believe that is what is going on.
That's our position too, including a lot of other possibilities of what might be "going on". I have never said that some sort of cosmic consciousness was not possible. Only that there is no reason to credit the idea and, if we look for a default, the materialist/naturalist one is supported entirely by everything that we do know.
And the real atheist beef is about various god -claims presented as credible when they are only one 'might be' amongst a lot of others and particular with the organized religions based on such invalid claims and having such an influence on all our lives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
there is - I feel - the need to make a case why it isn't believable. Well - I reckon that claim has been discharged. I feel that I can make a compelling case as to why NONE of the Bible - as regards god -claims - can be believed, though I think there was a Jesus, a Paul, an Exile, a siege of Jerusalem by Assyria. But not a flood, not an exodus, not a Daniel making predictions in the 5th c BC. Not a nativity and no resurrection. And I make a case for it that I think is good - convinces me, anyway. 
