Religion/Spirituality At what point in the Bible..

[NoMayo15]

There is also no reason to beleive that a higher power doesn't exist. You belief stands on nothing as well.

That's not how logic works. You don't just believe in things because there's no evidence that it doesn't exist. There's not evidence that Big Foot doesn't exist either, but that doesn't mean a person is justified in believing it exists. Now, that's not to say that its impossible for there to be a Big Foot, but a person would be foolish to assume that it does without good evidence.

For ANY claim, logical people disbelieve it until it's shown that the claim is likely to be true. That's not saying they know or believe it to be a false claim, but they don't accept it as true. I hope you can see the difference between those two positions. For some reason it seemed to elude you when discussing atheism.

And alot of this depends on the particular claim. If I say I have a bag of doritos in my pantry... you might be inclined to take my word for it, as doritos are popular and it's something people tend to put in a pantry. It's not that far fetched of a claim. But when talking about a supernatural entity that doesn't manifest in the real world, except when it created the universe billions of years ago ... that's a little more extraordinary, and is going to require a bit more evidence for someone who's skeptically minded to accept as true or likely to be true.

*edit for your edit*

Plus since when doid natural occurrences become an end all to the being existing?

Again as I say the deist beleif and a beleif that the being interacts with the universe sometimes still stands.

What else IS existing except a manifestation in the natural world? If this entity interacts with the universe today, then those interactions should be in the realm of scientific investigation, no?

 

[Blackout]

Yea, a theist believes solely on a personal god(s) (referenced by a specific religion), whereas a deist usually believes in a non-intervening deity, but not in all cases.

Certain types of Pantheists believe that the actual personal interactions and the universe constitute "god".

Well as long as this higher power intervenes with the universe sometimes it doesn't point to deism and I don't know how it could point to pantheism either.

 

[Type Username Here]

Well as long as this higher power intervenes with the universe sometimes it doesn't point to deism and I don't know how it could point to pantheism either.

What if the higher power IS the universe? What if everything that occupies existence is the higher power? What if you and I are that higher power?

Doesn't that imply a level of intervention while lacking a personal authoritative deity?

 

[Blackout]

That's not how logic works. You don't just believe in things because there's no evidence that it doesn't exist. There's not evidence that Big Foot doesn't exist either, but that doesn't mean a person is justified in believing it exists. Now, that's not to say that its impossible for there to be a Big Foot, but a person would be foolish to assume that it does without good evidence.

For ANY claim, logical people disbelieve it until it's shown that the claim is likely to be true. That's not saying they know or believe it to be a false claim, but they don't accept it as true. I hope you can see the difference between those two positions. For some reason it seemed to elude you when discussing atheism.

And alot of this depends on the particular claim. If I say I have a bag of doritos in my pantry... you might be inclined to take my word for it, as doritos are popular and it's something people tend to put in a pantry. It's not that far fetched of a claim. But when talking about a supernatural entity that doesn't manifest in the real world, except when it created the universe billions of years ago ... that's a little more extraordinary, and is going to require a bit more evidence for someone who's skeptically minded to accept as true or likely to be true.

Logically they would classify it as inconclusive. If you find reason to not believe various claims then rejecting it would be logical but the general idea of a higher power doesn't have reasons for or against it to make any logical choice other than it being inconclusive.

 

[intilectual recipricol]

you atheists do know that Christianity the way Constantine changed it and the way slave masters taught aint the only religion in the world right?

it seems the whole atheist sentiment is bombarded on whats in the bible. some people do read the bible and understand the esoteric meanings within it.

some people instead of running around believing a 7 headed dragon will appear in the "last days" just take the universal principles bestowed in the bible and live by them to better themselves

continuing to point out some stories in a man made bible as if its some shot towards creation is really idiotic in the grand scheme of things.

Gotta disagree loc.
The point is that the bible is worthless. There's two ways people typically get sucked into religion: religious books and word of mouth or culture. So if you get your notion of your god in that manner youve already based it on basically nothing. Its like building a house on a Popsicle stick foundation.... And the house is made of cards.

Early christianity wouldnt recognize current christianity... they more than likely would laugh at someone that believed in this stuff literally.

But the thing is, there are no universal principles in the bible or christianity, thats why theres damn near 40K different denominations with different beliefs. But all of this is just to say that I dont care what mufukcaz choose to believe in as long as they leave that shyt out of the public square. I dont want my daughter in school saying, "under gawd, indivisible..." I dont want creationist making her stupid in science just to accommodate unscientific beliefs, I dont want my daughter being told some chump died for her along time ago and that she should put money in the plate, I dont want here thinking something is evil in her if she turns out to like women, I dont want people being burned as witches, or kids being murdered in exorcisms because their parents believed in demons, I dont want starving toddlers praying for sandwiches when they will NEVER just materialize.......

none of that shyt is whoa

 

[Blackout]

What if the higher power IS the universe? What if everything that occupies existence is the higher power? What if you and I are that higher power?

Doesn't that imply a level of intervention while lacking a personal authoritative deity?

Could be but its not my beleif to classify myself as a deist or a pantheist. People who beleive that would be whom it would of applied to.

 

[intilectual recipricol]

Obama?
YouTube - Obama Mocking God and the Bible Speech on Religion - YouTube

 

[Blackout]

What else IS existing except a manifestation in the natural world? If this entity interacts with the universe today, then those interactions should be in the realm of scientific investigation, no?

By scientific investigation you mean within our realm of knowledge? because based on the new things we are discovering everyday I can't go as far as saying that we covered everything. I mean shyt we still don't know fully about the rock we live on.

 

[NoMayo15]

Logically they would classify it as inconclusive. If you find reason to not believe various claims then rejecting it would be logical but the general idea of a higher power doesn't have reasons for or against it to make any logical choice other than it being inconclusive.

First, this is precisely my position; we ultimately don't know the answer, but there's not enough reason to believe it. Second, and more importantly, you don't need more of a reason to reject the 'god exists' claim, just like you don't need more of a reason to vote "not guilty" as a juror. If there's not enough evidence to say for sure the defendant did it, you don't need to prove who actually DID commit the crime. The defnedent doesn't have to prove he didn't commit the crime ... doesn't have to say a word. The only thing you need to reject the claim of the defendants guilt is little or no confirming evidence for said guilt. The only thing you need to reject the claim that god exists is little or no confirming evidence for god existing.

Lastly... A question. Are you completely neutral on every other mythological creature as well?

 

[NoMayo15]

By scientific investigation you mean within our realm of knowledge? because based on the new things we are discovering everyday I can't go as far as saying that we covered everything. I mean shyt we still don't know fully about the rock we live on.

Sure, but couldn't we test those things we guess are happening. I mean, you and others have suggested that this god continues to affect the universe in someway. Couldn't that be observed in some objective way to determine the validity of those claims? If not, how is this any different than the ancient Greeks attributing lightning strikes to Zeus?

 

[Blackout]

First, this is precisely my position; we ultimately don't know the answer, but there's not enough reason to believe it. Secondly, you don't need more of a reason to reject the 'god exists' claim, just like you don't need more of a reason to vote "not guilty" as a juror. If there's not enough evidence to say for sure the defendant did it, you don't need to prove who actually DID commit the crime. The only thing you need to reject the claim of the defendants guilt is little or no confirming evidence for said guilt. The only thing you need to reject the claim that god exists is little or no confirming evidence for god.

Lastly... A question. Are you completely neutral on every other mythological creature as well?

I'm defending the god exists belief not the god exists claim. There is a difference being that one is a beleif and one is a claim which is basically an assertion as truth.

There is a logical reason to go against both atheists and theists if they "claim" that gods exist or does not exist because there are no facts supporting both claims.

Atheists and theists beleif on the other hand is just belief. It has no reasons to go for or against it so its inconclusive. Beliefs have no claims or assertion to truth. It's just a personal guess aka a placeholder until truth comes around.

Now as for your guilty and not guilty. Again that a judicial system with only two options. Science has 3 options. To limit it to only true or false before knowing the answer is jumping ahead and acting like you know something when you don't which goes against science.

Sure, but couldn't we test those things we guess are happening. I mean, you and others have suggested that this god continues to affect the universe in someway. Couldn't that be observed in some objective way to determine the validity of those claims? If not, how is this any different than the ancient Greeks attributing lightning strikes to Zeus?

Well beliefs are the natural placeholders until truth either confirms or deny.

Just because we can't test it but that doesn't mean that its automatically false and not inconclusive. That's close minded and as I said goes against science.

 

[NoMayo15]

I'm defending the god exists belief not the god exists claim. There is a difference being that one is a beleif and one is a claim which is basically an assertion as truth.

You think "a god exists" is a true statement, right? If a belief is a personal guess, then you're still saying you think X is true. Not just personally true, but true in reality. Belief, opinion, claim, it doesn't matter what you call it. You still think it's a truth. Stop with these semantics games, please.

Now as for your guilty and not guilty. Again that a judicial system with only two options. Science has 3 options. To limit it to only true or false before knowing the answer is jumping ahead and acting like you know something when you don't which goes against science.

I'm not limiting it to just true or false. I'm saying it's inconclusive, so there's no reason to accept that it's true. In the trial example, that would be like saying I don't know if the person is guilty, so I'm not going to say he's guilty. I'm not saying the god belief is a false one, but there's no reason to accept it as true.

When a person is on trial, the prosecution is making a statement that they believe X person committed Y crime. This belief is what the jury is judging, okay? The whole point is that you don't need to confirm that belief is false to NOT accept the belief is true. Atheism is the non-acceptance that theism is true ... and NOT necessarily a belief that theism is false.

And if you wanna get down to it, there are three opinions. Not guilty and innocent aren't the same thing.

Well beliefs are the natural placeholders until truth either confirms or deny.

Okay, so let's get into this. Why do you think a god exists?

Just because we can't test it but that doesn't mean that its automatically false and not inconclusive. That's close minded.

Yeah, this is exactly what I'm not saying, which you would understand if you understood atheism. It's not just the complete opposite of theism.

 

[Blackout]

You think "a god exists" is a true statement, right? If a belief is a personal guess, then you're still saying you think X is true. Not just personally true, but true in reality. Belief, opinion, claim, it doesn't matter what you call it. You still think it's a truth. Stop with these semantics games, please.

I'm not limiting it to just true or false. I'm saying it's inconclusive, so there's no reason to accept that it's true. In the trial example, that would be like saying I don't know if the person is guilty, so I'm not going to say he's guilty. I'm not saying the god belief is a false one, but there's no reason to accept it as true.

When a person is on trial, the prosecution is making a statement that they believe X person committed Y crime. This belief is what the jury is judging, okay? The whole point is that you don't need to confirm that belief is false to NOT accept the belief is true. Atheism is the non-acceptance that theism is true ... and NOT necessarily a belief that theism is false.

And if you wanna get down to it, there are three opinions. Not guilty and innocent aren't the same thing.

Okay, so let's get into this. Why do you think a god exists?

Yeah, this is exactly what I'm not saying, which you would understand if you understood atheism. It's not just the complete opposite of theism.

There is no semantic games. Belief is an opinion and not an assertion of truth but making a claim is an assertion as truth.

You can have a belief and not make a claim. Simply having a beleif doesn't assert something as fact. It's when you make a claim is when you assert it as fact.

A beleif is not saying that something is true. You may think that something may be true but other than that it just a thought not a claim or assertion as truth. It's when you make a claim then it becomes an assertion of truth.

You may only have reason to question a belief if it goes against current facts like say if someone believed the world was flat and we proved otherwise other than that the belief can still stand.

Atheism is the rejection of the beleif of god existence. To be an atheist you must reject the belief. If you embrace the belief your theist or deist, if you do nothing then your agnostic.

The word agnostic exists for a reason.

 

[NoMayo15]

There is no semantic games. Belief is an opinion and not an assertion of truth but making a claim is an assertion.

You can have a belief and not make a claim. Simply having a beleif doesn't assert something as fact. It's when you make a claim is when you assert it as fact.

A beleif is not saying that something is true. You may think that something may be true but other than that it just a thought not a claim or assertion as truth.

Atheism is the rejection of the beleif in god existence. To be an atheist you must reject the beleif. If you embrace the beleif the. You a theist or dest, if you do nothing then your agnostic.

The word agnostic exists for a reason.

Okay, fine. None of this really matters in regards to the point I was making. I was using 'claim' interchangeably with position/statement/belief/opinion/think. Let's not get so caught up in the language that we miss the point.

And what do you mean belief is not saying something's true? Are you suggesting that the average person knowingly holds false beliefs? If you believe something, that means you think it's true, right? I feel like I'm talking to an alien, if we can't even agree that people 'beliefs' are 'things they hold to be true'.

 

[Blackout]

Okay, fine. None of this really matters in regards to the point I was making. I was using 'claim' interchangeably with position/statement/belief/opinion/think. Let's not get so caught up in the language that we miss the point.

And what do you mean belief is not saying something's true? Are you suggesting that the average person knowingly holds false beliefs? If you believe something, that means you think it's true, right? I feel like I'm talking to an alien, if we can't even agree that people 'beliefs' are 'things they hold to be true'.

Well it's not good to use claim interchangeably with belief because they have ifferences between the two words.

I mean that just because you beleive/think something might be true that doesn't mean that your saying that its fact. It's just your personal opinion or belief until the truth/fact is known.