The creator did it.

[Hockeycowboy]

Even the brightest people can be subject to cognitive dissonance. Especially when it comes to superstitious or religious beliefs. The inconsistencies can be found all throughout the Bible. Here is just one site that shows the Bible is full of them:

BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

I can see how atheistic -- or at least, anti-Bible -- views would gain popularity; it makes me wonder....
Do the Scriptures condemn your lifestyle? Or others you care for? I'm not saying it does. Just asking.

 

[JChnsc19]

...versus...


excuse me, but you posted no inconsistencies found within the Bible...only questions raised by skeptics.

It would behoove you to read comments from Sirs Frederic Kenyon and Isaac Newton regarding the Bible. Their POV’s are still relevant to this day...because the wording in Scripture hasn’t changed since then. Still the same.

Inconsistencies Found Within the Bible 101

1. Has anyone seen god?
No man hath seen god at any time -John 1:18
vs
For I have seen god face to face -Genesis 32:30
2. When was Jesus crucified?
And it was the third hour and they crucified him -Mark 15:25
vs
And about the sixth hour; and he saith to the Jews Behold your King! But they cried out crucify him! -john 19:15-15
3. How many animals on the Ark?
And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the Ark -Genesis 6:19
vs
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens -Genesis 7:2
4. Did Michal have children?
Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death -2 Samuel 6:23
vs
But the king took the two sons of Ripzah...and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul -2 Samuel 21:8
5. Is god omnipotent?
But with god all things are possible -Matthew 19:26
vs
And the lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron -Judges 1:19
6. Who was Joseph's father?
And Jacob begat Joseph, who was the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus -Matt 1:16
vs
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli -Luke 3:23
7. Keep the sabbath?
Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy -Exodus 20:8
vs
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a hold day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath -Colossians 2:16
8. Ur was not a Chaldean city until 1000 years after Abraham -Genesis 11:28, 15:7
9. Kings are referred to in Deut 17:17-19 before Israel had kings
10. There is no mountain from which one can see all the kingdoms of the world -Matt 4:8, Luke 4:5
11. Jesus was born in the reign of Herod ( who died 4BC.) -Matt 2:1
vs
Jesus was bprn during Quirinus' governorship of Syria (which began 6AD) -Luke 2:2
12. The Earth is flat -Ps 93:1, Jer 10:13, Dan 4:10-11, Zech 9:10, Matt 4:8, Rev 1:7
13. Every beast shall fear man (like lions, hippos, sharks) Genesis 9:2
14. Thunder is god's voice -Psalm 78:18
15. How long did Jehoash reign?
40 years -2 Kings 12:1
vs
16 years -2 Kings 13:10
16.Where was Jesus born?
House -Matt 2:1-2, 11
vs
Manger -Luke 2:1-7\
17. Creation
Humans are created after animals -Genesis 1:25-27
vs
Humans created before amimals -Genesis 2:18-19
18. Is it good to get married?
yes -Genesis 2:18-24, Matt 19:5, Prov 18:22, Heb 13:4
vs
no - Corinthians 7:1, 7:7, Luke 20:34-35, Matt 19:10-12
19. How many sons does god have?
1 -John 3:18
vs
many - Luke 3:38, Genesis 6:2-4, Jer 31:9, Job 1:6
20. Is incest forbidden?
yes -Lev 18:9, 18:12, 20:17, 20:19, Deut 27:22
vs
no -Genesis 20:12, 2 Peter 2:7-8, Exodus 6:20
21. Does god know and see everything?
God knoweth all things - 1 John 3:20
vs
god couldn't find Adam and Eve -Genesis 3:8-9
& Cain hid from god in the land of Nod -Gen 4:14-16
& god didn't know Jacobs name -Gen 32:27-30

 

[Rapture Era]

Let me first state that the authority that I choose to trust for certainty(not truth), are my senses and my ability to reason(inductive and deductive). Depending on any other authorities has always proved unreliable and inconsistent. As a child the characteristics of death have not changed, since the first funeral I went to with my parents.

You are blatantly making claims of knowledge that no human could possibly have. You have no idea what happens after death. You can't even demonstrate if the power of prayer works. You can't demonstrate any mechanism that demonstrates how you could know if a God exist, His nature, or how you can have a personal relationship with. You have no idea what will happen after we die. We all have experience death before. It is no different from being non-existent. What makes you think you will know anything after you pass on? I sincerely hope that you are right, but there is just no evidence to suggest that you are.

Making religious claims that you can't support(outside of the Bible), is simply proselytizing. If God is God, He/she would easily know how to convince me. You keep claiming that Atheists do not believe in the existence of God, or that Atheist don't believe that a God can exist. What you and people like avoid like the plague, is the other half of the comments. Atheists do not believe in the existence of God, because there is no evidence to support that belief. It would be in your interest to provide that evidence, right? It is only my personal belief that a God Can't exist anywhere within our Universe. If He did, the Universe would collapse. If a God DID exist in our Universe, He would also be easily detected. This is my personal belief, not the general Atheistic belief. So next time when you state Atheists simple don't believe in a God, please include their reason why. This would avoid telling only half-truths, and being intellectually dishonest.

Atheism is a worldview in which there is no God. Adherents believe that life sprang from natural forces, not an intelligence, and that the cosmos made itself--or at least organized itself out of raw materials that were just there. "New atheists" include Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion; Christopher Hitchens, who wrote God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything; and Sam Harris, with The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. Their bestselling books are characterized by vitriolic disdain for those who believe in God.

The new atheists do not restrict themselves to passive disbelief. Rather, they actively admonish others to not believe in God, and take strong steps to rid the world of its "contemptible" acknowledgement of any deity, and especially of theism.1 As Dawkins said, "I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself."2

An ironic feature of new atheism is its strong faith in the inferiority of having faith. Before they attack it, new atheists first redefine faith to mean "belief without evidence." Then they limit evidence to that which can be tested through empirical science.3 This is absurd, like requiring an experiment to prove a father's love for his children. Just as we use our senses, logic, and circumstantial evidence to deduce the truth of a father's love, we can discover God through non-empirical means.

New atheists believe that empirical science is the true path to understanding. However, since the very concept of "empiricism"--that science is the only way to "know" something--is not itself a product of any scientific experiment, it distills to a faith after all. Faith is not "belief without evidence," but rather a decision to reckon as true (actual or real) something that is not visible. Empiricism is an idea. Ideas are not visible. New atheists therefore have strong faith, though not in God.4

Many popular philosophies are self-refuting, which means that they do not meet their own standards and thus self-destruct.5 One example of a self-refuting claim is the common statement "all truth is relative." This cannot be. If all truth is relative, then the supposed truth that "all truth is relative" would itself be relative, and therefore not true. Consider the assertion "we cannot ultimately grasp meaning in an absolute way." If that were true, then one would not be able to grasp the meaning of that very statement.

A good way to deal with self-refuting truth claims is to ask honest questions about them. For example, a response to the assertion "all truth is relative" could be to ask, "So, is that relatively true?" Likewise, one who denies that truth is knowable could be questioned with, "How can we then know for sure that truth cannot be surely known?"

Empiricism is also self-refuting, and therefore should not be believed. Its essence could be stated as "experimental science is the only way to know something for sure." We might then ask, "What was the scientific experiment that demonstrated that experimental science is the only way to know something for sure?"

In contrast to the self-refuting doctrines that atheism must hold to, theism is aligned with the reality of a transcendent and necessary Being; not, as new atheists claim, with a fairy tale. Biblical theism begins with the sensible concept, assumed in Genesis, of an infinite Creator who formed a finite creation. Knowledge of our holy God is generally available through our observation of the natural world. This is enough to reveal man’s sin-induced separation from Him.6 However, only the Bible reveals that He has performed the necessary work to reconcile us back to Himself through His Son Jesus Christ, and for His glory.7 So based on the evidence of what He has made and done, we can believe in and know Him. -Brian Thomas
I agree with him! What is your intellectual rebuttal? You see, you guys are also proselytizing your anti-theist beliefs to try and convert others to your belief system! So stop your "preach it brother, preach" proselytizing! You are blatantly abusing the rules here! Any reasonable moderator can see this! Your hypocrisy is over the top! I'd really be interested in how you address the above to try and save any integrity you think you might have left!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wrong, wrong and again wrong...
Google...
atheism-disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

First you say he's wrong. And then you define atheism in such a way that it agrees with what he said.....

I fall into the category of those who do believe in a god, you on the other hand fall into the category of disbelief or lack belief in a god.

Yes. Just like he said.
Theists claim god exists. He doesn't believe the claim due to insufficient evidence.

We are at polar opposite sides of the god question. While other deists and theists can be on my side of the god question, you are defiantly not. Trying to lump us all in the same boat as you claim would mean that we are all atheist which then would make the term atheist meaningless.

Well, you ARE an atheist concerning the many many gods you do NOT believe in.
You lack belief in Zeus, Poseidon, Ptah, Allah, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Visjnoe,....

Don't you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Even though it uses the words physical and natural,...it is describing what is being studied, but that does not lead us to dismiss an Intelligent agent that is the cause.

Science doesn't dismiss an intelligent agent, just like science doesn't dismiss that we all actually live in the matrix.

But since there is currently no evidence to suggest either, science doesn't include either in any of its models.


It really is that simple.

You might like to watch the Netflix series "One Strange Planet" because it really does show many finely tuned systems and amazing facts about our unique home, planet Earth.

So?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can see how atheistic -- or at least, anti-Bible -- views would gain popularity; it makes me wonder....
Do the Scriptures condemn your lifestyle? Or others you care for? I'm not saying it does. Just asking.

Nothing specific that I can think of, though even stealing a penny is enough to lead you to hell according to some interpretations of the Bible. But no sexual practices out of the "normal", if that is what you mean. And I am not close to anyone that fits that description either, though that does not stop me from commenting about the immorality of the Bible.

 

[JChnsc19]

Atheism is a worldview in which there is no God. Adherents believe that life sprang from natural forces, not an intelligence, and that the cosmos made itself--or at least organized itself out of raw materials that were just there. "New atheists" include Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion; Christopher Hitchens, who wrote God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything; and Sam Harris, with The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. Their bestselling books are characterized by vitriolic disdain for those who believe in God.

The new atheists do not restrict themselves to passive disbelief. Rather, they actively admonish others to not believe in God, and take strong steps to rid the world of its "contemptible" acknowledgement of any deity, and especially of theism.1 As Dawkins said, "I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself."2

An ironic feature of new atheism is its strong faith in the inferiority of having faith. Before they attack it, new atheists first redefine faith to mean "belief without evidence." Then they limit evidence to that which can be tested through empirical science.3 This is absurd, like requiring an experiment to prove a father's love for his children. Just as we use our senses, logic, and circumstantial evidence to deduce the truth of a father's love, we can discover God through non-empirical means.

New atheists believe that empirical science is the true path to understanding. However, since the very concept of "empiricism"--that science is the only way to "know" something--is not itself a product of any scientific experiment, it distills to a faith after all. Faith is not "belief without evidence," but rather a decision to reckon as true (actual or real) something that is not visible. Empiricism is an idea. Ideas are not visible. New atheists therefore have strong faith, though not in God.4

Many popular philosophies are self-refuting, which means that they do not meet their own standards and thus self-destruct.5 One example of a self-refuting claim is the common statement "all truth is relative." This cannot be. If all truth is relative, then the supposed truth that "all truth is relative" would itself be relative, and therefore not true. Consider the assertion "we cannot ultimately grasp meaning in an absolute way." If that were true, then one would not be able to grasp the meaning of that very statement.

A good way to deal with self-refuting truth claims is to ask honest questions about them. For example, a response to the assertion "all truth is relative" could be to ask, "So, is that relatively true?" Likewise, one who denies that truth is knowable could be questioned with, "How can we then know for sure that truth cannot be surely known?"

Empiricism is also self-refuting, and therefore should not be believed. Its essence could be stated as "experimental science is the only way to know something for sure." We might then ask, "What was the scientific experiment that demonstrated that experimental science is the only way to know something for sure?"

In contrast to the self-refuting doctrines that atheism must hold to, theism is aligned with the reality of a transcendent and necessary Being; not, as new atheists claim, with a fairy tale. Biblical theism begins with the sensible concept, assumed in Genesis, of an infinite Creator who formed a finite creation. Knowledge of our holy God is generally available through our observation of the natural world. This is enough to reveal man’s sin-induced separation from Him.6 However, only the Bible reveals that He has performed the necessary work to reconcile us back to Himself through His Son Jesus Christ, and for His glory.7 So based on the evidence of what He has made and done, we can believe in and know Him. -Brian Thomas
I agree with him! What is your intellectual rebuttal? You see, you guys are also proselytizing your anti-theist beliefs to try and convert others to your belief system! So stop your "preach it brother, preach" proselytizing! You are blatantly abusing the rules here! Any reasonable moderator can see this! Your hypocrisy is over the top! I'd really be interested in how you address the above to try and save any integrity you think you might have left!

I made the comment preach brother preach so I went back & read the rules. As far as preaching & proselytizing- do you understand atheism isn’t a religion? That person had just posted videos by richard carrier, an author I had also recommended in the post just above that one. That was a joke. Atheists have nothing to proselytize about. We have no dogma, no tennents, no church, no pope, no requirements for “membership” other than the rejection of the belief that gods exist. Sorry you took that the wrong way. I won’t say preach brother preach again, swear, Girl Scouts honor

 

[Truly Enlightened]

...versus...


excuse me, but you posted no inconsistencies found within the Bible...only questions raised by skeptics.

It would behoove you to read comments from Sirs Frederic Kenyon and Isaac Newton regarding the Bible. Their POV’s are still relevant to this day...because the wording in Scripture hasn’t changed since then. Still the same.

Are you really suggesting that the Bible is inerrant, or the actual words of a God? The information I listed explains WHY skeptics, and Religious scholars alike, have questioned the reliability and the historical value of the Gospels. Are you now asking me to provide the inconsistencies within the entire Bible? At last count there were 642 inconsistencies noted in the Bible. Of course it only takes one inconsistency to disqualify it from being inerrant or the words of a God. I think other posters have already posted these obvious inconsistencies. Or, you can look them up yourself.

I'm not interested in any appeals to Authority, unless the Authority IS God. If these people are not Gods, then they can't KNOW anything about God. Do these mortals have special gifts, or special knowledge that only they can possess? At worst, they believe that God exists because of cognitive dissonance, or early childhood indoctrination. At best, they create their own self-serving logic, as a feedback loop, to comply with their self-created belief narrative. So the opinions of Non-Gods about God, is only subjectively relevant to them. Not objectively relevant to me. Are you also admitting that the Bible is a static document, that never changes? Even the Constitution is Dynamic, and changes with the times. I think that it would behoove you, to try and understand why the Bible does not change?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I made the comment preach brother preach so I went back & read the rules. As far as preaching & proselytizing- do you understand atheism isn’t a religion? That person had just posted videos by richard carrier, an author I had also recommended in the post just above that one. That was a joke. Atheists have nothing to proselytize about. We have no dogma, no tennents, no church, no pope, no requirements for “membership” other than the rejection of the belief that gods exist. Sorry you took that the wrong way. I won’t say preach brother preach again, swear, Girl Scouts honor

I assure you that your comment, "Preach brother Preach", was only taken as the humorous irony it was meant to be. My position is clearly obvious to any rational or critical thinker. So, your comment could not have been taken in the literal sense at all. It was clearly a joke. He/she knows that, and so would any moderator. But when you are being buried under a ton of evidence, all you can do is lash out and threaten. Hoping that the threat will just go away.

I certainly had a good laugh, as well as my wife. This forum can do with more spontaneous witty humour. Thank you. Oh, I am an avid follower of Richard Carrier.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wrong, wrong and again wrong...
Google...
atheism-disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nope, it's right, right and right again.

You're telling me my position is wrong? On what basis?

I'm not sure what your issue is, as I do lack belief in God. That's what I said. I lack a belief in god(s) because I've never seen good evidence that would convince me to believe god(s) exist.

So do you also believe in Ptah, along with the god you worship, or do you understand the point?

I fall into the category of those who do believe in a god, you on the other hand fall into the category of disbelief or lack belief in a god.
We are at polar opposite sides of the god question. While other deists and theists can be on my side of the god question, you are defiantly not. Trying to lump us all in the same boat as you claim would mean that we are all atheist which then would make the term atheist meaningless.

Okay, so it's clear you didn't understand the point.

You don't believe in and worship Ptah, right? Or Zeus? Or Allah? Or any other gods? (Maybe you do.) If you do not believe in those gods, then you should be able to figure out why atheists do not believe in the god you worship. So is the reason you don't worship these other gods (assuming you don't) that you don't believe in them, or that you do believe in them? Ask yourself why you don't believe in other gods.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thank you for that link,
But what you fail to understand with your narrow view of science is that it should be open to the best explanations of what is being studied....

I don't argue that we should not go with the best available evidence. I argue that we should go with the best available evidence.

My point is that ICR (and those of their ilk) are not interested in going with the best available evidence. They're interested in proving what they already believe in and will ignore evidence that doesn't match what their holy books have to say.

Google,
science=the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Even though it uses the words physical and natural,...it is describing what is being studied, but that does not lead us to dismiss an Intelligent agent that is the cause. You might like to watch the Netflix series "One Strange Planet" because it really does show many finely tuned systems and amazing facts about our unique home, planet Earth.

What intelligent agent? The thing is, somebody has to demonstrate the existence of an intelligent agent, before we can include such an agent in our explanations of the world. You don't just get to do what ICR and the like do and claim that God already exists from the get-go. Such a claim needs to be demonstrated.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Atheism is a worldview in which there is no God. Adherents believe that life sprang from natural forces, not an intelligence, and that the cosmos made itself--or at least organized itself out of raw materials that were just there. "New atheists" include Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion; Christopher Hitchens, who wrote God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything; and Sam Harris, with The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. Their bestselling books are characterized by vitriolic disdain for those who believe in God.

The new atheists do not restrict themselves to passive disbelief. Rather, they actively admonish others to not believe in God, and take strong steps to rid the world of its "contemptible" acknowledgement of any deity, and especially of theism.1 As Dawkins said, "I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself."2

An ironic feature of new atheism is its strong faith in the inferiority of having faith. Before they attack it, new atheists first redefine faith to mean "belief without evidence." Then they limit evidence to that which can be tested through empirical science.3 This is absurd, like requiring an experiment to prove a father's love for his children. Just as we use our senses, logic, and circumstantial evidence to deduce the truth of a father's love, we can discover God through non-empirical means.

New atheists believe that empirical science is the true path to understanding. However, since the very concept of "empiricism"--that science is the only way to "know" something--is not itself a product of any scientific experiment, it distills to a faith after all. Faith is not "belief without evidence," but rather a decision to reckon as true (actual or real) something that is not visible. Empiricism is an idea. Ideas are not visible. New atheists therefore have strong faith, though not in God.4

Many popular philosophies are self-refuting, which means that they do not meet their own standards and thus self-destruct.5 One example of a self-refuting claim is the common statement "all truth is relative." This cannot be. If all truth is relative, then the supposed truth that "all truth is relative" would itself be relative, and therefore not true. Consider the assertion "we cannot ultimately grasp meaning in an absolute way." If that were true, then one would not be able to grasp the meaning of that very statement.

A good way to deal with self-refuting truth claims is to ask honest questions about them. For example, a response to the assertion "all truth is relative" could be to ask, "So, is that relatively true?" Likewise, one who denies that truth is knowable could be questioned with, "How can we then know for sure that truth cannot be surely known?"

Empiricism is also self-refuting, and therefore should not be believed. Its essence could be stated as "experimental science is the only way to know something for sure." We might then ask, "What was the scientific experiment that demonstrated that experimental science is the only way to know something for sure?"

In contrast to the self-refuting doctrines that atheism must hold to, theism is aligned with the reality of a transcendent and necessary Being; not, as new atheists claim, with a fairy tale. Biblical theism begins with the sensible concept, assumed in Genesis, of an infinite Creator who formed a finite creation. Knowledge of our holy God is generally available through our observation of the natural world. This is enough to reveal man’s sin-induced separation from Him.6 However, only the Bible reveals that He has performed the necessary work to reconcile us back to Himself through His Son Jesus Christ, and for His glory.7 So based on the evidence of what He has made and done, we can believe in and know Him. -Brian Thomas
I agree with him! What is your intellectual rebuttal? You see, you guys are also proselytizing your anti-theist beliefs to try and convert others to your belief system! So stop your "preach it brother, preach" proselytizing! You are blatantly abusing the rules here! Any reasonable moderator can see this! Your hypocrisy is over the top! I'd really be interested in how you address the above to try and save any integrity you think you might have left!

Atheism is a response to a single claim. That's it. Other than that, atheists can and do believe and disbelieve all kinds of other things. Not all atheists believe/disbelieve the same things. There is no worldview that all atheists follow. There are no doctrines. Some follow science. Some don't. Some believe in ghosts, some don't. The only thing they all share is a lack of belief in god(s). That's all that's required for a person to be an atheist.

You should get your information about atheists from actual atheists. ICR doesn't know what they're talking about, and we know what their agenda is, because I already provided it.

You really need to cite your sources.
Empiricism: A Glaring Flaw of New Atheism



Oh, one more thing. Which atheists here have told you your god doesn't exist and that you need to "convert" to atheism?

 

[SkepticThinker]

First you say he's wrong. And then you define atheism in such a way that it agrees with what he said.....



Yes. Just like he said.
Theists claim god exists. He doesn't believe the claim due to insufficient evidence.



Well, you ARE an atheist concerning the many many gods you do NOT believe in.
You lack belief in Zeus, Poseidon, Ptah, Allah, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Visjnoe,....

Don't you?

Thank you!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You dealt a Gish, man!

Was this to overwhelm me?

I'll just answer the easiest one:

15. How long did Jehoash reign?
40 years -2 Kings 12:1
vs
16 years -2 Kings 13:10

These are two different people. One was King of Judah, the other was a king of Israel. (The context makes that clear, if you'd have read it.)

So, if one is flawed, your entire list may be, too?

Indeed, the others require more detailed answers, but they are there.

There are very few real flaws in the Scriptures, mostly scribal errors regarding numbers. But nothing to altar the Bible's internal harmony.

#'s 16 & 17 are pretty easy, also.

 

[He has Risen!]

Nailed by David Fitzgerald is outstanding. And any book by Richard Carrier. Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

Thank you very much for this list of books. I will retrieve them from my local library and read them. I am glad to see that you recommended Bart Ehrman even though he is no friend to the Christian faith, he will defend the NT in ways you may not realize. I hope that you will look at a debate he has done with noted NT scholar Daniel B. Wallace, the second link Dr. Wallace is answering the question "How Badly Has the Bible Been Corrupted?" I enjoyed these videos when they first came out and got a real education in the reliability of the NT...

 

[He has Risen!]

First you say he's wrong. And then you define atheism in such a way that it agrees with what he said.....



Yes. Just like he said.
Theists claim god exists. He doesn't believe the claim due to insufficient evidence.



Well, you ARE an atheist concerning the many many gods you do NOT believe in.
You lack belief in Zeus, Poseidon, Ptah, Allah, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Visjnoe,....

Don't you?

Let me walk you through the argument,
I am not an atheist, even though I disagree with other theist on their belief of who god(s) is. Atheism is a belief against god. A=against.
I am not against the belief that there is a god. I disagree with others who hold to quite a different view of god(s). One cannot be an atheist and a theist at the same time (law of non-contradiction).

 

[He has Risen!]

Science doesn't dismiss an intelligent agent, just like science doesn't dismiss that we all actually live in the matrix.

But since there is currently no evidence to suggest either, science doesn't include either in any of its models.


It really is that simple.




So?

What about quantum theory, the 5th dimension and the TOE (Theory Of Everything). God is the TOE Who is beyond our dimension (transcendent) and controls all His sub atomic particles. Not the same as just "God Did It fallacy", because He is logically the best explanation to what we can know about everything in our universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let me walk you through the argument,
I am not an atheist, even though I disagree with other theist on their belief of who god(s) is.

No. You are an atheist with respect to Visjnoe, Ra, Poseidon,...
You don't believe the claim that those gods exist.

I agree we wouldn't use that word for someone who believe in "a" god. But in context of those specific gods you don't believe in, your lack of belief is exactly the same as my lack of belief in your god.

Atheism is a belief against god. A=against.

No. The 'a' stands for "without".
Like asymmetry. That's not "against symmetry". That's "without symmetry".


Bottom line: when somebody tells you what their beliefs are, or in this case are NOT, it would be wise of you to just accept it, instead of pretending to know better what somebody else's belief is or isn't.

 

[He has Risen!]

No. You are an atheist with respect to Visjnoe, Ra, Poseidon,...
You don't believe the claim that those gods exist.

I agree we wouldn't use that word for someone who believe in "a" god. But in context of those specific gods you don't believe in, your lack of belief is exactly the same as my lack of belief in your god.



No. The 'a' stands for "without".
Like asymmetry. That's not "against symmetry". That's "without symmetry".


Bottom line: when somebody tells you what their beliefs are, or in this case are NOT, it would be wise of you to just accept it, instead of pretending to know better what somebody else's belief is or isn't.

from Google,
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. ... Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

 

[tas8831]

What about quantum theory, the 5th dimension and the TOE (Theory Of Everything). God is the TOE Who is beyond our dimension (transcendent) and controls all His sub atomic particles. Not the same as just "God Did It fallacy", because He is logically the best explanation to what we can know about everything in our universe.

I don't think things work that way.

Without evidence and a good explanation, you cannot just claim victory if the 'other side' totally fails (or if you just reject the other side).

False Dilemma