• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Using Bible to kill the Bible?

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
The existence of God is the common dogma among all religions. The original source of the concept of "God" is not godless, but religious literature. Therefore, the burden of proof of godlessness lies with the godless ones. Just to avoid trolling.

If you use the word "God" and say that He is not there, then you are not using a concept originally taken from atheism, but the concept originally taken from the Bible. There is a contradiction: you put Bible in doubt, but you are using the Bible to kill God of the Bible.

The scientific scepticism has nothing to do with Science, because it is just negative emotion: the Apostle Thomas has seen the miracles of God, but has not accepted the faith until the God's let him to test God.

 
Last edited:

sooda

Veteran Member
The existence of God is the common dogma among all religions. The original source of the concept of "God" is not godless, but religious literature. Therefore, the burden of proof of godlessness lies with the godless ones. Just to avoid trolling.

If you use the word "God" and say that He is not there, then you are not using a concept originally taken from atheism, but the concept originally taken from the Bible. There is a contradiction: you put Bible in doubt, but you are using the Bible to kill God of the Bible.

The scientific scepticism has nothing to do with Science, because it is just negative emotion: the Apostle Thomas has seen the miracles of God, but has not accepted the faith until the God's let him to test God.

What are you talking about?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The existence of God is the common dogma among all religions. The original source of the concept of "God" is not godless, but religious literature. Therefore, the burden of proof of godlessness lies with the godless ones. Just to avoid trolling.
God, while a common religious meme, is not common to all religions, and the beings commonly called gods are, taxonomically, a pretty diverse lot.
If you use the word "God" and say that He is not there, then you are not using a concept originally taken from atheism, but the concept originally taken from the Bible. There is a contradiction: you put Bible in doubt, but you are using the Bible to kill God of the Bible.
I don't think I follow. We got the word "god" from you. It's your concept, not ours. We're just asking how you came up with it.
The scientific scepticism has nothing to do with Science, because it is just negative emotion: the Apostle Thomas has seen the miracles of God, but has not accepted the faith until the God's let him to test God.
Skepticism isn't an emotion, it's an epistemic position.
Thomas? I don't think I get your point.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
God, while a common religious meme, is not common to all religions, and the beings commonly called gods are, taxonomically, a pretty diverse lot.
I don't think I follow. We got the word "god" from you. It's your concept, not ours. We're just asking how you came up with it.
Skepticism isn't an emotion, it's an epistemic position.
Thomas? I don't think I get your point.
1. The religions, I talk about, are in the sense of theistic religions, thus, they are certainly using word "God".
2. Because the word God originates not from atheism, but from theism, the atheists are called to prove the atheism. It is Presumption of Innocence: nobody is wrong, until proven wrong.
3. Apostle Thomas has touched the Jesus after resurrection, look up Bible.
4. I argue, that one can feel sceptic about something.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
1. The religions, I talk about, are in the sense of theistic religions, thus, they are certainly using word "God".
2. Because the word God originates not from atheism, but from theism, the atheists are called to prove the atheism. It is Presumption of Innocence: nobody is wrong, until proven wrong.
Prove atheism? :confused: What is there to prove? Atheism makes no claims. Atheism is the epistemic default; a blank slate.
3. Apostle Thomas has touched the Jesus after resurrection, look up Bible.
Even acknowledging the truth of this myth, I don't see the significance.
4. I argue, that one can feel sceptic about something.
OK..... But, your point?
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Prove atheism? :confused: What is there to prove? Atheism makes no claims. Atheism is the epistemic default; a blank slate.
Even acknowledging the truth of this myth, I don't see the significance.
OK..... But, your point?
1. Then Atheism is not Atheism, but Agnosticism.
2. Because we can feel scepticism, the scepticism is emotion. Thus, there is no "scientific scepticism", because emotions are not Science.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
God, while a common religious meme, is not common to all religions, and the beings commonly called gods are, taxonomically, a pretty diverse lot.
I don't think I follow. We got the word "god" from you. It's your concept, not ours. We're just asking how you came up with it.
Skepticism isn't an emotion, it's an epistemic position.
Thomas? I don't think I get your point.

He's referencing the doubting Thomas story after the resurrection when Thomas wanted to see the wounds on Jesus hands.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Because we can feel scepticism, the scepticism is emotion. Thus, there is no "scientific scepticism", because emotions are not Science.
But skepticism is not necessarily an emotion but can very much be a cognitive statement of uncertainty. Just because I may be unsure of something doesn't necessarily reflect emotion.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
But skepticism is not necessarily an emotion but can very much be a cognitive statement of uncertainty. Just because I may be unsure of something doesn't necessarily reflect emotion.
It means "following the feeling of scepticism". So, scientific scepticism is the method of using feeling.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
1. Then Atheism is not Atheism, but Agnosticism.
2. Because we can feel scepticism, the scepticism is emotion. Thus, there is no "scientific scepticism", because emotions are not Science.
OK, atheism is agnosticism. So? RF has discussed this semantic argument countess times.

No. Skepticism is an epistemic starting point. It's a blank slate awaiting evidence to evaluate. The issues in question may engender emotion, but a blank slate is neither emotion nor bias.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
1. The religions, I talk about, are in the sense of theistic religions, thus, they are certainly using word "God".
2. Because the word God originates not from atheism, but from theism, the atheists are called to prove the atheism. It is Presumption of Innocence: nobody is wrong, until proven wrong.
3. Apostle Thomas has touched the Jesus after resurrection, look up Bible.
4. I argue, that one can feel sceptic about something.
Atheism is a response to the theist claim that "god exists." Atheists aren't convinced that god(s) exist(s).
This is a weird attempt to shift the burden of proof. And it fails.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Atheism is a response to the theist claim that "god exists." Atheists aren't convinced that god(s) exist(s).
This is a weird attempt to shift the burden of proof. And it fails.
The atheist by saying "God does not exist" uses word from Theism, so how to disprove or to make harm to Theism by using Theism?
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
OK, atheism is agnosticism. So? RF has discussed this semantic argument countess times.

No. Skepticism is an epistemic starting point. It's a blank slate awaiting evidence to evaluate. The issues in question may engender emotion, but a blank slate is neither emotion nor bias.
Scientific scepticism is making from feeling the way of acting, the way of living. That is why it is hard to convert somebody by logic.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
The existence of God is the common dogma among all religions. The original source of the concept of "God" is not godless, but religious literature. Therefore, the burden of proof of godlessness lies with the godless ones. Just to avoid trolling.

If you use the word "God" and say that He is not there, then you are not using a concept originally taken from atheism, but the concept originally taken from the Bible. There is a contradiction: you put Bible in doubt, but you are using the Bible to kill God of the Bible.

The scientific scepticism has nothing to do with Science, because it is just negative emotion: the Apostle Thomas has seen the miracles of God, but has not accepted the faith until the God's let him to test God.


I put the Bible in doubt along with everything else there is insufficient evidence to trust.
I'm not trying to prove there is no God, just don't find any good reason to believe in one.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
I put the Bible in doubt along with everything else there is insufficient evidence to trust.
I'm not trying to prove there is no God, just don't find any good reason to believe in one.
It is feeling of scepticism you have, without any logic.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The atheist by saying "God does not exist" uses word from Theism, so how to disprove or to make harm to Theism by using Theism?
What atheist says 'God' does not exist? Atheists say 'I don't believe God exists'. Atheists have no concept of God prior to the claims of theists. It's not an idea anyone's born with.
 
Top