Using Bible to kill the Bible?

[SkepticThinker]

Do not confuse it with agnosticism!

I'm not.
I am an agnostic atheist, myself.

Any word on your attempt to shift the burden of proof? Or are we off that now?

 

[halbhh]

It means "following the feeling of scepticism". So, scientific scepticism is the method of using feeling.

Here you'd tend to elicit (cause a reaction) that scientific skepticism is certainly not an emotion. Often a phrase like "scientific skepticism" would mean (by the person saying the phrase) something like: 'not assuming something is true or false before trying to test it by observation or experiment'.

So that could cause some confusion possibly. Also, you have at least 2 significant topics, and some confusion may arise from linking them together.

It's a good point we often see some trying to use something (* see below) from the bible to disprove God, but using less than the complete text.

* -- Such as using an incomplete version of a story and also often by adding extra assumptions flatly contrary to the actual text, such as assuming death of this body is a final death, for instance.

With the incomplete version of something combined with the added extra assumptions, they can then putatively show the bible contradicts itself, but actually are really only showing their added assumption(s)/versions contradict the text, unremarkably.

This might help: the best scientific attitude does not jump to conclusions, but seeks to discover more pieces of the puzzle.

 

[`mud]

Why wander and wonder at all in that imagined world ?
Like I've said before "Life is Stuff", deal with it !
No `gods` needed.

 

[Nakosis]

It is feeling of scepticism you have, without any logic.

It's more proven out over time. Lots of trial and lots of error.
Starting out, one has to have faith because one starts out ignorant. So you trust this religion/religious leader, you trust that one. You got to take them at their word but eventually you'd expect to see some results. Religion, belief/faith should have it's benefits right? I mean supernatural benefits, not just social ones.

So you put your faith into something and you don't see any results. In the case of religion I am sceptical of what I've already tried and found wanting. In most cases, I've been there, done that. So where I might be open to something new, there not a lot out there that is new for me.

So started out ignorant, remained ignorant, atheism is just an acknowledgment of being ignorant about any actual God existing. So it's really not even about being sceptic, it's about being honest with myself.

 

[stvdv]

Why wander and wonder at all in that imagined world ?
Like I've said before "Life is Stuff", deal with it !
No `gods` needed.

No "Gods" needed
No "No Gods" needed

 

[questfortruth]

Please explain the difference.

Theism - "God exists"
Agnostic Theism - "God might exist."
Agnosticism - "God might not exist."
Atheism - "God does not exist."

 

[metis]

It means "following the feeling of scepticism". So, scientific scepticism is the method of using feeling.

Then I'm not certain what you mean by it. As a scientist (retired), we are brought up in that series of professions to be skeptical.

 

[Nimos]

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 idea or concept of God is pretty complex, so would it be unreasonable to assume that a baby is born as an atheist?

And is it likely to assume that a baby raised without the knowledge of the biblical God, would reach the conclusion about a God as he is described in the bible? And if that is not the case, then we have multiple Gods to choose from. So isn't is reasonable for this now grown up baby to demand evidence that your God is the right one and not his?
So putting ateisme aside, what you are basically saying is that he will now either have to accept your God or proof that your God doesn't exist to proof you wrong? That seems a little unfair, doesn't it.

Wouldn't it be much easier and fair, if you proofed to him why your God exist?

 

[questfortruth]

Then I'm not certain what you mean by it. As a scientist (retired), we are brought up in that series of professions to be skeptical.

METHODOLOGY OF SCEPTICISM:
Yes, by our best efforts we can not yet find mistake in Einstein's E=mc^2 derivation; but we have strong persistent feeling, that there is hidden yet mistake. Thus, we grant Einstein no second Nobel Prize. Look: there are possibly people with two Nobel Prizes in Physics. But we grant Einstein no Prize for most famous formular in the history of Science! We are sceptical.

METHODOLOGY OF TRUST:
by our best efforts we can not yet find mistake in Einstein's E=mc^2 derivation; thus, we trust our mind and logic, so we grant the second Nobel Prize.

 

[metis]

METHODOLOGY OF SCEPTICISM:
Yes, by our best efforts we can not yet find mistake in Einstein's E=mc^2 derivation; but we have strong persistent feeling, that there is hidden yet mistake. Thus, we grant Einstein no second Nobel Prize. Look: there are possibly people with two Nobel Prizes in Physics. But we grant Einstein no Prize for most famous formular in the history of Science! We are sceptical.

METHODOLOGY OF TRUST:
by our best efforts we can not yet find mistake in Einstein's E=mc^2 derivation; thus, we trust our mind and logic, so we grant the second Nobel Prize.

Nobel prizes are awarded to those who have performed actions or put forth concepts that seemingly rise above the rest. They do not imply that any given formula has to be 100% correct.

BTW, Einstein was very much wrong on his firm belief in the Steady-State Theory in light of the Big Bang Theory, the latter of which he couldn't accept.

BTW, why do you spell "skeptic" like this: "sceptic"? Is there some hidden implication that I'm missing?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Literature, being the words of 1 or more humans, written down.

Therefore, the burden of proof of godlessness lies with the godless ones. Just to avoid trolling.

Euh... no.
The burden of proof is never on the one not making the claim.

It is always on the positive claim. In this case "there is a god".

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.

That makes no sense.

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'm afraid I can't make any sense of this either...

 

[halbhh]

The idea or concept of God is pretty complex, so would it be unreasonable to assume that a baby is born as an atheist?

And is it likely to assume that a baby raised without the knowledge of the biblical God, would reach the conclusion about a God as he is described in the bible? And if that is not the case, then we have multiple Gods to choose from. So isn't is reasonable for this now grown up baby to demand evidence that your God is the right one and not his?
So putting ateisme aside, what you are basically saying is that he will now either have to accept your God or proof that your God doesn't exist to proof you wrong? That seems a little unfair, doesn't it.

Wouldn't it be much easier and fair, if you proofed to him why your God exist?

You'd ideally want to test what the text says to do.

Notice that isnt trusting some speaker, pastor, leader, etc.

When I set out to test some things Jesus said, I knew I would need to disregard what I'd heard from people, preachers, etc.

They'd likely be saying their own ideas, instead of precisely what Jesus said.

I knew that, at the beginning, and it proved correct.

To test something Jesus said, you'd have to get precisely what the words say, including the conditions he said.
That makes quite a difference.

 

[questfortruth]

The burden of proof is never on the one not making the claim.

It is always on the positive claim. In this case "there is a god".

One can make statements. The statement "God exists" in the times it was first made, was not a claim. Because a claim means, that somebody is against the claim. No, nobody was against the God. So, there was simple observation: "God exists." Latter came atheism and said "there is no God." That is claim, because it was made to debate the theists. Any claim must be proven, so the burden of proof of atheism is on atheists' part.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Theism - "God exists"
Agnostic Theism - "God might exist."
Agnosticism - "God might not exist."
Atheism - "God does not exist."

You left out a few words and I really wonder why you did that.

Let's rephrase and I'll bold the words you left out

Gnostic Theism - "I know god exists"
Agnostic theism - "I believe god exists"
Agnostic atheism - "I don't believe god exists"
Gnostic atheism - "I know god does not exist"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

One can make statements. The statement "God exists" in the times it was first made, was not a claim.

You can call it by a different label all you want, it won't change the fact that it is a claim that has a burden of proof that hasn't been met. It doesn't matter if everyone believes the unevidenced claim or not. It has a burden of proof, by its very nature. Using the word "statement" instead of "claim", won't change what it is.

Because a claim means, that somebody is against the claim.

No. Claims don't stop being claims when everybody believes it.
Claims are truth statements about reality. They can be accurate or they can be false.
The way to find out if they are accurate or false, is to meet their burden of proof

No, nobody was against the God. So, there was simple observation: "God exists." Latter came atheism and said "there is no God." That is claim, because it was made to debate the theists. Any claim must be proven, so the burden of proof of atheism is on atheists' part.

No.

Claims that are asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence.

 

[questfortruth]

Nobel prizes are awarded to those who have performed actions or put forth concepts that seemingly rise above the rest. They do not imply that any given formula has to be 100% correct.

BTW, Einstein was very much wrong on his firm belief in the Steady-State Theory in light of the Big Bang Theory, the latter of which he couldn't accept.

BTW, why do you spell "skeptic" like this: "sceptic"? Is there some hidden implication that I'm missing?

My spellchecker tells, that the correct word is "sceptic." Does Albert have papers on his Steady-State Theory? The Science is not settled yet (look up Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder), so the genius of Einstein could be right after all. I have written explanation of Dark Matter, care to look? If yes, then write me PM.

 

[questfortruth]

You left out a few words and I really wonder why you did that.

Let's rephrase and I'll bold the words you left out

Gnostic Theism - "I know god exists"
Agnostic theism - "I believe god exists"
Agnostic atheism - "I don't believe god exists"
Gnostic atheism - "I know god does not exist"

Remove all concepts of knowledge and faith from above definitions. Be simple like the Ockam's razor demands. You will be left with my facts.

 

[Nimos]

You'd ideally want to test what the text says to do.

Notice that isnt trusting some speaker, pastor, leader, etc.

When I set out to test some things Jesus said, I knew I would need to disregard what I'd heard from people, preachers, etc.

They'd likely be saying their own ideas, instead of precisely what Jesus said.

I knew that, at the beginning, and it proved correct.

To test something Jesus said, you'd have to get precisely what the words say, including the conditions he said.

I would agree with that.

But I would also take into account what the authors might want it to mean. It depends which way one reads it. I assume you read it from the point of view that it is all true, and therefore you are mostly interested in what Jesus might have meant, is that a fair assumption?

For me the issue with that is, that Jesus say different things depending on what Gospel you read or whether you believe in Pauls interpretation of what he meant etc. But in general, since one can not really verify it, I would go with Jesus words being the highest authority after God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Remove all concepts of knowledge and faith from above definitions. Be simple like the Ockam's razor demands. You will be left with my facts.

First, occam's razor "demands" nothing
Secondly, you aren't even using occam's razor correctly.

So to conclude, this reply of yours was pretty senseless.
Learn what words mean.

(A)theism pertains to beliefs.​

(A)gnosticism pertains to knowledge.

They are not mutually exclusive by any means. One is about what you know and the other about what you believe.
They are different answers to different questions.

One pertains to the question "do you believe?"
And the other to "do you know?"

 

[Hawkins]

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.

The existence of "something" is realized for human attention by means of the first encountering. It is conveyed in a similar way of how history is written.

Humans are suspected to worship aliens too. However, we don't deem worshiping (or its documents) a valid recording of encountering. A encountering is valid only when the document itself is intended and aimed for and cored on the encounter itself.

Moreover, one time events are usually recorded as human testimonies. Science is something else. Science is about the speculations or researches on the repeatable phenomena (they are thus verifiable to humans when we observe how they repeat).