Using Bible to kill the Bible?

[metis]

My spellchecker tells, that the correct word is "sceptic."

Ah, thanks for the explanation.

Does Albert have papers on his Steady-State Theory?

Even though he wrote about it, I don't know of any research papers of his own that he put forth.

The Science is not settled yet (look up Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder), so the genius of Einstein could be right after all.

No, as we know the BB has happened and is still continuing. The problem some have with accepting it is that they all too often read too much into it that simply is not part & parcel of that theory.

I have written explanation of Dark Matter, care to look?

I'm quite familiar with this (at least as far as the basic concept is concerned), but certainly I would read what you have. Even though cosmology was not my field, nevertheless I've read a fair number of books on this written by researchers, and also myriads of scientific articles, especially in "Scientific American".

 

[Nakosis]

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

Theism, belief in the existence of a God or gods.
Atheism disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods.

Not all atheists disbelieve in God. Some, like myself choose not to have a belief about a God.

If you do find a atheist who happens to not believe in the existence of God they ought to be able to explain why. Not prove that God doesn't exist, any more then you can prove that one does, but at least explain their reasons.

Atheism is a pretty broad description, so you're definition is not necessarily wrong but you are likely to get a number of folks squawking about being pigeonholed into such a narrow definition of atheist.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

Wow, I've seen you twist logic into a pretzel in numerous other threads you've started, but you really take the cake with this one. Of COURSE the concept of god arose BEFORE the concept of lacking belief in this proposed god. NO ONE is EVER going to say: I lack a belief in any god being' BEFORE someone else first proposes that there IS such a god being. That's like me claiming: "I have an invisible magical dragon in my garage!" and you saying "I lack any belief in your invisible magical dragon." And then I come back with: "Well, the original source of the invisible magical dragon concept is ME, so that means YOU have the burden of proving that my invisible magical dragon does NOT exist."

You REALLY have difficulty with grasping basic logic and reason, don't you?

 

[halbhh]

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.

The most key things are said so simply, clearly, that it's more to me about whether I'm willing to accept the clear meaning.

Examples:
"Love your neighbor as yourself" -- Not simply be polite, not simply treat well, but love them as if they were yourself. It was...a real change away from the previous model I'd used to sufficient success of just loving a select few people I'd cautiously gotten to know over time, and ignoring my neighbors. It was a kind of leap of faith even to just try to begin with a love attitude toward the total random, unselected neighbors that happened to be next door. But it's worth doing, I found out! (this is an understatement. It's more like buying a couple or more lottery tickets, and each one pays out winnings -- that's how it actually was in real outcome, to my total surprise).

"Forgive...not just seven times but seventy times seven." "...forgive your brother or sister from your heart." -- Again, not as easy as just mentally forgive them, and think no more revenge fantasies or such. No, much harder. Forgive them for real, from the heart!

So, see, the problem isn't a version or an interpretation. It's accepting what the words actually are saying at all. Because they are all too clear.

The temptation is to let yourself slip sideways into pretending they aren't really saying what they say.

Now, I tried to lower the stakes some, as a non-believer. I decided that if I tried to love the next door neighbors, and they didn't accept me or such, I could just curse them out afterwards, and condemn them in my mind, and feel better. So, I had an out. But.......then I also recognized it would have to be real love, right from the start. That's why it's hard to test for a non believer. I had to muster a lot of courage, and I was still shaking in my shoes anyway.

 

[Nimos]

Now, I tried to lower the stakes some, as a non-believer. I decided that if I tried to love the next door neighbors, and they didn't accept me or such, I could just curse them out afterwards, and condemn them in my mind, and feel better. So, I had an out. But.......then I also recognized it would have to be real love, right from the start. That's why it's hard to test for a non believer. I had to muster a lot of courage, and I was still shaking in my shoes anyway.

Maybe I misunderstand you, but there seems to be a lot of undertones here being associated with non-believers... "lower the stakes, as a non-believer", "Curse them afterwards", "Condemn them", "recognized it would have to be real love"... sort of like non-believers are not capable of showing true love, and if we ain't accepted, then we will curse and condemn people, is that what you mean or see as non believers capabilities?

 

[halbhh]

Maybe I misunderstand you, but there seems to be a lot of undertones here being associated with non-believers... "lower the stakes, as a non-believer", "Curse them afterwards", "Condemn them", "recognized it would have to be real love"... sort of like non-believers are not capable of showing true love, and if we ain't accepted, then we will curse and condemn people, is that what you mean or see as non believers capabilities?

I'm only telling my own story. It's emotionally risky to knock on a stranger's door and try to love them. How does a 27yr old introvert do that? For me, it was by lowering the risk any way possible. I'm not someone else. Not at all some saint or casual extrovert at age 27 I can tell you. ( Some of the most loving people I've met were not church members, but agnostics; but that's pretty normal experience, unremarkable)

 

[sooda]

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.

You're absolutely correct. Skepticism isn't an emotion.. Its a question like "Do what?"

"Live inside a fish for three days"??

Most ten year olds would question that.

 

[Valjean]

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

"God might exist" implies he might not exist. "God might not exist" implies he might exist. Premises 1 and 2 are equivalent.
Only a minority of atheists state definitively that God does not exist. Atheism, per se, is just a lack of belief.
Lack of belief is the sole feature common to all varieties of atheism, so is the definitive feature of atheism.

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.

whaaa?! "God exists" is not a claim? How could that be? What, then, is it?

What does an opposition opinion have to do with whether a statement is a claim? If I state "there's a lizard under that rock," and no-one hearing me disagrees, does that make my claim not a 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.

No! The "observation" was a positive claim, so assumed a burden of proof. Lack of belief is not a claim, and must needs exist before belief. Before a slate is written on, it is blank. Before one speaks, he is silent.Before a glass is filled, it is empty.

Questfortruth, you have a very strange style of reasoning. It is not logical. You don't seem to have a grasp of logic or critical analysis.

Atheism, again. Is not a positive belief that there is no god. It is a lack of belief. As long as we're born without belief, that lack of belief must precede any belief. Atheism came first.

 

[Valjean]

You're absolutely correct. Skepticism isn't an emotion.. Its a question like "Do what?"

"Live inside a fish for three days"??

Most ten year olds would question that.

LOL --Most people would question most of the premises and claims of the Bible, had they not been installed at an age before they'd acquired any skill at critical thinking or evaluation of evidence.
I suspect that an adult, innocent of any religious exposure, confronted with miraculous religious claims for the first time, would find them silly.

 

[halbhh]

Most people would question most of the premises and claims of the Bible, had they not been installed at an age before they'd acquired any skill at critical thinking or evaluation of evidence.

This theory that people believe in Christianity only because they are taught to in childhood may not hold up well if you gather more information I'm thinking. If it were so, then why do so many leave the religion after growing up, and also why do quite a lot join it after growing up outside of it? Why do some with atheist parents come to the faith when adults? A theory needs to hold generally when compared to a larger number of observed instances, accounting for them all generally. This theory I've already seen disproven. To get a better theory, be willing to toss any theory in the trash as soon as it fails, and find a better one.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

If text is not readable, then there are two possible explanations:
1. The author is genius (Presumption of Innocence),
2. The author is sick (Presumption of Guilt).

"The fool says in his heart there is no God."

Do you know why this is?

Because the fool does not understand that by destroying the concept of God, you are committing suicide.

Think about the incidence of abortion. From my studies of pie and bar graphs, a whopping 76% of those who are religiously unaffiliated are unopposed to abortion (this is the death of infants, and therefore future generations of humans). Or how about war? Just about 7% of all wars were religious in origin (and this is accounting for Islam being more than all other religions put together), meaning 93% are entirely secular in cause. Btw, the Nazis and the Communists were (despite claims that Hitler was "Christian" the facts don't hold up) also extremely secular, and accounted for additional genocides, with Communism alone accounting for some 65 million people dead and counting.

When people lose touch with God, they almost inevitably lose sight of the sense that all life is connected, that life itself is valuable. They move from unity consciousness to separation consciousness, and they become violent and self-destructive.

Why do you think the Bible was written? Oh wait, we have our answer.

As in the Days of Noah: Warnings for Today

Not long after God placed human beings on earth, mankind quickly headed toward self-destruction. Following Adam and Eve’s example of rejecting God’s instructions, humanity became increasingly hostile and corrupt. By the time of Noah, “the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5).

Lastly, you presume there is an author to the Bible, and not authors. Then you presume that it is not readable, when despite multiple authors each of which have their own opinions, certain common themes keep popping up. If you want a very readable account of the Bible, check out The Book of God: The Bible as a Novel by Walter Wangerin. It tells the story from Abraham to Jesus, skipping a few accounts, as it would happen as a series of stories of the lives of people. It gets slow in the middle, with all the prophets and such, but there is definitely no readability issues. Therefore, neither #1 or #2 are correct. At the time of Abraham, humanity was wretched, and by the time of Noah generations later, it had gotten much much worse. In fact, you could easily read the story of Noah as:

1. Melting of ice caps due to environmental destruction.
2. The original Earth (which is now an asteroid field near Mars) blowing up, and having to move to another planet.
3. Nuclear fallout.

Reading it as a flood is how it is written, but the story would not change if it were written as a scifi. In fact, the movie Passengers is very much a story of Noah (and Sleeping Beauty, Adam and Eve, and several others melded together). There are two people awake on this "ark", a male and a female, and over the course of the movie, they restore the state of things from a wrecked and ruined ship. While we never see the planet that they reach, the inside of the ship is basically a microcosm of Eden, representing the restoration of Original Intent.

 

[Lynette Magdalena Lott]

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.

Hello, Powerful Soul!

Yes, I agree that God is not godless and that godlessness lies within the godless.

God is not a concept of literature. He is the embodiment of all resources. The Bible or any ideological believing system is killed by the godlessness and not by concept originally taken from the Bible.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your perceiving but within my point of view, the Bible commands to speak about God's existence, God's presence, God's words, and God's commandments.

There is only one God where all the others are defined as gods, but are in truth only prophets.

Science is not necessarily negative. It's how you perceive it. I am fascinated by science. You can discover so much and yet nothing. You only see as far as you are wired. It is deep with knowledge and yet separated from the universal wisdom while scientific lessons have their own experienced wisdom.

Therefore, isn't knowledge of all kinds of wisdom?

We only believe what we focus on. Do you want to believe in the positive and all the good God is trying to make available for the reseptive or do you want to believe the negative all the godless souls want you to see and believe?

Thank you for reading this entirely.

I am here to serve your soul.”

With Love
Lynette

 

[questfortruth]

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?"

Surely, the non-believers are not experts on such philosophical concepts like knowledge and faith, beliefs. Look, there are two views on faith:

1. Faith is Faithfulness to Knowledge, there is no blind faith, same says the Bible.
2. Faith is always blind faith.

And two views on knowledge:

1. I know, that I know nothing, thus, all knowledge is false knowledge, that is Popper criterion: "Science one can always to show being false (falsify)."
2. I know at least something for sure.

Thus, to use the concepts of knowledge and faith is not possible today in unique way.

 

[questfortruth]

Hello, Powerful Soul!

With Love
Lynette

Thank you, lady. There are two spirits in the world: Holy Spirit, and the evil spirit (the spirit of antichrist). God is the Spirit, the Spirit of our Good Actions and deeds. The evil spirit is the motive of all sin, terrorists, wars, etc. The evil does not exist, because has lost the gift of Existence (there is YouTube video with young Dr. Einstein). Why? Because does not originate from God of Existence; so the doubt in God's presence is the confusing the two spirits (Holy Spirit and the evil spirit) for being one spirit (care for Bible quotes on the subject?).

 

[Lynette Magdalena Lott]

Thank you, lady. There are two spirits in the world: Holy Spirit, and the evil spirit (the spirit of antichrist). God is the Spirit, the Spirit of our Good Actions and deeds. The evil spirit is the motive of all sin, terrorists, wars, etc. The evil does not exist, because has lost the gift of Existence (there is YouTube video with young Dr. Einstein). Why? Because does not originate from God of Existence; so the doubt in God's presence is the confusing the two spirits (Holy Spirit and the evil spirit) for being one spirit (care for Bible quotes on the subject?).

No, it's not one spirit but two spirits as one.

When both spirits become one, there is balance and control of the mind mutually emotions.

How could the other be existing without the other?

By doubting an existence we already doubt our belief.”

Nothing was ever able to exist without a pre-existing. Otherwise, why do good spirits fight against all bad spirits if it's not existent?

 

[questfortruth]

No, as we know the BB has happened and is still continuing. The problem some have with accepting it is that they all too often read too much into it that simply is not part & parcel of that theory.

I'm quite familiar with this (at least as far as the basic concept is concerned), but certainly I would read what you have. Even though cosmology was not my field, nevertheless I've read a fair number of books on this written by researchers, and also myriads of scientific articles, especially in "Scientific American".

Dear friend, there is interesting new idea of Dr. Hossenfelder about BB, care to look the video?
But here is link to my idea, respect my rights as the author of it: Is Mond Dead?, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2001.0701

 

[questfortruth]

No, it's not one spirit but two spirits as one.

When both spirits become one, there is balance and control of the mind mutually emotions.

How could the other be existing without the other?

By doubting an existence we already doubt our belief.”

Nothing was ever able to exist without a pre-existing. Otherwise, why do good spirits fight against all bad spirits if it's not existent?

Evil spirit is the border of reality, like the black surface of a Black Hole. When one commits sin, he allows Absolute Nothingness to enter his soul and body to vanish it. The vanishing of matter in Black Holes (which violates energy conservation law) are discovered by me: Is Black Hole the hole?, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1912.0376

 

[Native]

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.

I think Einstein was right in not believing on a Big Bang. The Steady State Theory is the logic one in the sense that everything in the Universe eternally changes between formation, dissolution and re-formation, but the Universe itself doesn´t change.

 

[questfortruth]

Wow, I've seen you twist logic into a pretzel in numerous other threads you've started, but you really take the cake with this one. Of COURSE the concept of god arose BEFORE the concept of lacking belief in this proposed god. NO ONE is EVER going to say: I lack a belief in any god being' BEFORE someone else first proposes that there IS such a god being. That's like me claiming: "I have an invisible magical dragon in my garage!" and you saying "I lack any belief in your invisible magical dragon." And then I come back with: "Well, the original source of the invisible magical dragon concept is ME, so that means YOU have the burden of proving that my invisible magical dragon does NOT exist."

You REALLY have difficulty with grasping basic logic and reason, don't you?

You are talking not about a theism, but about a Scientific endeavour. The Science tells us, what in your garage might be particles of invisible Dark Matter. They are building large underground detectors to confirm this idea. They do not deny the idea just because it is not confirmed yet.

 

[questfortruth]

I think Einstein was right in not believing on a Big Bang. The Steady State Theory is the logic one in the sense that everything in the Universe eternally changes between formation, dissolution and re-formation, but the Universe itself doesn´t change.

The Dr. Hossenfelder is working in that direction! Look up her video in:
Is Genesis 1 confirmed by Dr. Hossenfelder?