Using Bible to kill the Bible?

[Native]

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

Yes. Even when trying to diminish the "gravity ideas", in the cosmological matters, MOND is dead. Particles and molecules are NOT "attracted to each other by gravity" but by electromagnetic forces working on the atoms and binding these together.
The implications of this is that the much stronger forces but gravity governs the formation in the Universe and by counting on the much stronger EM forces and the electromagnetic qualities and motion, there is no need for more matter in the Universe in order to "get the dots together" as assumed by modern cosmological science.

 

[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?

About my profile photo:
The cat is looking through the glass:
The nothingness approaches us,
It quiets any sound of pain,
The roof is hit by acid rain,
But do not worry, dear mom,
I am your cat till Trumpet Sound!

 

[questfortruth]

Yes. Even when trying to diminish the "gravity ideas", in the cosmological matters, MOND is dead. Particles and molecules are NOT "attracted to each other by gravity" but by electromagnetic forces working on the atoms and binding these together.
The implications of this is that the much stronger forces but gravity governs the formation in the Universe and by counting on the much stronger EM forces and the electromagnetic qualities and motion, there is no need for more matter in the Universe in order to "get the dots together" as assumed by modern cosmological science.

With all respect, but that idea ("Gravity is a Force Field") is debunked in
Impossibility of Gravitons and bi-Metric Gravity; Riemann Hypothesis Confirmed; Energy Localization Problem Solved; the Falsifiability of Science is Demonstrated, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1911.0437

 

[Native]

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

Interesting videos, thanks a lot
The Hubble Constant isn´t constant . . .The cosmic distance measuring method is false . . . then the idea of a Big Bang also is false. Dark matter isn´t needed and so on and on.

Nothing new to me at all .

 

[questfortruth]

"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

Theorem of Degradation, of Loosing Mind:
If the vector of Loosing Mind was not realized, when there was more mind, then it will never be realized. Loosing Mind, without a miracle from God, can only grow: it is the Social Entropy and Destruction. Look up:

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

All this is irrelevant to the post you are replying to.

Let's just summarize with a graph. Perhaps print it out and hang it on your bedroom ceiling, so it's the first thing you see when you wake up in the morning. Perhaps then it will eventually find its way into your brain and memory:

 

[Native]

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

The biblical interpretation of a flat Earth is completely wrong. The cultural Creation Stories deals with the entire creation of the Milky Way which is described as a "flattish structure" - and the first biblical mention of "earth" should be interpreted as "firm matter" which creates the initial "firm-a-ment" in the Milky Way.

 

[questfortruth]

All this is irrelevant to the post you are replying to.

Let's just summarize with a graph. Perhaps print it out and hang it on your bedroom ceiling, so it's the first thing you see when you wake up in the morning. Perhaps then it will eventually find its way into your brain and memory:

View attachment 37313

Please define belief, dear non-believer.

 

[sooda]

Please define belief, dear non-believer.

Belief is an opinion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please define belief, dear non-believer.

To accept a claim / proposition as (at least) likely true / accurate / correct

 

[questfortruth]

To accept a claim / proposition as (at least) likely true / accurate / correct

Translation of the table above:

"Agnostic Atheist does not believe, that God surely exists, but believes, that there might be God".

"Agnostic Theist does not believe, that God surely exists, but believes, that there might be God".

Conclusion: Agnostic Atheist and Agnostic Theist is the same person: Agnostic. Where has the Pure Atheism gone these days?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Translation of the table above:

"Agnostic Atheist does not believe, that God surely exists, but believes, that there might be God".

"Agnostic Theist does not believe, that God surely exists, but believes, that there might be God".

The claim being dealt with is "A god exists".

Not "a god does not exist" nore "a god might exist".

The claim being dealt with is "a god exists".
An agnostic atheist doesn't believe that claim and doesn't claim to know for certain.

You can either deal with these simpe facts or continue to overcomplicate things with as only purpose sowing confusion for no particular reason, other then to camouflage your own shortcomings in properly arguing for your case.

Conclusion: Agnostic Atheist and Agnostic Theist is the same person: Agnostic. Where has the Pure Atheism gone these days?

It only seems to exist in your head.

 

[questfortruth]

The claim being dealt with is "A god exists".

Not "a god does not exist" nore "a god might exist".

The claim being dealt with is "a god exists".
An agnostic atheist doesn't believe that claim and doesn't claim to know for certain.

You can either deal with these simpe facts or continue to overcomplicate things with as only purpose sowing confusion for no particular reason, other then to camouflage your own shortcomings in properly arguing for your case.



It only seems to exist in your head.

The table above is two views on knowledge (gnostic-agnostic) on God's existence. How come, if the Scientific Consensus tells, that God is neither proven nor disproven?

 

[metis]

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

My computer won't let me download it (it's really OLD), so could you cut & paste some parts that are to the point? Meanwhile, I'll try & google Hossenfelder.


added: I found links about her and her approach, but she doesn't refute the general evidence for the BB, so I'm not sure what you were driving at bringing her up. Maybe you can explain?

 

[metis]

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.

That has been 100% refuted, and one very significant piece of evidence for that is called "red shift" and what we've learned from it. It cannot be explained with any other concept than the expansion of our universe caused by the BB.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

I have no burden of proof to you. I am free to reject your claims without giving you my reason.

If you use the word "God" and say that He is not there, then you are not using a concept originally taken from atheism

Why should I care where the concept of a god came from?

atheists are called to prove the atheism

Why? We're free to look over the wares that the religions are peddling and walk away without comment.

It is Presumption of Innocence: nobody is wrong, until proven wrong.

I don't think you know what innocence means. It's not a synonym of correct.

Furthermore, I have no presumption of innocence or guilt. I don't believe that anybody is guilty or innocent until it is demonstrated.

scientific scepticism is the method of using feeling.

Nope. It is the method of applying skepticism to claims and reason to evidence to discover how the world actually works. If you're a scientist coming to work, leave your emotions at the door with your religious beliefs.

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

Being skeptical is being logical. Believing without sufficient reason is illogical.

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. Latter came atheism and said "there is no God." That is claim, because it was made to debate the theists

So "There is a god" is not a claim, but "There is no god" isn't one? I would know that you are a theist just by reading that. Nobody disagreeing with you would make such a comment.

Any claim must be proven

Nope. Only those that one wants believed. I claim to be an atheist and have no need to prove it to anybody, because it doesn't matter to me if you believe it.

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

The fool is the one believing in gods.

I'll bet you find that offensive.

Here's more. Not only are believers fools, but they are corrupt, their deeds are vile, and not one of them does good. Not a single one.

From my studies of pie and bar graphs, a whopping 76% of those who are religiously unaffiliated are unopposed to abortion

It's Christians women getting most of the abortions. If you object to abortion, talk to them.

70% of Women Who Get Abortions Identify as Christians, Survey Finds

 

[Valjean]

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?

Once one becomes more adept at critical thinking, such analysis may be applied to religious dogma. People may realize that much of the doctrine seems pretty far fetched, if not impossible. Moreover, most modern Christian regions are pretty diverse, religiously. Christians are familiar with other beliefs, and see that their practitioners fare just fine. Finally, there is less conformist social pressure in culturally diverse areas, individualism is tolerated.

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.

Theory? You mean a particular religious doctrine? Why would a religious doctrine have to hold water? People rarely choose a religion for ontological accuracy. Religions provide comfort, security and community

 

[questfortruth]

My computer won't let me download it (it's really OLD), so could you cut & paste some parts that are to the point? Meanwhile, I'll try & google Hossenfelder.


added: I found links about her and her approach, but she doesn't refute the general evidence for the BB, so I'm not sure what you were driving at bringing her up. Maybe you can explain?

I have sent the paper to journal, let us wait. The Dr. Hossenfelder refers in own video to peer-reviewed research, which put in doubt the Dark Energy existence. Thus, the expansion of space is not so rapid. Maybe, even no expansion?

 

[metis]

I have sent the paper to journal, let us wait. The Dr. Hossenfelder refers in own video to peer-reviewed research, which put in doubt the Dark Energy existence.

I'll look forward to it. Although, from what I did read about from her is really not a question as to whether the BB actually occurred but more about some of the details.

Thus, the expansion of space is not so rapid. Maybe, even no expansion?

We know with certainty there has been and continues to be an expansion as we've seen it through red shift and galaxies near the "edge" of our universe disappearing that indicates that at least there it's moving faster then the speed of light.

Gotta go-- company's arrived.

 

[halbhh]

Once one becomes more adept at critical thinking, such analysis may be applied to religious dogma. People may realize that much of the doctrine seems pretty far fetched, if not impossible. Moreover, most modern Christian regions are pretty diverse, religiously. Christians are familiar with other beliefs, and see that their practitioners fare just fine. Finally, there is less conformist social pressure in culturally diverse areas, individualism is tolerated.
Theory? You mean a particular religious doctrine? Why would a religious doctrine have to hold water? People rarely choose a religion for ontological accuracy. Religions provide comfort, security and community

Your theory. I'm saying test your own theory. Yourself. Critically, trying to see if it holds up. That's not looking for mere instances that align, but searching instead for instances that do not align.