Using Bible to kill the Bible?

[QuestioningMind]

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.

Absolutely NOT! I and my enlightened neighbors ALL worship this dragon as a god. My dragon, being magic and beyond the laws of nature is nothing your Science could ever detect. And since we all knew about my magical dragon before you came long to say you don't believe in my dragon, that means it's up to YOU to prove that my dragon doesn't exist.

THIS it the convoluted 'logic' that you employ. IF a nonbeliever in your god has an obligation to prove your god doesn't exist just because you claim the god existed before the nonbeliever expressed a lack of belief THEN anyone who doesn't believe in my magical dragon ALSO has an obligation to prove my dragon doesn't exist, since I claimed belief in the dragon BEFORE you claimed a lack of belief.

As anyone with even a modicum of intelligence can see, your 'logic' is completely illogical.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

I have no idea what it is that you are asking.

The graph has nothing to do with science. It's about clarifying what the various terms actually mean.

 

[questfortruth]

Absolutely NOT! I and my enlightened neighbors ALL worship this dragon as a god. My dragon, being magic and beyond the laws of nature is nothing your Science could ever detect. And since we all knew about my magical dragon before you came long to say you don't believe in my dragon, that means it's up to YOU to prove that my dragon doesn't exist.

THIS it the convoluted 'logic' that you employ. IF a nonbeliever in your god has an obligation to prove your god doesn't exist just because you claim the god existed before the nonbeliever expressed a lack of belief THEN anyone who doesn't believe in my magical dragon ALSO has an obligation to prove my dragon doesn't exist, since I claimed belief in the dragon BEFORE you claimed a lack of belief.

As anyone with even a modicum of intelligence can see, your 'logic' is completely illogical.

I must restate my point:
atheist uses term from Bible, trying to kill the Bible. So, he is sure, that the term is correct?

 

[QuestioningMind]

I must restate my point:
atheist uses term from Bible, trying to kill the Bible. So, he is sure, that the term is correct?

Nope... I'm simply using your own convoluted logic to show just how convoluted your logic is. Demonstrate that you comprehend how logic works by acknowledging that it's just as moronic for you to claim that atheist have to provide proof that your god doesn't exists simply because theists first proposed that there was a god as it is for me to claim that you must prove my dragon doesn't exist, simply because I was the first to propose that there is a dragon

 

[gnostic]

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?

Although Einstein contributed some things to quantum mechanisms, he was also increasingly frustrated with Quantum Mechanics.

Instead of trying to understand Quantum Mechanics on its own merit, he seek to combine General Relativity with it, and got no where, so he blamed QM being wrong.

But there is nothing with it.

So there are limits to what Einstein understand, and what he doesn’t. Clearly, Einstein don’t know EVERYTHING.

 

[metis]

Although Einstein contributed some things to quantum mechanisms, he was also increasingly frustrated with Quantum Mechanics.

Instead of trying to understand Quantum Mechanics on its own merit, he seek to combine General Relativity with it, and got no where, so he blamed QM being wrong.

But there is nothing with it.

So there are limits to what Einstein understand, and what he doesn’t. Clearly, Einstein don’t know EVERYTHING.

Thus one of Einstein's rather famous quotes: "God doesn't play at dice".