If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Monad Portal]

Theology doesn't fall under science! Science can't comprehend true Theology, because Theology isn't subject to the laws of physics.
It's another dimension! Based in the Spirit world,that predates the Physical universe

true theology is bullshit.

the ONLY true value of religion is the moral compass it engenders.

 

[ZenMode]

So what? Are you saying the only things that exist are things you (or anyone else) can see, touch, talk to, or interact with?

C'mon.

Of course not. I've never seen a virus, a skin cell or an atom, but there is sufficient evidence for me to believe those items all exist.

Without a doubt, the people who assert that a god exists...need to meet the burden of proof...and they cannot...mostly because they are merely blindly guessing.

And because there is so little evidence....hence religious people pushing "faith" so hard.

That has nothing to do with why you identify as an atheist.

It absolutely does.

If you are asserting "there are no gods"...or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...then IT IS A BLIND GUESS. (It may be correct...and it may not be correct. I wonder which it is.)

If by "blind guess" you mean "insufficient evidence", yes

If you are claiming you are not asserting "there are no gods"...and "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...why are you designating yourself "atheist?" Why are you choosing that designation?

You wouldn't.

As for lack of evidence...there might be a universe full of evidence. But we do not know if any gods exist. BUT IF ONE DOES...then EVERYTHING is evidence.

Why can you not get that through you head?

Again, religion pushes faith for a reason. That reason is because they are asked to believe....commit their lives in... something that there's so little evidence for.

 

[ZenMode]

Your whole line of argumentation doesn't add up.

You want to dismiss actual witness and primary source testimony in the NT about the resurrection as just being fabrications or hallucinations.

Correct because the claims surrounding God and Jesus life weren't unique in the world at that time. A virgin birth wasn't unique. Being descended from God wasn't unique. Claims of Magical powers wasn't unjque. Claims of supernatural beings in the sky wasn't unique.

But then you want present ancient Hebrew stories in the OT written 500 to 1,000 years after the events they purport to describe as authoritative and reliable.

There are two parts to the discussions I'm having. One if the claim that God/Jesus are THE source for morality in the world. A claim that objectively untrue based on the immoral acts of the Christian god.

The other part of the discussion is that the description of the Christian god absolutely does not align with how Christians describe him which is, in itself, evidence against the existence of God.

Why two different standards of literary interpretation?
Undoubtedly, your standards changed because you could use a story in the OT as a straw man.

The OT story is evidence of the very human, not divine , origins of the OT and NT.

A true all-knowing, all-moral, living and gracious God would not be a murderous psychopath one minute and change his mind the next.

 

[ZenMode]

Lie.

Nope. You are the liar.

 

[ZenMode]

So you have some weird hatred of potatoes and you don't want to explain it. Gotit.

You are content to play dumb to pretend correlation and causation aren't the same thing.

 

[ZenMode]

You can't make any evidence just disappear, Void. Attempted negative proof fallacy.

Already addressed. Quit mindlessly repeating nonsense.

 

[ZenMode]

There is no such thing as 'moral relativism'. Buzzword fallacy.

Religions contain morals. Even your religions contain morals.

So you deny all morals?

Lie. Yes you are.

Neither God nor His gospel has changed.

Attempted proof by synthesis.

Attempted proof by synthesis. That's a fallacy, dude.

Incoherent babbling.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Of course not. I've never seen a virus, a skin cell or an atom, but there is sufficient evidence for me to believe those items all exist.

Really. Are you saying there is enough evidence that gods do not exist...so that an assertion "there are no gods" or "it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one"...is more than just a blind guess?

Because as far as I am concerned, either of those statements are blind guesses.

But...like a religionist cannot acknowledge that a blind guess that there is at least one god is nothing but a blind guess...you atheists will not acknowledge it.

Okay. But I will never tire of reminding you that it is.

And because there is so little evidence....hence religious people pushing "faith" so hard.

Have no idea of what that is supposed to mean.

It absolutely does.

No it doesn't.

Your blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence is why you identify as an atheist.

THAT...and the silly idea that saying you are an atheists seems to make atheists think they are brave.

If by "blind guess" you mean "insufficient evidence", yes

When I use the phrase "blind guess" I mean...

...wait for it...

...A BLIND GUESS.

You are blindly guessing that there are no gods...or blindly guessing that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

And THAT is the reason you describe yourself as an atheist.

Again, religion pushes faith for a reason. That reason is because they are asked to believe....commit their lives in... something that there's so little evidence for.

And atheists push their faith because they want to belittle people for doing the same thing they are doing...except in the opposite direction.

I wonder if your blind guess about the REALITY of existence is closer to the truth than the blind guess Margot makes???

 

[ZenMode]

Really. Are you saying there is enough evidence that gods do not exist...so that an assertion "there are no gods" or "it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one"...is more than just a blind guess?

Because as far as I am concerned, either of those statements are blind guesses.

But...like a religionist cannot acknowledge that a blind guess that there is at least one god is nothing but a blind guess...you atheists will not acknowledge it.

Okay. But I will never tire of reminding you that it is.


Have no idea of what that is supposed to mean.


No it doesn't.

Your blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence is why you identify as an atheist.

THAT...and the silly idea that saying you are an atheists seems to make atheists think they are brave.



When I use the phrase "blind guess" I mean...

...wait for it...

...A BLIND GUESS.

You are blindly guessing that there are no gods...or blindly guessing that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

And THAT is the reason you describe yourself as an atheist.

And atheists push their faith because they want to belittle people for doing the same thing they are doing...except in the opposite direction.

I wonder if your blind guess about the REALITY of existence is closer to the truth than the blind guess Margot makes???

The reason we will never agree is you have this belief:
"Are you saying there is enough evidence that gods do not exist..."

That's not how evidence and proof works. I don't believe, and neither do you, extraordinary claims until there is sufficient evidence it's NOT true or DOESN'T exist.

 

[Ross Dolan]

The reason we will never agree is you have this belief:
"Are you saying there is enough evidence that gods do not exist..."

That's not how evidence and proof works. I don't believe, and neither do you, extraordinary claims until there is sufficient evidence it's NOT true or DOESN'T exist.

I am NOT questioning that in any way. (Actually I disagree completely, but I want you to stop with the shuffle and evasion.)

You are being evasive.

I am saying you either a) BELIEVE that there are no gods...or...

...b) BELIEVE that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Am I correct?

Forget about what the theists/religionists can prove or how absurd or reasonable their "beliefs" are...just answer the question. And we can proceed from there.

 

[Monad Portal]

Correct because the claims surrounding God and Jesus life weren't unique in the world at that time. A virgin birth wasn't unique. Being descended from God wasn't unique. Claims of Magical powers wasn't unjque. Claims of supernatural beings in the sky wasn't unique.

There are two parts to the discussions I'm having. One if the claim that God/Jesus are THE source for morality in the world. A claim that objectively untrue based on the immoral acts of the Christian god.

The other part of the discussion is that the description of the Christian god absolutely does not align with how Christians describe him which is, in itself, evidence against the existence of God.

The OT story is evidence of the very human, not divine , origins of the OT and NT.

A true all-knowing, all-moral, living and gracious God would not be a murderous psychopath one minute and change his mind the next.

the uniqueness of Christianity is the transcendnce of tribalism via the golden rule.

 

[ZenMode]

I am NOT questioning that in any way. (Actually I disagree completely, but I want you to stop with the shuffle and evasion.)

You are being evasive.

I am saying you either a) BELIEVE that there are no gods...or...

...b) BELIEVE that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Am I correct?

Forget about what the theists/religionists can prove or how absurd or reasonable their "beliefs" are...just answer the question. And we can proceed from there.

Yes, most everything I believe to be true is something that I have no first had experience with. Gods are no different so, like anything else, I look at available evidence for gods which, today, is little more than nothing.

 

[Monad Portal]

Yes, most everything I believe to be true is something that I have no first had experience with. Gods are no different so, like anything else, I look at available evidence for gods which, today, is little more than nothing.

and do authority figures lie?

 

[Cypress]

you have presented no argument against cooperation being universally good and the reason for morality, to facilitate cooperation.

Cooperating to build bridges, cooperating to fund fire departments, cooperating to fund a social security retirement insurance program are not examples of morality. Those are examples of self interest.

Morality is knowing what you ought to do, but very frequently not doing it. And it involves some measure of selfless self sacrifice. For example, you have never once in your life lifted a finger to volunteer at a food pantry, you've never been involved in helping the homeless, you've never volunteered to mentor to an at-risk teen. You've probably never contributed a generous amount of $$$ to NGOs helping Gazans or Ukrainians.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Yes, most everything I believe to be true is something that I have no first had experience with. Gods are no different so, like anything else, I look at available evidence for gods which, today, is little more than nothing.

You attempt to be evasive at every opportunity.

So I will assume you have said that you believe there are no gods.

THAT, Zen, is the true reason you describe yourself as an atheist.

 

[FastLane]

Cooperating to build bridges, cooperating to fund fire departments, cooperating to fund a social security retirement insurance program are not examples of morality. Those are examples of self interest.

Morality is knowing what you ought to do, but very frequently not doing it. And it involves some measure of selfless self sacrifice. For example, you have never once in your life lifted a finger to volunteer at a food pantry, you've never been involved in helping the homeless, you've never volunteered to mentor to an at-risk teen. You've probably never contributed a generous amount of $$$ to NGOs helping Gazans or Ukrainians.

Isn't morality really in your self interest because it leads to a better to a better society. I give to a Church missionary work where we have 5 drilling rigs that go around Africa drilling wells to provide drinking water for villages. I contribute every month to St. Jude's , the Tarrant county food bank and to Tunnels to Towers.. And I provide anesthesia services to the Edna Gladney home.

 

[ZenMode]

and do authority figures lie?

Of course.

 

[Monad Portal]

Cooperating to build bridges, cooperating to fund fire departments, cooperating to fund a social security retirement insurance program are not examples of morality. Those are examples of self interest.

sure they are.

men cannot work together when they can not trust each other to not steal their shit and rape their women

Morality is knowing what you ought to do, but very frequently not doing it. And it involves some measure of selfless self sacrifice. For example, you have never once in your life lifted a finger to volunteer at a food pantry, you've never been involved in helping the homeless, you've never volunteered to mentor to an at-risk teen. You've probably never contributed a generous amount of $$$ to NGOs helping Gazans or Ukrainians.

no,

morality is the set of attitudes and behaviors that facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships.

you're talking about shame, but not defining morality.

you should feel ashamed when you are not moral,

you are why we cannot have nice things.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. You are the liar.

LIF. Grow up.

 

[Into the Night]

You are content to play dumb to pretend correlation and causation aren't the same thing.

YARP. Apparently you feel you must wander into random posts now. I guess that's your way of avoiding admission of your hatred of potatoes. I don't know what a potato ever did to you, but you apparently hate them. Weird.