Flat Earth

[JohnEmmett]

Only in so far as I like to know what other people believe …

You seem focused only on the Bible

 

[OnePath]

I am always willing to support my claims. You do not appear to understand what a reliable source is. Here is one clue, you cannot use a source to defend a source. In other words you cannot use the Bible to defend the Bible, especially since it does fail quite often.

Ok. Support this claim.

"Here is one clue, you cannot use a source to defend a source. In other words you cannot use the Bible to defend the Bible, especially since it does fail quite often."

You do realize the Bible isn't one source, but rather a collection of dozens of sources, correct?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Define evidence of higher realms

That is not how it works. You have just admitted that you do not understand the concept of evidence. The person making the claim is the one responsible for evidence. To have evidence you need a way to test your beliefs. In other words you need to think of a reasonable test that could falsify them. Unfalsifiable beliefs are not rational beliefs. They cannot be since they have no evidence to support them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok. Support this claim.

"Here is one clue, you cannot use a source to defend a source. In other words you cannot use the Bible to defend the Bible, especially since it does fail quite often."

You do realize the Bible isn't one source, but rather a collection of dozens of sources, correct?

If you understood the history of the Bible you know that it is one source. More than once it was put through a selection process where certain books were rejected. That has the effect of making it a single source.

 

[JohnEmmett]

That is not how it works.

You are still an atheist

Because you lack faith

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are still an atheist

Because you lack faith

That is correct. But you probably do not know what an atheist is.


Yes, I am an atheist because I can reason. Can you justify your beliefs?


Why make such a pointless claim?

 

[JohnEmmett]

Can you justify your beliefs?


Why make such a pointless claim?

Did Jesus talk about evidence or faith?

 

[Astrid]

I'm sorry, but you will need to provide support for your claims and conclusions. Otherwise, they have to be considered unreliable. Your rules, not mine.

The problem here is that at some point you have to consider some things you consider true to be foundational, and therefore usable for support for other things within your own personal paradigm. In order for these things to be considered to be true would dictate where that person has placed their own faith. That's one of the great ironies of atheism, within its ranks reside some of the most blindly religious people I've ever seen. They just bow to the god of illogical reasoning instead of another, and their scriptures state, 'and science said' rather than 'and God said'.

We encounter educated theists who get it that there are those
who are not religious, just as there are those who dont care about
football, or are tone deaf to music, and they have the integrity
or good will if you like, to accept that there are honest differences
in people.
Others though, simply lack the capacity to grasp the concept
that there actually are people who just dont believe in god any more than
they do in chupacabra, and need religion no more than the need
football.

That lack of basic understanding is too bad, we've enough
dividing people as it is.
Too bad or not though, it does not justify making up
insulting falsehoods about atheists, no more than
concocting racist complaints is ever justified.

 

[JohnEmmett]

and need religion no more than … football.

animals don't need religion, humans do


you can become an animal if you wish


I would not want to…

 

[JohnEmmett]

Buddhists make a distinction


humans are a specific realm


animals are a lower realm

 

[Astrid]

Ok. Support this claim.

"Here is one clue, you cannot use a source to defend a source. In other words you cannot use the Bible to defend the Bible, especially since it does fail quite often."

You do realize the Bible isn't one source, but rather a collection of dozens of sources, correct?

There is more than one God? The parts of the bible not involving
God are no more debated by atheists than they are by Christians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did Jesus talk about evidence or faith?

That is a red herring.

 

[OnePath]

If you understood the history of the Bible you know that it is one source. More than once it was put through a selection process where certain books were rejected. That has the effect of making it a single source.

And here is where you lose me for good when you tout your reasoning skills. I'm almost at a loss for words. That was really, really bad.

 

[JohnEmmett]

…

Asking for evidence when faith is necessary

 

[JohnEmmett]

There is more than one God?

There is more than one city

More than one politician

Et cetera

 

[OnePath]

We encounter educated theists who get it that there are those
who are not religious, just as there are those who dont care about
football, or are tone deaf to music, and they have the integrity
or good will if you like, to accept that there are honest differences
in people.
Others though, simply lack the capacity to grasp the concept
that there actually are people who just dont believe in god any more than
they do in chupacabra, and need religion no more than the need
football.

That lack of basic understanding is too bad, we've enough
dividing people as it is.
Too bad or not though, it does not justify making up
insulting falsehoods about atheists, no more than
concocting racist complaints is ever justified.

Oh, I know there are people who cliam not to believe in God, but I also know that their entire foundation of what they consider knowledge is faith. At some point they have to choose their foundational 'truth', and at that point, their entire foundation becomes faith-based.

Atheism is just bizarre in that the foundation of their faith comes from their own thoughts or the claims of others, meaning it's all shifting sand. They almost have to check with themselves and others daily to find out what new thing they are supposed to believe and what they can retain as prior 'truth'. At least a religion based on text has a stable foundation of sorts.

 

[OnePath]

There is more than one God? The parts of the bible not involving
God are no more debated by atheists than they are by Christians.

There actually aren't any parts that don't involve God. Scripture is filled to the brim with type and shadow He has provided us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Asking for evidence when faith is necessary

Faith is not a pathway to the truth. It does not appear to serve any purpose besides making believers feel better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And here is where you lose me for good when you tout your reasoning skills. I'm almost at a loss for words. That was really, really bad.

Where did I "tout my reasoning skills"? Exposing your errors is not claiming that I am superior reasoner. You made a mistake about the Bible. That is all. Understanding its history would lead one to the conclusion that it is one source.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Faith is not a pathway to the truth.

Lets you accept the truth…


Of Buddhism, for example