Can An Atheist Believe in God?

[ImmortalFlame]

No I do not know that, well I do know that, but I dismiss it for the prejudiced garbage it is. The Bible does not have magical powers, it cannot convert anybody, unless the person wants to be converted. A hard lined atheist could read the bible a million times and still not be converted, their own belief patterns would be continually telling them what they were reading was garbage, and they would twist and distort everything in it to give them a negative value of it. In fact to the hard lined atheist, reading the bible a million times would further harden their atheist position.

Just because people can read something without it changing their mind does not mean that it's purpose is not to spread it's message. Why do you think it is that many heavily Christian households commit to reading the Bible regularly and using it as a response to any and all moral arguments raised? Is it because they think the Bible is "just a nice little book of stories" or because they think that by reading and memorizing the book they reaffirm their faith. Why do you think Christians stop people, such as myself a couple of days ago, in the street in order to read passages from the Bible? Is it because they just want to share a little story with me, or is it because they believe that by doing so they have a chance to win over another person into their belief system? Whether or not I am actually converted does not change the fact that that's why they do it and that is what the Bible is for.

And no, I am not simply "putting a negative spin" on the Bible - practically every Christian I have ever spoken to has given me the same opinion of the Bible, that the bulk of it's purpose and message is to reaffirm the beliefs of believers, allow a passageway through which the children of believers can be raised into believers and to convert non-believers.

I have met Christians who view the Bible as little more than a book of traditional stories linked to their beliefs, but even they admit that this was not it's intended purpose, and that it's purpose most definitely was not an accurate portrayal of history.

Hence, the Bible is not a historical document and cannot be used as an accurate representation of either the past or the validity of it's own claims or the claims of it's adherents - that's the whole point.

I read and take on board everthing a poster writes. Just because I don't change my belief, doesn't mean I haven't taken their conversation on board. I will not change my knowledge for lesser knowledge, that would be a ridiculous position to take.

The fact that you think somebody else's knowledge is "lesser knowledge" is a clear indication that it is intellectual arrogance that keeps you from changing your mind - not because you are right and they are wrong.

What's more, I have seen you dismiss many, many claims without any actual reason or logic. Instead, you simply "LOL" at the statements of others, refuse to acknowledge their arguments and continue on as if no objection was raised. Case in point: Your misrepresentation of the word "historical".

If you are going to take that stance, why don't you take on board everything I write? I already know the answer to this, you believe your knowledge is greater than mine. I understand that.

Because the things that you write rarely make any sense or have any basis in fact, mostly because you are incapable of defending them without behaving childishly, making personal remarks or scoffing at anybody who takes a different view, and the fact that your "be all end all" response to just about any objection is "well, that's your belief pattern" - a position which shows your intellectual dishonesty and your unwillingness to actually engages with another person's opinion and accept it in terms of it's arguments; instead, you just dismiss any and all objections to your own as "belief patterns".

I have never, and will never, do that to your arguments. When you make a point that I disagree with, I refute it with logic and reason. I never dismiss what you say without first providing my reasons and logic as to why what you say is inaccurate or, often, dishonest.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As for pertaining to us debating the historical accuracy of the bible, we have never been debating this perspective, well you may have been, I haven't. My perspective on this was put up in my first post, accruacy or inaccuracy, has absolutely nothing to do with something being historic, age does this and how it affects history, not accuracy. It is the whole meaning of the word historic.

I really hate having to track past so much in order to show up how dishonest and inconsistent you are, but here goes:


his·tor·ic (h-stôrk, -str-)
adj.
1. Having importance in or influence on history.
2. Historical.
Usage Note: Historic and historical have different usages, though their senses overlap. Historic refers to what is important in history: the historic first voyage to the moon. It is also used of what is famous or interesting because of its association with persons or events in history: a historic house. Historical refers to whatever existed in the past, whether regarded as important or not: a minor historical character. Historical also refers to anything concerned with history or the study of the past: a historical novel; historical discoveries. While these distinctions are useful, these words are often used interchangeably, as in historic times or historical times.

SOURCE: historic - definition of historic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


his·tor·i·cal (h-stôr-kl, -str-)
adj.
1. a. Of or relating to the character of history.
b. Based on or concerned with events in history.
c. Used in the past: historical costumes; historical weapons.
2. Important or famous in history. See Usage Note at historic.
3. Diachronic.


Your original point, post 81, in which you assert that the Bible is evidence of God that atheists "ignore" out of "blind faith":

"Is your non-belief in deities, pure and simply "Blind Faith," or in other words, have you just picked an answer at random and run with it, without any logic and reason attached to it?....... if not,

Tell me all the things which draw you to your non-belief in gods conclusion?..

Then from your ability to critically reason, tell me everything which you give credit of a deity to?

An example, lack of evidence is a cop out, blind faith position, born from a mind unable to critically reason. Down the line of Christianity, the Bible is evidence. In order to deny this evidence, you must have counter evidence which you believe contradicts it and which you put a higher faith value in."


logician's response in post 84:

"Except the bible is fiction and hearsay, not a historical document."


Your response, post 89, in which you say that the Bible is a "historical" document, not a "historic" document:

"That by any rational and logical viewpoint, the bible is indeed a grouping of historical documents, at least, reproduced versions thereof. Now it may be argued, one way or the other, whether it (as a whole) is historically correct, or whether it is a perceptual view, based on the specific view, of one specific culture. Speculation on this is rife, and in many directions, and I believe it will be, for many years to come, as it has been for many years in the past and as it is now in the present."


I.S.L.A.M617, post 90, in which he explains the definition of the word "historical" in the context of logician's use of it:

Being old doesn't make it a historical document, it has to contain accurate history in order to be called historical. The Bible is a theological text, not a learning tool for people who wish to gather facts.


Response, post 91, in which you again assert that the Bible is a "historical" document, even in light of being given the definition:

Hmmm, so being an old document doesn't make it a historical document?

Wow, thank you for that great insight. So therefore the pyramids stop being historical monuments, due to the same reasoning? After all, the pyramids were theoligical monuments.

Thank you for sharing your logic and reason, but at this stage, I can find better logic and reason to align with.


Me, post 92:

The Bible is not a historical document because it's aim and function is and was not to record history. In that sense, it is not historical documentation. You know that this is what they meant, now stop playing dumb and respond to his arguments.


Post 96, in which you again use the wrong definition of "historical" to the one that has already been defined by other posters twice:

"The bible is, and always be a historical document. It's accurancy may be questioned, but its historical value will never be. Even though Shakespear's tales, may not have pertained to real people (this is a debatable point in itself, there is strong argument which suggests shakespeare did in fact write them about real people, albeit pseudonyms were used to either protect the people he was writing about, or to protect himself), the validity of his historical work will never be questioned."


Myself, post 101, where I clearly outline, once again, the definition of "historical" that we are using and how it pertains to the Bible:

When they said that the Bible is is not historical document they did not mean that the Bible is not a document from the past or a document which, itself, has a history. What was meant, quite clearly, is that the Bible's purpose is not historical accuracy and it therefore not reliable as a historical or factual source. What's more, the Bible has already been demonstrated to be historically inconsistent.


So, there you are. Your original point was that the Bible was only ignored by atheists because of "blind faith". logician explained that this was not true, because the Bible is not a historical document and cannot be relied upon to reflect an accurate view of history. You went on to use the word "historical" several times, in spite of three definitions being provided to you. You never once used the word "historic".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Immortal, please for once in your life just sit, read, listen and learn. Don't just instantly scoff at any suggestion that there may be such a thing as a reliable way of dertermining something. Just,for once,take on board the words of another human being.

Seriously, you need to grow out of this.

You see Immortal, two can play that silly superior game. And from my perspective it is true and correct, just as from your perspective to me, it is true and correct.

Except my perspective is clearly more honest and rational than yours is.

If I had your belief patterns Immortal, I wouldn't be me, I would be you. Your knowledge means something to you, it doesn't mean that much to me, because I have already held your knowledge, I got rid of it, you haven't, that is because you are you, and you are not me.

You have no idea what my "knowledge" is and whether or not you "held" it.

I dertermine things through logic and reason, what evidence tells me is. I do not want to twist and distort evidence which tells me something isn't historic unless it is accurate. The specific definition of historic is; "something significant in history, important in or affecting the course of history." The Bible has certainly proven all of these points, irrespective of what your belief patterns tell you.

As explained above you never once used the word "historic" and neither did we. We used the word "historical" and explained the exact definition of that word and how the Bible pertained to it three times, yet you continued to use the word "historical" despite meaning to the use the word "historic" and continuing to assert that because it was "historic" it was "historical" by our definition.

We were clear and open about exactly what definition we were using - it was you who ignored that definition.

The bible itself, isn't completely inaccurate. Albeit an atheist can make it all inaccurate in the blink of an eye due to the own beliefs, their bias and their prejudice. People who work on logic, reason and evidence, go through and sort out the difference. Many things are written in the bible which we cannot really evaluate, a persons own personal beliefs will give them the answer they need for these things. The atheist no different to the theist in this respect.

And what makes you so convinced that an atheist cannot use logic, reason and evidence?

A little tip for you immortal, it doesn't matter how many atheists or atheist supporters you have in the debate, supporting your view, doesn't make your belief right, especially not when evidence goes against you.

You never presented any evidence.

Birds of a feather will flock together, atheists believe things a certain way, simply because they are atheists. Other atheist type thinkers supporting your view, only supports your own belief patterns, and leaves you with the illusion that you are right. It is a primary reason why a persons own intelligence will stop them from learning, other people support their misbelief. We note this in both children and adults, children most often, a parent will check their child for doing something wrong, the child will talk to another child and they will both agree the parent was wrong, all in all the child doesn't learn, albeit sometimes they learn the lesson to be more sneaky and not get caught.

More intellectual arrogance from the poster boy for self-affirming pseudo-rational nonsense. The guy who claims that a lack of belief is a belief, the guy who claims that historical means the same thing as historic then asserts that he was always using the word "historic" and that others were twisting his words, the guy who asserts that anybody who disagrees with him does so only because of personal bias and beliefs.

You're the one deluding yourself, not me, and certainly not the atheist community on this forum.

 

[sniper762]

what your asking is a double negative
if an atheist believed in god, then he would NOT be an atheist

 

[Kilgore Trout]

what your asking is a double negative
if an atheist believed in god, then he would NOT be an atheist

It's amazing what people will argue, no?

I think next I'm going to ask if cats are animals.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

You're confusing the words historic (famous thing from history)and historical (meant to teach history). The Bible is a historic document definitely, everybody has heard about it and it's really old, just like the pyramids. The Bible does little in the actual teaching of history though, it is more of a moral guide. Most of the "history" the Bible teaches is fictional. Examples being the entire book of Genesis (it is ridiculous to expect a mentally stable adult to accept it as truth), the story of Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt, and the life of Jesus.

Post #112. Just for the record lol, I did try to tell him.

 

[Peacewise]

I think it was this thread, yet I can't quite find where.

Anyways, somewhere along the line someone made mention of another definition of atheism that I was unaware of, that being a belief in no God, whilst the definition I was aware of is disbelief in any God(s).

so thanks for that whoever it was, I concede the highly interesting point, and found in the terms 'disbelief' or 'belief' a fascinating study of atheism.

cheers!:grill: