Reasons for believing in the Bible as the literal word of God.

[dybmh]

That is what I pointed out in this thread.

Evidence for God

As I have always said, there is no proof of God, only evidence. Evidence is not proof unless it is verifiable evidence. There is no verifiable evidence for God, but there is evidence. My basis for saying I have evidence is my belief in who God is, and that determines what kind of evidence we...

www.religiousforums.com

Thank you, I'll check it out.

 

[dybmh]

Incorrect. She was not talking about your myth. She was talking about your false claims about atheists. And why do you attack your own beliefs? This makes no sense. When you make false claims about atheists having religion you do so only to put them down, as if religion is a bad thing. Since you have religious beliefs you are indirectly attacking yourself by using that falsehood. It is such a pity that you do not reason logically.

I know what she was talking about. And I responded. I have evidence and proof of the atheist god which is "void". each and everyone of @Audie's posts demonstrate that atheists have a god which can be perceived and objectively observed as a great big void possessing them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

and we have ays of defining gods/angels/demons

That is news to me. I have never seen a consistent definition. You may have your personal definition, but that does not help you. You are not a reliable soruce.

malignant thought forms. the worst are what one would describe as "treatment resistent"

More handwaving. Can you present a proper argument? You need to be ore precise. I can show you how a tire is supposed to have a specific range of pressures for optimum safety and also that a tire with zero ambient pressure is "flat". Can you do anything like that at all for demons or angels? And once again, just your definition is not good enough. It has to be agreed to by others. The definition that I would give for what a "flat tire" is would be accepted by others. It would not be "my definition".

Hee. Christianity is a religion of the heart. "Superior knowledge" kills that heart. Sadly Christianity it seems inflates the heart like a balloon. The person puffs up like a pastry. When they attempt to engage wth Christianity intellectually, their heart is broken. Just like a scorned lover, the ex-Christian goes into vendetta mode, and they are hollow on the inside. Not just normal hollow. They've been puffed-up. Now it takes much much more to inflate them back up to feel normal and good again. That's why the backlash is so extreme.

No, Christianity is just as rational as Judaism. Which is "not very". But you will not be able to show any significant differences between the two. Your attacks against Christianity could be just as well be applied by aa Christian to your beliefs. And of course all of this is besides the point. You missed that didn't you?

The faux-atheist is practicing Christianity in reverse, inverted and warped, which is why the satanic community loves ya'all, and buddies up with you, and supports you., and manipulates you. Invites you to their orgies, etc.. online orgies probably... otherwise known as the EROS room. You've been here a while. Who was the biggest promoter of the EROS room and orgies? Hmmmmm? Not here any more. having personal issues.

Nope, there is no such thing as a "faux-Atheist" than there is a "fake-Jew". If you think that a person would lose by them accusing you of being a fake-Jew that they lose automatically you should realize that by the same argument you lose automatically when you use the term "faux-atheist". You appear to use that name calling when you have no answer to an argument. Ironically your argument against the term "fake-Jew" tells us that you are admitting that you are wrong every time that you use the term "faux-atheist".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know what she was talking about. And I responded. I have evidence and proof of the atheist god which is "void". each and everyone of @Audie's posts demonstrate that atheists have a god which can be perceived and objectively observed as a great big void possessing them.

No, the post that she made stood on its own. Now you may be remembering your past failures, but she was not necessarily referring to them . And I need to remind you, you do not seem to understand the meaning of the term "evidence" and "proof" is totally beyond your reach.

 

[Kenny]

What are your best reasons for believing in the Bible as the literal word of God, if that's your thing? Heck, just give me reasons they don't even have to be good.

But I'm coming to the conclusion/opinion that there isn't really a "good" reason to believe in the Bible as the literal word of God.

I feel like I've just about fully shaken off my Christian convictions and beliefs. I've been an apostate for over a year now I'm pretty sure. The first few months I still had my doubts about my decision to reject Christianity. Just, it was ingrained into my head from birth pretty much that Jesus is literally God. All my family told me that and brought me to church where I was told that too.

Growing up, I dived into Christian apologetics in an attempt to reinforce my faith. I let apologetics convince me as a teenager of the soundness and literalness of the Bible. But apologetics is weak. It doesn't provide a solid reason for saying that the Bible is literally from God.

I realize now that it was two things that developed and fed my Christian convictions and beliefs.
1. Authority figures who I trusted told me the Bible was from God. This is not a good reason.
2. It was a comfort to believe that I have in my hand the literal word of the god of the literal universe. And it tells me how to live my life and that everything will be okay in the end. Very comforting, but not a valid reason to believe imo.

Those are the two reasons I identified why I used to believe so much and dearly. I now understand that I had no good reason to believe in the Bible, and I feel like I haven't a modicum of Christian faith or conviction in me anymore. Which is what I was going for, I'm no longer thinking there's a slight chance ima burn in hell for my apostasy.

So, do I have it right? There is no good reason to believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

You definitely have the right to reject or accept

Your points:

1) - Absolutely correct... just cause someone say it is true doesn't mean it is true.
2) - As valid as anyone else who says that you should live your life according to standard "x,y, or z"

So, let's start from a new beginning.

1) No nation has ever redeveloped into the same nation again after the passing of 2000 years (rounded)
2) No nation has ever retained their original language after being conquered and disbursed throughout the world
3) What are the odds that a 2,600 year old prophecy of Israel becoming a nation again
4) Additional prophecies where, at the least, we can say it is supernatural

We could start there.

 

[dybmh]

I've read the whole message. It contained zero evidence.

denying the definition is evidence of the demon that is possessing you. you rose above denying climate science, but the underlying root cause has not been addressed.

I know what a flat tire is. I can even show you one.
When I ask for evidence of demons or angels, I don't get a definition. And I don't get any evidence.

You did. It went into the void which you are serving. It's an offering, a religious offering you are making to a god that swallows up anything which undermines your chosen self-identity.

the defintion was given, you said, i think, "Sorry, what?" It's a malignant thought-form. The demon that is possessing you is "treatment resistent"

Just people claiming I wouldn't believe evidence if I saw it, while providing zero evidence. Fantastic.

It's true. You're doing it right now.

I don't care what other atheists do or say. I'm not them. Lumping all atheists together seems folly to me, but you do you.

I'm just being honest with you. You're doing it right now.

More assertions and derogatory put-downs. No definition provided. No evidence presented.

You got the definition. It went into the "void" of denial. Which is a demon.

How on earth does it look like you're right?

Because of how you are reacting.

More put-downs of atheists. No definitions or evidence of demons. Ho hum. You don't like atheists, we get it.

I like you fine. I think you're deluding yourselves. I don't like certain behaviors. If I didn't like you, I would sit back and watch you delude yourself and laugh instead of talking to you about this. If you listen to what I'm saying, it will actually help you, assuming, that your intentions are not purely selfish.

I always find it amusing when other people try to tell me what I believe.

I didn't say what you believe. That's the point. Non-belief has become the ideal, non-belief is the god which you serve, and you don't believe it, but it's happening anyway. That's what self-delusion means, and that's why I typed those words.

No I didn't.

You're doing it again.

No I didn't.

You're doing it again.

LOL Thanks for wasting my time.

It's only a waste if you continue to drop all evidence into a void.

 

[dybmh]

No, the post that she made stood on its own. Now you may be remembering your past failures, but she was not necessarily referring to them . And I need to remind you, you do not seem to understand the meaning of the term "evidence" and "proof" is totally beyond your reach.

nope, you;re siply wrong. this is more faux-atheism. changing the subject, and/or being dishonest about what was posted previously. please be ready for repeated replies which include one word: "ignored"

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is what I pointed out in this thread.
When I say I have evidence Atheists always say “that’s not evidence!”
Atheists say I have no evidence but how would they know that what I have is ‘not evidence’ if they don’t even know what evidence for God would look like if it existed?

Evidence for God

As I have always said, there is no proof of God, only evidence. Evidence is not proof unless it is verifiable evidence. There is no verifiable evidence for God, but there is evidence. My basis for saying I have evidence is my belief in who God is, and that determines what kind of evidence we...

www.religiousforums.com

In your OP you posted this:

". Evidence is not proof unless it is verifiable evidence. There is no verifiable evidence for God, but there is evidence."

This shows that you do not understand the concept of evidence. Verifiable evidence is not "proof". Technically there is no such thing as "proof" outside of mathematics. And there are many examples of verifiable evidence that are not proof. If there is more than one explanation for an observation it can still be evidence for an occurrence, but it is not "proof". And you are right. There is no verifiable evidence for a god. Unverifiable "evidence" is so weak that it can almost always be refuted by a "So what?" Most atheists do not count that as evidence. It is worthless in an argument so they are quite justified in saying "That is not evidence".

 

[Subduction Zone]

nope, you;re siply wrong. this is more faux-atheism. changing the subject, and/or being dishonest about what was posted previously. please be ready for repeated replies which include one word: "ignored"

Incorrect. You are trying to change the subject to more than was in that post.

But thank you for admitting by your own standards that you are wrong.

 

[dybmh]

That is news to me. I have never seen a consistent definition. You may have your personal definition, but that does not help you. You are not a reliable soruce.

you ignore them, I gave it you.

More handwaving. Can you present a proper argument? You need to be ore precise. I can show you how a tire is supposed to have a specific range of pressures for optimum safety and also that a tire with zero ambient pressure is "flat". Can you do anything like that at all for demons or angels? And once again, just your definition is not good enough. It has to be agreed to by others. The definition that I would give for what a "flat tire" is would be accepted by others. It would not be "my definition".

malignant-thought-forms ^^^

No, Christianity is just as rational as Judaism. Which is "not very". But you will not be able to show any significant differences between the two. Your attacks against Christianity could be just as well be applied by aa Christian to your beliefs. And of course all of this is besides the point. You missed that didn't you?

You don't understand Chritianity which explains the faux-atheism that you preach

Nope, there is no such thing as a "faux-Atheist" than there is a "fake-Jew". If you think that a person would lose by them accusing you of being a fake-Jew that they lose automatically you should realize that by the same argument you lose automatically when you use the term "faux-atheist". You appear to use that name calling when you have no answer to an argument. Ironically your argument against the term "fake-Jew" tells us that you are admitting that you are wrong every time that you use the term "faux-atheist".

sure there is. a faux-atheist is a person who puts on a costume and pretends to not worship a god, and self-deludes themself and shields themself from any possible evidence of gods because it undermines their religious beliefs.

then, this same god which they ignorantly serve compels them to preach like any other Christian, and conjure up demons just so they can cast them out and put on a magic show for themselves and others. their fans, other faux-atheists cheer them on.

it's very similar to the paranormal investigator crowd which self promotes and preaches and supports it self, but shields it self from any sort of criticism because the individual desperately wants to feel superior as a "medium".

it's all the same religion. it's the same with science-deniers. it's the same with one-sided politically obsessed wanna-be talking heads, who want to immitate what they see on fox or cnn or drudge ( if that's still around ) or raw story ( if thats still around ).

ya'all are possessed by the same big black gaping hole.

 

[dybmh]

Incorrect. You are trying to change the subject to more than was in that post.

But thank you for admitting by your own standards that you are wrong.

ignored.

 

[SkepticThinker]

and we have ways of defining gods/angels/demons



malignant thought forms. the worst are what one would describe as "treatment resistent"



Hee. Christianity is a religion of the heart. "Superior knowledge" kills that heart. Sadly Christianity it seems inflates the heart like a balloon. The person puffs up like a pastry. When they attempt to engage wth Christianity intellectually, their heart is broken. Just like a scorned lover, the ex-Christian goes into vendetta mode, and they are hollow on the inside. Not just normal hollow. They've been puffed-up. Now it takes much much more to inflate them back up to feel normal and good again. That's why the backlash is so extreme.

The faux-atheist is practicing Christianity in reverse, inverted and warped, which is why the satanic community loves ya'all, and buddies up with you, and supports you., and manipulates you. Invites you to their orgies, etc.. online orgies probably... otherwise known as the EROS room. You've been here a while. Who was the biggest promoter of the EROS room and orgies? Hmmmmm? Not here any more. having personal issues.

What in the Sam Hill is this nonsense?
You really think this is rooted in reality and deserving of a response? Orgies? LOL

Because it's true. This is another funny paradox. You act like you are opposed to lying, but, you seem to want me to lie to you.

Typical faux-atheism ignorance. You cannot see your own hypocrisy.

Ignoring me is muting yourself. Why should I care? I already have evidence of your dishonesty. What value are your false words to me?

Boy are you ever full of yourself. Have another drink. See ya!

 

[dybmh]

Verifiable evidence is not "proof".

dude, that's what she said. if you actually read what she wrote, you flushed it into the void. aka, you are practicing faux-atheism... constantly.

 

[dybmh]

What in the Sam Hill is this nonsense?
You really think this is rooted in reality and deserving of a response? Orgies? LOL

The EROS room. I'm not a member over there. But from what I've heard, that's basically what it is, virtually. And the one who promoted it the most, in my view, was kinda, not the most self-less individual, let's say. like I said they've departed from the forum due to personal issues, i've been told. But those sorts of people would love-love for ex-christians to abandon their "inhibitions".

and based on some of the comments that @Subduction Zone has made, I think he is sexually motivated. the satanists will want to encourage that behavior. atheists also promote this sort of thing. sexual freedom. I've seen it here. satanists do it because it is inverse of what is considered proper. atheists do it for different reasons.

what's funny is, if orgies and polygamy/polyamory were considered normal, those same satanists would be advocating the opposite.

Boy are you ever full of yourself. Have another drink. See ya!

I'm just being honest. Do you want me to lie to you? If so, the answer is no. I would only lie in very specific circumstances and this is not one of them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ignored.

Oh, another way that you admit that you are wrong.

Thank you. When you know that you are wrong and cannot think of a response you will make this false claim as well.

Once again, thank you for admitting that you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

dude, that's what she said. if you actually read what she wrote, you flushed it into the void. aka, you are practicing faux-atheism... constantly.

LMAO! No she didn't. She said the opposite. Did you not see the quote marks? Did you not see her link? It should have been obvious that I was quoting from her where she said:

" Evidence is not proof unless it is verifiable evidence."

I am wondering about your reading comprehension abilities. How did you screw up that so badly?

 

[dybmh]

Oh, another way that you admit that you are wrong.

Thank you. When you know that you are wrong and cannot think of a response you will make this false claim as well.

Once again, thank you for admitting that you are wrong.

ignored. you are not brining anything new. you didn't refute anything. just dishonesty.

 

[dybmh]

LMAO! No she didn't. She said the opposite. Did you not see the quote marks? Did you not see her link? It should have been obvious that I was quoting from her where she said:

" Evidence is not proof unless it is verifiable evidence."

I am wondering about your reading comprehension abilities. How did you screw up that so badly?

lol. what @Trailblazer said is true. she didn't say what "proof" is. She isn't defining "proof". You are, but she isn't.

She is giving an example of what proof isn't.

Again, this is your delusion and your problem. You cannot understand what "negation" is. You are oblivious to the "void". Being "oblivious" means you are possessed with something which produces the oblivion. This has strange and somewhat unpredictable consequences. One of them is happening right now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ignored. you are not brining anything new. you didn't refute anything. just dishonesty.

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong again. And I am not trying to refute anything, but thank you for admitting to your own dishonesty.

 

[Trailblazer]

Unverifiable "evidence" is so weak that it can almost always be refuted by a "So what?" Most atheists do not count that as evidence. It is worthless in an argument so they are quite justified in saying "That is not evidence".

You are not refuting anything by a "So what?"

You can SAY whatever you want to say, but that does not mean it is not evidence.
Evidence for God is what God provides as evidence.
God provides Messengers as evidence.
Therefore Messengers are the evidence for God.

You can deny that till the cows come home, but that will not change reality.