Science is a false God

[InvestigateTruth]

Well I don't have any experience of coming to faith by reading God's word.

My suggestion is, read the Quran as if it is your first time, as if you are without any previous interpretation or understanding and just go with the interpretations based on authentic hadithes of those who claimed to be the Well-grounded in knowledge and then see where it takes you. If took you to where it claims, and you saw truth was established logically, then you know it was the right way.

 

[ratiocinator]

Believe it or not, you can start questioning your claims of an absolute, incontrovertible truth.

Do pay attention! I have made no claims of an absolute, incontrovertible truth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How can I read your purported refutation without direct access to it?

He is asking you to defend your claims. Clearly you cannot or you would have.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Accordingly, consider your fatuous claims dismissed.


Believe it or not, you can start questioning your claims of an absolute, incontrovertible truth. It's all up to you. I admit it's not an easy path but it's possible because many before you have succeeded.

Ah, the spam again.

 

[Maximilian]

I see. And your pointing to the Bible isn't an appeal to authority? Upon what evidence do you claim that Isaiah was written prior to the captivity?

It is not a false appeal to authority simply because my exhaustive rejoinder did more than just explicitly cite the biblical passages involved but it additionally directly referenced archaeological findings together with corroborating historical records; absolutely nothing within it was ambiguous nor unsupported.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And there goes another irony meter.

I think he has me on ignore. I would not expect less, since he cannot answer my questions or support his claims.

 

[Maximilian]

It's better than the wild guesswork of 'tradition'.

And they used C-14 dating? Is that what all those "scholars" you keep alluding to used to conclusively prove Isaiah and Jeremiah are not from prior to the Babylonian captivity but rather during or after it?

 

[ratiocinator]

And they used C-14 dating? Is that what all those "scholars" you keep alluding to used to conclusively prove Isaiah and Jeremiah are not from prior to the Babylonian captivity but rather during or after it?

You keep on asking other people to "conclusively prove" things (or even worse, disprove your claims) but you can never offer anything in the least bit convincing, let alone "conclusive" proof, to support your own claims. It ignores the burden of proof - which is firmly on you, if you claim your your god is real - and, frankly, it makes you look rather silly.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Accordingly, Atheism is untenable.

All Atheism is about a lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have been engaging in equivocation, a dishonest rhetorical tactic. The term “Atheist” conveys much more than that. After all, what do you call someone who believes God does not nor cannot exist?

There was no equivocation fallacy by him. Atheism is a big tent so to speak just as theism is. Theists go from total nutburgers that will believe almost anything and defend their beliefs with extremely poor logic employing all sorts of fallacies and even outright lying at times to people that are honest enough to admit not having reliable evidence yet they believe for personal reasons that convince them but they know should not convince anyone else.

In the same way atheism ranges from those that declare a god to be impossible to those that simply lack a belief for no reason at all. You appear to be trying to put atheists in far too small of a group.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Here it is, again, so you can ignore it, again . . .

Kind of like you have ignore me, when I ask for objective evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And do you have any concrete evidence Jehovah God does not nor cannot exist?

You need to carefully define what you mean by "Jehovah God". Odds are that your version of God can be proven not to exist. That does not disprove all versions of god.

 

[Audie]

All Atheism is about a lack of belief in a god or gods.

Kinda of backwards though.

There are normal people, and, there are those who
lack common sense, and perforce, develop godism.

The serious cases go on to develop creattionism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 27196

Try again.

That is not what he did.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Accordingly, consider your fatuous claims dismissed.


Believe it or not, you can start questioning your claims of an absolute, incontrovertible truth. It's all up to you. I admit it's not an easy path but it's possible because many before you have succeeded.

There goes that irony meter again.

 

[Audie]

Kind of like you have ignore me, when I ask for objective evidence.

Ig is a good idea, a show of common sense.
Try it!

 

[Subduction Zone]

And they used C-14 dating? Is that what all those "scholars" you keep alluding to used to conclusively prove Isaiah and Jeremiah are not from prior to the Babylonian captivity but rather during or after it?

Carbon dating is a reliable dating method when done correctly. Like any tool there are many ways to screw up.

When a person uses a screwdriver as a hammer that does not mean that screwdrivers do not work as tools.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Kinda of backwards though.

There are normal people, and, there are those who
lack common sense, and perforce, develop godism.

The serious cases go on to develop creattionism.

Maybe belief in zero gods

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

"That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Accordingly, consider your fatuous claims dismissed.


Believe it or not, you can start questioning your claims of an absolute, incontrovertible truth. It's all up to you. I admit it's not an easy path but it's possible because many before you have succeeded.

Yes, deal old Carl makes a fair point...as far as it goes. I call myself an atheist, but I never make the claim "there is no god." I call myself atheist because agnostic is just too weak for where I stand on the matter. While I don't claim dogmatically there is no god, I also very, very strongly doubt the existence of any such thing.

Where I say "as far as it goes" about Sagan's point, I mean by that only that when somebody actually tells me what they consider to be factual statements about their god -- what it wants, what it can do, what it knows, how it works, and so on -- then it generally becomes fairly trivial to show the contradictions in light of the real world in which we live, and which is said to have been created by and sustained by that god.

Oh, and I'm fully aware that when I run these sorts of arguments by any particular god believer, we pretty much always wind up with the ultimate killer argument: "God works in mysterious ways, so your (my) argument doesn't hold up!"

 

[Audie]

Maybe belief in zero gods

Make a list of all the things normal common
sense people do not or would not believe,
then put them in one word to categorize
or ID them-

Aflyingsaucerbigfootastrologybermudatriangleghostshomeopathynigerianoilministerscamsthirteenisunluckytrumpisterrificfourleafcloverdontgivescissorsforpresenrdontwalkunderladderists.

That is not even getting started.