Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation

[3rdAngel]

I do not need evidence for a NULL CLAIM. Until (if ever) you show there IS/ARE gods? Gods remain in the realm of MYTH. I AM BEGINNING TO SEE YOU ARE MERELY A TROLL. And will be reported as such.

I see. You sound upset because someone does not believe the same as you do. You are free to believe as you wish. Your belief however is not mine. You have your faith and I have mine. I am not sure how me having a different belief than you do however makes you so upset. Yet on the other hand Bob, I am enjoying our discussion

 

[3rdAngel]

3rdAngel said: ↑ No entomology has never been my hobby.

Your response...

Then it logically follows that not believing isn't a belief.

Sorry, but how do you get that out of what you a quoting from and me saying entomology is not my hobby? If you believe that there is no God then that is a belief that there is no God the same as if someone believes that there is a God.

3rdAngel said: ↑ Evidence swings each way to prove a belief.

Your response...

Yes. Which is why evidence must be weighed against and considered in relation to all the evidence. Sure, you can't disprove god, but god has not been proven but, and however, science and knowledge have certainly changed what we believe about god, moving him further and further as our previous notions are demonstrated false (such as no heaven in the sky or hell in the earth).

I disagree. I believe evidence can be argued both ways with science, archeology and history. The question always remains how much evidence is required to change someones belief? This is the unanswerable question because everyone is different and some will never change their belief no matter how much evidence is provided and not everyone agrees as to what evidence is true or not true.

 

[3rdAngel]

I lack a belief in a god since there is no reliable evidence for a god. You probably recognize this fact which is why you have to use such poor reasoning.

Not really. You believe there is no God and yet you or no one else here can prove there is no God because you have no evidence for your belief. This is also poor reasoning.

Really? You do not have a clue. You cannot say what others believe. I could claim that since you claim to be a Christian I could use the same poor logic and claim that you believe in all magical creatures.

I am not saying what others believe. I have only provided a Dictionary definition of atheism which the Oxford Dictionary says atheism is a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods and if you have no evidence for this belief it is based on faith because you have no evidence for your belief.

Right, faith is what one uses when he has no evidence. It is not a pathway to the truth.

Agreed, however it also does not mean that someone's faith is not true only that there is no satisfactory evidence for someone to believe it.

But I have no faith. How can I show evidence for something that does not exist? Faith is your weakness not mine. And I would suggest that you stop making claims about what others believe. That is a big no no here.

In my opinion, if you believe that there is no God as an athiest and your making claims to others that there is no God then your belief is based on faith because you do not have any evidence for your belief. Some things in life cannot be explained by science as science does not have all the answers otherwise it would cease to exist. If you have no evidence to prove there is no God then your belief whether you like to admit it or not is based on faith. I believe also, that deep down inside because you have no evidence for your belief you are questioning what you believe or you would not be talking about God so much IMO. For someone that does not believe in God you sure like to talk about him a lot. If you truly believed that there is no God you would not need to discuss this subject in a religious forum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not really. You believe there is no God and yet you or no one else here can prove there is no God because you have no evidence for your belief. This is also poor reasoning.

A lack of belief in something is not the same as believing that does not exist. Let's go back to the gumball example. It is a huge machine. A person says that it has 5204 gumballs in it. I tell him that I do not believe his claim. He might be right, but that would be luck more than anything else. I am not saying that he is wrong, I am merely saying that I do not believe him. The burden of proof is always upon the person making the positive assertion. If the person making their claim cannot support it we are justified in saying "I do not believe our claim". No evidence needed. No faith needed.

I am not saying what others believe. I have only provided a Dictionary definition of atheism which the Oxford Dictionary says atheism is a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods and if you have no evidence for this belief it is based on faith because you have no evidence for your belief.

Correct, The Oxford dictionary shows that you are wrong. It does not say that it has to be a belief. It also says that it can be a lack of belief. Why do you keep ignoring the phrase "or lack of belief"? A lack of belief needs no faith.

Agreed, however it also does not mean that someone's faith is not true only that there is no satisfactory evidence for someone to believe it.

Correct. One could be right even if there was no evidence for that belief. No one is saying that you are wrong because you have no evidence.

In my opinion, if you believe that there is no God as an athiest and your making claims to others that there is no God then your belief is based on faith because you do not have any evidence for your belief. Some things in life cannot be explained by science as science does not have all the answers otherwise it would cease to exist. If you have no evidence to prove there is no God then your belief whether you like to admit it or not is based on faith. I believe also, that deep down inside because you have no evidence for your belief you are questioning what you believe or you would not be talking about God so much IMO. For someone that does not believe in God you sure like to talk about him a lot. If you truly believed that there is no God you would not need to discuss this subject in a religious forum.

But atheism is not a claim that there is no god. That is "anti-theism". It fits in the atheism tent, but it is not the only member. Just as Christianity is a theistic belief but it is not the only theistic belief. Since the sort of atheism I have is merely a lack of belief no faith is needed. If I claimed "there is no God" then I would either need evidence to back that claim or faith. If I had evidence for that claim then faith would be needed, but I do not make that claim. You do not understand the definition of "atheism". Which is a bit ironic. Your own chosen definition refutes your claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have never made claims that there are unicorns and mermaids. If you do not have evidence there is no God and you do not believe God exists, then your claims are not based on fact and are likewise irrational.

Whooosshhhhh!

 

[Audie]

I see. You sound upset because someone does not believe the same as you do. You are free to believe as you wish. Your belief however is not mine. You have your faith and I have mine. I am not sure how me having a different belief than you do however makes you so upset. Yet on the other hand Bob, I am enjoying our discussion

I've watched BTU. He does not get upset.
Emphasis for comprehension and upset are not
the same.
Side note, as a woman I have people try that on
me all the time, try to diminish me with 'you are
upset".

 

[Audie]

I have never made claims that there are unicorns and mermaids. Your argument is a logical fallacy. If you do not have evidence there is no God and you do not believe God exists, then your claims are not based on fact and are likewise irrational because you do not know there is no God and yet that is something you choose to believe. There are many things that cannot be explained and yet here we are believing them. That does not men because you do not have "sufficient" evidence that something is not true.

You know perfectly well I didnt suggest you did speak of
mermaids.

Nobody has any evidence for mermaids, other than some reports.
Nobody has any evidence for god other than some reports.

Pretending there is a logical fallacy in the comparison is just
silly-or really really confused.

If that is the level on which you are capable of operating,
then there is no use further to further "discussion", you
are not up to the challenge.

If otoh you wish to stop being silly, we count continue/

 

[Audie]

Whooosshhhhh!

Rats. Same thing I said but a lot less words

 

[3rdAngel]

I've watched BTU. He does not get upset. Emphasis for comprehension and upset are not the same. Side note, as a woman I have people try that on me all the time, try to diminish me with 'you are upset".

There is a saying; out of the abundance of the heart (thoughts and feelings) the mouth speaks. Sounds pretty upset to me from what I have been reading. Although I cannot claim to know what someone thinks except through what they say. What you have posted here does not really add much to the discussion IMO.

 

[3rdAngel]

You know perfectly well I didnt suggest you did speak of
mermaids.

Indeed it was only a distraction to what I had posted to you.

Nobody has any evidence for mermaids, other than some reports. Nobody has any evidence for god other than some reports.

Well that is debatable also and based on the sciences can be argued either way. There is evidence for and against God. In my opinion, if you believe that there is no God as an athiest and your making claims to others that there is no God then your belief is based on faith because you do not have any evidence for your belief.

Some things in life cannot be explained by science as science does not have all the answers otherwise it would cease to exist. If you have no evidence to prove there is no God then your belief whether you like to admit it or not is based on faith. I believe evidence can be argued both ways with science, archeology and history. The question always remains how much evidence is required to change someones belief? This is the unanswerable question because everyone is different and some will never change their belief no matter how much evidence is provided and not everyone agrees as to what evidence is true or not true.

Pretending there is a logical fallacy in the comparison is just silly-or really really confused. If that is the level on which you are capable of operating,
then there is no use further to further "discussion", you are not up to the challenge.

Nonsense. Your comparing two beliefs that cannot prove what they believe one way or the other so your argument was a logical fallacy which is an appeal to ignornance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). Google it.

If otoh you wish to stop being silly, we count continue/

Your ad hominem fallacy comments do not help a discussion either. It's simply just a way of avoiding it

 

[3rdAngel]

A lack of belief in something is not the same as believing that does not exist.

Your claim is that there is no God. You come to a religious forum yet you are not able to prove your claims. What you believe or do not believe is up to you. You are free to believe as you wish, as are others, but to come to a religious forum pretending there is no God without any evidence is only an appeal to ignorance which is an argument that can be turned around to you. When this is done it seems you do not like it.

What do you think a lack of belief means in your view? In my view it means to lack belief. Are you saying you believe in God now but not that much? I asked you this question some time ago and you told me already you do not believe in God yet you have no evidence for what you believe in yet make the same claims on others.

Let's go back to the gumball example. It is a huge machine. A person says that it has 5204 gumballs in it. I tell him that I do not believe his claim. He might be right, but that would be luck more than anything else. I am not saying that he is wrong, I am merely saying that I do not believe him. The burden of proof is always upon the person making the positive assertion. If the person making their claim cannot support it we are justified in saying "I do not believe our claim". No evidence needed. No faith needed.

I see you need to change your argument now. Sorry the same response I made earlier is applicable here.

Correct, The Oxford dictionary shows that you are wrong. It does not say that it has to be a belief. It also says that it can be a lack of belief. Why do you keep ignoring the phrase "or lack of belief"? A lack of belief needs no faith.

Nonsense. It shows that I am right. If you do not believe that there is a God then that is your belief. I have not ignored anything. The Oxford Dictionaries definition of atheism is a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Seems you are trying to change the definition.

Correct. One could be right even if there was no evidence for that belief. No one is saying that you are wrong because you have no evidence.

Good that is the only point that was being made.

But atheism is not a claim that there is no god. That is "anti-theism". It fits in the atheism tent, but it is not the only member. Just as Christianity is a theistic belief but it is not the only theistic belief. Since the sort of atheism I have is merely a lack of belief no faith is needed. If I claimed "there is no God" then I would either need evidence to back that claim or faith. If I had evidence for that claim then faith would be needed, but I do not make that claim. You do not understand the definition of "atheism". Which is a bit ironic. Your own chosen definition refutes your claim.

So let me ask the same question again. So do you have some believe in God now? Last time I asked you this you said "of course not" and stated you do not believe in God. Unless you have changed your view I do not know if you have or have not. The definition of athiesm was provided by the Oxford dictionary. If you do not like their definition which is the same as many other dictionaries, perhaps you need to take it up with them?

 

[Audie]

There is a saying; out of the abundance of the heart (thoughts and feelings) the mouth speaks. Sounds pretty upset to me from what I have been reading. Although I cannot claim to know what someone thinks except through what they say. What you have posted here does not really add much to the discussion IMO.

And talk of someone's imagined emotional state does?

 

[McBell]

Your response...

Your post is simply a distraction in order to avoid what you are quoting from and does not answer the post you are responding to.

No different than your posts from the moment it was shown you are flat out wrong.

"No belief", does not in any way mean "belief".

 

[3rdAngel]

And talk of someone's imagined emotional state does?

Your post does not respond to the content you are quoting from. No need to imagine anything if you read what people are writing. It is there for all to see.

 

[3rdAngel]

No different than your posts from the moment it was shown you are flat out wrong.
"No belief", does not in any way mean "belief".

Well we may agree to disagree. I am yet to see your claims as true. Your belief is that there is no God. Yet here you are unable to prove that there is no God. I guess you have your faith and I have mine

 

[McBell]

I am not jumping up and down screaming about anything

Your posts reveal quite the opposite.

only showing why your earlier claims also apply to you.

My claims in this thread were all about me and my lack of any belief regarding god.

If you do not believe God exists and you cannot prove it then your belief is based on faith.

Again you try to make no belief into a belief.
It does not work that way in the real world.

You are free to believe as you wish even if you do not have any evidence for your belief

Sadly, you still do not understand that "no belief" is not a "belief".

 

[Audie]

Indeed it was only a distraction to what I had posted to you.



Well that is debatable also and based on the sciences can be argued either way. There is evidence for and against God. In my opinion, if you believe that there is no God as an athiest and your making claims to others that there is no God then your belief is based on faith because you do not have any evidence for your belief.

Some things in life cannot be explained by science as science does not have all the answers otherwise it would cease to exist. If you have no evidence to prove there is no God then your belief whether you like to admit it or not is based on faith. I believe evidence can be argued both ways with science, archeology and history. The question always remains how much evidence is required to change someones belief? This is the unanswerable question because everyone is different and some will never change their belief no matter how much evidence is provided and not everyone agrees as to what evidence is true or not true.



Nonsense. Your comparing two beliefs that cannot prove what they believe one way or the other so your argument was a logical fallacy which is an appeal to ignornance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). Google it.



Your ad hominem fallacy comments do not help a discussion either. It's simply just a way of avoiding it

Now you are making up ad hom where there is none.
You had out advice to consult a dictionary, etc.

Calling ad hom where there is none is just ignorant.
No, not "just", it is used as an insult, and, it
makes the person misusing the term look ridiculous.

your choice, go for it.

As for the rest its a mess of confusion and
more things you made up about me. So
we are done.

 

[McBell]

Your belief is that there is no God.

Bold face lie

Yet here you are unable to prove that there is no God.

Since I do not believe that god does not exist, there is no onus on me to prove anything.

I guess you have your faith and I have mine

except no faith is required to lack a belief.

 

[3rdAngel]

Now you are making up ad hom where there is none.
You had out advice to consult a dictionary, etc.

Calling ad hom where there is none is just ignorant.
No, not "just", it is used as an insult, and, it
makes the person misusing the term look ridiculous.

your choice, go for it.

As for the rest its a mess of confusion and
more things you made up about me. So
we are done.

Nonsense. I pulled you up on it and stated why I believed your post was simply a distraction and ad hom in the earlier posts quoting what you said. You simply got caught out IMO and do not like it.

 

[3rdAngel]

Your posts reveal quite the opposite.

Not really. Your only making ad hominem fallacy comments in order to avoid addressing the posts you are responding to which does not help a discussion.

My claims in this thread were all about me and my lack of any belief regarding god.

You are free to believe as you wish. It does not make what you believe true or not true. Only that you believe that there is no God which you cannot prove one way or the other.

Again you try to make no belief into a belief. It does not work that way in the real world.

I am not trying to do anything. If you believe there is no God then that is simply your belief.

Sadly, you still do not understand that "no belief" is not a "belief".

Sure it is. It seems though that you do not believe it. You are free to believe as you wish