responding to common objections to bible

[total relism]

You just don't get it do you?

We (atheists) don't have to prove anything as we are not espousing anything. Look up the definition of atheism.



You are the one making a claim and so therefore it is incumbent on you to prove the point. As there is no possible way to prove,(or disprove), a living god, then all your claims are null and void.

this is not part of thread, i have debated this and atheism meaning for probably 50 pages of thread with atheist it comes to no end. I was just saying people aspect evidence to believe in god [i agree] yet are just fine accepting without any proof or evidence that atheism is true. If atheism is lack of faith in god, than my belief in god, is lack of belief in the evidence in atheism.

[InsaneApache]

You still don't get it. Atheism is neither true nor false.

It is a lack of belief.

Truth-hood or falsehood doesn't come into it.

[Brenus]

“You can't use those arguments against a religion claiming originality.” That was not the purpose. The purpose was to show that the Bible is for a good part a copy and paste, so not the word of God…

“ take out of context” So, you do acknowledge that he said/wrote it… Good start...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You still don't get it. Atheism is neither true nor false.

It is a lack of belief.

Truth-hood or falsehood doesn't come into it.

Partly true.

If I refused to believe that the world was round, would truth or falsehood come into it?

[InsaneApache]

Here we go again.

The World isn't round.

he shape of the Earth approximates an oblate spheroid

If you religious lot can't even get the basics right......

Hopeless the lot of you.

[InsaneApache]

The brainwashing is very effective.

[Kadagar_AV]

Partly true.

If I refused to believe that the world was round, would truth or falsehood come into it?

Nope.

You have to balance the evidence presented Yourself.

With that said, You might come off as rather, well, stupid if You go completely against the norm in the more developed theories.


TR, I honestly don't think You got how science work. Shame on Your teachers.

[jirisys]

Partly true.

If I refused to believe that the world was round, would truth or falsehood come into it?

That analogy doesn't work. The world has to be a shape. Whether that be a triangle or a square or a tesseract, it must be something, you can't say the world has no shape.

~Jirisys ()

[Ironside]

Partly true.

If I refused to believe that the world was round, would truth or falsehood come into it?

To expand on what Jirisys are talking about. An equivalent question to yours would be: "Since god exist, what is his nature?" Rather than "Does god exist?".

[Papewaio]

I thought atheist don't believe in a higher power whilst agnostics are the ones rejecting god on the basis of a lack of tangible credible evidence.

[Kadagar_AV]

It's a bit of a blurr, Pape... I am agnostic, but for most purposes, I am atheist.

[jirisys]

I thought atheist don't believe in a higher power whilst agnostics are the ones rejecting god on the basis of a lack of tangible credible evidence.

Oversimplifying:

Atheism = There is no evidence that any gods exist, so it is likely that no god exists.
Agnosticism = It is impossible to know or prove that any gods exist.

You can be an agnostic and still believe in a god (or many).

~Jirisys ()

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I thought atheist don't believe in a higher power whilst agnostics are the ones rejecting god on the basis of a lack of tangible credible evidence.

It's roots are the term 'gnosticism' (belief in the separation of physical and spiritual, usually with the rejection of the physical in favor of the latter). and 'ab' meaning "away" or "not."

Thus, in its original form, the term meant someone who rejected the idea that the spiritual completely trumped the physical in value. From there the term grew to include those who doubted the spiritual while not out-and-out rejecting it. Today the term is also applied to those who believe in a higher power but reject religion.

[The Stranger]

It's roots are the term 'gnosticism' (belief in the separation of physical and spiritual, usually with the rejection of the physical in favor of the latter). and 'ab' meaning "away" or "not."

Thus, in its original form, the term meant someone who rejected the idea that the spiritual completely trumped the physical in value. From there the term grew to include those who doubted the spiritual while not out-and-out rejecting it. Today the term is also applied to those who believe in a higher power but reject religion.

wikipedia has a different etymology and its more in line with what ive learned at uni as well.

Agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable. [...] an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, coined the word agnostic in 1869.

Etymology
Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), meaning "without", and γνῶσις (gnōsis), meaning "knowledge") was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1869[10] to describe his philosophy which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge. Early Christian church leaders used the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) to describe "spiritual knowledge." Agnosticism is not to be confused with religious views opposing the ancient religious movement of Gnosticism in particular; Huxley used the term in a broader, more abstract sense.[11]
Huxley identified agnosticism not as a creed but rather as a method of skeptical, evidence-based inquiry.[12]
In recent years, scientific literature dealing with neuroscience and psychology has used the word to mean "not knowable".[13] In technical and marketing literature, "agnostic" often has a meaning close to "independent"—for example, "platform agnostic" or "hardware agnostic."[14]

you are talking about Gnosticism it seems, but the term is not really related to it.

[total relism]

You still don't get it. Atheism is neither true nor false.

It is a lack of belief.

Truth-hood or falsehood doesn't come into it.

first i never said of it being true or not, i just asked for evidence to show it to be true or a reason why to believe it.

“You can't use those arguments against a religion claiming originality.” That was not the purpose. The purpose was to show that the Bible is for a good part a copy and paste, so not the word of God…

“ take out of context” So, you do acknowledge that he said/wrote it… Good start...

so because man copied and translated the orginal inspired bible, that makes it not from god? i dont follow. That is like me making copy of lotr and making a few mistakes,than claiming there is no jrr tolkien, there is no lotr. I never said any translation/version is the word of god, i said the original bible written, we have today in full.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's roots are the term 'gnosticism' (belief in the separation of physical and spiritual, usually with the rejection of the physical in favor of the latter). and 'ab' meaning "away" or "not."

Thus, in its original form, the term meant someone who rejected the idea that the spiritual completely trumped the physical in value. From there the term grew to include those who doubted the spiritual while not out-and-out rejecting it. Today the term is also applied to those who believe in a higher power but reject religion.

While you are correct about the Gnostic Creed- you've misunderstood the meaning of the word.

To expand upon The Stranger's Point: The Gnostics believed it was possible to have "Gnosis", as in actual spiritual knowledge, in this life while mainstream Christianity maintains that true knowledge remains obscured while we are alive and is only revealed when we ascend at the point of death and become one with God.

Historically the word "atheist" applied to what we today call "agnostics", it encompassed those who did no believe - but today it has become confined to those who believe there is not.

[The Stranger]

Partly true.

If I refused to believe that the world was round, would truth or falsehood come into it?

its not partly true its completely wrong. the lack of belief is agnosticism (basically skeptical position in the religious debate). an absence of belief results in no answer to the question does god exist. to answer yes is "to have the belief that god exists", to answer no is "to have belief that god does not exist", its not, "not having the belief that god exists".

you have the position of the believer and the non-believer and then there is the third position of postponing judgment. for my part you can name these positions whatever you want.