If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Into the Night]

The non-overlapping magisteria idea doesn't work.

Buzzword fallacy.

But you are right, religion is not science. Religion is based in superstition

Go learn what 'superstition' means. Religion is based on faith, and faith alone. Your religions are no different.

and is continually being proved wrong by science.

Science is not a proof. Science does not prove any god or gods or any nonexistance of any god or gods. Science is atheistic.

The reverse has never happened. Religion has never proved science wrong.

Religion is not a proof. Science is not a proof. No proof is possible. Both science and religion are open functional systems.

Go learn what 'religion' and 'science' means.

 

[Into the Night]

Apparently you don't know what the word illiterate means.

Inversion fallacy. Go learn English.

 

[Into the Night]

I know what automation means.

Obviously not. Go learn English.

As has been proven repeatedly, you often have your own definitions for words.

I do not define any word.

If you are using a standard definition for automation, yes, I would say that is an accurate description for how we we operate.

Courtier's fallacy. There is no 'standard', other than English itself, which you obviously are having great trouble with.

 

[ZenMode]

Buzzword fallacy.

No buzz words. Learn what it means.

Go learn what 'superstition' means. Religion is based on faith, and faith alone. Your religions are no different.

I know what superstition means. I don't know what you think it means and that's a good thing.

Science is not a proof. Science does not prove any god or gods or any nonexistance of any god or gods. Science is atheistic.

Correct, but it continually disproves religious claims.

Religion is not a proof. Science is not a proof. No proof is possible. Both science and religion are open functional systems.

Again....Science has continually proven religion wrong.

Go learn what 'religion' and 'science' means.

You mean actual definitions, or your imaginary definitions?

 

[Into the Night]

I do understand atheism.

You have already demonstrated otherwise.

..and I understand that in the mid-20th century a group of debating atheists realized that defining it as it was defined at that time (a belief that no gods exist), meant that they were doing "believing" just like the theists were doing "believing"...except in a different direction.

So they decided to change the definition...and made the pretense that atheism means "a" (without) + theism (a BELIEF in a god) = without a BELIEF in a god.

Fallacy fallacy. Atheism means without religion. ANY religion. Agnostic means 'without God'...in other words, a believer of a god or gods, but the agnostic cannot describe its character.

But that is nonsense primarily because the word "atheist" came into the English language decades BEFORE the word "theist."

Dead wrong. Both words entered the English lexicon at the same time.

It could not have come about that way.

It certainly can, and did.

You can check this out with almost any pre-mid century dictionary. Damn near all say the word means "a belief that there are no gods...or a belief that no gods exist.)

Dictionaries do not define any word. That is not their purpose. Populism fallacy. Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you.

So take that bullshit that I do not understand the word and shove it up your ass.

Your redefinition won't work. You cannot blame it on anybody else.

You do not think...and that is your problem. But you want to suppose your nonsense is so powerful that those of us who clai you are wrong...are terrified of you.

You are a joke.


Anyone who "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods IS MAKING AN UNEVIDENCED CLAIM.

This is a religion, not atheism.

And the cowardly atheists who pretend they are not doing that...are jerks.

The Church of No God is a fundamentalist style religion, not atheism.

 

[ZenMode]

Obviously not. Go learn English.
.

Courtier's fallacy. There is no 'standard', other than English itself, which you obviously are having great trouble with.

Nope, no fallacies here. Just an understanding of the construction of the human brain and the functionality of the human brain.

Both of those things show no place for a self.

 

[Into the Night]

If I took the stories and writings about St Nick / Santa Claus literally, I would expect to see a fat guy in a red suit, being pulled through the sky by flying reindeer,

St Nick didn't even own a sleigh nor reindeer. He also was not overweight.

delivering gifts on Christmas Eve. But, as with the Bible, we know that stories get exaggerated and don't always align with what makes sense or is, in some cases, even possible.

St Nick is not described in the Bible. Neither is the Coca-Cola version, which is known fiction, created by Coca-Cola.

This is the advantage that Christians have created for their beliefs.

How does one create an advantage by distortion?

Since none of the magical events of the Bible are happening today,

No magic is described in the Bible.

Christians have figured out a way to attribute pretty much any event to their God, including the creation of everything - "Things exist, so Jesus/God made them".

How does anyone create a Universe when there is no universe for them to exist in? Why do you believe the Universe was created? Do you believe in the Church of the Big Bang also?

If a Christian gets fired from their job, it's because Jesus/God had other plans for them.

Nah. It could be for many reasons, including being incompetent at their job or simply not getting along with their boss.

If a loved one dies at an early age, Jesus/God wanted to bring them to heaven, but if someone is unexpectedly cured of stage 4 cancer, it "wasn't their time" to be taken by Jesus/God.

This part is almost correct.
Everyone dies. This is what we inherit from the Fall. Everyone is born. This is also what we inherit from the Fall. Everyone who accepts the gift of Jesus Christ will live again, for Christ paid the penalty of the Fall. This plan was set in motion by God for his children so they could learn the difference between good and evil.

Basically, anything that happens, good or bad, can be attributed to Jesus/God, should a believer wish to do so.

...such as...?

Right. This is what I referenced above - anything that a Christian wants to attribute to Jesus/God can be proof of Jesus/God.

There is no proof. You cannot prove any circular argument True or False.

The argument for "things exist, it must be God" only works if you already believe in a God.

Not an argument. A conditional.

I have already provide several bits of objective evidence. You cannot make any evidence just disappear.

Like I mentioned above, written/oral stories often get exaggerated.

YOU are certainly working to do that!

Maybe Saint Nick / Santa Claus is just the being that causes us to feel the spirit of Christmas and go out and buy all the gifts, not literally delivering the gifts on a slay pulled by magical reindeer.

Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ, not the birth of a Cardinal.

Jesus/God have stories written about them. Saint Nick / Santa Claus have stories written about them.

So?

There's nothing tangible, today, that proves the existence of Jesus/God or Saint Nick / Santa Claus.

There is substantial evidence of St Nick, including church records, newspaper articles across Europe, and of course the many children that benefited from his philanthropy. St Nick is not a god. He was a Cardinal.

It is not possible to prove the existence of any god or gods. It is not possible to prove there is no god or gods.

I am not trying to prove anything. YOU ARE.

The evidence seems pretty similar.

It isn't. It's about two different people. The evidence is not the same. YOU are the only one arguing that it is.

 

[Into the Night]

Except that word meanings do not necessarily develop systematically.

Actually, they do.

It would not be "nonsense" for the meaning of "atheist" to shift from a prior meaning.

Atheism has only one meaning. It has never changed.

 

[Into the Night]

No buzz words. Learn what it means.

Buzzwords have no meaning, Automaton.

I know what superstition means.

You have already demonstrated otherwise.

I don't know what you think it means and that's a good thing.

You don't want to know. You don't use English and apparently don't want to learn it.

Correct, but it continually disproves religious claims.

It is not possible to prove a god does not exist. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Again....Science has continually proven religion wrong.

Science is not a proof. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Denial of science.

You mean actual definitions, or your imaginary definitions?

Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope, no fallacies here.

Denying your fallacies does not make them just disappear, Automaton.

Just an understanding of the construction of the human brain and the functionality of the human brain.

Obviously, you don't know that either.

Both of those things show no place for a self.

Being an automaton, you have no sense of self, other than what your program tells you. Looks like whoever programmed you never added that piece of code.

 

[ZenMode]

St Nick didn't even own a sleigh nor reindeer. He also was not overweight.

St Nick is not described in the Bible. Neither is the Coca-Cola version, which is known fiction, created by Coca-Cola.

How does one create an advantage by distortion?

No magic is described in the Bible.

How does anyone create a Universe when there is no universe for them to exist in? Why do you believe the Universe was created? Do you believe in the Church of the Big Bang also?

Nah. It could be for many reasons, including being incompetent at their job or simply not getting along with their boss.

This part is almost correct.
Everyone dies. This is what we inherit from the Fall. Everyone is born. This is also what we inherit from the Fall. Everyone who accepts the gift of Jesus Christ will live again, for Christ paid the penalty of the Fall. This plan was set in motion by God for his children so they could learn the difference between good and evil.

...such as...?

There is no proof. You cannot prove any circular argument True or False.

Not an argument. A conditional.

I have already provide several bits of objective evidence. You cannot make any evidence just disappear.

YOU are certainly working to do that!

Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ, not the birth of a Cardinal.

So?

There is substantial evidence of St Nick, including church records, newspaper articles across Europe, and of course the many children that benefited from his philanthropy. St Nick is not a god. He was a Cardinal.

It is not possible to prove the existence of any god or gods. It is not possible to prove there is no god or gods.

I am not trying to prove anything. YOU ARE.

It isn't. It's about two different people. The evidence is not the same. YOU are the only one arguing that it is.

"St Nick is not described in the Bible."

Stopped reading right here when you made it clear that you are not taking your post seriously.

If you want to try again, I'll be happy to read it.

 

[Cypress]

The reverse has never happened. Religion has never proved science wrong.

Einstein and most 19th and early 20th century physicists believed the universe was static and infinitely old.

2,500 years ago the Hebrew scribes wrote that the universe had a beginning.

Today, virtually all legitimate scientists agree the universe had a beginning, because of the discovery of the hot big bang.

It wasn't until the 19th century that archaeologists shocked the world by finding the remnants of the Assyrian and Babylonian civilizations.

The Old Testament discussed the Assyrians and Babylonians 2,500 years before that.

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries". ​

​

- Robert Jastrow, American astrophysicist​

 

[ZenMode]

Buzzwords have no meaning, Automaton.

You have already demonstrated otherwise.

You don't want to know. You don't use English and apparently don't want to learn it.

It is not possible to prove a god does not exist. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Science is not a proof. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Denial of science.

Inversion fallacy.

"It is not possible to prove a god does not exist. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism)"

The only proof of any currently recognize God is the result of the writings done by those who believed in him. Those writings, and the claims they're in, have been repeatedly proven wrong by science.

So, You have people writing about God, who claimed they were in direct contact with God, yet they continually get things wrong. Why would you trust those writings?

With without those nonsensical writings, what other reason is there to believe in any given God?

 

[Into the Night]

"St Nick is not described in the Bible."

Stopped reading right here when you made it clear that you are not taking your post seriously.

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

If you want to try again, I'll be happy to read it.

No, you wouldn't. That's obvious. (Perhaps you can't read it.)

 

[Into the Night]

Einstein and most 19th and early 20th century physicists believed the universe was static and infinitely old.

You don't get to speak for the dead. You only get to speak for you.

2,500 years ago the Hebrew scribes wrote that the universe had a beginning.

What 'Hebrew scribes'??? You don't get to speak for the dead.

Today, virtually all legitimate scientists agree the universe had a beginning, because of the discovery of the hot big bang.

Science is not people. Courtier's fallacy.
The Theory of the Big Bang is not a theory of science. It is a religion.

It wasn't until the 19th century that archaeologists shocked the world by finding the remnants of the Assyrian and Babylonian civilizations.

Since both of these empires existed, what is so shocking about finding remnants of them?

The Old Testament discussed the Assyrians and Babylonians 2,500 years before that.

So?

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream.​

Science is not a religion. It is not even people.

He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries". ​

​

- Robert Jastrow, American astrophysicist​

Meh.

 

[Into the Night]

"It is not possible to prove a god does not exist. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism)"

The only proof of any currently recognize God is the result of the writings done by those who believed in him. Those writings, and the claims they're in, have been repeatedly proven wrong by science.

Science is not a proof. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

So, You have people writing about God, who claimed they were in direct contact with God, yet they continually get things wrong.

What did any of them get wrong? Void argument fallacy, Automaton.

Why would you trust those writings?

RQAA. Go back and read it again.

With without those nonsensical writings,

I already know you don't understand English.

what other reason is there to believe in any given God?

RQAA. Go back and read it.

 

[ZenMode]

Einstein and most 19th and early 20th century physicists believed the universe was static and infinitely old.

2,500 years ago the Hebrew scribes wrote that the universe had a beginning.

Today, virtually all legitimate scientists agree the universe had a beginning, because of the discovery of the hot big bang.

It wasn't until the 19th century that archaeologists shocked the world by finding the remnants of the Assyrian and Babylonian civilizations.

The Old Testament discussed the Assyrians and Babylonians 2,500 years before that.

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries". ​

​

- Robert Jastrow, American astrophysicist​

My claim was that religion has never proved science wrong, while science has repeatedly proven religion wrong. Do You disagree?

 

[ZenMode]

Science is not a proof. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

What did any of them get wrong? Void argument fallacy, Automaton.

RQAA. Go back and read it again.

I already know you don't understand English.

RQAA. Go back and read it.

"What did any of them get wrong?"
The most obvious - the age of the Earth.

 

[Cypress]

My claim was that religion has never proved science wrong?

That's wrong.

Genesis claimed the universe had a beginning.

Einstein and the scientific consensus was that the universe was static and had always existed.

Genesis was right.

The beginning of the universe is one of the most important questions anyone can think of.

 

[martin]

My claim was that religion has never proved science wrong, while science has repeatedly proven religion wrong. Do You disagree?

Religion asserts; it doesn’t bother to prove.