United States Christian Former Military Officer Beheads Satanic Shrine in Iowa State Capitol

[Zachowon]

Image doesn't work?

 

[DarthOne]

Image doesn't work?

Was supposed to be a link to a book. Fixed it.

 

[Zachowon]

Was supposed to be a link to a book. Fixed it.

Ahhh okay.
I think that is what Metatron says as it was the best way for it to be understood.

But at least you provided a sourcw

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

*sigh* Internet religious debates (including atheism) are more often than not pointless as the conclusion comes first and the evidence no matter how flimsy is cherry picked to support that conclusion and belief as fact.

 

[LordsFire]

Again, your counter-argument relies on presuming Christianity/Judaism is true, while the people authoring these theories do not. The moment skepticism is permitted, the scripture falls apart for the void of evidence for incredibly obvious claims.

The hilarious thing here isn't even that you're making an argument that's old, refuted, and pointless, it's that you don't see how internally contradictory it is.

We're talking about the meaning of religious texts. Not 'are the texts true,' but 'what does this text mean?'

The argument doesn't require Christianity/Judaism to be true, the argument requires the people who keep and transcribe the religious texts to believe that Christianity/Judaism are true.

Of course a monotheist is going to look at the quintessential monotheistic religious text and interpret it in a monotheistic way. Why wouldn't they?

If you were an actual skeptic, not someone who is actively antagonistic towards Christianity, we could have a debate back and forth about reasonable interpretation but you, like most famous atheistic 'skeptics' across the last ~200 years aren't actually skeptical, you have a very determined and dedicated belief set, one that excludes any possibility of Christianity being true.

Proper skepticism isn't 'I believe that isn't true,' it's 'I don't know whether or not this is true.' Abuse of the term is just another malicious form of rhetoric the atheists have been using against Christians for more than a century, taking advantage of the Christian tendency towards assuming the other party is acting in good faith, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

 

[IndyFront]

I think worshipping the material universe is lazy and not actually interested in getting to know the one as it truly exists. The material you say is God is an illusion concocted by your brain, the real universe is just a great vibration (even according to physics.).

Agreed. My argument isn't that God = material universe, it's that God is everything in the universe, including everything outside of it or that defies logic or the laws of physics. At least we agree God is far more complex than normie evangelicals make it out to be.

 

[LordsFire]

Agreed. My argument isn't that God = material universe, it's that God is everything in the universe, including everything outside of it or that defies logic or the laws of physics. At least we agree God is far more complex than normie evangelicals make it out to be.

How do you define 'normie evangelical'?

 

[Poe]

Agreed. My argument isn't that God = material universe, it's that God is everything in the universe, including everything outside of it or that defies logic or the laws of physics. At least we agree God is far more complex than normie evangelicals make it out to be.

Now that's more like it, however that is Panentheism instead of Pantheism.

 

[IndyFront]

How do you define 'normie evangelical'?

I mean people who aren't on the level of us nerds who frequent internet forums and regularly have cross-faith/religion discourse.

 

[LordsFire]

I mean people who aren't on the level of us nerds who frequent internet forums and regularly have cross-faith/religion discourse.

Most evangelicals are too busy with IRL for internet discussion, and a lot of them are theology nerds, so that really isn't a helpful distinction.

I don't think you have a good idea of how complex Evangelicals believe God is.

 

[IndyFront]

Most evangelicals are too busy with IRL for internet discussion

Most people are brainwashed follower conformists

 

[Morphic Tide]

We're talking about the meaning of religious texts.

No, we're talking about the history of the religion, in terms of what the texts meant when they were written rather than what they're read to mean by the current practice. Do I need to start comparing the Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Torah/Old Testament to get this point across to you?

If you were an actual skeptic, not someone who is actively antagonistic towards Christianity, we could have a debate back and forth about reasonable interpretation but you, like most famous atheistic 'skeptics' across the last ~200 years aren't actually skeptical, you have a very determined and dedicated belief set, one that excludes any possibility of Christianity being true.

No, it's standards of evidence which exclude any possibility of Christianity being true, because if God is real He's not remotely nosy enough to be proven. Empiricism rose first, materialism came to prominence when that could not find anything of God.

 

[LordsFire]

No, we're talking about the history of the religion, in terms of what the texts meant when they were written rather than what they're read to mean by the current practice. Do I need to start comparing the Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Torah/Old Testament to get this point across to you?


No, it's standards of evidence which exclude any possibility of Christianity being true, because if God is real He's not remotely nosy enough to be proven. Empiricism rose first, materialism came to prominence when that could not find anything of God.

Let's not start this debate on another thread. There's already two or three of them over in the Philosophy forum if you want to hash it out again.

 

[Poe]

No, it's standards of evidence which exclude any possibility of Christianity being true, because if God is real He's not remotely nosy enough to be proven. Empiricism rose first, materialism came to prominence when that could not find anything of God.

Read Aristotle, the existence of a creator is self evident just using basic logic. Further, religious people see God everywhere and non-religious don't see him at all so it's more that people have preconceived notions and will not accept what others consider proof. The Big Bang was hypothesized by a catholic and was taken as obvious proof of a creator, athiests assumed it had to be obviously false until they couldn't prove otherwise. Now days athiests use it as an alternative to god (which is dumb, again see Aristotle.). In reality the natural sciences are only, from their start, meant to allow for making predictions of the material world and thus are inadequate to make objective statements about God. They can't even make objective statements about energy, all of physics is an abstraction that exists above energy and no one can actually define it.

You asking for "proof" is cringe and itself proof you have done nothing to try and understand the thousands of years of philosophy that led to why people take gods existence as a given, some of which is literally foundational to science and physics itself.