Atheism does not exist in reality; why is the deception promulgated among the aberrant?

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

@MayCaesar

Well you're right, religious faith is very confining. That's by design. In Christianity's attempts over the decades to downplay that fact they've emphasized more on the grace of god over the laws of god. Guess shaming people into conforming seemed a better approach than fire and brimstone hellfire sinners approach. Believe me, the 'grace' baited hook can be convincing when grown up under certain circumstances. Strange thing though, as I grew, matured and married, I also began to educate myself is various ways. College course here, there, vocational schools. And also the bible, inside and out. Overtime I realized the mental gymnastics I had to do to defend my faith to others, but from within as well. It was one of the hardest things I've done in my life was to come to the realization that if I'm already trying to convince myself, I've already lost faith. It's a terrible thing to go through as your whole worldview gets rearranged. But once I did admit that it was one of the most freeing and exhilarating experiences I've ever had. 

You know, I suspect that there is something about systems that makes them become a force of their own and defeat their original purpose. From ancient tribes to modern governments and corporations, what starts out as a grouping of people with common goals and interests eventually becomes an entity devouring its members and molding them into its faithful servants. Take Microsoft: what started as a bunch of computer nerds writing simple operating systems for fun became an international corporation with offices around the world and collusions with governments, one with strict internal code of conduct - kicking out even its own original founders. Medieval Templars who took on the duty of protecting people's assets while they were travelling eventually became the Bank of England issuing banknotes left and write and perverting the original idea of conserving assets. Christianity, too, started as a sect of wanderers who talked about humility and self-sacrifice - and over the centuries became a totalitarian organization controlling all of Europe.

Same, I believe, applies to our own beliefs as well. It is somewhat easier to identify irrationality of religion and eventually break out of it - still hard and painful, as you noted, but once the shadow of doubt has been sown, it is usually just a matter of time for the whole construct to fall apart. But how many finer irrationalities our minds hold that we never get to and that start subjugating us, altering our behavior so they serve the preservation of those irrationalities more than our well-being?

I feel that what is missing in philosophy and culture is a toolset for painlessly breaking apart old outdated constructs (mental and physical alike) and replacing them with new ones. How does one run a banking organization for centuries without it crumbling under its own weight and accumulated inefficiencies? How does one make sure that the bad lessons they learned as children with very limited knowledge and experience are unlearned as they grow up? The Socratic method attempts to do something of the kind, but it is infamous for rarely getting to solutions. Identifying a problem is a step in the right direction, but if it is not followed by a solution to the problem, then it is not good enough.

Some people have mastered that. John Carmack is my professional hero, a guy who started out as a video game nerd and built one of the most successful video game developer companies in history, then moved on to the aerospace industry, then delved in nuclear energy, then worked on virtual and augmented reality, and now is mastering machine learning. The guy in his interviews has said that, once he feels comfortable in his current field, he hops into the new industry so as to not stagnate and develop "intellectual obesity". I think that it is a much better way to live, than to stick to the same beliefs and preconceptions throughout your whole life: where discomfort ends, so does learning.

just_sayin said:

As your prophet of atheism, Anton LaVey has said "“Satanism represents a form of controlled selfishness.”  It is to be expected that you will favor that which suits your own selfish interests.  Your beliefs are very much in keeping with the atheists of the Church of Satan.  I liken the differences to the kinds of differences you would see in different Christian denominations.  90 percent of things they would agree on, and there would be some issues of variance.  You are very similar to atheists in the Church of Satan.  The similarities are in fact much greater than the differences.  

At its core, atheism, is about personal freedom and selfishness.  You do what suits you. As your prophet has said 'selfishness is good'.  I reference this because I've point out to you and your fellow Satanists/Atheists that atheism has no objective moral foundation.  Selfishness is to be expected.  Its even considered a virtue by many atheists.  

And as your prophet of humanity, Adolf Hitler, has said, "Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?". Nice, right?

Atheism is just lack of belief in god. There are many atheists who condemn selfishness and personal freedom - socialists are the most obvious example. My views are incredibly rare among both atheists and theists alike - but, as usual, you do not even understand what said views are.
I do not think that "selfishness is good", in the sense in which this word is used. I think that pursuit of individual freedom and happiness is the most noble endeavor there is, and anyone with a functional brain should realize that treating other people well and taking care of them is an essential part of said pursuit. I have never met a happy person who would routinely screw everyone else over.
I am also not a follower of Ayn Rand, who is the person who coined the phrase "the virtue of selfishness" and even called one of her books that. I have had very heated debates with Objectivists - much more substantial than the debates I have had with you, but heated.

The sad part of this conversation is that you will not even understand how deeply confused you are, because your confusion is self-nurturing. Therefore very little that I can say to you has a potential to land. You will still see in people what is not there, because you cannot imagine the world in which it is not there - because it is there in you, and everyone else must on a deep level be like you, right?

As a homework exercise, analyze the degree of nuance and complexity of discussions I have with @Factfinder (with whom I quite often disagree, mind you), and those I have with you... The difference is quite staggering, would you not say?

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

At its core, atheism, is about personal freedom and selfishness.  You do what suits you. As your prophet has said 'selfishness is good'.  I reference this because I've point out to you and your fellow Satanists/Atheists that atheism has no objective moral foundation.  Selfishness is to be expected.  Its even considered a virtue by many atheists.  

At its core atheism is about unbelief. It doesn't assert anything. Theism does that. Your statement proves this fact. What's more selfish, knowing when you die that's it from what we've been able to observe; or to believe you have a pot of gold and eternal life as long as you believe in your god fairy elf, it thinks you're special, and it's book? I'd say true selfishness abides in the latter.

It is naïve to think that a belief system that omits god, has no beliefs other than that.  The prophet of atheists Anton LaVey is merely stating out loud the implications of a world without a God. Again, and I keep repeating this, atheism has no objective moral foundation.  Its why LaVey can so boldly proclaim that 'selfishness is good'.  It is the atheist who lives for himself.  It is the logical conclusion of the Satanist/Atheist world view.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

It is naïve to think that a belief system that omits god, has no beliefs other than that.  The prophet of atheists Anton LaVey is merely stating out loud the implications of a world without a God. Again, and I keep repeating this, atheism has no objective moral foundation.  Its why LaVey can so boldly proclaim that 'selfishness is good'.  It is the atheist who lives for himself.  It is the logical conclusion of the Satanist/Atheist world view.

Mistake in the very first sentence: atheism is not "a belief system", but an absence of one particular belief. What beliefs a particular atheist does hold depends on other factors, and different atheists believe in different things. Absence of belief in god in itself puts very few restrictions on what else an atheist can believe, for, again, atheism is not a system of beliefs, like Christianity, with a huge book teaching its followers what they must believe.

I am not sure what is so hard to understand here.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@MayCaesar

Well you're right, religious faith is very confining. That's by design. In Christianity's attempts over the decades to downplay that fact they've emphasized more on the grace of god over the laws of god. Guess shaming people into conforming seemed a better approach than fire and brimstone hellfire sinners approach. Believe me, the 'grace' baited hook can be convincing when grown up under certain circumstances. Strange thing though, as I grew, matured and married, I also began to educate myself is various ways. College course here, there, vocational schools. And also the bible, inside and out. Overtime I realized the mental gymnastics I had to do to defend my faith to others, but from within as well. It was one of the hardest things I've done in my life was to come to the realization that if I'm already trying to convince myself, I've already lost faith. It's a terrible thing to go through as your whole worldview gets rearranged. But once I did admit that it was one of the most freeing and exhilarating experiences I've ever had. 

Of the 9 Satanic Statements, you affirmed these in you post:

1. Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!
2. Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
4. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for pyschic vampires!
5. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development” has become the most vicious animal of all!
6. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
7. Satan has been the best friend the church has ever had, as he kept it in business all these years!

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

At its core, atheism, is about personal freedom and selfishness.  You do what suits you. As your prophet has said 'selfishness is good'.  I reference this because I've point out to you and your fellow Satanists/Atheists that atheism has no objective moral foundation.  Selfishness is to be expected.  Its even considered a virtue by many atheists.  

At its core atheism is about unbelief. It doesn't assert anything. Theism does that. Your statement proves this fact. What's more selfish, knowing when you die that's it from what we've been able to observe; or to believe you have a pot of gold and eternal life as long as you believe in your god fairy elf, it thinks you're special, and it's book?

 I'd say true selfishness abides in the latter.

It is naïve to think that a belief system that omits god, has no beliefs other than that.  The prophet of atheists Anton LaVey is merely stating out loud the implications of a world without a God. Again, and I keep repeating this, atheism has no objective moral foundation.  Its why LaVey can so boldly proclaim that 'selfishness is good'.  It is the atheist who lives for himself.  It is the logical conclusion of the Satanist/Atheist world view.

It is naive to project your beliefs as some kind of insightful knowledge when it's basically dribble at its core. As I keep pointing out, your beliefs quantify no (none) points of reference in the real world. 

Why have you 'omitted' an answer to this question?...

What's more selfish, knowing when you die that's it from what we've been able to observe; or to believe you have a pot of gold and eternal life as long as you believe in your god fairy elf, it thinks you're special, and it's book?

RickeyHoltsclaw

Factfinder said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

Factfinder said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@ZeusAres42

1) My wisdom emanates from the indwelling Holy Spirit given me as Guarantor of New Covenant relationship with my Heavenly Father via faith in Jesus as my Messiah (Ephesians 1:13-14; 1 John 2:27).

2) There is no differentiating the genesis of atheism, the eternal destiny of atheism, the father of atheism, the destructiveness of atheism, the foolishness of atheism...they're all one hoard of useless human beings.

3) It matters NOT what you "choose" to "hail"...every atheist is a servant of Satan and any other personal gods you might have in your life are irrelevant. In this life constrained by Time and physics, you have but two-choice concerning the god you will serve, Jesus or Satan...you have chosen foolishly.

4) Jesus is my "Ark"....enjoy. Thank you for the chat. Rick

Your 'wisdom' emanates from your backside. In piles of useless sh*t. 

Good morning @Factfinder ;  I'll ask again...when replying directly to me via a rebuttal, one in which you might desire an answer, PLEASE include @rickeyholtsclaw so that your comment comes directly to me and does not get lost in the maze of general comments...thank you...your input is very important to me.

1) My wisdom emanates from the indwelling Holy Spirit and simply because your god, Satan, blinds your mind from appreciating what the Holy Spirit shares with you is no reason for vulgarity and ha-te.

I truly feel sorry for what you're going through ricky. But the fact remains your 'wisdom' compels you to say things like "atheism...they're all one hoard of useless human beings." which is hate, not some love for a god, but hate emanates from you. YOUR vulgarity has corrupted yourself and this site and you don't even see it. Other christians see it but not you. So sad.

@Factfinder ;  @MayCaesar ; @ZeusAres42 ; @jack ; @maxx

1) I approach the subject of atheism from a perspective of experiential relevance. Having policed the atheist and that demonic mentality for 31-years, I see, overwhelmingly, men and women who contribute NOTHING of substance to my Nation's longevity concerning sustainable norms, mores, values, ethics, nor are they acceptable role models for America's posterity. It was not until the last two-three decades that atheism has become acceptable to the general public...the atheist was loathed, feared, shunned, as they should be.

I will agree that some atheists have made incredible secular contributions to science and engineering but my conversation is focused upon the sociological aspects of atheism and its demonic underpinnings as a sustainable worldview and personal ideological lifestyle. 

Atheists are demon possessed or they're at a minimum demonically persuaded...they have no grounding, no root that points them to a moral and ethical life; therefore, they're loose canons, they're unpredictable, they're subject to the demonic; therefore, I DO NOT WANT AN ATHEIST IN MY RIFLE SQUAD AS A MARINE SQUAD LEADER; I DO NOT WANT AN ATHEIST IN MY PATROL CAR AS A PARTNER; I DO NOT WANT AN ATHEIST TEACHING MY CHILDREN; I DO NOT WANT AN ATHEIST AS MY NEIGHBOR. 

I find atheism overwhelmingly represented in LGBTQ; in the abortion - genocide horror; I see atheism supporting Islam; I see atheism supporting hatred for America's Constitutional Republic; I see atheism at the forefront of prejudice against Christianity and the Christian and the conservative. If I had my way...I would round-up and deport every radical atheist in the United States...that would be healing if they were deported perhaps to socialist Canada or Africa or the Middle East.

2) I don't think there are any other Christians in this hoard of atheists and secular humanists on DebateIsland. If there are other Christians, let them judge me....I have told the Truth and I have expressed how if believe without reservation. I am NOT judged by man and if my Lord is displeased with my loathing for the radical, arrogant, proud, blaspheming, unrepentant, atheist...He will advise through the Holy Spirit. I don't like feeling this hatred as I am commanded to love my enemies but I struggle with loving the enemy of my soul; the enemy of my family; the enemy of my Nation; the enemy of my Lord...so be patient...I'm a work in progress.

MayCaesar

Anyone else is confused how Satan is being connected to atheism? I thought atheism meant lack of belief in supernatural, and Satan specifically is a fictional character from the Bible, so... would it not be reasonable to call people worship Satan Christians instead?

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

Anyone else is confused how Satan is being connected to atheism? I thought atheism meant lack of belief in supernatural, and Satan specifically is a fictional character from the Bible, so... would it not be reasonable to call people worship Satan Christians instead?

It's called 'religious logic' LOL.

RickeyHoltsclaw

ZeusAres42 said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Tell me why do you say that God wants all Atheists, other religions, followers of other christian doctrines, liberals, all other races, all homosexuals etc to be rid of? Why does this God of yours have so much hate? 

@ZeusAres42 ; @MayCaesar ; @Factfinder

Our Creator is perfect in holiness-righteousness and He cannot entertain your sin but He has an eschatological plan of necessity that involves the destruction of Satan's work in both the Realm of Eternity and the Realm of Time (1 John 3:8b); this, through the Gospel that was ordained "before Time began" (2 Timothy 1:8-10). You and I are warriors, we are players, in an unfathomable spiritual war that has been translated from the Spiritual Realm and placed here, partially constrained by Time and physics. It is here, this Earth, that was created as a temporary repository for that Kingdom War as Elohim deals with a horrific rebellious cherub angel and the one-third of the angelic creation that followed in that coup d'éta.

The previous 6000-years of horror, death, mayhem, unconscionable suffering, disease, starvation, murder, sexual defilement, these are demonstrative of the rebellion that manifest in the Kingdom...these are real-time examples in the physical World, the resultant manifesting from rebellion to Elohim's law and His divine will and these are modeled for the faithful angelic creation that observes our lives, our wars, our sin, our defilement, with awe...and they're taken-aback by what their Creator has done in an effort to destroy the works of the Evil One, Satan, who was Elohim's chief cherub angel on the Mountain of Elohim in the Eternal Kingdom. The angels are besides themselves watching their Creator give Himself totally for a defiled and ungrateful and thankless human kind..but all of this tragedy and suffering will be a bulwark against future rebellion in the Kingdom where free will must remain extant by necessity; therefore, your sin, my sin, your rebellion, my rebellion, causes us to be enemies of our Creator and enemies of the sustainable mores, norms, and values essential for the longevity and peace of His Kingdom.

When you defiantly continue to live a life contrary to Elohim's will you're serving His nemesis...you make yourself His enemy and you side with the Evil One...and believe it or not, Elohim loves you beyond human comprehension...why He loves us...I DO NOT KNOW but He created us in His spiritual image and imparted within each of us certain divine communicable attributes belong to Him...the angels look at these things with awe (Genesis 1:26-28; Psalm 139:14; 1 Peter 1:12).

Anyway...I could write for hours on this subject; suffice to say, Elohim DOES NOT desire that you die in Hell; in fact, Hell was NOT created for human kind but for Satan and the angels that followed Satan in the great rebellion (Matthew 25:41). Elohim wholeheartedly desires that you be saved from Hell and that you come to a knowledge of the Truth in HIM (1 Timothy 2:4) and find life...a life that HE desires to give you...now and in Eternity. Your sin, your defilement, expresses hatred toward His holiness...Elohim cannot deny Himself...and if you die in your sin having rejected the forgiveness of sin offered ONLY by faith in the Son, Jesus Christ, you will NOT be able to enter the Kingdom as NOTHING IMPURE is permitted to enter therein (John 8:24; Rev 21:27); therefore, the only alternative for you, if you reject Jesus as your Messiah, is the "second death" in Hell as Elohim is NOT going to allow you to enter His restored Kingdom with your Adamic sin-nature (Revelation 20:11-15; Romans 5:12) and the possibility that defiled nature presents as a repeat of what has transpired within the Realm of Time over the previous 6000-years...rebellion, devastation, death, which has broken Elohim's heart (Genesis 6:5)...as He was so very content with His intimate relationship with His cherished angelic creation until the coup d'état that changed everything.

 

ZeusAres42

just_sayin said:

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

May, exactly where do you differ in your beliefs than the prophet of atheists, Anton LaVey?  

Going by the passages from the book you quoted, everywhere. My beliefs have nothing to do with inverting Biblical morals, or indulgence in cheap entertainment. I simply think the Bible to be a fantasy book and lack Christian beliefs.

Where exactly do you differ in your beliefs than the prophet of humanity, Adolf Hitler?

As your prophet of atheism, Anton LaVey has said "“Satanism represents a form of controlled selfishness.”  It is to be expected that you will favor that which suits your own selfish interests.  Your beliefs are very much in keeping with the atheists of the Church of Satan.  I liken the differences to the kinds of differences you would see in different Christian denominations.  90 percent of things they would agree on, and there would be some issues of variance.  You are very similar to atheists in the Church of Satan.  The similarities are in fact much greater than the differences.  

At its core, atheism, is about personal freedom and selfishness.  You do what suits you. As your prophet has said 'selfishness is good'.  I reference this because I've point out to you and your fellow Satanists/Atheists that atheism has no objective moral foundation.  Selfishness is to be expected.  Its even considered a virtue by many atheists.  

Not even WLC says things this silly as this guy and rickey. This kind of stuff is like the equivolent to some ISIS sh!t. 

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

Anyone else is confused how Satan is being connected to atheism? I thought atheism meant lack of belief in supernatural, and Satan specifically is a fictional character from the Bible, so... would it not be reasonable to call people worship Satan Christians instead?

Hence part of my satirical responses earlier. @MayCaesar

Factfinder

ZeusAres42 said:

just_sayin said:

Not even WLC says things this silly as this guy and rickey. This kind of stuff is like the equivolent to some ISIS sh!t. 

He just can't accept that atheism simply refers to unbelief because church teaches him if you don't believe in god, you believe in something else. It is a must you see, doctrine claims we are created for faith. Question that, you question god. He will resist reason indefinitely rather than do that.

MayCaesar

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@ZeusAres42 ; @MayCaesar ; @Factfinder

Our Creator is perfect in holiness-righteousness and He cannot entertain your sin but He has an eschatological plan of necessity that involves the destruction of Satan's work in both the Realm of Eternity and the Realm of Time (1 John 3:8b); this, through the Gospel that was ordained "before Time began" (2 Timothy 1:8-10). You and I are warriors, we are players, in an unfathomable spiritual war that has been translated from the Spiritual Realm and placed here, partially constrained by Time and physics. It is here, this Earth, that was created as a temporary repository for that Kingdom War as Elohim deals with a horrific rebellious cherub angel and the one-third of the angelic creation that followed in that coup d'éta.

The previous 6000-years of horror, death, mayhem, unconscionable suffering, disease, starvation, murder, sexual defilement, these are demonstrative of the rebellion that manifest in the Kingdom...these are real-time examples in the physical World, the resultant manifesting from rebellion to Elohim's law and His divine will and these are modeled for the faithful angelic creation that observes our lives, our wars, our sin, our defilement, with awe...and they're taken-aback by what their Creator has done in an effort to destroy the works of the Evil One, Satan, who was Elohim's chief cherub angel on the Mountain of Elohim in the Eternal Kingdom. The angels are besides themselves watching their Creator give Himself totally for a defiled and ungrateful and thankless human kind..but all of this tragedy and suffering will be a bulwark against future rebellion in the Kingdom where free will must remain extant by necessity; therefore, your sin, my sin, your rebellion, my rebellion, causes us to be enemies of our Creator and enemies of the sustainable mores, norms, and values essential for the longevity and peace of His Kingdom.

When you defiantly continue to live a life contrary to Elohim's will you're serving His nemesis...you make yourself His enemy and you side with the Evil One...and believe it or not, Elohim loves you beyond human comprehension...why He loves us...I DO NOT KNOW but He created us in His spiritual image and imparted within each of us certain divine communicable attributes belong to Him...the angels look at these things with awe (Genesis 1:26-28; Psalm 139:14; 1 Peter 1:12).

Anyway...I could write for hours on this subject; suffice to say, Elohim DOES NOT desire that you die in Hell; in fact, Hell was NOT created for human kind but for Satan and the angels that followed Satan in the great rebellion (Matthew 25:41). Elohim wholeheartedly desires that you be saved from Hell and that you come to a knowledge of the Truth in HIM (1 Timothy 2:4) and find life...a life that HE desires to give you...now and in Eternity. Your sin, your defilement, expresses hatred toward His holiness...Elohim cannot deny Himself...and if you die in your sin having rejected the forgiveness of sin offered ONLY by faith in the Son, Jesus Christ, you will NOT be able to enter the Kingdom as NOTHING IMPURE is permitted to enter therein (John 8:24; Rev 21:27); therefore, the only alternative for you, if you reject Jesus as your Messiah, is the "second death" in Hell as Elohim is NOT going to allow you to enter His restored Kingdom with your Adamic sin-nature (Revelation 20:11-15; Romans 5:12) and the possibility that defiled nature presents as a repeat of what has transpired within the Realm of Time over the previous 6000-years...rebellion, devastation, death, which has broken Elohim's heart (Genesis 6:5)...as He was so very content with His intimate relationship with His cherished angelic creation until the coup d'état that changed everything.

ChatGPT has this to say in response to this (the highlights are mine):

This response embodies a narrative central to many religious doctrines, particularly within Christianity, emphasizing the concepts of sin, redemption, divine justice, and eschatology (the part of theology concerned with death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind). When critiquing such an argument in a debate about the existence of God and the truth of the Bible, several aspects should be considered:

1. Appeal to Authority and Sacred Texts

The argument heavily relies on biblical scriptures as its foundational evidence. This approach is valid within the framework of faith and for those who already accept the Bible as a divinely inspired text. However, in a logical debate, the appeal to authority (in this case, the Bible) may not constitute evidence for the existence of God to someone who does not accept the Bible as a source of empirical evidence or truth.

2. Use of Religious Doctrine as Evidence

The narrative uses concepts like the fall of Satan, the role of Jesus Christ as a savior, and the eschatological view of heaven and hell as factual bases. For believers, these are matters of faith. However, in a debate setting, these doctrines are not empirical evidence of God's existence but rather illustrations of the belief system within Christianity.

3. Moral and Philosophical Arguments

The response touches on moral and existential questions, such as the nature of sin, human suffering, and divine justice. These are important philosophical discussions that have been debated by theologians and philosophers throughout history. While these arguments can be compelling on a moral or emotional level, they do not serve as direct evidence for the existence of God in a logical or empirical sense.

4. Emotional and Ethical Appeals

The argument makes significant emotional appeals, particularly concerning God's love, the consequences of sin, and the fate of humanity. It also addresses ethical dilemmas, such as the problem of evil and the concept of free will. These appeals can be powerful and persuasive on a personal level, influencing beliefs and behaviors. However, emotional and ethical appeals do not constitute empirical evidence for the existence of God.

5. Historical and Scientific Claims

References to a 6000-year history of human suffering and rebellion tie into Young Earth Creationism, a belief that contradicts a vast body of scientific evidence regarding the age of the Earth and the history of life on it. In a debate, it's important to distinguish between faith-based historical claims and those supported by empirical scientific evidence.

Conclusion

The argument presented is deeply rooted in Christian theology and is compelling within the context of faith. It engages with significant moral and existential questions and makes use of sacred texts to articulate a vision of the world that is coherent within its own belief system. However, as a logical debate argument for the existence of God, it relies on presuppositions that require faith in the Bible and Christian doctrine. For someone seeking empirical evidence or arguments grounded in universally accepted logic rather than faith, this narrative may not be persuasive. In debates on such topics, it's crucial to differentiate between arguments based on faith and those based on empirical evidence, while respecting the profound personal and communal meanings these beliefs hold for many.

So, Rickey, how does it feel to have millennia of your religion debunked by an online chat bot?

Actually, I am now feeling bad for asking this question. I have had so many interesting discussions with ChatGPT... He is a far better debater than most people I have debated, and as far as the people I have debated go, again, you, Rickey, are close to the bottom of the quality ranking.

ZeusAres42

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

At its core, atheism, is about personal freedom and selfishness.  You do what suits you. As your prophet has said 'selfishness is good'.  I reference this because I've point out to you and your fellow Satanists/Atheists that atheism has no objective moral foundation.  Selfishness is to be expected.  Its even considered a virtue by many atheists.  

At its core atheism is about unbelief. It doesn't assert anything. Theism does that. Your statement proves this fact. What's more selfish, knowing when you die that's it from what we've been able to observe; or to believe you have a pot of gold and eternal life as long as you believe in your god fairy elf, it thinks you're special, and it's book? I'd say true selfishness abides in the latter.

 Again, and I keep repeating this, atheism has no objective moral foundation.  

It's also somewhat confusing how an absence of belief is supposed to have any moral system.

By the way, @just_saying, since you also state that disbelief is a belief in non-belief, perhaps you could find me some literature on non-unicorns for us to subscribe to as well?

MayCaesar

@ZeusAres42

I do not know about unicorns... The "sex on the unicorn" scene from the Witcher series is pretty hard to forget.

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

@ZeusAres42

I do not know about unicorns... The "sex on the unicorn" scene from the Witcher series is pretty hard to forget.

Thanks haha but I was after non-unicorns for those that believe in the non-unicorn ideology. The argument put forwad from posts above is insisting that if you don't believe something is true, it means you must believe it's false. It's like saying because I don't believe in unicorns, I must believe in... non-unicorns. Hence the satirical post. @MayCaesar. 

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

Anyone else is confused how Satan is being connected to atheism? I thought atheism meant lack of belief in supernatural, and Satan specifically is a fictional character from the Bible, so... would it not be reasonable to call people worship Satan Christians instead?

Satan has not been connected other than by Anton LaVey whose Church of Satan is about being an atheist.  Atheism's beliefs are the beliefs of the Church of Satan.  They do not believe in a literal Devil.  Satan is the concept of rebelling against religion and doing your own thing and putting your own interests first in the atheistic faith.  Again, I'll repeat the 9 Satanic Statements:

1. Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!
2. Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates!
5. Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek!
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for pyschic vampires!
7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development” has become the most vicious animal of all!
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
9. Satan has been the best friend the church has ever had, as he kept it in business all these years!

Notice how 'Satan' really stands for belief statements - specifically atheistic beliefs.  

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

At its core, atheism, is about personal freedom and selfishness.  You do what suits you. As your prophet has said 'selfishness is good'.  I reference this because I've point out to you and your fellow Satanists/Atheists that atheism has no objective moral foundation.  Selfishness is to be expected.  Its even considered a virtue by many atheists.  

At its core atheism is about unbelief. It doesn't assert anything. Theism does that. Your statement proves this fact. What's more selfish, knowing when you die that's it from what we've been able to observe; or to believe you have a pot of gold and eternal life as long as you believe in your god fairy elf, it thinks you're special, and it's book? I'd say true selfishness abides in the latter.

 Again, and I keep repeating this, atheism has no objective moral foundation.  

It's also somewhat confusing how an absence of belief is supposed to have any moral system.

By the way, @just_saying, since you also state that disbelief is a belief in non-belief, perhaps you could find me some literature on non-unicorns for us to subscribe to as well?

I don't think you are either being honest with yourself or you are failing  recognize  how not believing in God impacts other beliefs.  If the belief systems of Christians and atheists were identical that would show some incongruence.  I don't agree with Anton LaVey',  the prophet of Atheism's conclusions, but I do recognize that if God doesn't exist his views are the beliefs that one would live their life by.  

ZeusAres42

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

At its core, atheism, is about personal freedom and selfishness.  You do what suits you. As your prophet has said 'selfishness is good'.  I reference this because I've point out to you and your fellow Satanists/Atheists that atheism has no objective moral foundation.  Selfishness is to be expected.  Its even considered a virtue by many atheists.  

At its core atheism is about unbelief. It doesn't assert anything. Theism does that. Your statement proves this fact. What's more selfish, knowing when you die that's it from what we've been able to observe; or to believe you have a pot of gold and eternal life as long as you believe in your god fairy elf, it thinks you're special, and it's book? I'd say true selfishness abides in the latter.

 Again, and I keep repeating this, atheism has no objective moral foundation.  

It's also somewhat confusing how an absence of belief is supposed to have any moral system.

By the way, @just_saying, since you also state that disbelief is a belief in non-belief, perhaps you could find me some literature on non-unicorns for us to subscribe to as well?

I don't think you are either being honest with yourself or you are failing  recognize  how not believing in God impacts other beliefs.  If the belief systems of Christians and atheists were identical that would show some incongruence.  I don't agree with Anton LaVey',  the prophet of Atheism's conclusions, but I do recognize that if God doesn't exist his views are the beliefs that one would live their life by.  

@just_saying what is so hard to understand about an absence or lack of belief? I give zero f*ks about other people who claim they hate god, etc. Perhaps using a formal logical argument standard form might help:

Premise 1: Atheism is characterized by a lack of belief in the existence of God.

Premise 2: Not believing in the existence of God does not necessarily equate to actively believing there is no God.

Conclusion: Therefore, as an Atheist, I do not actively believe there is no God; rather, I simply lack belief in the existence of God.

PS:

1. Theism: The belief that at least one god exists.
2. Atheism: The absence of belief in the existence of any gods.
3. Strong atheism (or positive atheism): The assertion or belief that no gods exist.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

MayCaesar said:

Anyone else is confused how Satan is being connected to atheism? I thought atheism meant lack of belief in supernatural, and Satan specifically is a fictional character from the Bible, so... would it not be reasonable to call people worship Satan Christians instead?

Satan has not been connected other than by Anton LaVey whose Church of Satan is about being an atheist.  Atheism's beliefs are the beliefs of the Church of Satan.  They do not believe in a literal Devil.  Satan is the concept of rebelling against religion and doing your own thing and putting your own interests first in the atheistic faith.  Again, I'll repeat the 9 Satanic Statements:

1. Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!
2. Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates!
5. Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek!
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for pyschic vampires!
7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development” has become the most vicious animal of all!
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
9. Satan has been the best friend the church has ever had, as he kept it in business all these years!

Notice how 'Satan' really stands for belief statements - specifically atheistic beliefs.  

Okay, let me get this straight...

- There is this creature in the Bible called "Satan".
- There is this guy Anton who believes in Satan, but in a metaphorical way.
- This guy claims to be an atheist.
- And this guy holds positions most of which I do not hold.
- But because I also happen to be an atheist, he is my prophet?

Please confirm that this is the argument you are making. There is still some amount of respect you have left to lose in my eyes, and we might as well get done with it quickly, right?

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

At its core, atheism, is about personal freedom and selfishness.  You do what suits you. As your prophet has said 'selfishness is good'.  I reference this because I've point out to you and your fellow Satanists/Atheists that atheism has no objective moral foundation.  Selfishness is to be expected.  Its even considered a virtue by many atheists.  

At its core atheism is about unbelief. It doesn't assert anything. Theism does that. Your statement proves this fact. What's more selfish, knowing when you die that's it from what we've been able to observe; or to believe you have a pot of gold and eternal life as long as you believe in your god fairy elf, it thinks you're special, and it's book? I'd say true selfishness abides in the latter.

 Again, and I keep repeating this, atheism has no objective moral foundation.  

It's also somewhat confusing how an absence of belief is supposed to have any moral system.

By the way, @just_saying, since you also state that disbelief is a belief in non-belief, perhaps you could find me some literature on non-unicorns for us to subscribe to as well?

I don't think you are either being honest with yourself or you are failing  recognize  how not believing in God impacts other beliefs.  If the belief systems of Christians and atheists were identical that would show some incongruence.  I don't agree with Anton LaVey',  the prophet of Atheism's conclusions, but I do recognize that if God doesn't exist his views are the beliefs that one would live their life by.  

This is crux of your delusion. People look up to one another for various reasons in multiple circumstances, but rarely does anyone seek to emulate a person or their legacy 100% in all that they are. Generally people tend to live their lives for the sake of those around them who they care about and have no desire/need for an example to live by, to a T. People navigate their lives as they see fit to and try and care for those around them, no idol of any kind is necessary. If I agree with someone on this site, or with Anton LaVey, it doesn't mean I want to live by their word in every aspect of life. 

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

I don't agree with Anton LaVey',  the prophet of Atheism's conclusions, but I do recognize that if God doesn't exist his views are the beliefs that one would live their life by.  

Would it be reasonable to conclude therefore that the only reason you do not live your life by these beliefs is that you believe that god exists? Uh, let me pull away a little bit... 

just_sayin

@ZeusAres42
I love how your questions proof my point so well.  Thank you!  You said:

1. The Ignored Questions: Ah, but let's not overlook the other queries left hanging in the void of disbelief:

• Scriptures for Atheists?
• Atheist TV Guide? 
• Church of the Godless? ⛪
• After-School Blasphemy Club? 
• Prayer to Nothingness? ?
• Socializing Sans Religion? ?
• Dinner Parties of Disbelief? ?
• Thanksgiven? ?

You initially asked about a 'holy' book for atheists, and I gladly provided you the name of that book - the Book of Satan.  It is explicitly a book about how to live as an atheist.  You went apoplectic; accusing me of all manner of extremism, when in fact your views closely mirror those advocated by the prophet of atheists, Anton LaVey.  

You asked about Scriptures for atheists - I'd say the Book of Satan fits your wish - it covers the beliefs that atheists should hold.

Atheist TV Guide?  Is TV Guide still a thing?  There are plenty of shows that have eliminated God and positive religious characters.  At one point (not making this up)  the only show on broadcast TV where the family regularly were seen going to church was the Simpsons.  Today I think the Blue Bloods mention their faith (don't know for sure - I don't watch it).  

Church of the Goodess?  I am sure the Church of Satan would love for you to attend their servives.  You asked about communion in another post, as I understand it they do have a black mass ceremony for you.  

After school Blasphemy club - I would image you should check out Secular Student Alliance.  Here is a generic listing of clubs for you though:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Atheist_organizations

Prayer to Nothingness?  Well nothing is your god.  You believe you came from nothing.  And when you die you believe you will go and spend eternity with your god - nothing.  Since atheists don't believe in a god, I don't think they pray.  As LaVey points out - atheism is not about meeting the expectations of others its about doing your own selfish thing.

Socializing sans religion?  Atheism is considered a religion by SCOTUS, specifically Humanism.  I provided you a list of atheist clubs above.

Dinner parties of disbelief?  Don't know.  But atheists are notoriously selfish - so expect to have to pay your own way.  Maybe you can find some place where they sacrifice to Satan and go there.

Thanksgiven?  Well, nothing is stopping the atheist/Satanist from crying out 'Hail Satan' at any moment.

Hope this helps.  I really have loved answering your questions.  If I could, just how do you see your beliefs as being different than those of the Church of Satan?  

ZeusAres42

@just_sayin

What you just answered was the same thing the radical rickey said which already has been adressed and this was hours ago. Right now, my latest response is:

ZeusAres42 said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

At its core, atheism, is about personal freedom and selfishness.  You do what suits you. As your prophet has said 'selfishness is good'.  I reference this because I've point out to you and your fellow Satanists/Atheists that atheism has no objective moral foundation.  Selfishness is to be expected.  Its even considered a virtue by many atheists.  

At its core atheism is about unbelief. It doesn't assert anything. Theism does that. Your statement proves this fact. What's more selfish, knowing when you die that's it from what we've been able to observe; or to believe you have a pot of gold and eternal life as long as you believe in your god fairy elf, it thinks you're special, and it's book? I'd say true selfishness abides in the latter.

 Again, and I keep repeating this, atheism has no objective moral foundation.  

It's also somewhat confusing how an absence of belief is supposed to have any moral system.

By the way, @just_saying, since you also state that disbelief is a belief in non-belief, perhaps you could find me some literature on non-unicorns for us to subscribe to as well?

I don't think you are either being honest with yourself or you are failing  recognize  how not believing in God impacts other beliefs.  If the belief systems of Christians and atheists were identical that would show some incongruence.  I don't agree with Anton LaVey',  the prophet of Atheism's conclusions, but I do recognize that if God doesn't exist his views are the beliefs that one would live their life by.  

@just_saying what is so hard to understand about an absence or lack of belief? I give zero f*ks about other people who claim they hate god, etc. Perhaps using a formal logical argument standard form might help:

Premise 1: Atheism is characterized by a lack of belief in the existence of God.

Premise 2: Not believing in the existence of God does not necessarily equate to actively believing there is no God.

Conclusion: Therefore, as an Atheist, I do not actively believe there is no God; rather, I simply lack belief in the existence of God.

PS:

1. Theism: The belief that at least one god exists.
2. Atheism: The absence of belief in the existence of any gods.
3. Strong atheism (or positive atheism): The assertion or belief that no gods exist.

I am with @MayCaesar. You are losing respect very quickly. In other areas you do appear to be very savvy and not disingenuous. Here not so much. 

MayCaesar

@ZeusAres42

There are some people who just mentally check out when they see an argument that does not align with their preconceptions. They can be brilliant when discussing subjects they are not strongly emotionally invested in, but become toddlers mentally when discussing things they are passionate about.

It is normal to feel strong resistance to giving an honest thought to arguments threatening your most dearly held beliefs. It is weak to be controlled by that resistance.

ZeusAres42

@MayCaesar

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

What you just answered was the same thing the radical rickey said which already has been adressed and this was hours ago. Right now, my latest response is:

ZeusAres42 said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

At its core, atheism, is about personal freedom and selfishness.  You do what suits you. As your prophet has said 'selfishness is good'.  I reference this because I've point out to you and your fellow Satanists/Atheists that atheism has no objective moral foundation.  Selfishness is to be expected.  Its even considered a virtue by many atheists.  

At its core atheism is about unbelief. It doesn't assert anything. Theism does that. Your statement proves this fact. What's more selfish, knowing when you die that's it from what we've been able to observe; or to believe you have a pot of gold and eternal life as long as you believe in your god fairy elf, it thinks you're special, and it's book? I'd say true selfishness abides in the latter.

 Again, and I keep repeating this, atheism has no objective moral foundation.  

It's also somewhat confusing how an absence of belief is supposed to have any moral system.

By the way, @just_saying, since you also state that disbelief is a belief in non-belief, perhaps you could find me some literature on non-unicorns for us to subscribe to as well?

I don't think you are either being honest with yourself or you are failing  recognize  how not believing in God impacts other beliefs.  If the belief systems of Christians and atheists were identical that would show some incongruence.  I don't agree with Anton LaVey',  the prophet of Atheism's conclusions, but I do recognize that if God doesn't exist his views are the beliefs that one would live their life by.  

@just_saying what is so hard to understand about an absence or lack of belief? I give zero f*ks about other people who claim they hate god, etc. Perhaps using a formal logical argument standard form might help:

Premise 1: Atheism is characterized by a lack of belief in the existence of God.

Premise 2: Not believing in the existence of God does not necessarily equate to actively believing there is no God.

Conclusion: Therefore, as an Atheist, I do not actively believe there is no God; rather, I simply lack belief in the existence of God.

PS:

1. Theism: The belief that at least one god exists.
2. Atheism: The absence of belief in the existence of any gods.
3. Strong atheism (or positive atheism): The assertion or belief that no gods exist.

I am with @MayCaesar. You are losing respect very quickly. In other areas you do appear to be very savvy and not disingenuous. Here not so much. 

I believe you have misdefined - atheism.  Are you confusing it with agnosticism?  

Mirriam-Webster uses this definition:

1. a. : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. b. : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.

I believe your 2nd premise is false.  How can you not believe in the existence of God without having not actively believed there is no God at some point?  That is illogical.  Feel free to explain how you can intellectually conclude there is no god and that not be an 'active' process.  

The definition of atheism does not make your declination between 'atheism' and 'strong atheism'.  In fact is disagrees with it.  This seems to be your own terminology.  Which is fine, however how can you be an atheist if you don't assert there is no God?  I am not following you.  

ZeusAres42

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

What you just answered was the same thing the radical rickey said which already has been adressed and this was hours ago. Right now, my latest response is:

ZeusAres42 said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

At its core, atheism, is about personal freedom and selfishness.  You do what suits you. As your prophet has said 'selfishness is good'.  I reference this because I've point out to you and your fellow Satanists/Atheists that atheism has no objective moral foundation.  Selfishness is to be expected.  Its even considered a virtue by many atheists.  

At its core atheism is about unbelief. It doesn't assert anything. Theism does that. Your statement proves this fact. What's more selfish, knowing when you die that's it from what we've been able to observe; or to believe you have a pot of gold and eternal life as long as you believe in your god fairy elf, it thinks you're special, and it's book? I'd say true selfishness abides in the latter.

 Again, and I keep repeating this, atheism has no objective moral foundation.  

It's also somewhat confusing how an absence of belief is supposed to have any moral system.

By the way, @just_saying, since you also state that disbelief is a belief in non-belief, perhaps you could find me some literature on non-unicorns for us to subscribe to as well?

I don't think you are either being honest with yourself or you are failing  recognize  how not believing in God impacts other beliefs.  If the belief systems of Christians and atheists were identical that would show some incongruence.  I don't agree with Anton LaVey',  the prophet of Atheism's conclusions, but I do recognize that if God doesn't exist his views are the beliefs that one would live their life by.  

@just_saying what is so hard to understand about an absence or lack of belief? I give zero f*ks about other people who claim they hate god, etc. Perhaps using a formal logical argument standard form might help:

Premise 1: Atheism is characterized by a lack of belief in the existence of God.

Premise 2: Not believing in the existence of God does not necessarily equate to actively believing there is no God.

Conclusion: Therefore, as an Atheist, I do not actively believe there is no God; rather, I simply lack belief in the existence of God.

PS:

1. Theism: The belief that at least one god exists.
2. Atheism: The absence of belief in the existence of any gods.
3. Strong atheism (or positive atheism): The assertion or belief that no gods exist.

I am with @MayCaesar. You are losing respect very quickly. In other areas you do appear to be very savvy and not disingenuous. Here not so much. 

I believe you have misdefined - atheism.  Are you confusing it with agnosticism?  

Mirriam-Webster uses this definition:

1. a. : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. b. : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.

I believe your 2nd premise is false.  How can you not believe in the existence of God without having not actively believed there is no God at some point?  That is illogical.  Feel free to explain how you can intellectually conclude there is no god and that not be an 'active' process.  

The definition of atheism does not make your declination between 'atheism' and 'strong atheism'.  In fact is disagrees with it.  This seems to be your own terminology.  Which is fine, however how can you be an atheist if you don't assert there is no God?  I am not following you.  

I am getting bored now. Argue with Chatgtp4 instead:

The argument presented raises several points of contention regarding the understanding of atheism and the nature of belief. Let's break down the issues and identify potential misconceptions:

1. Misunderstanding of Atheism and Strong Atheism: The critic seems to conflate atheism with strong atheism. Atheism, in a broad sense, is simply the lack of belief in the existence of any gods. Strong atheism, on the other hand, is the explicit assertion that no gods exist. The distinction between these two positions is significant because one involves a passive lack of belief (atheism) while the other involves an active belief in non-existence (strong atheism). The critic's argument appears to misunderstand or disregard this distinction, which is not a fallacy per se but a conceptual error or an argument from ignorance, assuming that atheism necessarily involves the active belief that no gods exist.

2. Misinterpretation of Active vs. Passive Belief: The critic challenges the idea that one can lack belief in God's existence without ever having actively believed that God does not exist, suggesting this is illogical. This point misunderstands the nature of belief and non-belief. It is entirely possible for a person never to have formulated an active belief regarding the existence or non-existence of God, simply defaulting to a lack of belief due to a lack of convincing evidence or interest (passive non-belief). The critic's demand for an explanation of how one can conclude there is no god without an 'active' process imposes a false dilemma, suggesting that one must either actively disbelieve in God or implicitly believe in God's existence.

3. Equivocation on the Definition of Atheism: The critic argues that the definition of atheism disagrees with the distinction made between 'atheism' and 'strong atheism' and suggests that this distinction is the speaker's own terminology. This is not accurate, as the differentiation between atheism (or weak atheism) and strong atheism is well-established in philosophical and theological discussions. The critic's assertion may stem from an equivocation fallacy, where the term "atheism" is used ambiguously without acknowledging its broad and narrow definitions.

4. Straw Man Argument: By suggesting that one cannot be an atheist without asserting there is no God, the critic may be misrepresenting the position of atheism as outlined by the speaker. This misrepresentation can lead to a straw man argument, where the critic argues against a distorted version of the speaker's stance rather than the stance itself, which simply highlighted the existence of a spectrum of non-belief.

In conclusion, the critic's argument seems to stem from a mix of misunderstanding the nuanced distinctions within atheism, misinterpreting the nature of belief and non-belief, and potentially engaging in equivocation and straw man fallacies. Clarifying these concepts and acknowledging the spectrum of atheistic positions can help address the critic's confusion and foster a more accurate and productive discussion on the topic.

I have actually given up now on how to make this any more simple myself.  

ZeusAres42

Inb4 @just_saying makes the argumentum ad-hominem circumstantial fallacy I.E ChatGPT is biased, etc........

MayCaesar

I think one serious issue we are not pointing out here is that science and religion approach the matter of taking a stance differently. In religion you actively "believe" something: either you believe that there is god, or you believe that there is no god. In science, you instead have a model of the world and choose what to include and not include in it based on various philosophical considerations - and if you are a good scientist, then you do not include entities for existence of which no evidence has been found.

In religion, you hear that wormholes are possible according to the General Relativity theory and either believe that they actually exist, or that they do not exist. In science, you reserve the judgement, but in the current model of the world you do not include wormholes.

Because religion-minded and science-minded people approach the question of existence of entities differently, it is hard for them to understand each other. To me, it makes no sense to believe in something existence of which cannot be demonstrated in the lab; to a religious person, it makes no sense to lack belief as such and, instead, think in modeling terms.

I will add that I use term "science" here very broadly. I do not just mean formal academic science, but the general approach to epistemology that anyone can practice regardless of their familiarity with the formal scientific method. Atheism in itself is neither scientific nor unscientific, and there are plenty of atheists whose epistemology is offensively unscientific.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

I think I know what you're saying. But to put it in simpler terms so I know I get it, the theist uses discoveries from science to prove in some way, possibly to themselves, something they believe in exists, or at the very least it can. Where as an atheists takes those same discoveries and thinks, fascinating wonder what it means. Is that about right?

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

Very close. Science is an extremely skeptical framework, in which even seemingly obvious things are put to the test. Even the most established theories are systematically tested and refined, for the price of getting our models even slightly wrong can be tremendously high (think a small miscalculation in the parameters of a nuclear reactor).

Science also demonstrates how dangerous and prone to misfiring human intuition is. Mathematicians know this very well. When a math major takes his undergraduate courses, he can generally run on his intuition and understand everything somewhat well. But when he moves on to graduate-level math course, things start changing rapidly, as more and more examples of logic defying intuition are encountered.

One very famous example is Lebesgue measure. When it is introduced, a professor who knows his craft will say, "You guys are probably thinking that every possible set of objects is Lebesgue-measurable. You will see that there are sets that are not". (In simple terms, Lebesgue measure is the mathematical analogue of mass of physical objects). You, a student, will shrug, "Okay, you are free to try. I do not see how you are going to do this".
Then the Vitali set is introduced. For the first couple of days you disbelieve it: you think it is some sort of a trick. It takes you a while to convince yourself that this set is actually a valid construct. And you realize that it is not Lebesgue-measurable: that if you assume that it has a "mass", then that "mass" can equal to 2 and 3 simultaneously.
Then you have an existential crisis. You hate mathematics, hate your intuition, hate yourself. "Why must things be so ugly?"
And then you come to terms with it: "Okay, my intuition is pretty bad when it comes to these things".

Then you encounter even more damning results such as the Godel's Incompleteness Theorem that, in very simple terms, says that any possible version of mathematics has horrible logical holes... These are very humbling experiences, showing to us that there really is no replacement to strict logic if one is to seek the truth in this world.

So when a theist says that it is "obvious" that there is god, or that everyone "knows it intuitively"... He is someone who has not learned that lesson.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

Very close. Science is an extremely skeptical framework, in which even seemingly obvious things are put to the test. Even the most established theories are systematically tested and refined, for the price of getting our models even slightly wrong can be tremendously high (think a small miscalculation in the parameters of a nuclear reactor).

Science also demonstrates how dangerous and prone to misfiring human intuition is. Mathematicians know this very well. When a math major takes his undergraduate courses, he can generally run on his intuition and understand everything somewhat well. But when he moves on to graduate-level math course, things start changing rapidly, as more and more examples of logic defying intuition are encountered.

One very famous example is Lebesgue measure. When it is introduced, a professor who knows his craft will say, "You guys are probably thinking that every possible set of objects is Lebesgue-measurable. You will see that there are sets that are not". (In simple terms, Lebesgue measure is the mathematical analogue of mass of physical objects). You, a student, will shrug, "Okay, you are free to try. I do not see how you are going to do this".
Then the Vitali set is introduced. For the first couple of days you disbelieve it: you think it is some sort of a trick. It takes you a while to convince yourself that this set is actually a valid construct. And you realize that it is not Lebesgue-measurable: that if you assume that it has a "mass", then that "mass" can equal to 2 and 3 simultaneously.
Then you have an existential crisis. You hate mathematics, hate your intuition, hate yourself. "Why must things be so ugly?"
And then you come to terms with it: "Okay, my intuition is pretty bad when it comes to these things".

Then you encounter even more damning results such as the Godel's Incompleteness Theorem that, in very simple terms, says that any possible version of mathematics has horrible logical holes... These are very humbling experiences, showing to us that there really is no replacement to strict logic if one is to seek the truth in this world.

So when a theist says that it is "obvious" that there is god, or that everyone "knows it intuitively"... He is someone who has not learned that lesson.

Yeah, that truly does make science one of the most honorable professions there is. They consistently try to disprove their own hypothesis and theories. Now that fact pits theists and atheists at polar opposites of the spectrum. Which would definitely influence each sides approach to the sciences. Logically, we must use every possibility that arises to disprove what we know; in order to retain the information as knowledge. Theists want to prove what they believe. Atheists want to know if what they believe is true. 

ZeusAres42

@just_sayin

You claim that not having a belief in the existence of X automatically means having a belief in the non-existence of x. Just because you don't have a belief in the existence of unicorns does not mean you have a belief in the  non-existence of unicorns; that doesn't make any sense; that's just not how belief works or unicorns for that matter. It is indeed you who is the one claiming something illogical here my friend. 


Absence of belief is not belief of absence. 
 
Just like absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

Hopefully that helps. 

just_sayin

@ZeusAres42

Hey, if you say you are a passive atheist I'll accept that.  Looking over your posts, just in this thread, you said God is a hater, and that believers are 'radicalized'.  You have taken several shots at Rickey both personally and at his beliefs.  Maybe you are more of a passive-aggressive atheist or an aggressive-passive atheist.  just_sayin.  

Anyways,  I am still looking for how you think your atheism differs/is better than that of a member of the Church of Satan.  @Factfinder claimed his atheism was different but in just one post he affirmed 7 of the 9 core statements of the Church of Satan (that's their 10 commandment equivalent).  If @Factfinder is a 'passive' atheist, then Mike Tyson was a passive boxer, like when he passively bit the ear of Evander Holyfield off.  

I'm sure until I answered your question, you had never made the connection with atheist beliefs and the atheistic tradition of the Church of Satan.  While I don't agree with the world view of the Church of Satan, I can see that if you truly believed there was no God how their views about atheism should be lived out make sense.  Why do you perceive your Satanism is better than their Satanism?  And again, I'm using 'Satan' in the sense of the Church of Satan's view of Satan - as the embodiment of freedom from a non-existent God.  

I keep waiting for an atheist to explain why their world view is an objective foundation for moral values.  To me atheism naturally leads to doing what is in someone's best interests.  Atheism followed to its logical conclusions is then about which individuals or groups are strongest and can then impose their will on others.  That to me is an unethical and immoral system.  

John_C_87

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Atheism does not exist in reality; why is the deception promulgated among the aberrant?

The reason may be Christ departs from the structured normal breaking nine out of ten commandments.

RickeyHoltsclaw

John_C_87 said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Atheism does not exist in reality; why is the deception promulgated among the aberrant?

The reason may be Christ departs from the structured normal breaking nine out of ten commandments.

@John_C_87 ; Would you explain or add some context please?

John_C_87

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Christ breaking 9 out of 10 Commandments was not clear to you, even the proverbs shown are giving nothing more than witness account. Christ died for the ungodly, Christ created the ungodly by taking God in vain making change to the normal.

RickeyHoltsclaw

John_C_87 said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Christ breaking 9 out of 10 Commandments was not clear to you, even the proverbs shown are giving nothing more than witness account. Christ died for the ungodly, Christ created the ungodly by taking God in vain making change to the normal.

@John_C_87 ;   Nothing you have said is Scriptural. Jesus is Elohim, God, our Creator (Genesis 1; John 1; Hebrews 1; Colossians 1)...He is sinless perfection and kept the Law in perfection thereby making Himself the "Spotless Lamb" of the Father who takes away the sins of the World (John 1:29; 1 Peter 1:18-19).

John_C_87

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Do not be mad, I need not quote proverbs you have already brought to the table, your faith is your religion, is your own liberty. I suggest Peter or you might read up on the differences between Goats and Lamb for this principle does not show favor in truth in a way it might be expected. At least when speaking of mixed blood betweeen animals had humans. (Genesis 1; John 1; Hebrews 1; Colossians 1) Again witness account from a human man with assumed identities in struggle even now to assume with vanity the purpose of GOD. People are instructed by other people on how they understand a witness account before reading witness accounts themselves.

RickeyHoltsclaw

John_C_87 said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Do not be mad, I need not quote proverbs you have already brought to the table, your faith is your religion, is your own liberty. I suggest Peter or you might read up on the differences between Goats and Lamb for this principle does not show favor in truth in a way it might be expected. At least when speaking of mixed blood betweeen animals had humans. (Genesis 1; John 1; Hebrews 1; Colossians 1) Again witness account from a human man with assumed identities in struggle even now to assume with vanity the purpose of GOD. People are instructed by other people on how they understand a witness account before reading witness accounts themselves.

@John_C_87 ;

1) Not angry, John...it is by "faith" that we please our Creator.  I do possess the inalienable right to trust in Jesus as my Messiah...that is true. Hebrews 11:6

2) Actually, it's "goats and sheep" as the correct designation (Matthew 25:31-46).

3) The blood of animals could never take away sin (Hebrews 10:4); therefore, only the sinless blood of Jesus provides atonement for your sin; this, by faith in Jesus as your Messiah (Hebrews 10; Matthew 26:28; 1 Peter 1:18-19); blood that Jesus shed for you at Golgotha.

4) Thousands of men, women, children, observed Jesus during His Earthly ministry... I am fully aware of witness accounts, their variances contingent upon a multitude of immutable and mutable factors...I was in law enforcement for 31-years...witness statements were rather common.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

I never said 'my atheism is different'. I sad it's unbelief and makes no assertions. That's what theism does. I do not claim there is no god, no assertions, get it. I simply do not accept anything purposed as a god to date as real; due to lack of evidence. Pointing at a rock and saying 'god did' it isn't evidence of any god. 

You can see evidence of atheism's morality every day on this site. We debate honestly and only return insults when provoked. You claim to know our belief systems just because we reject yours. You then say our 'god' is science, you claim were satanic because of your ignorance in how we arrived to where we're at in our world views. You get frustrated and lash out with silly videos when we simply don't share your faith. You make stupendous comparisons but you can only see the reactions to your nonsense and then once again project your presumptuous attitudes on anyone who disagrees with you. And you wonder why one or more of us would introduce the flying spaghetti monster as god to mock your self-righteous remarks? Your god must be so proud. 

Don't even try to defend ricky. You even told him he was over the top in so many words.

John_C_87

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Where does the inalienable right come from describe the process that right is held by all men so that they all may trust in Jesus?

ZeusAres42

@just_sayin

Note: The following was mostly my own doing. I used ChatGPT along with cross-referencing other sources for validation, grammar checking, and some minor refinements.

I think I know what might be confusing you with this argument: "As an Atheist, or as I like to call it, A-theist (note the hyphen), it's not that I believe God doesn't exist. I just don't believe there is one."

At first sight, it might seem like a double negative, but after careful analysis, it's perfectly valid. Funnily enough, Nom thought he had caught me out here in the past as well. I had a hard time explaining this to him also.

Anyway, when validating the logical structure of claims/arguments, it is sometimes helpful to put it into standard form.

Standard Form Argument

1. Premise 1 (¬B(~E(x))): "I do not believe that 'x' does not exist."

   • Interpretation: This indicates the speaker rejects the belief in the non-existence of "x," without necessarily affirming "x's" existence. It does not absolutely or necessarily follow here that an affirmation of belief is taking place.
   • Possible Reasons: Lack of definitive evidence against "x's" existence, epistemological considerations, or complexities in proving non-existence, or just plain indifference.

2. Premise 2 (¬B(E(x))): "I do not believe that 'x' exists."

   • Interpretation: This shows the speaker also does not hold a belief in the existence of "x."
   • Possible Reasons: Insufficient empirical evidence for "x's" existence, philosophical skepticism, or high standards for evidence, or just plain indifference, etc.

Clarifying the Logical Structure

• Against a Double Negative: This argument framework highlights that the premises do not form a double negative that would imply a belief in "x's" existence. Unlike cases where negating a negation leads to a positive (e.g., "I am not unhappy" means "I am happy"), here, the structure maintains a stance of non-affirmation regarding "x's" existence.

• Navigating Between Non-Beliefs: The distinction between not believing "x" exists and not believing "x" does not exist carefully avoids asserting belief in either direction, thus not affirming "x's" existence or non-existence.

Conclusion as Part of the Standard Form

1. Conclusion (C): Given the lack of belief in both the existence and non-existence of "x," informed by the absence of compelling evidence, epistemological humility, philosophical skepticism, the speaker maintains a specific position of non-belief regarding "x."
   • Standard Form Notation: ¬B(E(x)) ∧ ¬B(~E(x)) — The speaker neither believes in the existence nor in the non-existence of "x," reflecting a nuanced stance of non-belief based on thoughtful considerations rather than a double negative leading to an affirmative belief.

Comprehensive Conclusion

• This structured approach underscores a nuanced position of non-belief in both the existence and non-existence of "x," driven by a reflective examination of evidence, acknowledgment of knowledge limitations, and philosophical principles. It highlights the careful navigation between non-belief states without crossing into affirmative belief territories, distinguishing the argument from a simple logical inversion and emphasizing the considered nature of the speaker's stance.

Call this agnosticism if you like. It isn't, but if that is how you want to define it, then go ahead. This is how what I and others here so far mean though when we talk of Atheism in its broadest sense. If the word "broad" confuses you, then perhaps replace that with "general."

Thanks. 

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

I had to read that several times just to make sure I agreed with it. That was about as technical as you can get.

just_sayin

John_C_87 said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Christ breaking 9 out of 10 Commandments was not clear to you, even the proverbs shown are giving nothing more than witness account. Christ died for the ungodly, Christ created the ungodly by taking God in vain making change to the normal.

That was crazy even for you John.  Christ did not make anyone ungodly.  For we are each responsible for our own conduct.  Maybe you took a little to much medicine there.  Get well my friend.  

MayCaesar

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

Note: The following was mostly my own doing. I used ChatGPT along with cross-referencing other sources for validation, grammar checking, and some minor refinements.

I think I know what might be confusing you with this argument: "As an Atheist, or as I like to call it, A-theist (note the hyphen), it's not that I believe God doesn't exist. I just don't believe there is one."

At first sight, it might seem like a double negative, but after careful analysis, it's perfectly valid. Funnily enough, Nom thought he had caught me out here in the past as well. I had a hard time explaining this to him also.

Anyway, when validating the logical structure of claims/arguments, it is sometimes helpful to put it into standard form.

Standard Form Argument

1. Premise 1 (¬B(~E(x))): "I do not believe that 'x' does not exist."

   • Interpretation: This indicates the speaker rejects the belief in the non-existence of "x," without necessarily affirming "x's" existence. It does not absolutely or necessarily follow here that an affirmation of belief is taking place.
   • Possible Reasons: Lack of definitive evidence against "x's" existence, epistemological considerations, or complexities in proving non-existence, or just plain indifference.

2. Premise 2 (¬B(E(x))): "I do not believe that 'x' exists."

   • Interpretation: This shows the speaker also does not hold a belief in the existence of "x."
   • Possible Reasons: Insufficient empirical evidence for "x's" existence, philosophical skepticism, or high standards for evidence, or just plain indifference, etc.

Clarifying the Logical Structure

• Against a Double Negative: This argument framework highlights that the premises do not form a double negative that would imply a belief in "x's" existence. Unlike cases where negating a negation leads to a positive (e.g., "I am not unhappy" means "I am happy"), here, the structure maintains a stance of non-affirmation regarding "x's" existence.

• Navigating Between Non-Beliefs: The distinction between not believing "x" exists and not believing "x" does not exist carefully avoids asserting belief in either direction, thus not affirming "x's" existence or non-existence.

Conclusion as Part of the Standard Form

1. Conclusion (C): Given the lack of belief in both the existence and non-existence of "x," informed by the absence of compelling evidence, epistemological humility, philosophical skepticism, the speaker maintains a specific position of non-belief regarding "x."
   • Standard Form Notation: ¬B(E(x)) ∧ ¬B(~E(x)) — The speaker neither believes in the existence nor in the non-existence of "x," reflecting a nuanced stance of non-belief based on thoughtful considerations rather than a double negative leading to an affirmative belief.

Comprehensive Conclusion

• This structured approach underscores a nuanced position of non-belief in both the existence and non-existence of "x," driven by a reflective examination of evidence, acknowledgment of knowledge limitations, and philosophical principles. It highlights the careful navigation between non-belief states without crossing into affirmative belief territories, distinguishing the argument from a simple logical inversion and emphasizing the considered nature of the speaker's stance.

Call this agnosticism if you like. It isn't, but if that is how you want to define it, then go ahead. This is how what I and others here so far mean though when we talk of Atheism in its broadest sense. If the word "broad" confuses you, then perhaps replace that with "general."

Thanks. 

I will add here that I personally think that the definition of god is self-contradictory, so "god" in the sense in that most theists mean it cannot exist in principle. But then, I also do not really call myself an "atheist" actively. "Atheist" is what theists call me. I personally do not subscribe to any labels, and in my view it is silly to design a term for someone denoting absence of something. Shall we call @just_saying amathematician because he is not a mathematician?

I think that religion is childish fantasy; take it for what you will. But, as I said before, I do not think of people poorly because they engage in such a fantasy: we all have our individual kinks. I do silly things sometimes for the sake of it, and while I am not serious about them, one can do them seriously and that is fine too.

When people assume that someone cannot have proper morals because they do not believe in fairies or something, I always get really confused. Doubly so considering that the idea of those fairies is itself a human creation... So people follow other people's morals, but accuse other people of not being able to have morals because people cannot create morals?

21CenturyIconoclast

@Factfinder

GUESS WHAT TIME IT IS?!!!

FACTFINDERS QUOTE TO REFUTE MY BIBLE PASSAGES THAT EXPLICITLY SHOW THAT YOU HAVE TO BE A JEW TO BE A CHRISTIAN:  "As I said before I will happily and easily destroy you line by line:" "https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/174067/#Comment_174067

Now, simply put for your grade-school intellect, therefore to follow through with your statement in your quote above, and without any little boy excuses or copy and pasting your previous ever wanting posts where I have already EASILY addressed those notions,  begin in destroying these passages forthwith LINE BY LINE that show you have to be a JEW to be a Christian where you laughably say otherwise:

THE MEMBERSHIP IS WATCHING!!!

BEGIN:

1. He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24). 

Jesus ONLY came for the lost sheep if Israel, WHICH ARE JEWS ONLY! 

2. Saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” (Matthew 2:2). 

Therefore, when Jesus is the KING OF THE JEWS, you have to be a JEW to be a Christian to follow Jesus! Case in point, can a hell-bound Muslim be a Christian as the King of the Jews, NO!!!

3. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you (Hebrews) out of all the peoples on the face of the earth TO BE HIS PEOPLE, his treasured possession." (Deuteronomy 7:6)

Jesus as God, chose ONLY the JEWS to be His people, and not disbelieving Gentiles per their definition!

4. Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matthew 19:28)

Who only can judge the 12 tribes of Israel, WHICH ARE ALL JEWS?  Yes again, a JEW,  get it Atheist Bible FOOL?!

5. "Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.” (Exodus 19:5-6).   

FACTFINDER, what people are the "treasured possession" of God, yes, THE JEWS ONLY! What people are the words spoken to of Israel, yes, THE JEWS ONLY! 

6. “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritan’s, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5,6)

What did Jesus say to his disciples? go nowhere among the Gentiles because they are NOT JEWS!  Rather, the disciples are to go ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel, WHICH ARE JEWS ONLY! 

7. "Because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus." (John 2:11) 

Who were believing in Jesus, THE JEWS ONLY, especially since Jesus is THE KING OF THE JEWS to begin with!

8.  “Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.”  (Matthew 16:24 NIV)

To be a disciple of Jesus, like his 12 JEWISH DISCIPLES to begin with, YOU HAVE TO BE A JEW where there is absolutely no wiggle room to this BIBLE AXIOM!

9. Jesus, who is called Justus, also sends greetings. These are the only Jews among my co-workers for the kingdom of God, and they have proved a comfort to me.” (Colossians 4:11)

Who are the ONLY people mentioned for the kingdom of God? YES, THE JEWS!!!  Will unbelieving Gentiles or any other sect that is not a JEW by definition be able to enter heaven, NO!

10. “Therefore many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in Him.” (John 11:45)

Did the Gentiles come to see Mary to see what he did and to believe in him? NO, ONLY THE JEWS! 

11. "The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." (Acts 17:10-11)

Can you be in a JEWISH SYNAGOGUE and receiving the word of Jesus as God as being the KING OF THE JEWS and not be a JEW? NO, you can not BIBLE FOOL FACTFINDER!

12. "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God."(Romans 3:1-2) 

ONLY THE JEWS were entrusted with the oracles of God!  Therefore one has to be a JEW to be a Christian follower of Jesus!  DUH!

13. "So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day." (Matthew 29:15) 

Only spread to who, even to this day in 2024, WAS THE JEWS ONLY! Then you have to be a JEW to accept the story AND TO BE A CHRISTIAN!

14. "Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.” (Exodus 19:5-6)

What people are the "treasured possession" of God, THE JEWS! What people are the words spoken to of Israel, THE JEWS ONLY!  

15. Jesus’ inspired words state: “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.” (Matthew 6:5)

Who meets in a SYNAGOGUE ONLY?  YES, the JEWS! Who is the KING OF THE JEWS? Yes, Jesus!  Who ONLY can be a Christian, YES AGAIN, A JEW!!! 

FACTFINDER, YOUR "BIBLE BUFFOONERY" IS ON THE LINE, THE CLOCK IS TICKING: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsq0FiXjGHg

.

Factfinder

@21CenturyIconoclast

Until you grow up we can't move on. What are 'text', 'subtext', and 'context' and how are they used in literature? 

Who was the apostle to the gentiles? What does 'anyone' mean? Who was the gentile author of the gospel of luke in the christian bible?

Explain your debunked bone headed statement : "Biblically, the ONLY people that can be Christians are HEBREWS, period! To all the non jew gentile christians today? Before all membership explain the idiocy behind your remark. They've seen it debunked. Admit defeat and then I'll school you some more if you truly want me to.

21CenturyIconoclast

@RickeyHoltsclaw


RICKEYHOLTSCLAW, WITHOUT A DOUBT, THE NUMBER 1 BIBLE FOOL OF THIS RELIGION FORUM, BAR NONE!


YOUR FEEBLE POST HEREWITH WHERE YOU PROFFERED 1 JOHN 1:9:  "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

This passage that you had the audacity to promote is insidious on the grounds that a BIBLE pseudo-christian like YOU, therefore has no incentive NOT TO SIN because you will always be forgiven by your BLOODY BRUTAL SERIAL KILLER JESUS!  In essence, you could murder many of Jesus' JEWISH Creation, and will always be forgiven by Jesus in your thinking, NOT!  No wonder the inept in IQ levels like YOU become pseudo-christians with a ruse like the forgiveness of sins doctrine!  LOL!!!


Bible Rickey, you forgot to include OTHER biblical passages inspired by Jesus relative to the Forgiveness Doctrine, WHY? Are you just to BIBLE DUMB AGAIN to realize they exist, or are you just to SCARED to post them in contradiction to your 1 John 1:9 post above? Huh?


YOUR PATHETIC BRONZE AND IRON AGE PRIMITIVE BIBLE ALSO STATES THESE PASSAGES RELATIVE TO SIN THAT CONTRADICT YOUR 1 JOHN 1:9 PASSAGE SHOWN ABOVE:

1. “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,” (Hebrews 10:26)

2. “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! (Romans 6:15)

3.  "Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times." (Matthew 18:21-22)  Therefore, after 77 times, sins will NOT be forgiven by Jesus as god!!!

4. "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." (Matthew 12:31-32)

NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN AS BIBLE DUMBFOUNDED AS "RICKEYHOLTSCLAW" WILL BE ....?

.