The Black Vault

at1with0 wrote:You believe and/or claim that belief in all Gods is a false belief held with conviction (correct me if I'm wrong).

You're wrong.

But at the same time, "paranormal or anomalous phenomena" is pseudoscience:

a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

If the scientific method can't be put to use regarding these claims, then there's no way to PROVE them false, and these ridiculous claims can go on forever.

YUP..that's a what a I've a been a saying all these years!!!!!! Of course, here I'm talking about pseudoskepticism. Which refers to a negative claim not being supported by the claimant, i.e. stating the Biblical God is a fantasy, and not backing up the claim is the very defintion of pseudoskepticism.

SmokinJoe wrote:
It very much applies. So much so that they often FOCUS their criticism on implausible claims. And out of that skepticism, scientists state that those who claim, for example, that God is a fairy tale, must support their negative claim. The onus of proof is on the claimant to prove it.

If said claimant fails or refuses to support their negative claim, then that is known, in scientific circles, as pseudoskepticism.

I'm talking about negative onus of proof. A claim is a claim. In science, if one make a claim for or against something, the onus of proof is on them.

If i were trying to submit my views into scientific discipline, then I would. I am not making any claims beyond my personal experiences that God exists. I'm not trying to make anyone else believe as I do. I'm not trying to claim God is provable through any scientific means. That is why I believe this subject falls under the realm of philosophy.

So, basically, anybody can make any outrageous claim they want (with no evidence), and just because they aren't involved in the scientific community, they don't get to be labeled "pseudoskeptics". But if a scientist comes along and says their idea is crap, and doesn't have the evidence to prove them wrong, they're the pseudoskeptic?

Something about that line of reasoning just doesn't seem right.

Ahhh, NOPE. Not what I've been saying. What I HAVE been saying is the entire subject of God remains in Philosophy because NEITHER, ie NEITHER SIDE, can bring this subject into science. As we both have already agreed, there's just no way to submit anything for EITHER SIDE that is acceptable in science. BOTH SIDES need to keep it out of science and stay within Philosophy. So, if either side tries to make a claim within science, the onus of proof, or negative hypothesis, is on the claimant.

It's unreasonable to have subject matter which cannot be tested in science, to be debated scientifically. That's just silly.

I said I know the "Biblical God" doesn't exist. You're the one making the outlandish claim that not only do you KNOW "God" exists, but it's the "Biblical God".

You do see the hypocrisy of that statement, right??? LOL

EH wrote:
You just completely ignored the point I made. Your reply has nothing to do with what I posted. This isn't about the "6 Day Creation" period. This is about the Timeline in the Bible that starts with Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago and onward. Here, look at the Biblical people chart that begins in 4,000 B.C. with "Adam":

http://www.startagain.org/images/Creati ... ne-web.gif

The fact that humans walked the Earth 400,000 years ago obliterates the "Adam and Eve" fairy tale.

It was answered. Please re-read it or ignore it. Either way, my view on it is in there.

The 6000yr timeline was introduced by Ussher in the 17th Century. The 6 days can be looked at, and is in many believer's view, a spiritual accounting, not a literal 24hr day clock. For many Christians, jews, & believers since the beginning never have looked at the 6 days as literal. Since God can create all things at once, and is within and outide of time, it's just silly to believe in the 24hr/6day timeline in a literal sense.

There are a few out there that do believe it though. So, like I said, you're free to believe whatever interpretation you want. But, upon reading the Bible, and knowing God created all things at once, I simply cannot view the 6 days in any light other than a spiritual reference, not literal.

humphreys wrote:

at1with0 wrote:You believe and/or claim that belief in all Gods is a false belief held with conviction (correct me if I'm wrong).

You're wrong.

Believers are not delusional?

SmokinJoe wrote:The 6 days can be looked at, and is in many believer's view, a spiritual accounting, not a literal 24hr day clock.

Perhaps Jesus' existence was also not literal.


What I mean by that is how do you know when the bible is literal and when it isn't. Cuz it seems to be taken not literally or literally at the whim of the reader.

at1with0 wrote:

SmokinJoe wrote:The 6 days can be looked at, and is in many believer's view, a spiritual accounting, not a literal 24hr day clock.

Perhaps Jesus' existence was also not literal.


What I mean by that is how do you know when the bible is literal and when it isn't. Cuz it seems to be taken not literally or literally at the whim of the reader.

Before I answer that.... I sent you that PM yesterday, but forgot to give you a head's up. So, if you haven't looked, it is there.

The whole point of studying the Bible and using prayer and meditation is to discern the meaning. When Christ says we shouldn't steal, that can easily be interpreted as a literal meaning. The account of Jesus in the Bible is a historical account. Most scholars even accept the idea of a MAN named Jesus spreading the Gospel in that time period. The question of whether he was the Son of God or son of man remains a question of faith.


As for metaphors, for ex:

A woman "clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars" is in labor with a male child. (REV 12:1-2)



I wouldn't take the above verse as literal. And I don't come to that conclusion on a whim. I can't see any woman wearing the sun, along with 12 stars on her head.

at1with0 wrote:

humphreys wrote:

at1with0 wrote:You believe and/or claim that belief in all Gods is a false belief held with conviction (correct me if I'm wrong).

You're wrong.

Believers are not delusional?

You're determined to lump everything together for some reason.

I'm not sure why.

Let's start with "Believers in what?", then we can move onto "Delusional about what?".

We're all believers in something, and we're probably all delusional about something.

I am guessing you're going to say "believers in the specific God described in the Bible", and "delusional about those beliefs specifically", in which case yes, they are delusional in that instance, in my view, because by the definition cited earlier, they believe in the Bible God with conviction, and I don't think such an entity as described can possibly exist, which means that particular belief is a false one. So...a false belief held with conviction.

Is there a point to where you're going with this?

As a non-Christian, and based on something you mentioned earlier, you agree with me in regard to the Bible God, yes?

SmokinJoe wrote:
Before I answer that.... I sent you that PM yesterday, but forgot to give you a head's up. So, if you haven't looked, it is there.

The whole point of studying the Bible and using prayer and meditation is to discern the meaning. When Christ says we shouldn't steal, that can easily be interpreted as a literal meaning. The account of Jesus in the Bible is a historical account. Most scholars even accept the idea of a MAN named Jesus spreading the Gospel in that time period. The question of whether he was the Son of God or son of man remains a question of faith.


As for metaphors, for ex:

A woman "clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars" is in labor with a male child. (REV 12:1-2)



I wouldn't take the above verse as literal. And I don't come to that conclusion on a whim. I can't see any woman wearing the sun, along with 12 stars on her head.

That is clearly not to be taken literally but it's not always so clear what is to be taken literally. Like Methuselah did he really live for several centuries? If we take the timeline literally, mankind is a very young species, much younger than what most scholars accept. As well as the age of the earth.
It's interesting that we're going to let scholars into the issue to confirm or deny what is said in the Bible.

humphreys wrote:
You're determined to lump everything together for some reason.

I'm not sure why.

Let's start with "Believers in what?", then we can move onto "Delusional about what?".

We're all believers in something, and we're probably all delusional about something.

I am guessing you're going to say "believers in the specific God described in the Bible", and "delusional about those beliefs specifically", in which case yes, they are delusional in that instance, in my view, because by the definition cited earlier, they believe in the Bible God with conviction, and I don't think such an entity as described can possibly exist, which means that particular belief is a false one. So...a false belief held with conviction.

Saying the belief in the Christian God is false is one step closer to making you a strong atheist; what remains is whether or not you think belief in all Gods is false.

Is there a point to where you're going with this?

Of course!

As a non-Christian, and based on something you mentioned earlier, you agree with me in regard to the Bible God, yes?

I'm highly skeptical.

at1with0 wrote:Saying the belief in the Christian God is false is one step closer to making you a strong atheist; what remains is whether or not you think belief in all Gods is false.

In which case nothing remains as I have already said I simply lack belief in the Gods of Deism and pantheism, as they are utterly unfalsifiable and scarcely defined, especially in the case of pantheism where I'm not even completely sure what it is I'm trying to ascertain the existence of.

And let's just say I am "highly skeptical" about belief in some of the other Gods.

at1with0 wrote:I'm highly skeptical.

From that I would imagine you could say that you believed it more likely than not they were false beliefs. Not too far off from what I am claiming, to be honest.

I think one of the places where we do not agree is on whether Christians are delusional.

I don't think they are because, to me, there must be more than a false belief held with conviction. That belief must impair functioning or else it doesn't matter if it's a delusional belief. Merely holding a false belief with conviction is just being mistaken. Being mistaken is worlds different from being mistaken and that mistake leading to an impairment in functioning.