(November 29, 2008 at 6:52 pm)Ace Wrote: Well, I think it's safe being an atheist because if god is all knowing, he'd know why I'm an atheist. Think about it, all those gods, no evidence for any of them, and so I choose to step back and have nothing to do with religion. God should be able to understand that, if he doesn't then why call him god?

Yes, God is Omniscient, but he will never justify anyone becoming an atheist. He gave you life, and you reject him. Like I have said before.. lack of evidence only works if every option has been explored.

Quote:Also if god tortures people just because people doubt his existence due to lack of evidence which is a good reason to doubt then he is extremely immoral. Also I wouldn't worship this arsehole, since it would be like worshiping the devil. This god sounds immoral and not all knowing at all. So why call him god?

God doesn't torture people. Satan tortures people. Once again you use that "lack of evidence" arguement. That cannot possibly make sense. Until the day we have totally explored every square inch of the Universe, no one can logically use the "lack of evidence" arguement against God.

We do not need evidence that ancient man spoke to God. We are commanded to "just believe." Why is that such a task for you? Why is it so hard to believe God spoke to ancient man and commanded them to write down these words, and then move on with your life. No one is ordered by Yahweh to sacrifice sheep anymore. Those days are over.. didn't you hear? Jesus cancelled all of that.. Yeshua was the ultimate sacrifice.

Quote:I didn't know there was a lovely girl called Katy that I feel in love with till I meet her. I've only heard of god through stories and not actually seeing him for my self. Also there are so many gods, and so it is reasonable to choose not to follow any of them till one of them proves themselves by evidence. Which no one has ever archived.

Yes, I agree with you. There are hundreds of god stories. If you visit Iran, they will talk until they are blue in the face that the Koran is the Holy word of Allah. But if you visit Israel, they will say Yahweh is the one and only true God. YOU have to decide for yourself which God should you worship?

Quote:So if this god does harm people because of dis-belief then, existing or not, this god thing is an arsehole. Not worthy of worship apart from devil worshipers. So as you can see, even if you did prove gods existence, I will not worship this monster.

God is not harming you in any manner. You are harming yourself. He gave you life, and he also gave you a life expectancy of 75 years to decide what you want. And you choose to reject his offerings. So, in reality, who is harming who? When you end up in Hell, it's Satan that is in control of the torture, not God.

Quote:Also, buddhists don't actually believe in god You have no idea how many theists mistake this.

Actually, modern Buddists believe Buddha was ressurected and then became a Divine Figure. I will pull up the WikiPedia site if you wish..?

I cannot fear satan, god or anything of the sort because I do not believe it. Evidence still applys.

I know you cannot bring evidence because you cannot prove something that does not exist.

Now, even if there was a god and you proved it. I still would not worship. Never!
I am completely independent, religion is dying and the time for superstitions will come to an end. I cannot allow personal beliefs to effect my judgement. I will use study, research and evidence to conclude the answers, not faith.

In my mind and in this reality, there is no such thing as a god. It is made up entirely from an overactive imagination of an adult. We are just self aware biological lifeforms doomed to fade back into non-existence.

God is a claim, an unproven claim. Just because you make the claim doesn't automatically warrant my belief. If everything warranted an instant belief then I'd still be waiting for santa claws to deliver the gifts. I need evidence and yes evidence still applies. Science uses it all the time. Religion doesn't have any and so I can see why your evading it.

Nothing on this earth or anywhere else supports the existence of god. What reason is there to believe in an invisible, flying, all knowing, believed to be all loving and always existed even when there has never been any form of evidence?

Sorry, but evidence still applys. Without it, this debate is over. You cannot convince me of god with hell or heaven. You cannot convince me of a god through life/existence since I've already had the question answered by science.

Quote:Yes, I agree with you. There are hundreds of god stories. If you visit Iran, they will talk until they are blue in the face that the Koran is the Holy word of Allah. But if you visit Israel, they will say Yahweh is the one and only true God. YOU have to decide for yourself which God should you worship?

My answer would be - neither. God or not I will not worship. Also I don't believe in any god. Reason - no evidence.

Quote:God is not harming you in any manner. You are harming yourself. He gave you life

Evidence of this please.....

Quote:Once again you use that "lack of evidence" argument. That cannot possibly make sense. Until the day we have totally explored every square inch of the Universe, no one can logically use the "lack of evidence" argument against God.

Ok, now evidence of gravity is constant, since everytime you drop something, your proving gravity through test and study which means evidence. Gravity is only a theory, but it happens all the time. Weve got the evidence for it and yet we have not explored the whole universe to gain evidence. Its the same for god, the only thing is that, you have no evidence. Evidence doesn't mean having to know everything, it's what you've found through study, research with detectable material. You cannot tell us what god is make of, or where he is. Just "he's there".
If god wants me to believe, he better start trying harder.

I cannot accept faith alone. I need evidence and yes it applies! Without it, would mean there would be no supporting evidence to say it's reasonable to follow. Right now, I see no reason to believe you. Nothing supports your claims.

So, once again.....evidence please.

(November 29, 2008 at 2:01 pm)Psalm 23 Wrote: The question was, "What if Jesus Christ does return to Earth?" Can you please answer the question, and try not to respond to my question with a question. That's not how a debate session works..

Lol. Come on. Seriously man are you suggesting you don't know what I was implying when I answered your question? I was obviously implying as I have said anyway that its about just as likely that Jesus will return as any weird supernatural entity will visit us instead.
So this implies that obviously IF Christ returns to earth I will have been wrong among all other atheists. I will be amazed. And you will be amazed if a supernatural chariot made of crocodile meat that takes over the universe in order to be evil and vile comes to earth. Or shocked rather. As we all would be.
So obviously if Jesus returns I will have been wrong and amazed to say the least. But its the same for you with any supernatural entity you do not believe in.
So why did I answer a question with a question? Because its a stupid question and it should be obvious what I was implying by doing it. I thought it would have been to you.

I said:

Quote:I'm not talking about absolute evidence. I am talking about current evidence in practice.
If you're suggesting that God isn't probable because there's no evidence whatsoever of his evidence...would you be willing to say the same equally about ALL the other Gods? Zeus? Thor? Allah? Or anything supernatural like the FSM or the IPU?

You replied with:

Quote: The "lack of evidence" argument only works if every possible angle has been studied. Can I say for 100 percent fact that Thor and Allah are imaginary gods? Answer, No I cannot. I can't prove they were not gods.

What I say in this exact quote that you replied with? : "I am NOT talking about absolute evidence I am talking about absolute evidence in practice".
So why on earth are you talking about "proving for 100 percent fact" when thats exactly what I said I am NOT talking about.
I am talking about the matter of God's IMPROBABILITY. Surely you think its improbable that an invisible intangible supernatural clown with a horses face and a giant toffee flavored tail is in the room with you right now? Because there obviously is no evidence of such an entity and its a highly complex and absurd claim right?
Just as there is no evidence of God and he's a highly complex and absurd claim too. So God is highly improbable for the same reason as that clown. That's why the idea of God's existence is so highly improbable.
Unless you believe that the likelihood of that clown' existence is 50/50 or you simply can't suggest the likelihood. You can't say that its highly improbable that such a bizarre, absurd and messed up supernatural clown-like-horse-like toffee flavoured supernatural entity is in the room with you right now?

Quote:That's right.. A god could exist that sends all believers to Hell and send all atheists to Heaven, but wait!! Why would atheists want to spend eternity in Heaven with a God who they believed was imaginary? I guess that would make you believe in him? Secondly, Pascal's wager is not a doubt. I believe in God. But if he doesn't exist, I win.
It's a response to the question, 'What if?" if God doesn't exist, I win.

Thats just messed up pure bullshit. Not all atheists hate the idea of a GOOD God they just don't believe he exists and don't want him to control or mess around with their lives. But most of all they believe he just doesn't exist and its highly delusional and stupid to believe he does. Others just don't want any God to exist even if he was good.
So if atheists were sent to heaven by this God but God didn't show his face. How would they know it was God? It could be anything supernatural that sent them to heaven. You can believe in heaven without believing in any particular theistic God. And if they believed in God how would they know which God it was that had sent them there?
This God could even show his face and help them out but use his absurd supernatural omnipotent powers to make all the atheists from then on continue to disbelieve in him as a "reward". Or he could just send them to hell if they lost all doubts of his existence. If they no longer believed there could be a natural explanation for the whole thing. I dunno there are so many combinations and hypothetical variables that it is simply a failure of the imagination to proclaim that a God for theists would be better than a God for atheists.
God could use his powers to make atheists think he doesn't exist even while they're in atheistic heaven. Basically meaning whatever world they would like to live in. IF indeed they DID want to go to a (very interesting enjoyable and peaceful, etc) afterlife. If they didn't then you couldn't say you'd won by going to your theistic heaven anyway.
This is hypothetically speaking of course. I am grouping atheists together just for simplicity of the hypothetical argument.
Oh and I've just thought. If the whole Jesus and everything you know of thing comes true for you and you go to heaven.
How do you know that atheists are not in a different heaven somewhere else - like in another universe - that is 10 times better in every way?
Your God could even say they were being punished for not believing when in fact he's talking bullshit or the hypothetical atheist God that I am postulating has corrupted your God into believing that the atheists really are being punished . When really they are having a much better time.
Hypothetically speaking. Seen as we're playing the 'be totally absurd' game here.

Quote:That's correct. There is no evidence whatsoever of God approving of those who believe and disbelieve. All we have are ancient manuscripts that give detailed accounts of ancient man speaking to God through Visions and Dreams. Why should I believe these men? I don't know them,, are they liars? Were they on drugs that made these visions appear? Who knows? I don't, and neither do you.

Yeah there is no reason to believe them. But you don't need a reason to NOT believe them. Since you already have no reason to believe them. You first need a reason to believe not disbelieve, if you want to be logical. You can't just go around believing anything because there's no reason to NOT believe those things. You couldn't function. You can't just believe Santa Claus, celestial teapots, flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns and Zeus and Thor exist just because you feel like it. Well actually you can but like I said its not logical.
I need reasons to believe things. Not disbelieve them. I believe something once there is a good reason. Not just because I've imagined it or just visualized it because it has been simply suggested to me.
If you want to believe in any random nonsense just because you approve of it or many people are almost certainly deluded by it. Then fine. But in that case this conversation can't go really any further. Because how can I argue with "I just believe because I believe because I believe. There is no reason behind it" how could I possibly argue with that? All I can say is there's no logical reason to believe that way and what you believe is almost certainly nonsense. And there's no rational reason to believe that believing in it is any better than disbelieving in it.

Quote:Sounds like Pascal's Wager to me. A truly spineless argument with no merit or value other than self-deluded placebo.

Pascal's Wager is the ultimate answer to the question, 'What if?'
Ok since you don't seem to understand the point that there's no reason to believe that "God" would want belief anymore than disbelief. I'll make two other points two.
1.Sincere belief is not a matter of policy.
2. There almost certainly is no God. Also as I said there is no reason to believe God would prefer belief than disbelief. BUT also, even IF he does since the probability of God's existence is so small its put simply, you might as well say its basically zero... you are almost certainly basically guaranteed to be wasting your life believing in a delusional myth if you are a theist and you are concentrating not only on the life that you actually live in. But you are also wasting your time focusing on an afterlife that almost certainly doesn't exist.
Whereas an atheist doesn't waste his time believing in delusional myths and he can focus living his life to the full instead of wasting time believing in an afterlife that almost certainly doesn't exist and a God that almost certainly doesn't exist and even if God did exist there's no reason to believe he'd prefer belief over disbelief anyway.
So to sum it up: If theists are right they: benefit if they go to heaven.
If atheists are right they: benefit by not wasting their life believing in what's almost certainly delusional mythological bullshit. AND its just as likely that IF there IS a God (and there almost certainly isn't) that God will prefer disbelief over belief. And the atheists will get their own "heaven". And it will be fine-tuned to how atheists want their heaven. Or they can just have their life on earth prolonged instead if they so wish - because that would be their heaven - or they can just die and never live again (as it REALLY happens in reality) if they so wish - as that would then be their heaven.
AND: Belief is not a matter of policy.

Quote:That's right! There is no evidence Jesus will return, and there is no evidence he was the Son of God. However, on that note, you cannot disprove these claims. In reality, all you can say is, "I don't believe it." And all I can say is, "I believe it happened." In the end, no one wins. Because neither party can display any proof.

Its called the burden of proof mate. Thats what I'm talking about. The very fact there is no evidence of the second coming's existence RATHER than NON-existence makes the second highly improbable. That and the fact that the whole thing is supernatural, its against the laws of nature, its highly complex and highly improbable for those reasons too.
If I say that you can't disprove the existence of the IPU and I say you can't just say "I don't believe it" because there is no evidence for the truth of such a thing. Then that's absurd. Do you feel the same way about that? Do you feel the existence of any of the trillions of possible supernatural deities are all about just as likely (or unlikely) because there is no evidence of the existence of any of them.
Ok there's no evidence for the second coming or of the existence of God. Ok so we start at basically zero probability. Are you going to build it up from there? Are you going to give ANY evidence? No its just a load of nonsense.
Why don't you commit yourself to every single supernatural being that you can conceive of just to make sure because there's no reason to believe in any of them anyway? As 'there is no reason to NOT believe in any of them'! Lol.
Really there is. The reason to NOT believe in God is that there is no reason TO believe in God.
Now with something like gravity or evolution there is a reason to believe in them. The fact there is actual evidence of the fact of them. The fact they actually exist in reality.


"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens.

Quote:You don't have to believe the Bible was inspired by a supernatural deity. But it doesn't mean you're correct. It means you simply don't believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes indeed I simply don't believe. Because I don't need any reason to disbelief other than the fact that there's no reason TO believe in something. Its delusional to just believe something when there's no reason to do so.

Quote:Why don't you believe in Bloop instead? Because I don't want to believe in Bloop? My religion is extremely commanding about worshipping other gods, idols or statues.

Because you don't WANT to? Can't you tell the difference between wanting and believing? Belief is not a matter of policy. We believe things for a reason. And your reason that you believe in God is that you WANT to believe in God?
So you don't actually believe he exists then? You don't believe in God's existence? You don't belief in God. You just believe in belief in God. Right?
Sounds like just pure pascals wager. So doesn't God want sincere belief? He just wants belief in belief? Craving for belief? Fake belief?
And of course IF he exists you don't know what he wants anyway?
Right?

Quote:Warning, your opinion on my Holy Bible is making you a less credible debater.

Warning the fact you believe in a book full of supernatural bullshit means its hard to have a credible debate with you anyway when you just play the "faith card". When you just say "Well I CHOOSE to believe, you choose NOT to believe". Thats not a debating anyway!
How can we debate when you just say you choose it? When you refuse to give any reasons for your belief? My reason NOT to believe is that there is no reason TO believe. The burden of proof is on the believer. There is no evidence of the "Truth" of the bible. Or anything supernatural. So basically the bible IS bullshit. And the supernatural almost certainly doesn't exist.
**Warning! your repeated misunderstanding of the burden of proof is making you a less credible debater!**

(November 29, 2008 at 6:09 pm)Psalm 23 Wrote: There is no need for external sources. You must remember, hearsay and eyewitness accounts was the only way information was spread in ancient Israel. Secondly, we have four Gospel records that include passages that mention this Messiah named Jesus healing "lame legged" people. "Lame" was considered, "Impossible to walk." An amputee could very easily fit that category.

I'm afraid thats not the way science or history works. It works on the collection of data from various sources. Hearsay and eyewitness accounts tell us nothing, and as any good police officer will know, they are not to be trusted as evidence in court. The only valid way of finding evidence is by direct observation or recording of that direct observation. 2000 years ago, there were plenty of scholars to do the writing about Jesus, but none of them did. Why?

The four Gospels contradict each other various times, and they are known to have been written at different times. Mark was written 30 years after the death of Jesus! The rest were written in a long period after that, often separated by periods of 30 years or more. Give the average life expectancy of that time, the chances of an eyewitness living to help write the gospels would be extremely unlikely. As already pointed out as well, eyewitness testimony is almost useless.

Quote:Agnosticism says, "There may be a God, or there may not be." I believe there is a God. I don't say, "There may not be a God." I do not doubt my belief in God in any manner. I say I believe in God, but I cannot prove him. That does not mean I think "he may not be there." You are confused...

Wrong, and an unfortunate misunderstanding of the word "agnosticism". Agnosticism is the position one takes on whether God's existence can be known or proven. Read up the definition of the word before you attempt to use it. I've written several short essays on agnosticism, so I do know what it means. As I said, the easiest way of looking at agnosticism is by asking the question "Do you think God can be proven?". If the answer is a no, the person is agnostic. If the answer is a yes, the person is gnostic.

Quote:Yes, but I do not believe any other religion casts unbelievers into Hell like Christianity and Islam. So, therefore, If Thor is the one and only true god.. I am in no danger of Hellfire.

As I keep saying, there are more religions that your measly two that have a Hell. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell, http://www.steveholder.com/hell.html

Or just look at a google search for "How many religions have a hell?".

Quote:Everyone is taking a risk, and that includes, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists...etc..etc, but atheists choose to take the larger risk by not obeying any sort of God or gods. Atheists are pretty much in a lose-lose situation. Unless there is a higher being that is opposed to the idea of god.. and then it looks like the atheists might be saved..? You never know what is out there.. No one knows.

And as I've said many many times. Given the number of possible Gods, the number of possible Hells, the risk taken by an atheist is not even remotely significant. Atheists are not in a lose-lose situation, mainly because there are multiple times we "win" and either cease to exist or go to Heaven.

Quote:God knows who is truthful and who is false. He is Omniscient. He knows everything. Pascal Wager only works if God is truly Omniscient. Understand?

Do you even understand??? The point that Pascals wager makes is that you'd "better believe in God". However, this argument doesn't convince me that there is actually a God, even if it convinced me to say I believed. On judgement day, I would be able to say "I believe" but the omnipotent God would just take one look at me and say "You were dishonest all your life. You never really believed in me". Thus Pascal's wager has achieved nothing for me. Belief is more complex than just saying you believe in something. I can't force myself to believe in a God just because a wager says its beneficial for me.

Let's put it in your terms. If I came up with a hypothetical wager that said atheism was the most beneficial choice, would you stop believing in God? Probably not, because belief cannot simply be shaken by a simple wager. It needs a deep realization to occur, like the same realizations that happen to theists who then become atheists, or vice-versa.

(November 30, 2008 at 6:12 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(November 29, 2008 at 6:09 pm)Psalm 23 Wrote: There is no need for external sources. You must remember, hearsay and eyewitness accounts was the only way information was spread in ancient Israel. Secondly, we have four Gospel records that include passages that mention this Messiah named Jesus healing "lame legged" people. "Lame" was considered, "Impossible to walk." An amputee could very easily fit that category.

I'm afraid thats not the way science or history works. It works on the collection of data from various sources. Hearsay and eyewitness accounts tell us nothing, and as any good police officer will know, they are not to be trusted as evidence in court. The only valid way of finding evidence is by direct observation or recording of that direct observation. 2000 years ago, there were plenty of scholars to do the writing about Jesus, but none of them did. Why?

The four Gospels contradict each other various times, and they are known to have been written at different times. Mark was written 30 years after the death of Jesus! The rest were written in a long period after that, often separated by periods of 30 years or more. Give the average life expectancy of that time, the chances of an eyewitness living to help write the gospels would be extremely unlikely. As already pointed out as well, eyewitness testimony is almost useless.

Quote:Agnosticism says, "There may be a God, or there may not be." I believe there is a God. I don't say, "There may not be a God." I do not doubt my belief in God in any manner. I say I believe in God, but I cannot prove him. That does not mean I think "he may not be there." You are confused...

Wrong, and an unfortunate misunderstanding of the word "agnosticism". Agnosticism is the position one takes on whether God's existence can be known or proven. Read up the definition of the word before you attempt to use it. I've written several short essays on agnosticism, so I do know what it means. As I said, the easiest way of looking at agnosticism is by asking the question "Do you think God can be proven?". If the answer is a no, the person is agnostic. If the answer is a yes, the person is gnostic.

Quote:Yes, but I do not believe any other religion casts unbelievers into Hell like Christianity and Islam. So, therefore, If Thor is the one and only true god.. I am in no danger of Hellfire.

As I keep saying, there are more religions that your measly two that have a Hell. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell, http://www.steveholder.com/hell.html

Or just look at a google search for "How many religions have a hell?".

Quote:Everyone is taking a risk, and that includes, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists...etc..etc, but atheists choose to take the larger risk by not obeying any sort of God or gods. Atheists are pretty much in a lose-lose situation. Unless there is a higher being that is opposed to the idea of god.. and then it looks like the atheists might be saved..? You never know what is out there.. No one knows.

And as I've said many many times. Given the number of possible Gods, the number of possible Hells, the risk taken by an atheist is not even remotely significant. Atheists are not in a lose-lose situation, mainly because there are multiple times we "win" and either cease to exist or go to Heaven.

Quote:God knows who is truthful and who is false. He is Omniscient. He knows everything. Pascal Wager only works if God is truly Omniscient. Understand?

Do you even understand??? The point that Pascals wager makes is that you'd "better believe in God". However, this argument doesn't convince me that there is actually a God, even if it convinced me to say I believed. On judgement day, I would be able to say "I believe" but the omnipotent God would just take one look at me and say "You were dishonest all your life. You never really believed in me". Thus Pascal's wager has achieved nothing for me. Belief is more complex than just saying you believe in something. I can't force myself to believe in a God just because a wager says its beneficial for me.

Let's put it in your terms. If I came up with a hypothetical wager that said atheism was the most beneficial choice, would you stop believing in God? Probably not, because belief cannot simply be shaken by a simple wager. It needs a deep realization to occur, like the same realizations that happen to theists who then become atheists, or vice-versa.

Very good point. And I guess what you're saying Psalm is that you don't need an external source because God would never lie about being God.? And the bible proves the truth of the bible?
"How do we know that our holy books are free from error? Because the books themselves say so. Epistemological black holes of this sort are fast draining the light from our world." - Sam Harris

(November 30, 2008 at 9:27 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Very good point. And I guess what you're saying Psalm is that you don't need an external source because God would never lie about being God.? And the bible proves the truth of the bible?

No, I do not need external sources to tell me that Jesus healed amputated ears and legs. The bible is my source. If you don't believe in it, then that is your choice, not mine.

Quote:"How do we know that our holy books are free from error? Because the books themselves say so. Epistemological black holes of this sort are fast draining the light from our world." - Sam Harris

I was told by the Moderator that using quotes in a post makes me look like a fool. I wonder if he will say the same to you, or is he another bias moderator controlling what is being said in an atheist bulletin board?

Hmm?

(November 30, 2008 at 4:08 pm)Psalm 23 Wrote: I was told by the Moderator that using quotes in a post makes me look like a fool. I wonder if he will say the same to you, or is he another bias moderator controlling what is being said in an atheist bulletin board?

Hmm?

There is a massive difference between using a quote to illustrate a point, and using a quote to try and justify a point. You used a quote from Bill Gates about religion which expressed his opinion on religion as an arguing point for your point. It simply shows you cannot support your argument yourself and need to refer to an authority (in this case Mr Gates) in order to try and prove your point.

Evidence used a quote that illustrates the point he was making, about the holy books being the only sources of the claim of their infallibility. I don't object to that, but I do object to the latter part of the quote, which is clearly an opinion "Epistemological black holes of this sort are fast draining the light from our world.".

(November 30, 2008 at 5:23 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(November 30, 2008 at 4:08 pm)Psalm 23 Wrote: I was told by the Moderator that using quotes in a post makes me look like a fool. I wonder if he will say the same to you, or is he another bias moderator controlling what is being said in an atheist bulletin board?

Hmm?

There is a massive difference between using a quote to illustrate a point, and using a quote to try and justify a point. You used a quote from Bill Gates about religion which expressed his opinion on religion as an arguing point for your point. It simply shows you cannot support your argument yourself and need to refer to an authority (in this case Mr Gates) in order to try and prove your point.

Evidence used a quote that illustrates the point he was making, about the holy books being the only sources of the claim of their infallibility. I don't object to that, but I do object to the latter part of the quote, which is clearly an opinion "Epistemological black holes of this sort are fast draining the light from our world.".

Yeah it is an opinion. Sam Harris said it so its obviously HIS opinion. And I also agree with him so its also my opinion. The fact Sam thinks this and I also have this opinion does not imply that everyone else should. This is just opinion yes. How can anyone speak for others? They can only say what they think.
For the record, I agree with the second statement because I think (its my opinion) that people using scripture itself as proof of the truth of scripture and the existence of God is a very common reason for theists to believe in such a delusion. Or at least an excuse to believe in it because they believe in belief in God. And to force it on others because you "Can't DISprove God" and scripture itself is proof of its truth. So God must exist.
I think a fallacy such as that can be used as a weapon by theists. Whether they consider it a weapon or not. Its an excuse and a cop-out for believing in a delusion. Whether they consider it an excuse or not.
So yes its only a matter of opinion. Until there is sufficient evidence that this excuse does indeed allow a lot of believers to evade arguments and follow their dogmatic beliefs. Or even a reason to believe them in the first place.
Because of course I think its fair to say that delusion and dogmas do kind of suck the life out of life. The energy doesn't really go into the truths of real reality when it goes into their delusions.
Would you agree with that, personally? In your opinion? Adrian?