If there is an atheist who says they can scientifically disprove the existence of God, they are being dishonest.

(April 30, 2015 at 10:15 pm)Polaris Wrote: If there is an atheist who says they can scientifically disprove the existence of God, they are being dishonest.

Prove your claim.  If you can't, then we will have no reason to believe you, and are right in supposing you do not know what you are talking about.

(April 30, 2015 at 10:18 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(April 30, 2015 at 10:15 pm)Polaris Wrote: If there is an atheist who says they can scientifically disprove the existence of God, they are being dishonest.

Prove your claim.  If you can't, then we will have no reason to believe you, and are right in supposing you do not know what you are talking about.

Here is the definition of supernatural, chump.

"attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

(April 30, 2015 at 10:20 pm)Polaris Wrote:

(April 30, 2015 at 10:18 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Prove your claim.  If you can't, then we will have no reason to believe you, and are right in supposing you do not know what you are talking about.

Here is the definition of supernatural, chump.

"attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

In other words, you are talking out of your ass.  Anyone can do that, and there is absolutely no reason to believe the crap that they produce.

If I started telling you to believe in Dionysus, you would insist on some sort of evidence.  Which means, you are a hypocritical asshole, just like some other members of this forum have been saying.  Thank you for proving them right.

In other words, you don't use science to either prove or disprove the existence of God. No, as said earlier, I also can't use science to disprove anything supernatural, only claims of material evidence that can be tested under the conventions of scientific hypothesis.

Take your hypocrisy and shove it up your ass, dipshit.

(April 30, 2015 at 8:13 pm)Jericho Wrote:

(April 30, 2015 at 4:53 pm)Lek Wrote: The verse is correct.  It is inspired and profitable for those things.  It's not inspired for scientific accuracy.  It's inspired to be useful for the purpose God intended it for.  The story of "the three little pigs" is not historically or scientifically correct, but it wasn't written for that reason.  It was written to teach a lesson about life and that's what we read it for.  God inspired the bible to lead us to Christ and that's what it's profitable for.

So, are you admitting that the Bible is not to be taken literally?  Pardon me, but many theists would argue that it is a literal account of historical events.  Also, if you suggest that it is simply inspired material, rather than the actual words of God, then that basically just confirms our arguments against theists.  By saying that it was inspired, and not a compilation of literal facts, then doesn't that make the stories untrue...and therefore proving that your God doesn't exist because he doesn't lie?  Last time I checked, fairy tales or stories are not true, and are actually lies.

Jesus spoke in parables quite frequently. The parables were not true historical accounts, but rather stories to teach specific lessons. Jesus was not lying, but rather using a teaching device. If we understand the parables in the way Jesus intended us to, then we are reading them literally. Reading the bible literally means to read it as it was intended to be understood. If someone says that the sun "moved across the sky", they don't really mean that the sun moved across the sky, but only that it appeared to do so. We want to understand myths as such and historical facts as such. Of course, it's not always easy to determine what is myth and what is historical fact. Jesus said that he would send the "Counselor", the Holy Spirit, to his followers. When I read the scriptures, I read them under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who leads me to the truth. We usually start out as christians with little knowledge of the bible and grow in knowledge throughout our lifetimes. So, I believe we should strive to interpret the bible literally, but I don't interpret "literal" as everything being a historic or scientific fact. I view "literal" as reading it as it was intended to be read. All christians don't agree with me, and that's okay. Jesus never said that in order to be saved, we needed to understand every passage in the bible.

(April 30, 2015 at 10:32 pm)Polaris Wrote: In other words, you don't use science to either prove or disprove the existence of God. No, as said earlier, I also can't use science to disprove anything supernatural, only claims of material evidence that can be tested under the conventions of scientific hypothesis.

Take your hypocrisy and shove it up your ass, dipshit.

The words of Jesus, according to Matthew 5:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.


You are a great example of a Christian.

(April 30, 2015 at 10:52 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(April 30, 2015 at 10:32 pm)Polaris Wrote: In other words, you don't use science to either prove or disprove the existence of God. No, as said earlier, I also can't use science to disprove anything supernatural, only claims of material evidence that can be tested under the conventions of scientific hypothesis.

Take your hypocrisy and shove it up your ass, dipshit.

The words of Jesus, according to Matthew 5:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.


You are a great example of a Christian.

I don't give a shit. Only weak little shits like yourself like to use that quote. Man the fuck up.

This is where I turn to some very wise words:


"God by definition is all-powerful, all knowing and all good. If God is all-powerful, He can prevent evil. If God is all knowing and can prevent evil, He knows how to prevent it. If God is all good, He would want to prevent evil. But since there is evil God cannot exist.” 
-Martin & Bernard, 2003, p. 316

That quote alone summarizes how we can disprove the God of the Bible (which was the original question).

The issue is how can you know that the God of the Bible has been accurately portrayed?

Even with an assumption that the concept of the Biblical God is mythology, how can anyone know for certain the current text is anywhere indicative of the views of God from the OT era say 3,500 years ago?