Strong Atheism starts from faith

[fr0d0]

Since it isn't based in reality, it is safe to say your definition of God is not real.

If we can think of it then it features in our reality. The effects of belief are very real.

It's [the choice is] left open to you in the form of fear mongering and pandering by authoritative figures. Religion works better when there is no choice, the dark ages was quite possibly the best thing to happen to christianity. They were THE AUTHORITY on nearly everything. Society, Science, Politics, Cosmology and Philosophy.

You're talking here of religion used as a tool of power. Yeah sure religion is no exception. It's an absolute meaningless statement about religion per se tho'.

Other than Evangelical Christians not accepting it as authoritative because it's not in the Bible. Not to mention The Church of New Jerusalem (A denomination of Christianity) outright reject it.

All evangelical Christians accept it without exception. The Church of New Jerusalem isn't accepted as Christian. Well done tho' that's a far better effort than we usually get with Mormonism and Jehovas Witnesses claimed to be mainstream Christian.

I examine and question what I believe constantly and it remains the most logical conclusion. I've studied other religions, beliefs, and non beliefs. I've not believed far more than I've believed. Currently I believe.

It remains the most logical conclusion to believe something to be true on the basis that it cannot have evidence or be based in reality, then make vague assumptions as to how much you can interpret as being literal? Did you hit your head? That is simply making shit up as you go along to form a cohesive belief system. I also want to make it clear that the sole fact that you believe in this does not make it true.

May I remind you of the logical fallacy that you're committing requiring validated evidence of something that has none. I make no vague assumptions only clear logical ones. Likewise your beliefs aren't true to me either.

You're not talking about logic here you're talking about a narrow field of logic concerned with evidential propositions. My personal beliefs would be quite different and not shared with millions of other subscribers to my faith. Skepticism is healthy and I certainly try to remain open and grounded.

I'm talking about the basis of judging the world around us to determine what is real,and make a distinction between fact and fantasy. This falls into the fantasy category, as it does not and cannot exist in reality. It's not a narrow field of logic if everything we know to be real is judged by these criteria.

A reconstruction of your use of the fallacy. If B isn't A it can't be A.

I still don't understand where you make the distinction between metaphorical text and literal text. Are there specific cues? What about those who believe in its entire literal interpretation? Are they wrong?

Do you believe the Bible is inerrant? Or can any internal issues be dismissed on the grounds of the "bigger picture"?

I've said a few times to you now that nothing is literal and what it's all about. Those that interpret it as such are wrong, yes. You may think there's a point in trying to find evolutionary traits for snakes talking and evidence of the beginning of the universe being around 6000 years old, I don't.