Something I want you to imagine

[Drich]

If using the bible is considered to be circular logic in the proof of God, then how can it then be a legitimate source to disprove God?

Wouldn't logic dictate that if the bible could be used to disprove God, then that very bible could then also be a viable point of reference to prove God as well??? Do you really want to open a can of worms your atheist brothers work so hard to keep closed?

Sigh the bible is the "god claim" and when said claim has contradicting contained with in itself that means that it is not true in it's entirety.
Infact that is the reason using the bible to prove your claim of god is circular. When you do that, you use the claim to prove the claim. So no logic doesn't dictate that the bible can not be used to disprove the claim. Let me explain it like this, say I write a true crime story, and in chapter three I say the killer is white and in chapter 5 I say he is black. Now If I say it is true regardless because it is a true crime that is circular logic, however when discovers that in one chapter I say he is white, and another he is black, then I obviously misrepresenting the truth in either chapter 3 or 5 or both.

Then all you must do is provide a circular claim. And stand behind it. Meaning if you provide a claim and I disprove that it is indeed circular then you must yield and acknowledge the authority of the bible.

That said if you do so thing as childish as post a link to the skeptics annotated bible, then I too will have the option to post a link to the skeptics an orated bible Answered. And you will have to concede this point.

So if you really want to play this game you better choose your 'circular claim' carefully.

---

Can you prove your assertion or are we to simply take what you say on faith?

I don't have to prove anything. I'm not saying something exists. You are. Prove this or we fall back to the default position.

Atheism.

You: "I have an invisible dragon in my garage!"

Me: "No, you don't."

You: "Can you prove I don't or should the entire world take your assertion on faith?"

Motherfucker, please.

You made the claim there is no sin. When In reality sin is a well known and accepted term in the modern English lexicon. Therefore you must provide proof that the term does not exist.

---

Not true. God has already provided you with all the evidence you need.

No, he hasn't. Otherwise, there wouldn't be atheists. Or are you going to take the indefensible position that atheists simply refuse to acknowledge the evidence?

What makes you think everything science has provided is not proof of God?

[Faith No More]

What makes you think everything science has provided is not proof of God?

The same thing that makes me think that everything science has provided is not proof of Shiva, Zeus or Ra.

[Drich]

What makes you think everything science has provided is not proof of God?

The same thing that makes me think that everything science has provided is not proof of Shiva, Zeus or Ra.

Shiva was a destroyer God.

Zeus was the god of the sky, and king of all other gods

Ra was a solar deity.

None of them claim to be creator of everything.

[Faith No More]

Shiva was a destroyer God.

Shaivas believe that Shiva is All and in all, the creator, preserver, destroyer, revealer and concealer of all that is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva

Zeus was the god of the sky, and king of all other gods

The Titans, then. I can't remember which ones were responsible for creation.

Ra was a solar deity.

Fair enough, but my point still stands.

[freedomfromforum]

The real question is this: which one is worthy of your worship?

Let's see....

One killed millions,

the other killed 10,

hmmmm

FUCK YOUR fake god!

[Lemonvariable72]

Sigh the bible is the "god claim" and when said claim has contradicting contained with in itself that means that it is not true in it's entirety.
Infact that is the reason using the bible to prove your claim of god is circular. When you do that, you use the claim to prove the claim. So no logic doesn't dictate that the bible can not be used to disprove the claim. Let me explain it like this, say I write a true crime story, and in chapter three I say the killer is white and in chapter 5 I say he is black. Now If I say it is true regardless because it is a true crime that is circular logic, however when discovers that in one chapter I say he is white, and another he is black, then I obviously misrepresenting the truth in either chapter 3 or 5 or both.

Then all you must do is provide a circular claim. And stand behind it. Meaning if you provide a claim and I disprove that it is indeed circular then you must yield and acknowledge the authority of the bible.

In all fainess I do not think you you can do this.
Lets take your favorite A/S/K okay?
I as a agnostic do not believe in god because there is no evidence
You say ask god for evidence that he exists
Inorder to ask him for evidence of his existence he has to exist.
And since no has provided that he exists, there is no reason to think he does, and as stated before good reason to think he does not.

Tell me do you ask fairies for evidence that they exist?

That said if you do so thing as childish as post a link to the skeptics annotated bible, then I too will have the option to post a link to the skeptics an orated bible Answered. And you will have to concede this point.

So if you really want to play this game you better choose your 'circular claim' carefully.

Why is that considered childish? it is the same text as found in any bible translation(roughly). And if you think quoting any particular text help your argument I welcome you to cite sources.

[NoraBrimstone]

Why the fuck would I worship anyone? Lame.

[Lemonvariable72]

Why the fuck would I worship anyone? Lame.

As yes thats the essence of what I was getting at, a good being would realize this.

[Angrboda]

I don't have to prove anything. I'm not saying something exists. You are. Prove this or we fall back to the default position.

---

Atheism.

You: "I have an invisible dragon in my garage!"

Me: "No, you don't."

You: "Can you prove I don't or should the entire world take your assertion on faith?"

Motherfucker, please.

---

You made the claim there is no sin. When In reality sin is a well known and accepted term in the modern English lexicon. Therefore you must provide proof that the term does not exist.

Use-mention error.

[Minimalist]

You made the claim there is no sin. When In reality sin is a well known and accepted term in the modern English lexicon. Therefore you must provide proof that the term does not exist.

Oh, Drippy.... the world is always stomping its foot on your forehead, isn't it?

Yes. "Sin" is in the dictionary.

sin1
sin/
noun
noun: sin; plural noun: sins

1.
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
"a sin in the eyes of God"

Unfortunately, it doesn't help you. Without a god, there can be no "sin." So where is your evidence for your "god?"

You win the championship for circular reasoning. Unfortunately, all that means is that you are an asshole.