Main Story, an atheist cliche?

[Silent Winter]

 

The Book of Genesis was written down much later? Later than when?

Er...later than it happened.  I was talking about the books being written by people who were there at the time, which is why they got the details right.  Abraham didn't write stuff down, so it wasn't written down contemporaneously - it was written down around the time of Moses.

(Did you really think I thought that Genesis was written AFTER Christ came to Earth?)

 

 

There are many passages within the Gospel's that contradict each other.

such as?  (also btw - (Grammar Nazi alert) Gospels not Gospel's)

 

Josephus writes about history, whereas the writings in the gospel's add the necessary filler to create religious indoctrination.

 

Proof of that statement?

 

 

There are other Bible's as well, such as the Satanic Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Necronomicon. What proof are you offering that one writing holds more validity over the other? Based on your presentations of "proof" the Book of Mormon is more valid than the Christian Bible, since the Book of Mormon was not only written by people that were there... it was also written at the time the events occurred.

 

Are you sure about that?  Since the places named are often (as yet) not supported by other historical facts.  And there aren't the remains of elephants or whatever they used to get to the US.

The historicity of the Mormon bible is not up to the level of the Vulgate for example.

 

The fact is, if the Bible itself was "proof" that a God exists, then Christians would not need to rely on faith. Yet the concept of faith is the center point of all deity-based religion, because they all lack any semblance of proof.

Again - coming back to the point of me asking this - your definition of 'proof' is 'conclusive proof' - we disagree on such a definition, but that's ok.  I'm not trying to offer you conclusive proof (or even offer you any proof at all by your standards).

I accept that my faith is based on faith and not proof.  All I did was try to clarify a point.

 

*EDIT*

The Gosep's are NOT eyewitness accounts:

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/ShreddingTheGospels.htm#eyewitness

 

Yes they are.

 

From your link, the author says:

"First of all, I should say that none of the four canonical Gospels names its own author, none of them claim to be eyewitness accounts or even to have spoken to eyewitness of Jesus." [sic - should be eyewitnesses or an eyewitness]

Well:

From John's Gospel:  This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down.

And Luke "carefully researched everything from the beginning" - uses 1st person in parts and was with Paul when they went to Jerusalem (meeting "those who were eye-witnesses" - the apostles, at least Peter).  Not to mention personally seeing miracles performed by Paul in the name of Jesus.  Hence his writing of Luke-Acts.

 

You may not accept the above,  but it's my position on the matter.

 

I'm not here to prove to you or anyone that God exists.  All I said was that the argument earlier about whether there was such proof, was probably based on a semantic difference in the meaning of the word 'proof'.  Your definition makes the word 'conclusive' redundant but that's your POV so, ok I guess.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Silent Winter

[Silent Winter]

 

 

Not sure what happened to my quote box...

 

"And you also show you know nothing about the bible. It never, not even once, contradicts itself. You have not read it and understood it at all."

 

Here's 492 to get you started

 

This site is fun too

 

Gotta love the skeptics annotated bible for taking things out of context with no regard to the way the language was used at the time.  (I still remember the insects with 4 legs argument from gog - hilarious stuff).

And the first quote on the 2nd site was

Scientific Absurdities & Historical Inaccuracies

"And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads."

 

Revelation 12:3

 

When it states quite clearly in Revelation that this is a metaphor.

[Baron Pampa]

I haven't read to carefully, but I'd like to point out one thing regarding Pillars approach to religious faith: It actually presents several very religious characters in a nuanced, believable and likable way, which isn't exactly common in video games. Moreover, it asks sensible questions regarding one's values and beliefs in life, most importantly "How to live without knowledge of the answers to my essential questions?". I don't see any agenda here, but it very often presents religion in a meaningful and positive way, so I really see no reason to state that it's some kind of "atheistic propaganda".

[Enkeli]

 

 

Not sure what happened to my quote box...

 

"And you also show you know nothing about the bible. It never, not even once, contradicts itself. You have not read it and understood it at all."

 

Here's 492 to get you started

 

This site is fun too

 

This talk about real world religion seems a bit off topic, I came to this thread looking for discussion of Pillars and religion. But if you link to such pages, why not also link to some page with typical answers to such criticisms? Surely you as a fair minded skeptic have read from both sides of the issue, and also wish for your readers to do the same? For example, see http://tektonics.org/ for some popular-level answers to such stuff. Or for science and faith stuff, see e.g. http://biologos.org/common-questions/gods-relationship-to-creation/fine-tuning . "Link wars" lead nowhere though.

[Parasol_Syndicate]

I don't know what kind of any evolution future pillars properties will go down, but at the ending of the game, the 'Gods' still have disproportionate power and the ability to grant miracles. 

From a purely pragmatic perspective they are deserving and fitting of worship, for anyone who isn't a archmage or accomplished animancer, and probably those too. 

Of course, now that we know that it's possible to serve one god by killing another, things COULD get messy. 

 

I sure wouldn't mind a crack at Woedica. 

[Guest]

 

 

 

Not sure what happened to my quote box...

 

"And you also show you know nothing about the bible. It never, not even once, contradicts itself. You have not read it and understood it at all."

 

Here's 492 to get you started

 

This site is fun too

 

This talk about real world religion seems a bit off topic, I came to this thread looking for discussion of Pillars and religion. But if you link to such pages, why not also link to some page with typical answers to such criticisms? Surely you as a fair minded skeptic have read from both sides of the issue, and also wish for your readers to do the same? For example, see http://tektonics.org/ for some popular-level answers to such stuff. Or for science and faith stuff, see e.g. http://biologos.org/common-questions/gods-relationship-to-creation/fine-tuning . "Link wars" lead nowhere though.

 

Yeah, not link wars. The comment was that there are zero contradictions. I linked to evidence to the contrary. That's it. 

 

If Tennisgolfboll is willing to approach his own positions honestly, then he might learn something. If not, then posting a whole bunch of words would be a waste of my time. 

[Brimsurfer]

'Of a world absent Gods, fooled to believe in unreal Gods by bunch of people who like to keep people in line and maintain a twisted order.... but man's will and spirituality is above any deity' ........

 

Heard that one before? Yes!!! a billion ****ing times.......... would you move the **** on already, rusty cogs in your grey matter are making my ears bleed.......

 

---------------

 

This probably happened from creativity falling victim to ignorance where someone (full of himself) thought lets just feed my own personal dispositions to the world..........

Edited March 8, 2016 by Brimsurfer

[Brimsurfer]

I don't know what kind of any evolution future pillars properties will go down, but at the ending of the game, the 'Gods' still have disproportionate power and the ability to grant miracles.......

 

 

They are not Gods, they are false gods, creations of ancient Engwithans, game fails to say what kind of beings they are, i am thinking some kind of Vessels may be, but its purely a guess....... the game made it very clear that there are no true gods, there are only false gods........and it conveniently fails to make any assertion in opposite direction and this is readily accepted by everyone in the game and protagonist is given no dialogue choice to choose from to suggest otherwise......

 

Its all so very convenient......

Edited March 8, 2016 by Brimsurfer

[falchen]

 

I don't know what kind of any evolution future pillars properties will go down, but at the ending of the game, the 'Gods' still have disproportionate power and the ability to grant miracles.......

 

 

They are not Gods, they are false gods creations of ancient Engwithans, game fails to say what kind of beings they are but it made it very clear that they are false gods......since a true God can't be created, he creates instead...

 

 

So the Forgotten Realms (D&D) gods aren't real gods either? Or what about the greek/roman ones from our cultures? 

[Brimsurfer]

 

 

I don't know what kind of any evolution future pillars properties will go down, but at the ending of the game, the 'Gods' still have disproportionate power and the ability to grant miracles.......

 

 

They are not Gods, they are false gods creations of ancient Engwithans, game fails to say what kind of beings they are but it made it very clear that they are false gods......since a true God can't be created, he creates instead...

 

 

So the Forgotten Realms (D&D) gods aren't real gods either? Or what about the greek/roman ones from our cultures? 

 

 

Edited: (was going off topic myself )

 

The ones that are creation of men are not true Gods.......

 

In BG lore some people of exceptional power may be able to rise or ascend to a station of deity through various feats though......but you know this already I don't know why you asked......

 

Who the hell is talking about about D&D or any other real word deities? We are talking about PoE lore and PoE makes specific assertion that the so called deities of Eora are not actual Gods, but they are creations of Engwithans (probably some kind of Vessels to which some of the powerful engwithans ascended, to have dominion over generations of people to come, my guess), and people are fooled to believe in them as Gods..... the game is crystal clear on this, can't be any clearer.......doesn't even give you any choice to even hint or suggest otherwise.....

 

P.S. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we later find out that Woedica, Berath, Magran and all the rest of the them are some ancient powerful engwithans who some how tied their life force to very powerful Vessels and ascended to false Godhood to preside over generations of people to come.....currently existing on a plane in between or somewhere away from the reach of common folk....but its just me......although I do think this will establish an appealing theme for the sequel and it may be able to take us away from all the nihilism in the final act....

Edited March 8, 2016 by Brimsurfer

[falchen]

 

 

 

I don't know what kind of any evolution future pillars properties will go down, but at the ending of the game, the 'Gods' still have disproportionate power and the ability to grant miracles.......

 

 

They are not Gods, they are false gods creations of ancient Engwithans, game fails to say what kind of beings they are but it made it very clear that they are false gods......since a true God can't be created, he creates instead...

 

 

So the Forgotten Realms (D&D) gods aren't real gods either? Or what about the greek/roman ones from our cultures? 

 

 

Edited: (was going off topic myself )

 

The ones that are creation of men are not true Gods.......

 

In BG lore some people of exceptional power may be able to rise or ascend to a station of deity through various feats though......but you know this already I don't know why you asked......

 

Who the hell is talking about about D&D or any other real word deities? We are talking about PoE lore and PoE makes specific assertion that the so called deities of Eora are not actual Gods, but they are creations of Engwithans, the game is crystal clear on this, can't be any clearer.......

 

 

I disagree with the assertion that the PoE gods are not gods, because the same arguments that disqualifty them would also disqualify gods from most other pantheons.

 

Even the game itself does not take this as a fact as several characters keep on worshiping them after learning the truth. Way I see i tthe gods weren't always gods (cause they didn't exist), but they are gods now. They are actually more real than the gods of our earth religions since they actually make appearances, answer prayers and all that and souls in the PoE setting are a tangligbe thing that has been confirmed to exist.

Edited March 8, 2016 by falchen

[Brimsurfer]

 

 

 

 

I don't know what kind of any evolution future pillars properties will go down, but at the ending of the game, the 'Gods' still have disproportionate power and the ability to grant miracles.......

 

 

They are not Gods, they are false gods creations of ancient Engwithans, game fails to say what kind of beings they are but it made it very clear that they are false gods......since a true God can't be created, he creates instead...

 

 

So the Forgotten Realms (D&D) gods aren't real gods either? Or what about the greek/roman ones from our cultures? 

 

 

Edited: (was going off topic myself )

 

The ones that are creation of men are not true Gods.......

 

In BG lore some people of exceptional power may be able to rise or ascend to a station of deity through various feats though......but you know this already I don't know why you asked......

 

Who the hell is talking about about D&D or any other real word deities? We are talking about PoE lore and PoE makes specific assertion that the so called deities of Eora are not actual Gods, but they are creations of Engwithans, the game is crystal clear on this, can't be any clearer.......

 

 

I disagree with the assertion that the PoE gods are not gods, because the same arguments that disqualifty them would also disqualify gods from most other pantheons.

 

Even the game itself does not take this as a fact as several characters keep on worshiping them after learning the truth. Way I see i tthe gods weren't always gods (cause they didn't exist), but they are gods now. They are actually more real than the gods of our earth religions since they actually make appearances, answer prayers and all that and souls in the PoE setting are a tangligbe thing that has been confirmed to exist.

 

 

They are not Gods, they are the creation of ancient engwithans, game makes it very clear, only the people who doesn't know this secret think they are real Gods....the characters who know the secret and still serve a certain so called deity, do so only because they realise that entity possesses great power, as made clear by Hiravias and Durance dialogue, but they have no illusions about that entity being a real God.....

 

Also I edited my last post to add on it......

Edited March 8, 2016 by Brimsurfer

[Ichthyic]

Brimsurfer...

I really can't see why anyone even bothers trying to address your nonsense.

I guess people get really bored?

 

[Zenbane]

The Bible is certainly full of contradictions, and I can post more a bit later. If anyone needs to believe that the Bible is a historically accurate piece of evidence that a God exists, then all that shows is just how much faith is dead in the Christian religion. There are more than just links to websites that expose its contradictions, research books have been published and taught at universities around the world exposing the Bible's fiction.

 

Not to mention that even Catholic priests are openly taught that the Christian Bible is a work of fiction; where the point of teaching it as 'non-fiction literature' is to help provide guidance for the lost and faithless. Which, in my opinion, does more harm than good since the faithless never embrace faith, and instead become fanatics that aggressively (and falsely) believe the Bible is divine evidence.

[Caribou]

1. Great works of art should be measured by the discussion they bring forth. [Diplomatic]

2. Brimsurfer is a child who would prefer his world view to never be questioned, however slightly. [Cruel]

3. Everyone should lighten up and respect all theological interpretations of the final act. [benevolent]

4. ::shrugs:: [stoic]

5. If your faith can be called into question by something so slight as a video game plot, perhaps it is not the plot that is the problem. [Rational]

6. We should all play more PoE. [Honest]

[Zenbane]

Again - coming back to the point of me asking this - your definition of 'proof' is 'conclusive proof' - we disagree on such a definition, but that's ok.  I'm not trying to offer you conclusive proof (or even offer you any proof at all by your standards).

I accept that my faith is based on faith and not proof.  All I did was try to clarify a point.

You have yet to define proof outside of, "if it is written then it is true."

 

I am not saying that proof must be conclusive, but it must fall in to a category of either observable or persuasive. Your standards of proof justify the existence of Santa, Aliens, and Goblins. And when challenged to differentiate between the validity of any writings, all you do is reference the very writings that you are supposed to be validating. You quote the Bible to prove the validity of the Bible; yet the Bible is composed of writings from various authors that make no reference of a Bible.

 

 

Yes they are.

 

From your link, the author says:

"First of all, I should say that none of the four canonical Gospels names its own author, none of them claim to be eyewitness accounts or even to have spoken to eyewitness of Jesus." [sic - should be eyewitnesses or an eyewitness]

Well:

From John's Gospel:  This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down.

And Luke "carefully researched everything from the beginning" - uses 1st person in parts and was with Paul when they went to Jerusalem (meeting "those who were eye-witnesses" - the apostles, at least Peter).  Not to mention personally seeing miracles performed by Paul in the name of Jesus.  Hence his writing of Luke-Acts.

 

You may not accept the above,  but it's my position on the matter.

Again, you quote the Bible to try to prove the validity of the Bible... lol

 

I will move to referencing a publication from Howard Clark Kee, "Jesus in History, An Approach to the Study of the Gospels."

 

Example of Gospel contradictions:

Examples are Mark 1:12 = Luke 4:1 and Mark 2:1-12 = Matthew 9:1-8. In the first of these passages Jesus is "led" in to the wilderness by the Spirit (Luke) rather than "cast out" or "hurled" there (Mark).

 

Regarding Mark (the oldest gospel) and more contradictions:

 

In Mark 11-16 there is pervasive stress on the occurrence of the events as the fulfillment of Scripture, so that the critical reader cannot tell whether the events have been conformed to Scripture or the Scripture has been modified to fit the event.

…

Almost certainly he had no sequential or chronological framework available to him, other than the obvious fact that the Baptism of Jesus came at the outset of Jesus' ministry and the Crucifixion came at the end.

…

The freedom felt by the gospel writers to rearrange the order of events in the gospel tradition for programmatic or literary purposes is shown by Luke's placing Jesus' rejection at Nazareth at the outset of his public ministry (Luke 4), whereas in Mark it comes in the middle of the story of Jesus' activity (Mark 6:1). The miracle stories of Mark (Mark 1 and 2) are moved by Matthew to a point following the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5, 6, and 7) because that best suited Matthew's arrangement of material in alternating panels of activity and discourse.

 

From, "The Framework of the History of Jesus," by K.L. Schmidt, we can see Mark's lack of eye witness accounts:

The report that Jesus went from Tyre and Sidon through the cities of the Decapolis on his way back to the Sea of Galilea sounds as odd to one who knows Palestine as to say that a man stopped off in Boston on his way fro New York to Philadelphia.

 

Mark received his material in a period of oral transmission, or perhaps when pregospel documents were available in addition to the oral transmission process, which continued even after the Gospels had been written.

 

You may choose to ignore scholars, that's your choice. However, the proof offered by scholars such as Schmidt and Kee fall in to categories of observable and persuasive.

[Tigranes]

Seems like we've moved beyond POE altogether.

[Hurlshort]

What madness have you unleashed upon the innocents of the WoT forum?

[Gromnir]

What madness have you unleashed upon the innocents of the WoT forum?

misapprehension.  hurl does not realize that wot is the obsidian equivalent o' the phantom zone.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

What madness have you unleashed upon the innocents of the WoT forum?

We should build a bunker or something.

[Enkeli]

 

Again - coming back to the point of me asking this - your definition of 'proof' is 'conclusive proof' - we disagree on such a definition, but that's ok.  I'm not trying to offer you conclusive proof (or even offer you any proof at all by your standards).

I accept that my faith is based on faith and not proof.  All I did was try to clarify a point.

You have yet to define proof outside of, "if it is written then it is true."

 

I am not saying that proof must be conclusive, but it must fall in to a category of either observable or persuasive. Your standards of proof justify the existence of Santa, Aliens, and Goblins. And when challenged to differentiate between the validity of any writings, all you do is reference the very writings that you are supposed to be validating. You quote the Bible to prove the validity of the Bible; yet the Bible is composed of writings from various authors that make no reference of a Bible.

 

 

Yes they are.

 

From your link, the author says:

"First of all, I should say that none of the four canonical Gospels names its own author, none of them claim to be eyewitness accounts or even to have spoken to eyewitness of Jesus." [sic - should be eyewitnesses or an eyewitness]

Well:

From John's Gospel:  This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down.

And Luke "carefully researched everything from the beginning" - uses 1st person in parts and was with Paul when they went to Jerusalem (meeting "those who were eye-witnesses" - the apostles, at least Peter).  Not to mention personally seeing miracles performed by Paul in the name of Jesus.  Hence his writing of Luke-Acts.

 

You may not accept the above,  but it's my position on the matter.

Again, you quote the Bible to try to prove the validity of the Bible... lol

 

I will move to referencing a publication from Howard Clark Kee, "Jesus in History, An Approach to the Study of the Gospels."

 

Example of Gospel contradictions:

Examples are Mark 1:12 = Luke 4:1 and Mark 2:1-12 = Matthew 9:1-8. In the first of these passages Jesus is "led" in to the wilderness by the Spirit (Luke) rather than "cast out" or "hurled" there (Mark).

 

Regarding Mark (the oldest gospel) and more contradictions:

 

In Mark 11-16 there is pervasive stress on the occurrence of the events as the fulfillment of Scripture, so that the critical reader cannot tell whether the events have been conformed to Scripture or the Scripture has been modified to fit the event.

…

Almost certainly he had no sequential or chronological framework available to him, other than the obvious fact that the Baptism of Jesus came at the outset of Jesus' ministry and the Crucifixion came at the end.

…

The freedom felt by the gospel writers to rearrange the order of events in the gospel tradition for programmatic or literary purposes is shown by Luke's placing Jesus' rejection at Nazareth at the outset of his public ministry (Luke 4), whereas in Mark it comes in the middle of the story of Jesus' activity (Mark 6:1). The miracle stories of Mark (Mark 1 and 2) are moved by Matthew to a point following the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5, 6, and 7) because that best suited Matthew's arrangement of material in alternating panels of activity and discourse.

 

From, "The Framework of the History of Jesus," by K.L. Schmidt, we can see Mark's lack of eye witness accounts:

The report that Jesus went from Tyre and Sidon through the cities of the Decapolis on his way back to the Sea of Galilea sounds as odd to one who knows Palestine as to say that a man stopped off in Boston on his way fro New York to Philadelphia.

 

Mark received his material in a period of oral transmission, or perhaps when pregospel documents were available in addition to the oral transmission process, which continued even after the Gospels had been written.

 

You may choose to ignore scholars, that's your choice. However, the proof offered by scholars such as Schmidt and Kee fall in to categories of observable and persuasive.

 

As a theology student, I cannot resist commenting a little bit now that the discussion has been moved to off topic. It seems like this discussion builds on the idea that the Bible must either be 100 % error free or else it is a fairytale. If you look at more recent scholarship (maybe you have done so?) you will find a lot more positive overall assessment of the historical reliability of the Gospels than in the century old scholarship you are quoting. Scholars in mainline theological seminaries and universities usually agree that the Bible has some historical errors. Nevertheless, particularly the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are argued to contain much historical material dating back to a hypothetical earlier source which scholars call Q. All of the gospels are dated now usually in the first century, which is too early for legendary accumulation, and contain many differences from later legendary gospels like the Gospel of Peter and such.

 

In my opinion Christians don´t necessarily need a completely inerrant Bible. However, I think scholars of a more conversative bent are not unreasonable in denying the errors. None of the usual stuff is very convincingly an error, there are pretty good answers to everything that is written on typical skeptical websites. For your examples regarding the Gospel of Mark, see here: http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/markdef.php . This site gives good examples of responses which you can search for by biblical passage. For example, Mark´s passage could plausible just be a list of places Jesus visited, rather than a precise itinerary.

[Zenbane]

It seems like this discussion builds on the idea that the Bible must either be 100 % error free or else it is a fairytale.

 

That is incorrect. You even quoted me saying the exact opposite, "I am not saying that proof must be conclusive, but it must fall in to a category of either observable or persuasive."

 

The user, Silent Winter, presented the premise that the Bible is proof of Gods existence based on the fact that all of the writings within the Bible are consistent. I am merely pointing out that many of the writings are inconsistent.

 

I do not believe that the Bible is a fairytale, since it does contain historical aspects to it. However, I do believe that the Bible consists of specific writings presented in a way that creates a fairytale. That, however, is beside the point.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Zenbane

[Vorad]

 

Not necessarily. An "atheist - greek: άθεος: a-theos". Theos literally translates as god(I suspect the writers named a certain character in purpose since it sounds the same although I found it too cheesy) and with the negating "alpha" in front it means without god. Someone can be without a god but he might still believe that the soul itself preexisted without the need of a "higher intelligent omniscient being" baby-sitting it.

The problem is that you defined the origin of the word "atheist" without defining the origin of the word "soul." If you want to prove that the concept of a soul within this context can exist without the concept of a god, then maybe show the origin of the word "soul"?

 

I gave you the exact definition in english of what the anglicized word "atheist" means in my own native language from where it actually originates. It was a grammatical/ linguistic observation about what is what. In that case - without god.

 

As for the rest there can be no proof about things which cannot be quantified mathematically. The proof is mathematical it requires axioms, theorems which derive through a logical process of cause and effect but it also requires the evaluation of these through repeated experimentation everything else is philosophy(best case scenario...)

 

Philosophizing whether soul came before god or vice versa is like philosophizing whether the egg came before the chicken.

 

Let us assume for once(without me personally believing in any of these) that someone chooses to believe that there is such thing as a soul. Something yet not fully understood by physicists that surrounds a biological organism and that might poses a dual state similar to wave/particle that is essential for the biological organisms lifespan and determines up to an extent the behavior/thoughts/feelings/body chemistry of an individual. Let us assume that this guy believes that this "soul" just came to be without the need of a god and that with the passing of time the soul changes to other states just as the energy in the universe came to be without the divine intervention as being described by the physicists so far. There you have it a guy believing in soul but not in any kind of god. He can't prove anything he just believes and a preacher can't prove anything to him either because there is no scientific evidence of both the existence or in-existence of such thing the preacher also just believes(albeit with a bit better theological "formulations").

 

In math there are problems that have solutions, problems that do not have solutions and problems that cannot be solved. But we are not doing math at the moment and neither science. In the end these are matters of faith and matters of faith are matters of the individual leave them be or... just keep on talking. For me I said personally everything I had to say on this topic.

 

Good night.

 

PS: On topic - No the game is not biased towards atheism. Agnosticism maybe... and there's nothing wrong with that!

[Zenbane]

I gave you the exact definition in english of what the anglicized word "atheist" means in my own native language from where it actually originates. It was a grammatical/ linguistic observation about what is what. In that case - without god.

 

That's a lovely story, but has nothing to do with the fact that you are trying to make a claim regarding the concept of "souls" yet are talking about the linguistics of the word Atheist. Apples and oranges.

 

 

The proof is mathematical it requires axioms, theorems which derive through a logical process of cause and effect but it also requires the evaluation of these through repeated experimentation everything else is philosophy(best case scenario...)

 

What you described is a very simplistic approach to the scientific method, which no one is demanding. Something can be proven through logical reasoning and direct observation, neither of which require direct mathematical analysis. The legal system in America is one example, where concepts of "proof" can be interpreted on the basis of "reasonable doubt." Much like in the "soul" vs "atheist" description you gave earlier, you seem confused when addressing more than one concept.

 

 

Philosophizing whether soul came before god or vice versa is like philosophizing whether the egg came before the chicken.

 

This is just more of the same: you confusing matters to no end. At no point did anyone suggest an analysis on which came first, a soul or a god. The discussion was about whether the concept of a "soul" in the context of carrying life memories is directly tied to the concept of a god. You have failed to address any of the issues presented; and seem primarily concerned with introducing confusion.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Zenbane

[Nonek]

When presented with matters of theology one invariably finds ones answers are most well heard when the calibre of the dialogue is high, for individuals a single bolter round will suffice, for crowds the deployment of Earthshaker rounds will do, and for entire planets I recommend Exterminatus. Neither corpse nor pile of ash has ever questioned the Emperor's Divinity nor the Golden Thrones sovereign might.

 

Inquisitor Thomas Aquillas, On matters of faith and fury, third edition, Terran press.

 

 

 

Thought for the day: Envy the mind too small for doubt.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Nonek