Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Greatest I am]

Actually, it uses none of these phrases, and does not say these things. You've imbibed too much pop theology.

I know how to use a biblical search engine.

Then you know these terms are not in there.

God's ways are said to be "unfathomable," but God is said to be "known" and "knowable": and "God works in mysterious ways" is a non-Biblical platitude, not a Biblical claim at all.

Your too ill-informed for me to bother with.

I can find better mental midgets.

[Immanuel Can]

I know how to use a biblical search engine.

Then you know these terms are not in there.

God's ways are said to be "unfathomable," but God is said to be "known" and "knowable": and "God works in mysterious ways" is a non-Biblical platitude, not a Biblical claim at all.

Your too ill-informed for me to bother with.

Well, not so "ill-informed" that I can't find a Biblical search engine and use it...and not so "ill-informed" that I don't even have to, to know you were wrong.

But yeah, somebody's definitely "ill-informed."

[commonsense]

Oh. So you think Judaism is the true religion? Then for you, it would be Judaism that forms your ethics, and the ethics are grounded in the nature of HaShem.

But secularism still can't ground an ethic.

It is YOU who think of religions in terms of there being one true religion.

So do you, though you don't know you do.

Do you think opposite claims can be simultaneously true? Can Jews be "The Chosen Nation" and also, as per Islam, "accursed infidels," and as per Atheist secularism, "deluded fools"? Only one of those, at most can be true at the same time. So you're going to have to pick.

So yeah, you do think of there being one truth, in regard to religion.

But if there is no God, none of the religions have the truth.

[Greatest I am]

It is YOU who think of religions in terms of there being one true religion.

So do you, though you don't know you do.

Do you think opposite claims can be simultaneously true? Can Jews be "The Chosen Nation" and also, as per Islam, "accursed infidels," and as per Atheist secularism, "deluded fools"? Only one of those, at most can be true at the same time. So you're going to have to pick.

So yeah, you do think of there being one truth, in regard to religion.

But if there is no God, none of the religions have the truth.

Or Jesus was correct in indicating that we are all Gods.

Jesus would have been correct.

I see a lot of truth in the Bible, but it is lost to those who have ruined their thinking with supernatural beliefs.

I love the Bible.

It showed me beyond a doubt who my real God is.

I am is the name of God. I am that I am.

Are you your own master and controller, or are you some other entities make work project?

I am a better God than the genocidal Trinity.

Are you?

[Immanuel Can]

It is YOU who think of religions in terms of there being one true religion.

So do you, though you don't know you do.

Do you think opposite claims can be simultaneously true? Can Jews be "The Chosen Nation" and also, as per Islam, "accursed infidels," and as per Atheist secularism, "deluded fools"? Only one of those, at most can be true at the same time. So you're going to have to pick.

So yeah, you do think of there being one truth, in regard to religion.

But if there is no God, none of the religions have the truth.

Right. Then Atheism would have it...no thanks to Atheism's methods, since it really has nothing to go on, and is, in that negative sense, very "religious" itself. But it would be accidentally right, if that were the case.

Atheists also think of their way as being the "one true religion." They are just as exclusivist as everybody else.

[mickthinks]

Atheism … has nothing to go on, …

Manny seems to think that an atheist’s lack of evidence for a deity is a weakness in their reasoning that there is none. Bless!

[Atheism] is, in that negative sense, very "religious" itself.

lolwat!? It looks like Manny believes that having no basis (“nothing to go on”) is a defining characteristic of religions in general. I wonder if he includes his own in that, or if not, why not?

Atheists … are just as exclusivist as everybody else.

Huh? Atheists exclude absolutely no one from their promise of, er … permanent insensible death.

[Immanuel Can]

Atheism … has nothing to go on, …

Manny seems to think that an atheist’s lack of evidence for a deity is a weakness in their reasoning that there is none. Bless!

No. It's their lack of evidence for Atheism that's the problem.

[MikeNovack]

No. It's their lack of evidence for Atheism that's the problem.

But why do you se that as a problem?

I agree, they can no more present evidence for "there is no god or gods" than you can for "there is GOD". It is simply not the sort of question that can be settled by examination of evidence.

[FlashDangerpants]

Atheism … has nothing to go on, …

Manny seems to think that an atheist’s lack of evidence for a deity is a weakness in their reasoning that there is none. Bless!

[Atheism] is, in that negative sense, very "religious" itself.

lolwat!? It looks like Manny believes that having no basis (“nothing to go on”) is a defining characteristic of religions in general. I wonder if he includes his own in that, or if not, why not?

Atheists … are just as exclusivist as everybody else.

Huh? Atheists exclude absolutely no one from their promise of, er … permanent insensible death.

Manny tends to serruptitiously argue ought to is, which he doesn't think is the same problem as arguing from is to ought (ask him, you will find his explanation amusing).

I've seen him imply that the problem with atheists is that we have no moral truth so we are moral ghosts and we don't experience morality at all, and that the universe can't be like that. There ought to be truth about good and bad, therefore there there must be a god, therefore there is a god.