Matthew 10:35 “Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”
So, the all good jesus wants to turn people against each other and that I guess makes him an all loving god somehow?
“Actually no the quote actually means that he warned his followers to prepare for persecution from family members that did not approve of the follower following Christ’s teachings.” – Challenger
Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even their own life–such a person cannot be my disciple.”
So, the all good jesus demands that people who love him must hate others and that I guess makes him an all loving god somehow?
“No. The context is about facing persecution for your beliefs not about hatred towards family.” – Challenger
Because jesus is so stupid his words can not be taken as they are they are quite specific, if they are not hate then don’t use the word hate telling people to hare. so no to your faulty statement where you are the one interpreting it not me. Think you are right then give me your clear bible verses to back it up with jesus words, then I will see if your empty argument holds up.
“Language was different back then. Matthew 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Also kewl appeal to mockery. Bible > Commentaries > Matthew 10:35 “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” Ellicott’s Commentary (35) The words are partly, as the marginal reference shows, an echo of Micah 7:6, but the selection of the special relationships as typical instances suggests the thought of some personal application. Had Zebedee looked with displeasure on the calling of his two sons? or was there variance between the daughter-in-law and the mother-in-law in the household of Peter? Were the brethren of the Lord, who as yet believed not, as the foes of a man’s own household? Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary 10:16-42 Our Lord warned his disciples to prepare for persecution. They were to avoid all things which gave advantage to their enemies, all meddling with worldly or political concerns, all appearance of evil or selfishness, and all underhand measures. Christ foretold troubles, not only that the troubles might not be a surprise, but that they might confirm their faith. He tells them what they should suffer, and from whom. Thus Christ has dealt fairly and faithfully with us, in telling us the worst we can meet with in his service; and he would have us deal so with ourselves, in sitting down and counting the cost. Persecutors are worse than beasts, in that they prey upon those of their own kind. The strongest bonds of love and duty, have often been broken through from enmity against Christ. Sufferings from friends and relations are very grievous; nothing cuts more. It appears plainly, that all who will live godly in Christ Jesus must suffer persecution; and we must expect to enter into the kingdom of God through many tribulations. With these predictions of trouble, are counsels and comforts for a time of trial. The disciples of Christ are hated and persecuted as serpents, and their ruin is sought, and they need the serpent’s wisdom. Be ye harmless as doves. Not only, do nobody any hurt, but bear nobody any ill-will. Prudent care there must be, but not an anxious, perplexing thought; let this care be cast upon God. The disciples of Christ must think more how to do well, than how to speak well. In case of great peril, the disciples of Christ may go out of the way of danger, though they must not go out of the way of duty. No sinful, unlawful means may be used to escape; for then it is not a door of God’s opening. The fear of man brings a snare, a perplexing snare, that disturbs our peace; an entangling snare, by which we are drawn into sin; and, therefore, it must be striven and prayed against. Tribulation, distress, and persecution cannot take away God’s love to them, or theirs to him. Fear Him, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. They must deliver their message publicly, for all are deeply concerned in the doctrine of the gospel. The whole counsel of God must be made known, Ac 20:27. Christ shows them why they should be of good cheer. Their sufferings witnessed against those who oppose his gospel. When God calls us to speak for him, we may depend on him to teach us what to say. A believing prospect of the end of our troubles, will be of great use to support us under them. They may be borne to the end, because the sufferers shall be borne up under them. The strength shall be according to the day. And it is great encouragement to those who are doing Christ’s work, that it is a work which shall certainly be done. See how the care of Providence extends to all creatures, even to the sparrows. This should silence all the fears of God’s people; Ye are of more value than many sparrows. And the very hairs of your head are all numbered. This denotes the account God takes and keeps of his people. It is our duty, not only to believe in Christ, but to profess that faith, in suffering for him, when we are called to it, as well as in serving him. That denial of Christ only is here meant which is persisted in, and that confession only can have the blessed recompence here promised, which is the real and constant language of faith and love. Religion is worth every thing; all who believe the truth of it, will come up to the price, and make every thing else yield to it. Christ will lead us through sufferings, to glory with him. Those are best prepared for the life to come, that sit most loose to this present life. Though the kindness done to Christ’s disciples be ever so small, yet if there be occasion for it, and ability to do no more, it shall be accepted. Christ does not say that they deserve a reward; for we cannot merit any thing from the hand of God; but they shall receive a reward from the free gift of God. Let us boldly confess Christ, and show love to him in all things..” – Challenger
Luke 14: 26-33 “Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even their own life–such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you, saying, ‘This person began to build and wasn’t able to finish. ‘”Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.”
And there we still see the same thing don’t value anything but god and that includes and was never taken back that hate was a needed thing only that the offered rational given or implied was to hate was to love god but that does not at all remove the call or requirement to hate.
“At variance with a family member does not equal hate towards a family member.” – Challenger
Not an honest thinker?
“It is similar to being an Islamic apostate. And being from an Islamic family.” – Challenger
New International Version
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even their own life–such a person cannot be my disciple.
New Living Translation
“If you want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison–your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple.
English Standard Version
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
Berean Study Bible
“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be My disciple.
Berean Literal Bible
“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters and yes, even his life, he is not able to be My disciple.
New American Standard Bible
“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
King James Bible
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, and even his own life–he cannot be My disciple.
International Standard Version
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters, as well as his own life, he can’t be my disciple.
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
New Heart English Bible
“If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his own father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“Whoever comes to me and does not hate his father and his mother and his brothers and his sisters and his wife and his children and even himself, he cannot be my disciple.”
GOD’S WORD® Translation
“If people come to me and are not ready to abandon their fathers, mothers, wives, children, brothers, and sisters, as well as their own lives, they cannot be my disciples.
New American Standard 1977
“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
Jubilee Bible 2000
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters, and even his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
King James 2000 Bible
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
American King James Version
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
American Standard Version
If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Darby Bible Translation
If any man come to me, and shall not hate his own father and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, yea, and his own life too, he cannot be my disciple;
English Revised Version
If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Webster’s Bible Translation
If any man cometh to me, and hateth not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Weymouth New Testament
“If any one is coming to me who does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes and his own life also, he cannot be a disciple of mine.
World English Bible
“If anyone comes to me, and doesn’t disregard his own father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he can’t be my disciple.
Young’s Literal Translation
‘If any one doth come unto me, and doth not hate his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, and yet even his own life, he is not able to be my disciple;
So hate us the right translation so I still am not convinced but nice try. .
“KJV is the correct translation, At variance.” – Challenger
King James Bible “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” Try again.
“LMFAO did you just change variance to hate? “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” Not an honest thinker are you?
I did not change a thing to funny I remember you as more on the ball. I guess not.
“Matthew 10:34King James Version (KJV) 34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10%3A34%2CMatthew+10%3A35&version=KJV
Wrong ^this is the correct translation.” – Challenger
Remember? Try again.
Luk 14:25 KJV (25) And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, Luk 14:33 KJV (33) So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. Jesus wasn’t saying that all people throughout the rest of time had to forsake everything that they have to be His disciple, but that those who followed him at that time had to do this, as Jesus was a traveling minister, and for someone to be discipled by Him while He was on the earth as a man, they would have to physically go with Him in His travels – thus forsaking all that they had – but look at what they would receive if they did:
Mar 10:28-30 KJV
(28) Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.
(29) And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s,
(30) But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
Context try again.” – Challenger
And there we still see the same thing don’t value anything but god as well as the bible and that includes and was never taken back that hate was a needed thing only that the offered rational given or implied was to hate was to love god but that does not at all remove the call or requirement to hate just claims you will be rewarded in the fantasy afterlife ai try again this time try not to use religious rhetoric to make bad things sound good well guess what they are not. Try again.
“Hate was used in a different manner. It meant reject the teachings of man including your family and follow the teachings of Christ. Hate is not something meant to be taken literally. Nor do you understand Christ’s judge of character.” – Challenger
Again, you give an empty religious positive response without real substance the word is clear and it’s you that wishes the word to have a different meaning. If It is different where is the verse from jesus saying If any man come to me, and loves not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple?
“The world is not a literal or a black and white thing. If you dig deeper you’d realize he’s not talking about spiting them but rather rejecting their values. As no one is fully 100% righteous.” – Challenger
I understand jesus’ character. Matthew 15:21-28 21 Leaving that place, jESUS withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “lord,(yahweh) son of david, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” 23 jESUS did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” 25 The woman came and knelt before him. “lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” 27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” 28 Then jESUS said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
*My Commentary Matthew 15:21-28
jESUS all good? Some try to say this is a bad example. Read the next few passages. She pleads more and he then heals the girl. Wrong, this is a great example he does not heal the child out of love or because its ethical and demonstrates a lack of willingness because of different race of the child and does not do it when asked even gives a hate speech response its only after the woman’s continued begging after the hate response that he agrees to heal the child again not because children in need should be cared for or because he loves all children of the world nor because it’s the moral thing to do instead it’s because she had faith he could heal someone. A truly moral person would have simply healed the child the first time and not threw a racial slur at her. I do find it amusing that after she begs him, he conceded and referenced her faith for it? As opposed to her use of reason as she did. Jesus the so-called god or love for everyone was very disrespectful in his statement for no other reason than to be at the least thoughtless to the suffering of a child no evidence of love there. It was looking down on her as if she is a lowly sub-human and the child never mattered not even as a factor when he is said to finally become persuaded to heal the child. So, if we are gracious jESUS was heartless to the suffering of some but if we take it for what it looks like he was a hateful bigot that in no way cared about all the people of the world not even the children. You sound like you are a christian now. Lol Do you now believe jesus is god? As no one is fully 100% righteous.” Wonderful logical fallacy if that was part of some argument. irrelevancy is showing up in the conclusion.
“Doctors do not heal people without payment either. There is no help without payment he only asked for their faith. Yes none, no one is righteous. Yes, I do believe in Christ but reject the teachings of man, the State and the church. I reject the hypocrisy inherent within humanism.” – Challenger
And you say no one is righteous, why? To prove what? To move what point? You believe in Christ what?
“When an individual set aside their ego and has faith in Christ they follow down a road of righteousness and realize that the kingdom of God is within them.” – Challenger
That is not what I asked, “you believe in Christ” what? And please fully explain road of righteousness?
“To eliminate the ego.” – Challenger
Faith in Christ about what? You are not talking much if you think you believe this so clearly. Can you personally please explain?
“The message in the gospel one of pacifism, martyrdom, and acceptance.” – Challenger
So, this road of righteousness is about eliminate the ego so anyone can do the right thing with or without a religion or with a god or without one?
“Sure yet no one is righteous.” – Challenger
So, pacifism, martyrdom, and acceptance.so no need for the bible?
“We have all lied at one point or done something bad.” – Challenger
No one is righteous you mean no one is free of ego, right?
“You can be free of ego and still not be righteous.” – Challenger
So, then you have not given me the correct ontology of to be righteous. Please tell me the correct ontology of to be righteous?
“To follow Christ.” – Challenger
Please explain what following christ means?
“To follow his teachings.” – Challenger
Please explain to follow what teachings? If Jesus was god, he would have sought worship for himself would he not? Since he didn’t, instead he sought worship for god in the heavens, therefore, he was not god. Verses in the bible say jesus is not god. The bible says that Jesus denied he is god. Jesus spoke to a man who had called him ‘good,’ asking him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except god alone.’ (Luke 18:19) And he said to him, ‘Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only one who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.’ (Matthew 19:17) So Jesus is not good? Therefore, if jesus did not know “good” then why trust his teachings? Try again.
“Jesus is God.” – Challenger
Is jesus god? Jesus did not teach people that he was God. If Jesus had been telling people that he was God, he would have complimented the man. Instead, Jesus rebuked him, denying he was good, that is, Jesus denied he was God. The Bible says that God is greater than Jesus. ‘My Father is greater than I’ (John 14:28) ‘My father is greater than all.’ (John 10:29) Try again. Is jesus god? Is Jesus equal to or lesser than god?
“God is Jesus. And the holy Spirit.” – Challenger
OH 14:28 “I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” jesus is to lesser than god? Sounds like it to me.
“Again taking things literally without historical or situational context.” – Challenger
More empty statements not valid refutations. Please explain taking things literally without historical or situational context? Do you favor wisdom? 1CO 1:19: “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” So not a promoter of wisdom I guess. How do you have the wisdom to know which verses about jesus if there are many that contradict each other? Jesus’ last words?
*MAT 27:46,50: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” …Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.”
*LUK 23:46: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:” and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.”
*JOH 19:30: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished:” and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”
Here is a bible verse you may have missed as a religious conservative. Matthew 19:21- Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor.” Do you claim to follow Paulism or jesus? “Modern conservative “Christians” (who follow the conservative Paul) are so un-Christ-like and so unlike the Jesus (a liberal) they claim to worship.” – Davis D. Danizier
Ontology (Greek meaning ontos, “being; that which is”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.
Epistemology (Greek episteme, meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and logos, meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) it is the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.
Axiology (Greek meaning axia, “value, worth”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) it is the philosophical study of value as well as ethics and aesthetics. Formal Axiology is a specific branch of the science of Axiology. Axiology also studies of goodness, value or worth, in the widest sense of these terms. Its significance lies in the unification that it has provided for the study of a variety of questions—economic, moral, aesthetic, and even logical—that had often been considered in relative isolation.
“The Hammer of Truth” is the use of Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology questions to remove errors and add accuracy. It is also my folk name for Scientific Philosophy: Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology”
Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology OEA (The Hammer of Truth)
OEA “Hammer of Truth” Questions:
Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology questioning tools in inquiry, disagreements, arguments, or debates.
*Ontology (thingness of things) questions to define or compare and contrast thingness.
*Epistemology (knowledge of things) questions to explode or establish and confirm knowledge.
*Axiology (value/worth/goodness of things) questions to valueize (value judge) or establish and confirm value or disvalue, worth or dis-worth, as well as goodness or un-good.
(OEA challenge protocol; is part of my, Methodological Rationalism approach)
Expressed in its simplest form, The Hammer of Truth: Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology. We and credible thinkers should adopt rationality assumptions, as necessary constraints on interpretation, as well as practical issues in addressing methodological problems faced by:
gatherers: “Ontology”, inquisitors: “Epistemology”, & judgers: “Axiology.”
“The Hammer of Truth: Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology”
Mock Debate court using the “Hammer of Truth”
- Ontology “Reality” questions/assertion: Witness gives evidence about the claim.
- Epistemology “Truth” questions/assertion: Lawyer searches for warrant or justification for the claim.
- Axiology “Goodness-for” questions/assertion: Judge assesses and value judges because of qualities in or lacking in the claim.
Always try to follow this attack order:
*Ontology, (understanding the thingness of things; like what is or can be real, like not god)
-What is your claim?
-What aspects must be there for your claim?
-What makes your claim different than other similar claims?
*Epistemology, (understanding what you know or can know; as in you do have and thing in this reality to know anything about this term you call god, and no way of knowing if there is anything non-naturalism beyond this universe and no way to state any about it if there where)
-How do know your claim?
-How reliable or valid must aspects be for your claim?
-How does the source of your claim make it different than other similar claims?
*Axiology (understanding what is good or valuable as well as what is evil or unvaluable like how the stories about theist theistic gods are often racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic intersexphobic, xenophobic, etc. Thus, they are directly against humanity and thus are evil and unvaluable. Unvaluable; as in the god concept you have is evil and demonstrably harmful and thus is highly unvaluable to humanity)
-Why are your objects of proposed value subjective psychological states or objective physiological external world states for your claim?
-Why do your purposed descriptive words fit qualities for valuation (such as “powerful”, “knowing”, and “present” in the Omnipotent: all-powerful, Omniscient: all-knowing, and Omnipresent: all-present god assertion) your claim?
-Why is your value-for, worth-for, and/or goodness-for claims different than other similar claims?
Take for instance how Religion supporters try the evaluation tactic of saying “there are peaceful Religions.”
I may respond, what do you mean by Religion and what do you mean by painful or good” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Ontology)
Then, I may respond, “how do you know that, what is your sources and how reliable they are” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Epistemology)
Then, I may respond, “what value do you think what you are saying has and to what level of proof do you feel truth needs as well as how do you insure Accuracy” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Axiology)
Let’s look at the “gOD claim” with the Hammer of Truth
To me god is a the Presuppositional Error it assumes a unsupported oncology assumptions.First, truly what is a god and how can you claim to know about it? Guessing is not evidence, neither is wild, unfounded assertions that are written in reality devoid documents such as holy books. Atheists do not have to prove that gods do not exist, as gods have never been proven to exist. Nor is there any good reason to think they could exist! In the branch of linguistics known as pragmatics, a presupposition is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse.
Let me explain why as an axiological atheist (value theory atheist) even the belief in the concept of god is ethically vile to me. God belief is inherently immoral to me it is the belief that supports an all powerful being who willfully allows suffering, something that no ethical person would tolerate if they had the ability to do otherwise. Moreover, a common attribute of god belief is support of this claimed greater being of high intelligence and self will forcing its will and standards on other beings of high intelligence and self will. This force is unethical and abusive to the rights of humanity. Furthermore, many who subscribe to this force abusive relationship god claim an even more revolting ethical atrocity called hell where eternal horror and suffering is dished out by direct will of the claimed stronger immoral god being against the defenseless undeserving subjugated humanity. Thus, being one, who values rights and ethics, it sickens me to even speak of such willful misconduct of justice. Your god concept is vile… (axiology value judgment).
The god claim is like a clown car rolling in from out of nowhere and it seems like it is only one or possibly a few bad ideas, but no. No, it is a dark festival that masquerades as truth but it is only an evil funhouse of mirrors that distorts reality. The term god is an empty meaningless term and if it was not for man-made myths or wild speculations which are usually the misinterpretations of nature, no one would claim to know what a god is or could be. Unless one falls back to the circus of fallacies in the magic big top of fideism and the faith fallacy that you do not need anything but faith to validate, justify, or prove any mystical belief you so desire.
The God Fallacy is that there is no epistemically warranted or justifiably reliable evidence for god(s) existence; most ideas offered are stretches of unreason promoting seemingly implausible knowledge or reality claims. Moreover, beyond this is the self-evident realization that there is no reliable and /or verifiable evidence that could be used to define what god term actually is or could be assured to involve. Because it is never good to just randomly conceptualize or fabricate from bias trying to force connections into existence. epistemically warranted or justifiably reliable evidence or even a preset of proofs that do not hold gaps a believer want to fill with an arbitrary beliefs things need a god explanation and yet again what does god even mean. One his furthered nothing with god talk until they offer clear links to understand what could rightly make up the empty term g. o. d. (Group Originated Delusion).
Any reasonable thinker should conclude that clear links to any knowledge are required to comprehend what to ask, where to look, or what to state is involved. This would seem especially important since what is on the line is the actual truth or falsehood of the great believed “IT” of somethingism. Do you wish to just assemble or make up your god thinking as you go, greedily forcing anything that seems slow enough to not get away or is the actual truth in reality you seek even if godless as finding the true is the main pursuit, as your aim is what true right, taken with the deepest integrity? One should desire such intellectual rigor in order to even distinguish if we need to inquire or have a way to question a possibility of existence, as this empty termed “it” god of nothingism is unknown in every way even in its “it” status outside of faith superstitions, Dogmatic–Propaganda, delusion, myths and lies.
Religion is just Dogmatic–Propaganda, such as how it is wrong to start with full belief built only upon faith: then search and anything unknown, claiming it somehow justifies or is evidence for their specific God Fallacy.
Another attribute of the God Fallacy is that believers seem to insinuate, if they can in anyway demonstrate (even the possibility of a thing that could seem to be a something attributed to a god) then they have proved that the god they believe in is true. And yet is it not true that man will always fail to prove a specific god? Religion is big on claims but small on reasoning. Take the Abrahamic faiths; they propose a very specific, well-defined god, but in reality, they advocate a very unspecified god; a naturalistic, inferred-theistic-creationism or the god of intelligent design. In other words, when pressed to demonstrate god in the world, or as the reason for the big bang, they can at best only try to surmise a magical power or unknown and unknowable possible something as the “creator.” But the question needs to asked, how does that prove any specific god? So even if we were to concede, for the sake of argument, that some god, phantom-menace started things, they still have to show that this god is the very same as the god in which they believe.
The truth is, for all the appeals they make to nature in order to justify their god, not one appeal is valid in any way to confirm that their god (and only their god) is true, they must always leave the facts and return to faith. Thus, these haughty theists always fail to show any naturalistic reasons for believing in their special-needs god. What they show instead is a belief, not in the god of some myth or scriptures, but belief in a projected somethingism-god attributed to nature, which is indistinguishable from a nothingism, godless reality attributed by nature.However, the issues don’t stop there, as they also would have to prove, or give warrant, as well as justification for every attribute and claimed character trait attached to their specific god using only natural arguments, not some Holy Book or otherworldly revelation.
Coherent Definition of god?
I am an Ignostic atheist and not only do not believe in the term gods I reject that even the term or concept of god has any real thing or true reality connected definition. To me there is no one coherent definition of god even if they think articulation proves real meaning, this proves little more that me saying someone believes in a “Triangle-Square-Circle”. To the term god I thus regards it as empty of real meaning and or real definition constancy, so I see it as something that is not really know or knowable or coherently define able as a real object even if it can add arbitrary words to articulate it is still not something outside man-made arbitration.
One may say no the god definition is real one cannot say it is not, as most people generally known what the term god means thus that cannot be rejected. Really?? I could be misunderstanding this reasoning put against Ignostic Atheist thinking but to me it seems to hold the opinion, saying I must accept the god concept as something definable in reality because ad populum? In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “appeal to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: “If many believe so, it is so.”
Here is my external pages or content: Facebook Witter Page, My YouTube, My Linkedin, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, Instagram: damienathope, Personal Facebook Page, Secondary Personal Facebook Page, Main Atheist Facebook Page, Secondary Atheist Facebook Page, Facebook Leftist Political Page, Facebook Group: Atheist for Non-monogamy, Facebook Group: (HARP) Humanism, Atheism, Rationalism, & Philosophy and My Email: email@example.com