What is not in existence does not exist!
Can you say “doublethink”?
Yes. I’ve no idea why you’re bringing it up though.
Not to get involved on this but I think he is referring to the fact that if one uses blindfolds when reading the Bible they should not be able to read it. 
But with him I wonder if that is what he is referring to.
This seems to be completely non-responsive. It neither confirms nor denies anything I said.
Here’s the thing: you can’t prove – or disprove – God’s existence semantically. There isn’t any magic definition.
The believer doesn’t get to say, “God must be perfect, and perfection cannot have any flaws; non-existence is a flaw, therefore God must exist.” That’s a load of crap.
And you don’t get to say, “God as the creator of all things can’t exist, because before he existed he had to have a place to exist.” That is also, forgive the blunt dismissal, a very bad argument.
care to explain how that applies here?
Well, how can one be a “believer” if they regard the Bible as mythology? Or is this just convenient hypocrisy?
Well, how can one be a “believer” and regard the Bible as mythology? Or is this just convenient hypocrisy?
Perhaps a believer can believe in most of the Bible? Do you think that if even one tiny bit of the Bible was proven to be false, the entire thing should be thrown out?
If atheists thought that we’d be rightly condemned as extreme.
Oh well, I was afraid to be right on the last item. So the simple logic problem of what Der Thris said was not it.
Incidentally, I have an idea about what god may be but this idea of treating the bible as mythology and still being a believer is not a strange one, several founding fathers of the USA were deists. With a strong tendency of stripping away all supernatural and dogmatic references from the Bible.
Not much of an explanation for the term “double think” or how it applies to blinders, etc - but - to respond -
Depends on exactly what one is believing “in” -
No, I’m saying they should stop being believers.
Whoawhoawhoa hang on a minute.
We’re talking about a book which believers hold up as written by those inspired by the divine spirit.
If even one tiny bit of the Bible was proven to be false, that goes out the window!
We’re talking about a divine standard here. God isn’t allowed to be wrong - he’s perfect. Omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. If something in there is wrong, then one of those obviously isn’t the case. Or, the book is not written by god, at which point there’s no real reason to hold on to it any longer. It’s absolutely not unreasonable to throw out the entire bible if even one thing is shown to be wrong. In fact, the unreasonable thing would be to hold it as divinely inspired despite containing anything less than perfection.
The trouble with this reasoning is that there is plenty wrong with the Bible; this absolutism in reasoning (laughingly so-called) is that it requires denialism.
I do know a very nice lady, studying for the ministry, who declares, with a straight face, “There are no contradictions in the Bible.”
Absolutist belief invites this kind of schizophrenia.
Well… yeah. I personally believe any Christian who believes the bible is divinely inspired and isn’t a denialist is a hypocrite (although this is one of those cases where hypocrite is not the worse option). What’s missing in my reasoning? Don’t just appeal to the consequences (especially because the consequence, that the Bible may not be divinely inspired and may be of no more value than any other dusty tome full of fairy tales, is hardly something horrifying); what am I missing? Are parts of the bible divinely inspired, and others not? How could you determine which are which (other than “the parts which are wrong aren’t”, which seems fallacious to me)? Does divine inspiration not mean that the texts are flawless? But if so, why should we care? The bible is not perfect, and contains numerous flaws - why should it not be considered worthless as a primary source?
You mean pick and choose?
That last sentence sounds like something right out of * Pravda. *
Do you know what a deist is?
Well, I suggest to do it like an enlightened person did 200 years ago:
I know Voltaire was no lover of the Bible, but I think of a quotation from him at this point, that seems to apply to your ilk: “Go up into an attic and rule the world.”
And there’s a comment at the start of Chapter 15 of * Pudd’nhead Wilson * that applies here.:mad: