Unclean texts of the big-3 monster theisms. We don’t need more 1-god-talk, pointless scripticism, or authoritarian god proxies nibbling at the edges of sedition.

No sadistic nihilist tarted up as a 1-god-of-love:

God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are…1Cor1:27-28 NIV.

We don’t need more moralists; we need more immoralists. We don’t need more preachies, we need more Nietzsches.

We’ll always make Saul of Tarsus the butt of jokes in the agora: Stoic and Epicurean, Cynic and Cyreniac, atomist and hedonist.

We proclaim the exuberant, skeptical words of Petronius, Apuleius, Lucian of Samostratos. Of Xenophanes, Epicurus, Diogenes Laertius. Bring on the Satyrica! The Golden ****! The lives of the philosophers!

“For who are we to believe a rabble of mistaken prophets, or the philosophers?”
— Celsus* (ca 175 CE)

the anti_supernaturalist

*On the true doctrine — against the christians. (ca 175 CE) trans/intro RJ Hoffmann. Oxford. 1987. p. 108.

Nathaniel, thanks for weighing in with your own opinion as well. The way I see it though, the possibility of God existing doesn’t change based on science proving more things. What changes is the possibility of a number of the stories in various holy writings being true.

As you said, the concept of God is untestable by science (at least as things stand now, and I imagine it will remain that way). That means science has no bearing on whether God exists or not, though it certainly has bearing on the truth of stories told by various religions. Whether that matters or not depends on if you view various holy writings as literal or allegorical though.

As far as no one claiming this absolutely, I’ve seen some atheists make this claim, which is why I addressed it. As I said, this certainly doesn’t apply to all atheists. Only the ones making said claim. Which I believe are a minority, just like the believers who give atheists in general a hard time are a minority.

All of that said, I still think I understand your viewpoint, which is that evidence that shows stories of various religions to be false undermines their integrity in asserting that God exists. Which I acknowledge is a perfectly legitimate and logical viewpoint.

I tend to view it from a different perspective (I do believe in God), which is that if you look at all religions they all seem to have some common ground in some areas, and those are the important pieces to look at. Anything that seems too fantastic to be real ought to be looked at in an allegorical or metaphorical sense, so we can see the lesson in it. I think this is reasonable, but I understand you may not, which is cool with me.

Atheists, science working doesn’t prove God doesn’t exist. Stop claiming it does.

No one I know has claimed this absolutely. What is being explained is that, as science progresses, the possibility for God to exist shrinks. The likelihood that God exists today is many, many times smaller than it was when the bible was written.

Science can’t disprove God, because the entire concept of God is disprovable.

I applaud your efforts to shed light on this ugly debate.