I'm an atheist, and I have some theological arguments about

if you're talking to some kind of scholar I'm sure they'll take your argument very seriously despite your disposition.

>>2358009
OK. The only one I've had the time to try it out on was a Jehovah's Witness, since they talk to you no matter what. After two meetings, with him talking to his congregation in between, he stopped being a Jehovah's Witness. Not to toot my own horn, but he also seemed sort of impressed by my arguments. So I guess that counts for something.

I wouldn't take your theories about hot opinions written as religion very seriously.
But then again I'm gnostic, instead of faith on a piece of paper I derive my opinion from my experiences, as I've had spiritual experiences, I can with them form a better opinion.

I discarded the bible btw, gnosticism made the more sense given all my experiences.

>>2358091
That makes sense, but you're not the type of person I'm trying to convince.

Basically the first "axiom" of my system is that you need to presuppose that the Bible is true.

>>2358001
>Should I just pretend to be a believer?
Yes, but burn these arguments too.

>>2358099
You're arguing in favor of a falsehood?

>>2358099
>Basically the first "axiom" of my system is that you need to presuppose that the Bible is true.

How the fuck would you 'disprove' the Bible, which is a revelation from God when it's origin is not a subject of rationality?

File: 1456115108746.png (477KB, 628x625px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 628x625px

>>2358108
>>2358121
I'm not sure what you guys mean. Perhaps "presuppose" doesn't mean what I think it means.

I mean it as in my "theory", if we're being liberal with the word, has some axioms, and one of those is that the Bible is true.

>>2358121
It IS something you can approach rationally, people just don't.
See, it is as easy as putting it into practice. Allegedly you can do ANY miracle in the name of Jesus, try it, if it doesn't work it is a scam.

People assume you must have faith against all evidence, this is plainly silly.

>>2358131
I think you don't get the concept of sola scriptura. It is an answer to the catholic statement that there is a natural knowledge about God by means of rationality. Sola scriptura is a dogma of radical agnosticism that puts all religious knowledge on the premise of a 'metaphysical' revelation from God. As such the Bible's validity as a source of religious knowledge isn't up for debate as long as you don't attack the concept of agnosticism.

>>2358121
If you look at the Bible as a spiritual text and compare it to other spiritual text, the perennial tradition and esoteric/metaphysical writings it becomes alot more rational from a "oh, now I get it" perspective.

Too many people don't classify it as such and dismiss it or treat it like a history book. This is detrimental to their understanding imo.

>>2358154
What does "spiritual text" mean?
The Bible in entirety certainly includes lots of "mundane" commands and proscriptions, as well as genealogies and events, so you can't blame people for commenting upon those.