re: Does Satanism exist without Christianity?

quote:

---

I’m Catholic with a strong devotion to the Blessed Mother,

---

Shocking

quote:

---

I agree that our worldly existence can’t be the end. I absolutely believe we have souls. After that, I have no idea.

---

If only there were some type of book to answer some of these questions!

quote:

---

The lessening of pains and the expansion of pleasures are apparent in societies that hold certain moral values.

While not objective in any way, people still do seek to accomplish the aforementioned. That's all that's required to explain the origins of the moral codes you're referencing.

---

I'm not interest in the "origins of moral codes". I don't deny that those who reject God still have moral codes. I'm talking about the arbitrary and ultimately meaningless nature of morality in a world without an objective moral standard.

Sure, people generally prefer less pain and more pleasure. That doesn't provide any objective reason why that ought to be the moral standard for anyone any more than more pain and less pleasure.

quote:

---

People can look back and see what sorts of behaviors and moral codes worked, and use that as an argument to re-adapt them.

---

"Worked" is another subjective and relative term. "Worked" according to their own preferences, you mean. You would think population growth would be a measure of "success" in a society, but there are many today who see population growth as a negative thing that should be stopped.

quote:

---

Surviving and prospering (lessening pains and expanding pleasures) are two different things.

---

"Prospering" is another relative word that is dependent on the standard you use to measure it. Surviving is all you need to satisfy traditional views of evolutionary theory. That's what survival of the fittest is all about: survival. But even survival isn't written into the laws of the universe. Species go extinct and the cold, meaningless universe moves on. Most places in the universe have no life at all.

Survival and prosperity are not moral issues without an outside meaning being given to them.

quote:

---

Because the vast majority of people are wired to avoid pain and seek out pleasure...

---

So you base "success" on your arbitrary standard of "good" which is equivalent to "less pain and more pleasure". Got it. Where did you get that standard? Is it because "the vast majority of people are wired" that way? If so, you admit that majority rule is your standard, but why? Why isn't the minority in the right in this case?

You have set up arbitrary standards and measurements against those standards to say what "good" looks like in terms of morality, but you cannot justify them apart from your own personal preference. Most societies acting a certain way doesn't tell me that's how they should act, which is what the moral question is about.

quote:

---

Republics too.

If you realize this, why do you keep describing might makes right as one tyrant doing whatever the hell he wants?

---

Tyranny comes in many forms. The point is that you're essentially describing a "might makes right" situation when you speak of morality, even if it comes from 51% of a given society.

quote:

---

There's nothing arbitrary about a nervous system alerting the organism it's a part of to some sort of danger, and that feeling being uncomfortable.

---

What's arbitrary is the meaning we give that biological response.

quote:

---

You sound like a progressive asking what about the hermaphrodites with respect to gender not being binary.

People have 10 fingers and 10 toes, and they also avoid pain and seek pleasure. Yes, there are exceptions, but they prove the rule.

---

Except when you speak of the rule rather than the exception, you put meaning behind it as if meaning exists objectively. I'm pointing out that there is no objective meaning behind our biology in an evolutionary worldview and therefore any meaning we give is entirely arbitrary.

quote:

---

Reducing pain and increasing pleasure aren't independent factors. There can be times when increasing pleasure now inflicts more harm later, or experiencing pain now creates more pleasure later. The examples you're countering with are examples of this and still operate within the idea of trying to avoid pain and maximize pleasure, it just takes into account time/cause and effect.

---

So it seems that you're saying the arbitrary standard of reducing pain and maximizing pleasure is also arbitrarily defined based on personal preferences of a society. Some pain is acceptable and some pleasure is unacceptable.

quote:

---

You could be tortured to the point where you'd voice support for what I'm arguing right now. That's how powerful pain/pleasure is. Something that strong doesn't need an objective base. That's just how reality is.

---

And again, it's entirely arbitrary. Your position ultimately isn't a rational one, but a pragmatic one. Even your torture example shows this is true.

quote:

---

And yet, being eaten by a tiger still hurts a fricking lot. So does starving to death. So does being beaten to death with a rock from your idiot tribemate because he wants your spear. So does staring directly into the sun.

Do you really think that without objective morality people would be just as likely to stick their dick in an ant mound as they would a vagina? If so, we're so far apart there's no point in continuing this conversation.

---

All you're talking about here is guiding behavior. Behavior can be guided in various ways. That doesn't make every way "moral" in their own right. And pain and suffering doesn't also automatically confer moral attributes to something. Cancer is amoral, yet it does cause quite a lot of suffering and death.

quote:

---

My argument involves avoiding pain and seeking out pleasure being the inspiration for moral codes, and that moral codes built, at least partially, on empathy work well in achieving those desires. You respond with something akin to "the question isn't whether or not your action avoids pain or enhances pleasure, it's whether or not expressing anger can be viewed as moral.

Sure, it can be, but I'm arguing it's less likely to be seen as such because it's less likely to produce the outcomes (less pain, more pleasure) that empathy-based moral codes can.

---

And I'm explaining to you why your standard is completely arbitrary (irrational) and inconsistent, and void of internal cohesion. Ultimately your reason for saying it is "good" is because it works, which assumes a pragmatic standard of morality to begin with. Why is utility/pragmatism the be-all-end-all of morality? Why is propagation of the species the ultimate? Why is pleasure over suffering best? Ultimately, because you think it is. That's my point.

quote:

---

You can. You can also just say its moral to stick your dick in an ant mound... But almost no one is going to seriously say/do that. That's just the reality of the matter, and I'm scratching my head at your inability to recognize that.

---

Again you prove my point. Morality is ultimately meaningless and arbitrary in your worldview though you act like it isn't.

quote:

---

Neither. But you can expect society to trend toward promoting empathy over selfish ambition and desire more often than not. That's, for better or worse, how our moral codes are built.

I'm fine with that because I, like virtually everyone else on this planet, want to avoid pain and enjoy pleasure.

---

Again, this is an arbitrary designation. You are arguing for what is rather than what should be based on a standard you personally like and agree with. I'm pointing out the irrationality of that line of thinking.

quote:

---

Oh, I know you are trying to drag the conversation into that arena. But I'm not. I'm simply trying to explain to you how moral codes can arise naturally, and that they're not necessarily destined to end in tyranny without belief in God.

---

Morality can come about naturally. What it can't do is justify itself naturally. You're offering an irrational proposition that is unsupportable philosophically, based on biological responses that have no inherent meaning.

quote:

---

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?
He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

---

As an aside here.... where does the Jews fit into this framework?

And people still think they are "Gods chosen people".

Israel, not Jacob.

quote:

---

No, you just really really really want me to play your game - try and claim that moral systems have objectivity.

---

Yes, you are offering an irrational proposition that is unsupportable philosophically. The best you have to offer is a moral system of utility that is based on personal preference; you happen to like utility more than other competing views. While that's fine for you, it offers no basis for objective moral reasoning while mine does, and that's important because subjective standards lack real meaning outside of the individual who prefers it. Utility is one of many standards that have been used and can be used, and you have no philosophical reason why anything is actually good or bad. And even utility falls on its face when you get into the particulars, because what is useful for one person is not useful for another. What is "good" for one group may be devastating to another group or to another individual. Utility is itself relative. The best you've got is "it works", and yet it doesn't really work depending on many situations and circumstances. You offer irrationality and pretend it doesn't matter.

quote:

---

I don't make that claim and have never made that claim. You cannot get an ought from an is. All I've done is countered the "arbitrary" labels you place on moral codes that arise naturally and countered often-described tyrannical hells you like to bring up that are supposedly inevitable without an objective moral code.

---

You cannot argue with the philosophical weakness of your position because you have no rational basis to do so. Your position is built on sand. You should at least agree with Dostoyevski who opined that without God, everything is permissible. Everything is permissible because there doesn't exist a true rational standard for moral rightness (and therefore no standard for moral wrongness), and there is no ultimate enforcer of such a standard. You a born, you do what you want, and then you die. That's all. Anything else is merely semantical triviality.

If you want to argue just to argue, that's fine, but you can't possibly say that you have a rational basis for a utilitarian approach to morality for the mere fact that what is useful and util is up to each person to decide.

quote:

---

My claim: The moral codes we live by today "don't kill, steal, rape, etc." can and did arise naturally. No God required. You can call that "arbitrary", but considering how these are near-universally accepted moral codes humans have lived under for the past few millennia, you might as well be calling a 6 sided die that, for some reason, ends up on the 3 side 99% of the time an arbitrary outcome. Clearly it's not.

---

This is a battle of worldviews. Which one best provides an explanation for the reality we have today? You offer an irrational perspective where morality doesn't actually exist in a meaningful way and no action can truly be said to be "immoral" if it results in the most pleasure and least pain for the most people (without offering an objective reason for why that is the standard to use) simply because purposeless bags of star dust (humans) evolved without direction or meaning on a meaningless planet as a speck of dust in the universe. We are glorified animals, and yet you think morality has meaning. What is moral is moral because we as a particular culture accept it as moral.

I, on the other hand, know morality has meaning, and that there is things that are objectively right and objectively wrong regardless of who believes it at the time or in a certain place, or if it is adopted by a majority of people (or enforced by a minority with sufficient power to do so). I believe morality has meaning because it comes from outside of humanity, and it comes from a personal God who made humans in His own image, imparting a moral nature to us so that we understand and crave a morality that otherwise wouldn't exist apart from Him. Because God exists, I can say murder is objectively immoral. You can only say that if it meets the criteria of being the most non-utilitarian option of the ones available.

Your view of morality has no grounding outside of subjective and relative experience.

quote:

---

Scriptures and religions evolve similarly to organisms.

---

Stop, you're going to give Foo a heart attack!

quote:

---

Hosea 2:16

And it shall be, in that day,”
Says the LORD,
“That you will call Me ‘My Husband (Alef Yod Ayin) eesh ,’
And no longer call Me ‘My Master (Bet Ayin, Lamed, Yod) Bah-al-ee,

---

I wanted to address this one thing because, the Holy Spirit seems to love using puns in the book of Hosea. The word used for husband here is the 'Eesh' (Alef Yod Ayin). I think the Holy Spirit is pointing to something greater in this entire book (and the very history of Israel, the Cross and the world of gentiles now able to come to the feet of their redeemer). The Holy Spirit correctly uses the word bah-al-ee (Bet Ayin Lamed Yod H1180) Strong's Concordance Bah-al-ee which is similar to Baal (or Lord). It is an intentional play on another Hebrew word for Husband (bah'-al, made up of the Bet Ayin Lamed without the yod H1167). Strong's Concordance bah'-al , because God loves us and desires to dwell with us even though we as people mess up over and over again. I think the whole point of Hosea is confusing story until you understand God's love for his bride... His people. In the Old Testament Israel practiced idolatry over and over again, which was analogous to harlotry in this book made clear...going after other gods, even though His everlasting covenant of the law with them was already established with them. He did not forget them nor forsake, nor did he cast them off, nor did the Church replace Israel, rather there is a separate plan for for the Church as there is for Israel. But the eyes of Israel will be opened when the full harvest of the gentiles comes in (paraphrase of Romans 11:25). Some of the mysteries of book of Ruth unravels (many generations before Christ). It tells the story of how the remnant of Israel (Naomi) and the Gentiles (Ruth) need to work together for the total plan of redemption. It tells the story of how Naomi's husband died. (Jesus also died), and how the her family was scattered and sown throughout the world, just like Israel was scattered and sown throughout the world within a hundred years of the death of Jesus. It also tells of their return to reclaim their land, just as bitter Naomi did without her family, except for Ruth (a gentile bride). The story takes place during the harvest of the barley and the wheat, (right in line with the times of Passover at the time of Barley harvest - Old Testament saints) to Pentecost at the time of the Wheat harvest the Church age saints, the threshing and gathering the grain and staying/sleeping with the precious harvest into the long hours of the night (midnight is mentioned) to protect the harvest to protect the seed from a thief in the night. (Images of Matthew 3:12 seem to come to mind here) The bride coming to rest at the feet of (Jesus?) to ask Him to redeem take her as His own and for Naomi to redeem her land. The book shows how the kinsman redeemer (Boaz a "type of" resurrected Christ) redeems both the people and the land, and he does it by His own free will out of love as it is already His inheritance to possess.

Romans 7:1-4 explains reconciles how the bride is both Israel and the Church and that when God himself (Jesus) died and resurrected, it changed everything! (That is good news to those that will believe)!

quote:

---

Romans 7:1-4

1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law rules over a man as long as he lives? 2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.

---

quote:

---

Go read Deuteronomy 32:8-9. Go read Psalm 82 as a whole but particularly verse 6. Yahweh and Elyon are distinct, different gods.

---

I'm not going t argue about this again. I've shown how ridiculous your conspiracy theories are time and time again, and how you don't know how to understand basic grammar in the text. You see multiple gods because you assume multiple gods in spite of the grammatical evidence to the contrary. I can make sense of the different titles for God in the same text, but you can't reconcile how the multiple titles are used about the same being in texts that you aren't cherry picking to support your false conclusions.

I'll leave you with one nugget: baal means "Lord" or "Master", and while typically associated with other false gods worshipped by idolaters, it makes sense that a place named after the LORD (Yahweh) is called "Lord" (baal). Perhaps if you actually read your Bible instead of pulling your material from those hostile to the text, you'd learn a thing or two.

quote:

---

Go read Deuteronomy 32:8-9

---

Let’s add some context, shall we?

Deuteronomy 32:7–12 (NASB95): Consider the years of all generations.
Ask your father, and he will inform you,
Your elders, and they will tell you.
8 “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,
When He separated the sons of man,
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of Israel.
9 “For the Lord’s portion is His people;
Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance.
10 “He found him in a desert land,
And in the howling waste of a wilderness;
He encircled him, He cared for him,
He guarded him as the pupil of His eye.
11 “Like an eagle that stirs up its nest,
That hovers over its young,
He spread His wings and caught them,
He carried them on His pinions.
12 “The Lord alone guided him,
And there was no foreign god with him.

This is “The Song of Moses.” It speaks of the history Abraham and his descendants, and God’s favor upon them. I only see one God mentioned here.
I don’t question the fact that all Ancient Near Eastern cultures worshipped false gods/idols. Baal was a part of the religion of virtually every culture of the ancient Near East. I’m still undecided, but I lean towards the theory that these false gods may be the fallen angels that were cast down with Lucifer. Though, it’s really not that important to me to know for sure.

quote:

---

Go read Psalm 82 as a whole but particularly verse 6

---

Psalm 82:1–8 (NASB95): God takes His stand in His own congregation;
He judges in the midst of the rulers.
2 How long will you judge unjustly
And show partiality to the wicked?
?Selah.
3 Vindicate the weak and fatherless;
Do justice to the afflicted and destitute.
4 Rescue the weak and needy;
Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 ?They do not know nor do they understand;
They walk about in darkness;
All the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 ?I said, “You are gods,
And all of you are sons of the Most High.
7 “Nevertheless you will die like men
And fall like any one of the princes.”
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth!
For it is You who possesses all the nations.

I have gone back and forth on this one for a while, but I now believe that the context is in fact regarding the human rulers of earth. Benson’s commentary is quite convincing:

Benson Commentary
Psalm 82:1. God standeth in the congregation — As a judge, diligently to observe all that is said or done there, and to give sentence accordingly. The judge sits when he hears causes, but stands up when he gives sentence. Or standing may here be intended, not to denote the posture of the person, but only his being present. Whence this Hebrew word ???, nitzab, is by some learned interpreters rendered, is present, and by others, presideth, as this word is used, 1 Samuel 19:20; 1 Samuel 22:9. Of the mighty — Or, of the gods, as it is expressed and explained in the next clause, the singular number, ??, eel, being here, as it is frequently elsewhere, put for the plural. He judgeth among the gods — Accurately observeth all their conduct, and passes sentence upon them accordingly. By gods or, the mighty, he understands kings, or other chief rulers, judges, and magistrates, called gods below, Psalm 82:6; Exodus 12:12; Exodus 22:28. compared with Psalm 138:1, and John 10:35. They are called gods, because they have their power and commission from God, and act as his deputies, in his name and stead, and must give an account to him of their conduct in their high office and station. And by their congregation he means not a convention or assembly of such persons who seldom meet together, but either, 1st, All congregations or assemblies of people in which magistrates sit to execute justice. Or, 2d, All persons whatsoever of this high and sacred order or number; for the word here rendered congregation, doth not always signify an assembly of persons met together in one place, but sometimes denotes all the particular persons of, or belonging to, such a sort or body of men, though dispersed in divers places: see Psalm 26:5; Proverbs 21:16. Some render it as it is in the Hebrew, in the congregation of God; in his own congregation, that is, in the conventions or tribunals of princes or rulers, which he rightly calls his, because their authority is wholly derived from him. But the former exposition seems more agreeable, both to the following words, and to the scope and whole body of the Psalm.

While your interpretation seems way cooler, it is most likely incorrect. I don’t question the existence of angelic/spiritual beings, or the rulers and principalities in the heavenly places. I just don’t think that Psalm 82 is referring to them here.

quote:

---

For example, in this verse, Yahweh is Ba’al.

---

2 Samuel 5:20 (NASB95): So David came to Baal-perazim and defeated them there; and he said, “The Lord has broken through my enemies before me like the breakthrough of waters.” Therefore he named that place Baal-perazim.

Lol. No. At least , not in the sense you’re claiming. See below, the uses of the term Baal.

BAAL-PERAZIM (?????? ?????????, ba'al peratsim). A village where David had his first victory over the Philistine army (2 Sam 5:18–20; 1 Chr 14:11).

quote:

---

Hosea 2:16 quote: “And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.’

---

The word ?????? (ba'al) does not exclusively refer to the Canaanite god but has other related meanings. Four categories can be established based on grammar and reference (Swanson, DBL: Hebrew, HGK 1254–57).
1. As a verb meaning “to marry.” Its grammatical form includes the distinctive implication that the husband is taking the wife in marriage, and the wife is being taken in marriage (Deut 21:10–14; 24:1).
2. As a proper noun outside of a religious context meaning “owner” (Exod 21:8), an authority figure, such as a “ruler” or “master” (Num 21:8, Isa 16:8), or “husband” (Prov 12:4). The line between these meanings is blurred; some contemporary English translations use “master” in Jer 3:14 (NASB), while others use “husband” (HCSB).
3. As a generic word meaning “Lord,” referring to any god, including Yahweh.
4. As a name for the Canaanite god. This is the most common meaning.

Hosea 2:16 (FSB): 2:16 My husband The Hebrew text here can literally be rendered “my man.” In Hebrew, a woman’s husband can be described as her man. The verse contrasts this term with the Hebrew word ba’al, meaning “lord” or “master,” which also can refer to a woman’s husband.

I could keep going, but it’s really not necessary. Your desire to twist the scripture into the meaning that is necessary for you feel justified in your denial (aka suppressing the truth in unrighteousness) is glaringly obvious. The simple fact that you can’t seem to make a point without mockery and name calling speaks to the overall fragility of the foundation of your argument. The only ones that are impressed by your rhetoric are like-minded people who choose to stand in the dark and shake their fists at the God they claim not to believe in.

We all have a choice to make. A choice to believe, or not to believe. Whatever your choice, you will find reasons to support your belief. Atheism is not simply the lack of belief. It is the belief that there is no God. And, therefore, it must be justified- just as the belief in God must be justified. If I am wrong, I spent my insignificant life being kind, charitable, and filled with joy and peace. If you are wrong- what then?

quote:

---

According to the number of the sons of Israel.

---

You are using an inferior translation of the Masoretic text. The LXX renders this part “angels of Theos”, or angels of God. Even that is not accurate nor original. The Dead Sea scrolls Deuteronomy renders this part “bene El” meaning “sons of El (Elyon)” aka “sons of God”.

quote:

---

12 “The Lord alone guided him, And there was no foreign god with him.

---

I think this is referring to Moses being guided by Yahweh. Sure there was no foreign god with him. By the way El Elyon (the father and highest god on the pecking order), though distinct from Yahweh (the son), was not a foreign god.

quote:

---

I don’t question the fact that all Ancient Near Eastern cultures worshipped false gods/idols.

---

Why would you. The Bible says like a thousand times the Israelites worshipped multiple gods. That was the excuse given many times of Yahweh’s jealousy in “allowing” the Philistines, Moabites, Assyrians, and Babylonians to kick Israel and Judah’s collective butts over and over again.

quote:

---

false gods

---

You add in that word “false”. The Bible doesn’t use that word.

quote:

---

idols

---

A Greek word. A slur of the other gods. It doesn’t mean they are false. Especially in the Old Testament LXX, the Hebrew “gillulim” literally meaning “shite gods” is translated as “idols” in Greek.

quote:

---

Lucifer

---

In Isaiah 14:12 this word in context refers to the king of Babylon, not your concept of an evil deity “Satan”.

quote:

---

I have gone back and forth on this one for a while, but I now believe that the context is in fact regarding the human rulers of earth.

---

Go back. Look at a much better translation (e.g. the ESV). Here it is for you. I just can’t see how a sane person can read this and think it is talking about people on earth. Literally over and over it talks about these beings being chastised by Elohim (Yahweh) as being in the divine heavenly places and they are called sons of El Elyon.

quote:

---

1God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: 2“How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah 3Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. 4Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” 5They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. 6I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; 7nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.”a 8Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!

---

This complements Deuteronomy 32:8-9 perfectly. At first, Yahweh inherits only Israel, while his heavenly brothers rule over the other nations. Psalm 82 is a cry out, a call for one day Yahweh judging the other gods (his brothers) and taking their inheritances (the other nations).

ETA: so you see verse 7? Like men. Like. Men. That means they are NOT men. The other gods will die like men die in what the author was trying to convey.

quote:

---

Benson’s commentary

---

Sorry man that is pure stupidity. The guy is trying to make it say something that the scripture doesn’t say.

quote:

---

2 Samuel 5:20 (NASB95): So David came to Baal-perazim and defeated them there; and he said, “The Lord has broken through my enemies before me like the breakthrough of waters.” Therefore he named that place Baal-perazim. Lol. No. At least , not in the sense you’re claiming. See below, the uses of the term Baal.

---

Of course ba’al can mean master, even a human master. The context matters. Here in second Samuel though, the author says “therefore”. Yahweh broke through the enemy lines… therefore they will call this place Ba’al Perazim meaning “Ba’al breaks through”.

Perazim, from the word peraz

LOL if you want, but the name of the place where Yahweh broke through is called “Ba’al breaks through”.

quote:

---

Hosea 2:16 (FSB): 2:16 My husband The Hebrew text here can literally be rendered “my man.

---

You could, but why would you want to improperly translate? There is a word for “man” and a word for “husband” in Hebrew that the author chose to not use.

quote:

---

Your desire to twist the scripture into the meaning that is necessary for you feel justified in your denial (aka suppressing the truth in unrighteousness) is glaringly obvious.

---

You guys sure do like to project, just like the damn Democrats. Who twists the scripture? When it says there are multiple gods, I’m like yeah there are multiple gods, exactly what the F it says. You twist it and say, well no actually they are talking about humans on earth even though it says gods in the sky. Sorry dude but you project badly.

quote:

---

We all have a choice to make. A choice to believe, or not to believe. Whatever your choice, you will find reasons to support your belief.

---

Speak for yourself. I don’t have a choice. I cannot will myself to believe something I know to be false. I cannot will myself to believe in leprechauns and Santa Claus, nor the supernatural deities you worship. I can only acknowledge my reality based on evidence and facts.

quote:

---

Atheism is not simply the lack of belief. It is the belief that there is no God.

---

False. A - theism is literally without theism, or without belief in the supernatural. I don’t assert there is no god or supernatural. What I can positively say though is that what is contained in the Bible is 100% myth on the subject of supernatural deities. Could there be a supernatural power? Sure. Is it the one or many in the Bible? Definitely not.