how loving christians are!

[popsthebuilder]

Through religious beliefs, you are engaging in superstitious thoughts and unfounded beliefs.  Religions are based on magical thinking about powers that do not exist.  Is that clearer?

Yes that makes it very clear that you too are conflating things to fit into molds, yet actually have very little idea of what it is you are talking about.

Peace

[Cavebear]

Excellent overall reply Blackleaf.  I hope someday to be an algae like you!  ;)

[popsthebuilder]

Yes, you do have a habit of saying a lot without saying anything at all.

How does it lend credence to the possibility of GOD? You're not reading between the lines, you writing between them. One could do the same thing you're doing to claim that the universe leaves open the possibility that everything is just a computer simulation. There's no reason to consider your explanation any more credible than any other we can make up.

If you want to be taken seriously here, you need to learn the difference between belief and non-belief. Belief is a claim. Non-belief is not. You claim to know that God exists. We do not make a claim that God doesn't exist. If I make the claim that tyrannosaurus rex used to dance to disco music, can I say that you have a belief that they DIDN'T do that? No. That would be stupid. It would be on me to prove that my claim is correct or at least plausible, just as it is your responsibility as a theist to prove that God is real or plausible.

Let me quote something you said two paragraphs earlier, "I gave a brief list that, to the unbiased mind, is not evidence of GOD, but does lend credence to the possibility of GOD." Now you're doing the old switcheroo and saying that your list is evidence. You walk between the lines of saying two opposite things so that when someone calls you out on something, you can say, "I didn't say that." I don't know if you've ever done scientific research of any kind, but I have. Support = evidence. Not that someone needs a background in research to understand that, but since you don't seem to understand that, I spelled it out for you.

All you have done was make a claim and then turn around and use your claim as evidence for itself.

How is non belief not a claim.

It is a claim in opposition to a claim of believe. They are both claims. I'm sorry you can't grasp that because it would cause your whole defence to fall around you, but that's all you've got.

So the support I've given for my claim is actually evidence...got it.

Still waiting on the support for your claim.

Peace

Don't waste my time with childish word games. If you cant take your own position serious enough to defend it then, you're right, it isn't a position to be taken and can be thrown out as worthless with no supporting evidence.

Peace

[Baruch]

Yes that makes it very clear that you too are conflating things to fit into molds, yet actually have very little idea of what it is you are talking about.

Peace

Newspeak is strong with these people.  Basically putting fingers in ears and saying "nya nya nya .. na nya na!".  The deaf are hard of hearing.  If they have no numinous experience, or ideologically deny its existence ... then they can't hear of it.  It is phenomena only for them.  And pride prevents them from being agnostic ... to admitting they are just another blind man feeling up that happy elephant.

[Cavebear]

How is non belief not a claim.

It is a claim in opposition to a claim of believe. They are both claims. I'm sorry you can't grasp that because it would cause your whole defence to fall around you, but that's all you've got.

So the support I've given for my claim is actually evidence...got it.

Still waiting on the support for your claim.

Peace

Don't waste my time with childish word games. If you cant take your own position serious enough to defend it then, you're right, it isn't a position to be taken and can be thrown out as worthless with no supporting evidence.

Peace

The belief is the claim.  The non-belief is a demand you prove your claim. 

[Baruch]

How is non belief not a claim.

It is a claim in opposition to a claim of believe. They are both claims. I'm sorry you can't grasp that because it would cause your whole defence to fall around you, but that's all you've got.

So the support I've given for my claim is actually evidence...got it.

Still waiting on the support for your claim.

Peace

Don't waste my time with childish word games. If you cant take your own position serious enough to defend it then, you're right, it isn't a position to be taken and can be thrown out as worthless with no supporting evidence.

Peace

It is fundamental in rhetoric, to not accept the other person's evidence.  Since our evidence is subjective ... they need to merely reject subjectivity ... and they win.  Also they as G-d experts ;-) get to decide what G-d is, and how G-d manifests ... so they can carefully rule out any empirical evidence as well.  But I am not harmed by it.  But I agree with them on this, the usual promoting of religion is weak and feeble.  What is called Literalism ... simply falls right into their trap ... anyone outside of Lourdes would dismiss the apparition of the Virgin Mary at once ... you can set up cameras there, but Mary is too shy to appear as a recordable ectoplasm.  How religious people think G-d works, is as false as non-religious people think.  Though some people, subjectively can see the strings on the puppet ... or they are delusional.  I don't think there is any difference between being delusional and cynical.

[Baruch]

The belief is the claim.  The non-belief is a demand you prove your claim.

Making demands is rude ... but without rudeness, there would be no Internet ;-)  Try suggesting rather than demanding.

[Blackleaf]

How is non belief not a claim.

It is a claim in opposition to a claim of believe. They are both claims. I'm sorry you can't grasp that because it would cause your whole defence to fall around you, but that's all you've got.

Good job making blanket retort to my position without addressing any of my points, but I noticed and won't let you off that easy. How does it feel being a Non-Dinosaur-Disco believer? Do you have any evidence for your CLAIM that dinosaurs did not dance to disco music? If so, I'd love to see it.

So the support I've given for my claim is actually evidence...got it.

Still waiting on the support for your claim.

Peace

And I'm still waiting on you to support your claim. As of yet, you have failed to do so. This is your so-called "suppport."

A: The universe is A.

B. It's possible that God is the universe.

C. Therefor, B.

That's not support, you idiot.

Don't waste my time with childish word games. If you cant take your own position serious enough to defend it then, you're right, it isn't a position to be taken and can be thrown out as worthless with no supporting evidence.

Peace

If you're too incompetent to debate like an intelligent person, then do not waste my time. Don't blame me if you're incapable of actually defending the bullshit claims you make.

[Cavebear]

I agree.  Its like this.  Someone says I have a wombat on my head.  Its up to them to prove I do.  I don't have to say a darn thing about.  Its their claim to prove.

[Baruch]

I agree.  Its like this.  Someone says I have a wombat on my head.  Its up to them to prove I do.  I don't have to say a darn thing about.  Its their claim to prove.

If you have a wolverine, not a wombat on your head, then it is your problem, not mine ;-)

[popsthebuilder]

The belief is the claim.  The non-belief is a demand you prove your claim.

They are both positive claims.

I claim that the existence of GOD is true.

You claim that the absence of GOD is true.

The only position one can justifiably have due to lack of experience of GOD is that of agnosticism. Most "atheists" are eager to admit when they do not know a thing. If you don't know then that is agnostic. If you claim GOD doesn't exist then you have a burden of proof if you expect others to believe you, just like I would if I expected people to believe me that GOD does exist, based only on my word.

I don't claim any should believe my personal position though. I just advise any who are genuinely curious, to honestly and sincerely seek for themselves.

I can and do often go into detail about how one can begin to be honest with themselves, and I can back that positive claim, but it still takes one actually doing the work for themselves instead of just taking my word for it.

So in both cases my claims aren't asking that any take anything for granted, but find out for themselves.

Your claim seams to be that GOD doesn't exist and we should just take you on your word though you have shown yourself to be shifty and one-sided.

Peace

[Baruch]

Remember, Vulcans only believe that they are logical ... they have no proof of that ... otherwise the rabbit could pull itself out of the hat.  This is why no one here is serious about a re-read of GEB (Godel, Escher, Bach) ... otherwise they might end up like Norman the android from Classic Star Trek (Mud's Planet).

[doorknob]

They are both positive claims.

I claim that the existence of GOD is true.

You claim that the absence of GOD is true.

The only position one can justifiably have due to lack of experience of GOD is that of agnosticism. Most "atheists" are eager to admit when they do not know a thing. If you don't know then that is agnostic. If you claim GOD doesn't exist then you have a burden of proof if you expect others to believe you, just like I would if I expected people to believe me that GOD does exist, based only on my word.

I don't claim any should believe my personal position though. I just advise any who are genuinely curious, to honestly and sincerely seek for themselves.

I can and do often go into detail about how one can begin to be honest with themselves, and I can back that positive claim, but it still takes one actually doing the work for themselves instead of just taking my word for it.

So in both cases my claims aren't asking that any take anything for granted, but find out for themselves.

Your claim seams to be that GOD doesn't exist and we should just take you on your word though you have shown yourself to be shifty and one-sided.

Peace

No we did not make a claim we don't believe in god. Huge difference than claiming there is no god. And no one has to prove a negative. I don't have to prove that alien elephants don't exist. Any one claiming that alien elephants exist has to prove it. You are making a claim. You didn't back it up so now I don't believe your claim.

Btw I started out as a catholic. It took me years of studying and critical thinking to finally get to where I am. It's not like I just woke up one day and said "hey I don't believe in god anymore!" I have done a lot of thinking about this subject so it is not a matter of seeking god or having an "open mind". My mind was so open it was on the ground when I was a christian. Now I see clearly and think clearly. I can see Christianity for the evil that it is.

[popsthebuilder]

No we did not make a claim we don't believe in god. Huge difference than claiming there is no god. And no one has to prove a negative. I don't have to prove that alien elephants don't exist. Any one claiming that alien elephants exist has to prove it. You are making a claim. You didn't back it up so now I don't believe your claim.

Btw I started out as a catholic. It took me years of studying and critical thinking to finally get to where I am. It's not like I just woke up one day and said "hey I don't believe in god anymore!" I have done a lot of thinking about this subject so it is not a matter of seeking god or having an "open mind". My mind was so open it was on the ground when I was a christian. Now I see clearly and think clearly. I can see Christianity for the evil that it is.

I can understand what you are saying given it was traditional Catholicism.

The religions and traditions of man do not, as a necessity, correlate to the truth of GOD that man can know.

To put it differently;
I was invited to a Catholic service once and went once...only.

The misdirection under the guise of apostolic tradition is one of the root causes of the majority of atrocities and deceit of the entire world for so long, and is most definitely the most powerful means of turning innocent faith in a benevolent creative force into such unrecognizable twisted nonsense that it leads the logical to the only logic conclusion, which sadly, is that of atheism. The Catholic Church will seems to be attempting to change; knowing of it's past deceit and error. I can't say if they will change for the better or if they will be regarded as worthless in the end. But theirs surely isn't the foundation from which any should build on their own faith in GOD.

I partly understand your animosity now. There isn't anything wrong with honest skepticism. It's when it becomes are prerequisite for all critical thinking that it does more harm than good. The same can be said of your negative experience; learn from it, don't dwell on it, allowing it to skew your perspective in regards to the possibility of GOD.


Peace 

[doorknob]

my experience wasn't negative. It wasn't till after i became an atheist that I realized all the problems religion causes, especially the Abrahamic religions.

putting that aside I do not believe there is a god. There is no evidence let alone not enough evidence to believe in one. And I can't really think if a good reason to believe in one either. God is an abstract concept that humans invented. Nothing more.

Now when I read a bible it looks like a child wrote it, or some one with a very childish understanding of the world. The lessons (if you could even call them that) seem empty and hollow to me now. Nothing profound in that book.