Are you an Atheist/Believer?

[StreetCowboy]

I get pretty fed up with atheists pretending to be agnostics.

One either believes that there is a god, or one believes that there is no god, or one accepts that there may be a god.

Put your cock on the block and say what you believe.

SC

[sirineou]

Put your cock on the block and say what you believe.

SC

I Think we did that

What we believe is our senses

what we don't believe is you

[rgs2001uk]

I get pretty fed up with atheists pretending to be agnostics.

One either believes that there is a god, or one believes that there is no god, or one accepts that there may be a god.

Put your cock on the block and say what you believe.

SC

Atheist, I was born, I will die, end of discussion.

Everything else is pure speculation.

Never had an atheist come to my door and try and convert me to his point of view, says it all really.

[sirineou]

I get pretty fed up with atheists pretending to be agnostics.

One either believes that there is a god, or one believes that there is no god, or one accepts that there may be a god.

Put your cock on the block and say what you believe.

SC

Atheist, I was born, I will die, end of discussion.

Everything else is pure speculation.

Never had an atheist come to my door and try and convert me to his point of view, says it all really.

I am an Atheist my self , but since my friend Mr Kanukanukanukanuk is getting lonely on the other side all by himself, with the occasional visits from the Cowboy, and is complaining we are ganging up on him,

I, being the great guy that I am, will cross over to the other side and lend a hand.

Mao knocked on the door of a couple of billion Chinese and convinced the to be Atheists,though some one might successfully claim that most of them were already atheists being Buddhists.

so did Stalin to the Russians, and Pol Pot to Vietnam .

And if Mao and Stalin were not stopped they would be knocking on your door too.

[StreetCowboy]

I get the impression that most Buddhists are theists. I think that the belief in a soul which suffered reincarnation would qualify one as a theist. A lot of Buddhists seem to worship Buddha despite his mundane nature, and many seem to combine Buddhism with pantheism

SC

[rgs2001uk]

I get pretty fed up with atheists pretending to be agnostics.

One either believes that there is a god, or one believes that there is no god, or one accepts that there may be a god.

Put your cock on the block and say what you believe.

SC

Atheist, I was born, I will die, end of discussion.

Everything else is pure speculation.

Never had an atheist come to my door and try and convert me to his point of view, says it all really.

I am an Atheist my self , but since my friend Mr Kanukanukanukanuk is getting lonely on the other side all by himself, with the occasional visits from the Cowboy, and is complaining we are ganging up on him,

I, being the great guy that I am, will cross over to the other side and lend a hand.

Mao knocked on the door of a couple of billion Chinese and convinced the to be Atheists,though some one might successfully claim that most of them were already atheists being Buddhists.

so did Stalin to the Russians, and Pol Pot to Vietnam .

And if Mao and Stalin were not stopped they would be knocking on your door too.

Would love to hang around and discuss longer, afraid I must exit stage left, and turn my lamp down low.

Think Suthep and his rent a mob is inbound.

[notmyself]

I get the impression that most Buddhists are theists. I think that the belief in a soul which suffered reincarnation would qualify one as a theist. A lot of Buddhists seem to worship Buddha despite his mundane nature, and many seem to combine Buddhism with pantheism

SC

Try saying that on the Buddhist sub forum mate

[notmyself]

I get pretty fed up with atheists pretending to be agnostics.

One either believes that there is a god, or one believes that there is no god, or one accepts that there may be a god.

Put your cock on the block and say what you believe.

SC

Gnosticism / agnosticism is a knowledge claim or lack of knowledge claim. Theism / atheism is a belief claim or lack of belief claim. Half way between theism and atheism is not agnosticism.

[JetsetBkk]

Any chance of changing this thread into a poll?

Edit:

And don't forget to add "Antitheist" at the end.

Edited January 26, 2014 by JetsetBkk

[notmyself]

And don't forget to add "Antitheist" at the end.

Which definition? For many it is rejecting the theistic claim while also being glad they reject it's claim. I have met some, very few I admit, who wish they could accept it.

To me, that is the wish to be a slave.

Edited January 26, 2014 by notmyself

[sirineou]

I have being looking in to this Christian religion , and have being considering it, but before I jump into it, I need to know some more,

So , I have being researching this Christian haven thing, and if I understand this right, after I die and go to heaven I an reunited with all my family and get to send eternity with them!

also I am made whole, like if I was missing a leg because it was amputated , I would have my leg back.

Well I have a couple of concerns about that. The first is about my family,, if you all knew my family you will know what I mean. Not much of a heaven.

and the other is, a few years ago I had a nose job. and a face lift, I kind of look pretty good now,.and I like the way I look.

When I die do I get my old nose and face back? because that would be a deal breaker.

[Dimpys Dad]

Good morning all. I've been traveling of late and have not been able to contribute to this fascinating discussion and exchange of ideas, but have been able to pop in now and then to read the latest. But I have a little time today and have one thought on a previous comment if I may.

notmyself said: we may disagree on some issues but we are all friends here. Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. Confucius said it and Jesus (allegedly) along with others, stole it.

I believe there are universal truths and the quote "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" that is attributed to Confucius and Jesus is a universal truth that wise men everywhere can arrive at independently. Assuming Jesus never read or heard of Confucius doesn't negate the truth and wisdom of that teaching. But teaching that truth, or any of the others he taught, is not what made Jesus unique.

And regarding evidence for the existence of God, would any of you folks consider that the existence of faith itself could be evidence of the existence of the object of that faith? Could faith exist unless there was actually something to have faith in?

[canuckamuck]

I honestly do not understand your point, or your last one either. You are speaking about process and i am talking about grammar. Can you explain?

I am sorry, I thought this was a thread about religion, and an argument about process. If this is a discusion about gramar the as can tell by my posts I loose hands down.

we may disagree on some issues but we are all friends here. Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. Confucius said it and Jesus (allegedly) along with others, stole it. Going through some research I have dotted around regarding mentions of virgin birth. Two mentions I know of in Mark and Luke rather than one mentioned earlier so looking back at some of the earlier manuscripts regarding Mark because passages were introduced (forged) late on such as the resurrection narrative 16:9-20. Have a feeling it is going to be two though.

We are friends until the smiting begins, then it's every man for himself.

As to Confucius, I am afraid he also stole it , am sure some one must had said before, somewhere.

I never used non-existence cannot be proven as my argument. I have a beef with your logical fallacy argument because it is a cop-out.

Many people make a claim of non-existence, but your logical fallacy argument conveniently removes the burden of proof.

One should not be allowed to make bold claims and then hide behind such an argument. If you believe it to be true then let's hear your best angle. You know it will go nowhere, just like I know my argument will go nowhere with you. But you get to be right by default. Whereas I am required to settled mankind's greatest debate.

"I never used non-existence cannot be proven as my argument"

That's right we did. what is your counter argument to that?

"Many people make a claim of non-existence,"

If they do they are wrong, But we make no such claim.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, you guys make the argument that there is a god, we only say that based of your supporting evidence , we don't believe you

It is as simple as that, we don't believe you ,

I have heard many argument but I have yet to see any evidence, nothing , non, nada.

not even weak evidence, provide some evidence on your claim and I am willing to talk about them, we can evaluate them together, and guess what, maybe you can change my mind,

If what you say is true, I am in danger of burning in hell for eternity

Yet you will not help me, Why wont you help me? don't you like me?

About the grammar, someone made a post showing how the 'a' prefix can be used to make something not something. He was however using it incorrectly and I got drawn into a regrettable semantic bunny trail.

You saying you don't believe me is a completely acceptable position, much more so then hiding behind a misused technicality.

Testimony is evidence. Cultural history is evidence. You are using a very using a very strict definition of of evidence, implying that it must be of the smoking gun variety.

In this thread I will not be presenting any evidence, nor trying to prove the existence of God. The reason is that this would require a level of personal exposure that experience tells me is unwise to do on an internet forum. For me to give my evidence, I would have to give my life story, and I am not going to do that.

[sirineou]

Good morning all. I've been traveling of late and have not been able to contribute to this fascinating discussion and exchange of ideas, but have been able to pop in now and then to read the latest. But I have a little time today and have one thought on a previous comment if I may.

notmyself said: we may disagree on some issues but we are all friends here. Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. Confucius said it and Jesus (allegedly) along with others, stole it.

I believe there are universal truths and the quote "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" that is attributed to Confucius and Jesus is a universal truth that wise men everywhere can arrive at independently. Assuming Jesus never read or heard of Confucius doesn't negate the truth and wisdom of that teaching. But teaching that truth, or any of the others he taught, is not what made Jesus unique.

And regarding evidence for the existence of God, would any of you folks consider that the existence of faith itself could be evidence of the existence of the object of that faith? Could faith exist unless there was actually something to have faith in?

Hi Dimpys Dad

Good to have you back

You are right , these are universal truths .Society could never survive if people did not cooperate to a certain degree..

as to the last part, I don't think so. People have faith in many things, many of them contradictory ,Not all of them can exist, in fact maybe non exist, So the fact that people have faith in them plays no part in their existence.

By the way , I get your User name,

everywhere I go people say to me "Oh you are Samantha's Dad" , When I get my new drivers licence I will ask them to change my name to Samantha's Dad.

"I never used non-existence cannot be proven as my argument"

That's right we did. what is your counter argument to that?

"Many people make a claim of non-existence,"

If they do they are wrong, But we make no such claim.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, you guys make the argument that there is a god, we only say that based of your supporting evidence , we don't believe you

It is as simple as that, we don't believe you ,

I have heard many argument but I have yet to see any evidence, nothing , non, nada.

not even weak evidence, provide some evidence on your claim and I am willing to talk about them, we can evaluate them together, and guess what, maybe you can change my mind,

If what you say is true, I am in danger of burning in hell for eternity

Yet you will not help me, Why wont you help me? don't you like me?

About the grammar, someone made a post showing how the 'a' prefix can be used to make something not something. He was however using it incorrectly and I got drawn into a regrettable semantic bunny trail.

You saying you don't believe me is a completely acceptable position, much more so then hiding behind a misused technicality.

Testimony is evidence. Cultural history is evidence. You are using a very using a very strict definition of of evidence, implying that it must be of the smoking gun variety.

In this thread I will not be presenting any evidence, nor trying to prove the existence of God. The reason is that this would require a level of personal exposure that experience tells me is unwise to do on an internet forum. For me to give my evidence, I would have to give my life story, and I am not going to do that.

Testimony is not evidence, If that was true there would not be a need for lawyers.

I don't know what you mean by cultural history. There is a tremendous amount of cultural history that was not true, Flat earth, Sun rotating around earth, demons causing disease etc. Just because a lot of people believe it, it does not make it true.

Or did I misunderstood what you mean by "cultural history"

We don't want you to give any personal experience evidence, Only the evidence that Christians share with each other for the last 2.000 years

How did you all come to believe the things you do?

[canuckamuck]

1. Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a judge or jury—to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. ...

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admissible_evidence

Edited January 27, 2014 by canuckamuck

[canuckamuck]

Testimony is not evidence, If that was true there would not be a need for lawyers.

I don't know what you mean by cultural history. There is a tremendous amount of cultural history that was not true, Flat earth, Sun rotating around earth, demons causing disease etc. Just because a lot of people believe it, it does not make it true.

Or did I misunderstood what you mean by "cultural history"

We don't want you to give any personal experience evidence, Only the evidence that Christians share with each other for the last 2.000 years

How did you all come to believe the things you do?

About cultural history: my meaning is that there is a lot of human history of belief in God, it is a type of evidence. Cultural history is very important when discussing anthropology and it can be used as a precedent. It can also be used as counter evidence.

About the last part:

Everyone has their own life experience, everyone has had different exposure. I can speak for no one but myself. But i know that some have come to their belief through miraculous events, through study, through personal revelation, through trying to prove it is not real, through seeing how others get their peace. And then by comparing their experience with others and in further research and study.

Some have only mental assent that God is real (very common). Others have a much deeper conviction and their lives represent what they believe.

[bundoi]

Testimony is not evidence, If that was true there would not be a need for lawyers.

I don't know what you mean by cultural history. There is a tremendous amount of cultural history that was not true, Flat earth, Sun rotating around earth, demons causing disease etc. Just because a lot of people believe it, it does not make it true.

Or did I misunderstood what you mean by "cultural history"

We don't want you to give any personal experience evidence, Only the evidence that Christians share with each other for the last 2.000 years

How did you all come to believe the things you do?

1. About cultural history: my meaning is that there is a lot of human history of belief in God, it is a type of evidence. Cultural history is very important when discussing anthropology and it can be used as a precedent. It can also be used as counter evidence.

About the last part:

2. Everyone has their own life experience, everyone has had different exposure. I can speak for no one but myself. But i know that some have come to their belief through miraculous events, through study, through personal revelation, through trying to prove it is not real, through seeing how others get their peace. And then by comparing their experience with others and in further research and study.

Some have only mental assent that God is real (very common). Others have a much deeper conviction and their lives represent what they believe.

1. believing in something for a long time for which there is no evidence is not evidence of anything, except perhaps things like hope, fear, gullibility, ignorance.

2. if you have such experience, please feel free to share.

[thailiketoo]

Testimony is not evidence, If that was true there would not be a need for lawyers.

I don't know what you mean by cultural history. There is a tremendous amount of cultural history that was not true, Flat earth, Sun rotating around earth, demons causing disease etc. Just because a lot of people believe it, it does not make it true.

Or did I misunderstood what you mean by "cultural history"

We don't want you to give any personal experience evidence, Only the evidence that Christians share with each other for the last 2.000 years

How did you all come to believe the things you do?

About cultural history: my meaning is that there is a lot of human history of belief in God, it is a type of evidence. Cultural history is very important when discussing anthropology and it can be used as a precedent. It can also be used as counter evidence.

About the last part:

Everyone has their own life experience, everyone has had different exposure. I can speak for no one but myself. But i know that some have come to their belief through miraculous events, through study, through personal revelation, through trying to prove it is not real, through seeing how others get their peace. And then by comparing their experience with others and in further research and study.

Some have only mental assent that God is real (very common). Others have a much deeper conviction and their lives represent what they believe.

You wrote, "I can speak for no one but myself." That is really a good idea. Because all the stuff after the second but is bs. But you know that. You said, "I can speak for no one but myself."

Great idea. Try it sometime.

[DualSportBiker]

You might be disappointed to know you just can't get away with being that obstreperous. "There is no god" is the rejection of the claim that there is; pretty simple actually.

In a world with no evidence for god, no god sitting on the street corner advertising its presence, the observed state is one of 'no god' In this state, it is not necessary to claim "there is no god" until someone states there is. Once the claim 'there is a god' has been made, rejecting it by saying 'there is no god' does not require proving.

And remember, everything you type in response will have been inspired by Zeus who put the idea in your head, and if you don't agree, prove it

If you said to me there is no God I would reject your claim and ask you to prove it.

Sent - how is not that important...

[canuckamuck]

Testimony is not evidence, If that was true there would not be a need for lawyers.

I don't know what you mean by cultural history. There is a tremendous amount of cultural history that was not true, Flat earth, Sun rotating around earth, demons causing disease etc. Just because a lot of people believe it, it does not make it true.

Or did I misunderstood what you mean by "cultural history"

We don't want you to give any personal experience evidence, Only the evidence that Christians share with each other for the last 2.000 years

How did you all come to believe the things you do?

1. About cultural history: my meaning is that there is a lot of human history of belief in God, it is a type of evidence. Cultural history is very important when discussing anthropology and it can be used as a precedent. It can also be used as counter evidence.

About the last part:

2. Everyone has their own life experience, everyone has had different exposure. I can speak for no one but myself. But i know that some have come to their belief through miraculous events, through study, through personal revelation, through trying to prove it is not real, through seeing how others get their peace. And then by comparing their experience with others and in further research and study.

Some have only mental assent that God is real (very common). Others have a much deeper conviction and their lives represent what they believe.

1. believing in something for a long time for which there is no evidence is not evidence of anything, except perhaps things like hope, fear, gullibility, ignorance.

2. if you have such experience, please feel free to share.

1. I never said I believed something there is no evidence for. In fact I have gone to some length to explain the types of evidence that are easily observed, However the most convincing evidence is experiential and you will have to have your own.

2. I explained earlier that i would not be sharing the details of my life on this forum.

[canuckamuck]

Testimony is not evidence, If that was true there would not be a need for lawyers.

I don't know what you mean by cultural history. There is a tremendous amount of cultural history that was not true, Flat earth, Sun rotating around earth, demons causing disease etc. Just because a lot of people believe it, it does not make it true.

Or did I misunderstood what you mean by "cultural history"

We don't want you to give any personal experience evidence, Only the evidence that Christians share with each other for the last 2.000 years

How did you all come to believe the things you do?

About cultural history: my meaning is that there is a lot of human history of belief in God, it is a type of evidence. Cultural history is very important when discussing anthropology and it can be used as a precedent. It can also be used as counter evidence.

About the last part:

Everyone has their own life experience, everyone has had different exposure. I can speak for no one but myself. But i know that some have come to their belief through miraculous events, through study, through personal revelation, through trying to prove it is not real, through seeing how others get their peace. And then by comparing their experience with others and in further research and study.

Some have only mental assent that God is real (very common). Others have a much deeper conviction and their lives represent what they believe.

You wrote, "I can speak for no one but myself." That is really a good idea. Because all the stuff after the second but is bs. But you know that. You said, "I can speak for no one but myself."

Great idea. Try it sometime.

Just providing info, If I was quiet this thread would just be a series of atheists high-fiving themselves.

Edited January 27, 2014 by canuckamuck

[bundoi]

Testimony is not evidence, If that was true there would not be a need for lawyers.

I don't know what you mean by cultural history. There is a tremendous amount of cultural history that was not true, Flat earth, Sun rotating around earth, demons causing disease etc. Just because a lot of people believe it, it does not make it true.

Or did I misunderstood what you mean by "cultural history"

We don't want you to give any personal experience evidence, Only the evidence that Christians share with each other for the last 2.000 years

How did you all come to believe the things you do?

1. About cultural history: my meaning is that there is a lot of human history of belief in God, it is a type of evidence. Cultural history is very important when discussing anthropology and it can be used as a precedent. It can also be used as counter evidence.

About the last part:

2. Everyone has their own life experience, everyone has had different exposure. I can speak for no one but myself. But i know that some have come to their belief through miraculous events, through study, through personal revelation, through trying to prove it is not real, through seeing how others get their peace. And then by comparing their experience with others and in further research and study.

Some have only mental assent that God is real (very common). Others have a much deeper conviction and their lives represent what they believe.

1. believing in something for a long time for which there is no evidence is not evidence of anything, except perhaps things like hope, fear, gullibility, ignorance.

2. if you have such experience, please feel free to share.

1. I never said I believed something there is no evidence for. In fact I have gone to some length to explain the types of evidence that are easily observed, However the most convincing evidence is experiential and you will have to have your own.

2. I explained earlier that i would not be sharing the details of my life on this forum.

1. I said there is no evidence (if you believe there is, please reveal it to us and the rest of the world - the Pope himself would be interested); you said "a lot of human history of belief in God, it is a type of evidence" - this is clearly tautological nonsense;

2. I don't personally mind whether you reveal your personal experiences or not, but if you chose not to then you cannot reasonably expect anybody to take your references to them seriously.

Edited January 27, 2014 by bundoi

[thailiketoo]

You wrote, "I can speak for no one but myself." That is really a good idea. Because all the stuff after the second but is bs. But you know that. You said, "I can speak for no one but myself."

Great idea. Try it sometime.

Just providing info, If I was quiet this thread would just be a series of atheists high-fiving themselves.

How can you provide information from anyone but yourself? You did say, "I can speak for no one but myself."

[rgs2001uk]

I get pretty fed up with atheists pretending to be agnostics.

One either believes that there is a god, or one believes that there is no god, or one accepts that there may be a god.

Put your cock on the block and say what you believe.

SC

Atheist, I was born, I will die, end of discussion.

Everything else is pure speculation.

Never had an atheist come to my door and try and convert me to his point of view, says it all really.

I am an Atheist my self , but since my friend Mr Kanukanukanukanuk is getting lonely on the other side all by himself, with the occasional visits from the Cowboy, and is complaining we are ganging up on him,

I, being the great guy that I am, will cross over to the other side and lend a hand.

Mao knocked on the door of a couple of billion Chinese and convinced the to be Atheists,though some one might successfully claim that most of them were already atheists being Buddhists.

so did Stalin to the Russians, and Pol Pot to Vietnam .

And if Mao and Stalin were not stopped they would be knocking on your door too.

And if Mao and Stalin were not stopped they would be knocking on your door too.

Yes I can appreciate the dilemna, must admit my Marx/Engels isnt what it used to be, cant imagine the good comrades being up for a natter round the camp fire discussing the dialetics of materialism.

In fact it reminds me of another religion that slaughtered all those who didnt conform to or submit themselves to their rigid interpretation of all things religious.

We could probaly start with The Cathars and take it from there if you wish, or we could get up to speed with The Taliban, same same but different.

[canuckamuck]

You wrote, "I can speak for no one but myself." That is really a good idea. Because all the stuff after the second but is bs. But you know that. You said, "I can speak for no one but myself."

Great idea. Try it sometime.

Just providing info, If I was quiet this thread would just be a series of atheists high-fiving themselves.

How can you provide information from anyone but yourself? You did say, "I can speak for no one but myself."

Is this really the level of debate you prefer? little tit for tats. I am doing my best to answer some questions in a very interesting discussion. your last comment to me was that my post ( the part about how people come to believe in God) was BS. I tried to politely deflect it. But now i will ask you to defend your claim, Why was my answer bs?

[JetsetBkk]

And don't forget to add "Antitheist" at the end.

Which definition? For many it is rejecting the theistic claim while also being glad they reject it's claim. I have met some, very few I admit, who wish they could accept it.

To me, that is the wish to be a slave.

This one: "direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity"

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

[thailiketoo]

You wrote, "I can speak for no one but myself." That is really a good idea. Because all the stuff after the second but is bs. But you know that. You said, "I can speak for no one but myself."

Great idea. Try it sometime.

Just providing info, If I was quiet this thread would just be a series of atheists high-fiving themselves.

How can you provide information from anyone but yourself? You did say, "I can speak for no one but myself."

Is this really the level of debate you prefer? little tit for tats. I am doing my best to answer some questions in a very interesting discussion. your last comment to me was that my post ( the part about how people come to believe in God) was BS. I tried to politely deflect it. But now i will ask you to defend your claim, Why was my answer bs?

You said it not me. You wrote, "I can speak for no one but myself."

Then you go ahead and post a bunch of information from other people. You wrote "But i know that some have come to their belief through miraculous events, through study, through personal revelation, through trying to prove it is not real, through seeing how others get their peace. And then by comparing their experience with others and in further research and study."

Which is it? You wrote, "I can speak for no one but myself." True or false? That's all I'm asking. I am only asking for clarification of something you said.

If you can speak for no one but yourself then defend your argumentum ad ignorantiam.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist,

Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproven to arrive at a definite conclusion.

But. As far as I know.

• If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
• If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

So, Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disproven and false things can never be proven. In other words, appeals to ignorance claim that the converse of these facts are also true. Therein lies the fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Edited January 27, 2014 by thailiketoo

[bundoi]

The whole "debate" as usual is based on a false premise...

I (and most of the world's population) have no interest in Theism one way or the other....

if Theists want to propose that something exists it would be useful if they provided some evidence.

[canuckamuck]

Is this really the level of debate you prefer? little tit for tats. I am doing my best to answer some questions in a very interesting discussion. your last comment to me was that my post ( the part about how people come to believe in God) was BS. I tried to politely deflect it. But now i will ask you to defend your claim, Why was my answer bs?

You said it not me. You wrote, "I can speak for no one but myself."

Then you go ahead and post a bunch of information from other people. You wrote "But i know that some have come to their belief through miraculous events, through study, through personal revelation, through trying to prove it is not real, through seeing how others get their peace. And then by comparing their experience with others and in further research and study."

Which is it? You wrote, "I can speak for no one but myself." True or false? That's all I'm asking. I am only asking for clarification of something you said.

If you can speak for no one but yourself then defend your argumentum ad ignorantiam.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist,

Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproven to arrive at a definite conclusion.

But. As far as I know.

• If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
• If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

So, Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disproven and false things can never be proven. In other words, appeals to ignorance claim that the converse of these facts are also true. Therein lies the fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Look I said I can only speak for myself, meaning that I am only an authority on my own personal experience. But then i capitulated some information that I believe is true about the general way in which people typically come to believe in God. Just helpful information relevant to the debate.. Which by the way you said was BS but have avoided defending that claim.

You are ranting over a grammatical construct and wasting a lot of everyone's time. the point you are trying to make is pedantic.

If you can not simply move on and say something interesting, i am afraid you will not see any more response from me. It might give you a chance to wipe some froth and spittle of your keyboard.

Edited January 27, 2014 by canuckamuck

[sirineou]

The whole "debate" as usual is based on a false premise...

I (and most of the world's population) have no interest in Theism one way or the other....

if Theists want to propose that something exists it would be useful if they provided some evidence.

Yea that's it in a nutshell.

Me and others have asked the same question several times.

so far No evidence is forthcoming.

instead we are being told, that even if they told as we would not believe them, or that the evidence are of a personal nature not to be revealed in open forum. (personal revelation)

I suspect that they themselves know that the evidence they have is weak.

Then they proceed to talk about the process of the process of gathering evidence, not the evidence it's self..

It is a process of intellectual contortion. in order to avoid the obvious.

In essence they are in denial.

They are so heavily invested in their belief, they find it difficult to abandon them.

But that's understandable, Most of as went through the same process, We were not born Atheists, we lamented the information,we resisted, and finally we accepted the obvious.

They are in the same position a lot of us were, so let's be a little more sympathetic,

and accept the fact that some of them will never accept any reasonable argument against their religion.

They have being brainwashed in believing that, any argument against their faith is a temptation from the devil. and they must resisted vigorously, To accept any argument against their faith is to give in to temptation.

To eat the proverbial apple again.