Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[PratchettFan]

No, that you are a believer has been established. Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief. What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality. This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.

The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods. You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition. Dogma.

It is said Atheists don't evangelize. You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize. Dogma.

Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion. It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief. It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion. Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

That is a belief. You have no evidence to support the claim, just the claim itself.

That is your belief, the religious belief of not understanding what you have repeatedly been told.

No. That is a statement of fact. He is making a claim without support of any kind. That is a belief. And I do understand, I just am not buying the dogma. If you want to claim a position that is not belief, then show me the evidence. Don't give me bumper stickers quips, unsupported definitions or claims I am to accept on faith. Show me hard evidence. Until you do that, you're just another believer claiming to know the TRUTH.

Your believing that doesn't make it true.

And no evidence. What a surprise.

 

[Hollie]

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

That is a belief. You have no evidence to support the claim, just the claim itself.

That is your belief, the religious belief of not understanding what you have repeatedly been told.

No. That is a statement of fact. He is making a claim without support of any kind. That is a belief. And I do understand, I just am not buying the dogma. If you want to claim a position that is not belief, then show me the evidence. Don't give me bumper stickers quips, unsupported definitions or claims I am to accept on faith. Show me hard evidence. Until you do that, you're just another believer claiming to know the TRUTH.

Your believing that doesn't make it true.

And no evidence. What a surprise.

You blustered your way through another series of posts you couldn't respond to. That's not a surprise at all.

 

[sealybobo]

I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo. I wasn't there.

But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get. Is that what we are arguing over? Less than 1%?

No, that you are a believer has been established. Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief. What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality. This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.

The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods. You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition. Dogma.

It is said Atheists don't evangelize. You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize. Dogma.

Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion. It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief. It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion. Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.

obviously nothing more than a throwaway, unproveable comment.....there is no valid way to quantify either.....

Really? What odds do you give god? 50 50 odds? Think about it. An invisible man who built Adam and then built Eve out of Adams rib, then a burning bush, a guy living in a whale for 3 days, a flood that killed everyone but Noah, his family and 2 of every animal, a virgin birth, miracles and then coming back after being dead for 3 days.

What are the odds that an invisible man watches not only everything you do but watches what EVERYONE is doing, cares, but send you to hell if you cross him?

Based on all the EVIDENCE, I'd say the chances of your god being real are slim to nill.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm still waiting for you to read the various posts that have already addressed this.

How is it possible that you have not understood the detailed responses you have been presented with.

Are just looking for attention?

So you have no answer, just yet another unsupported claim.

You have no recollection of the many times your comments have been addressed?

You claim to, so take a second and address it. How is a conclusion made in the absence of evidence not a belief?

How is it that have read and failed to understood the multitude of comments that already this?

Give us a number. How many more times does this need to be delineated for you before you get it?

I told you. The number is one. How is a conclusion made in the absence of evidence not a belief?

Unless you are stubborn, close minded or brainwashed, this should be all the evidence you need.

Why there is no god

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded.

There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said god’s existence.

 

[sealybobo]

You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see? To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself. So even most atheists admit that. But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.

So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right? So tell that bitch to shut the hell up. As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.

I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong. Wouldn't that be cool? We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.

There is no hell. There is no Christian God. I'm 100% certain of that. Not a shred of doubt in my mind. Why is there doubt in yours?

Smith defines implicit atheism as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists)

vs me:

Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. Of the rational motivations, he says:

The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as critical atheism.

If by irrational it is meant the belief is based upon no evidence of any kind, I would agree. However, if a belief based upon no evidence of any kind is irrational, then that term must be applied to all such beliefs - which would includes Atheism.

This really has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a realistic examination of facts. If you want to look at a specific deity, or a specific attribute of a deity, sound arguments can be made about it. I think we can establish through hard evidence the sun is not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky. I think we can establish lightning is not Zeus throwing stuff around in a snit. But in terms of generality, the amount of information available to support either side is equal - zero. Whether one says there is or there is not, either position is equally irrational.

Consider a foot race and you are going to bet on the outcome. There are two racers, called racer a and racer b. Who the actual racers will be will be determined by drawing their name, at random, from a container with the name of every living human being on the planet. Who do you think will win, a or b? There is no way to judge that, so it is a 50/50 proposition. And in this situation, you at least have some information - which is more than you have regarding the existence of God. Yet you think you can come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God? The notion is absurd.

Lots of evidence. Why there is no god

ev·i·dence

1.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

Yes. I have told you before I read your web site. I've also told you I'm not a Christian. There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God. Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God. Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult. You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.

Maybe because god is a Baseless assertion and Unfalsifiable?

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo. I wasn't there.

But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get. Is that what we are arguing over? Less than 1%?

No, that you are a believer has been established. Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief. What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality. This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.

The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods. You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition. Dogma.

It is said Atheists don't evangelize. You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize. Dogma.

Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion. It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief. It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion. Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.

obviously nothing more than a throwaway, unproveable comment.....there is no valid way to quantify either.....

Really? What odds do you give god? 50 50 odds?

????.....100/100......the chance that the universe we have is the result of random shit happening randomly?......0

 

[PostmodernProph]

[
Why there is no god

why there is no reason to waste your time going to that silly web site......there are no proofs there.....there is no evidence there......there isn't even logic there......nothing but boldfaced statements similar to the drivel you post here every day......nothing at all to back them up......

I mean look at it.....
"There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god."......this is your proof there is no God?.......I can say exactly the same thing about the claim there is no God.......oh, gosh, which one of us wins?.....

 

[Hollie]

I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo. I wasn't there.

But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get. Is that what we are arguing over? Less than 1%?

No, that you are a believer has been established. Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief. What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality. This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.

The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods. You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition. Dogma.

It is said Atheists don't evangelize. You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize. Dogma.

Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion. It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief. It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion. Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.

obviously nothing more than a throwaway, unproveable comment.....there is no valid way to quantify either.....

Really? What odds do you give god? 50 50 odds?

????.....100/100......the chance that the universe we have is the result of random shit happening randomly?......0

"Random shit happening randomly".

Unfortunately, zealots such as the self-entitled "prophet" are the product of Christian madrasahs. They represent that swath of biblical literalists who are impervious to knowledge and enlightenment.

 

[PratchettFan]

That is a belief. You have no evidence to support the claim, just the claim itself.

That is your belief, the religious belief of not understanding what you have repeatedly been told.

No. That is a statement of fact. He is making a claim without support of any kind. That is a belief. And I do understand, I just am not buying the dogma. If you want to claim a position that is not belief, then show me the evidence. Don't give me bumper stickers quips, unsupported definitions or claims I am to accept on faith. Show me hard evidence. Until you do that, you're just another believer claiming to know the TRUTH.

Your believing that doesn't make it true.

And no evidence. What a surprise.

You blustered your way through another series of posts you couldn't respond to. That's not a surprise at all.

And still no evidence.

 

[PratchettFan]

So you have no answer, just yet another unsupported claim.

You have no recollection of the many times your comments have been addressed?

You claim to, so take a second and address it. How is a conclusion made in the absence of evidence not a belief?

How is it that have read and failed to understood the multitude of comments that already this?

Give us a number. How many more times does this need to be delineated for you before you get it?

I told you. The number is one. How is a conclusion made in the absence of evidence not a belief?

Unless you are stubborn, close minded or brainwashed, this should be all the evidence you need.

Why there is no god

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded.

There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said god’s existence.

All this boils down to is you don't think the standard of evidence applies to you. And if I don't just accept that you know the TRUTH without question, then I must be stupid, close minded or brain washed. The only difference between your position and a Christian is you don't claim I am a follower of Satan - though I expect you really want to. Frankly, I am just about convinced that you are a Christian since you seem incapable of considering the question of God outside of a Christian context and you actually referred to yourself as a member of the Greek Orthodox Church in another thread.

 

[PratchettFan]

There is no hell. There is no Christian God. I'm 100% certain of that. Not a shred of doubt in my mind. Why is there doubt in yours?

Smith defines implicit atheism as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists)

vs me:

Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. Of the rational motivations, he says:

The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as critical atheism.

If by irrational it is meant the belief is based upon no evidence of any kind, I would agree. However, if a belief based upon no evidence of any kind is irrational, then that term must be applied to all such beliefs - which would includes Atheism.

This really has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a realistic examination of facts. If you want to look at a specific deity, or a specific attribute of a deity, sound arguments can be made about it. I think we can establish through hard evidence the sun is not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky. I think we can establish lightning is not Zeus throwing stuff around in a snit. But in terms of generality, the amount of information available to support either side is equal - zero. Whether one says there is or there is not, either position is equally irrational.

Consider a foot race and you are going to bet on the outcome. There are two racers, called racer a and racer b. Who the actual racers will be will be determined by drawing their name, at random, from a container with the name of every living human being on the planet. Who do you think will win, a or b? There is no way to judge that, so it is a 50/50 proposition. And in this situation, you at least have some information - which is more than you have regarding the existence of God. Yet you think you can come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God? The notion is absurd.

Lots of evidence. Why there is no god

ev·i·dence

1.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

Yes. I have told you before I read your web site. I've also told you I'm not a Christian. There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God. Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God. Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult. You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.

Maybe because god is a Baseless assertion and Unfalsifiable?

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.

A justification for calling belief knowledge. A worthless justification. If you cannot support a claim, then you don't pretend you don't have to support it - you don't make it.

The reason it can't be falsified is because there is no evidence. None. Nada. Zip. In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief. You are a believer.

 

[Hollie]

That is your belief, the religious belief of not understanding what you have repeatedly been told.

No. That is a statement of fact. He is making a claim without support of any kind. That is a belief. And I do understand, I just am not buying the dogma. If you want to claim a position that is not belief, then show me the evidence. Don't give me bumper stickers quips, unsupported definitions or claims I am to accept on faith. Show me hard evidence. Until you do that, you're just another believer claiming to know the TRUTH.

Your believing that doesn't make it true.

And no evidence. What a surprise.

You blustered your way through another series of posts you couldn't respond to. That's not a surprise at all.

And still no evidence.

Evidence of what, your gods? There is none, correct.

 

[Hollie]

Smith defines implicit atheism as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists)

vs me:

Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. Of the rational motivations, he says:

The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as critical atheism.

If by irrational it is meant the belief is based upon no evidence of any kind, I would agree. However, if a belief based upon no evidence of any kind is irrational, then that term must be applied to all such beliefs - which would includes Atheism.

This really has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a realistic examination of facts. If you want to look at a specific deity, or a specific attribute of a deity, sound arguments can be made about it. I think we can establish through hard evidence the sun is not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky. I think we can establish lightning is not Zeus throwing stuff around in a snit. But in terms of generality, the amount of information available to support either side is equal - zero. Whether one says there is or there is not, either position is equally irrational.

Consider a foot race and you are going to bet on the outcome. There are two racers, called racer a and racer b. Who the actual racers will be will be determined by drawing their name, at random, from a container with the name of every living human being on the planet. Who do you think will win, a or b? There is no way to judge that, so it is a 50/50 proposition. And in this situation, you at least have some information - which is more than you have regarding the existence of God. Yet you think you can come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God? The notion is absurd.

Lots of evidence. Why there is no god

ev·i·dence

1.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

Yes. I have told you before I read your web site. I've also told you I'm not a Christian. There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God. Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God. Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult. You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.

Maybe because god is a Baseless assertion and Unfalsifiable?

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.

A justification for calling belief knowledge. A worthless justification. If you cannot support a claim, then you don't pretend you don't have to support it - you don't make it.

The reason it can't be falsified is because there is no evidence. None. Nada. Zip. In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief. You are a believer.

You are a stalker.

 

[PratchettFan]

If by irrational it is meant the belief is based upon no evidence of any kind, I would agree. However, if a belief based upon no evidence of any kind is irrational, then that term must be applied to all such beliefs - which would includes Atheism.

This really has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a realistic examination of facts. If you want to look at a specific deity, or a specific attribute of a deity, sound arguments can be made about it. I think we can establish through hard evidence the sun is not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky. I think we can establish lightning is not Zeus throwing stuff around in a snit. But in terms of generality, the amount of information available to support either side is equal - zero. Whether one says there is or there is not, either position is equally irrational.

Consider a foot race and you are going to bet on the outcome. There are two racers, called racer a and racer b. Who the actual racers will be will be determined by drawing their name, at random, from a container with the name of every living human being on the planet. Who do you think will win, a or b? There is no way to judge that, so it is a 50/50 proposition. And in this situation, you at least have some information - which is more than you have regarding the existence of God. Yet you think you can come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God? The notion is absurd.

Lots of evidence. Why there is no god

ev·i·dence

1.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

Yes. I have told you before I read your web site. I've also told you I'm not a Christian. There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God. Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God. Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult. You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.

Maybe because god is a Baseless assertion and Unfalsifiable?

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.

A justification for calling belief knowledge. A worthless justification. If you cannot support a claim, then you don't pretend you don't have to support it - you don't make it.

The reason it can't be falsified is because there is no evidence. None. Nada. Zip. In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief. You are a believer.

You are a stalker.

Still can't come up with all of those refutations to my statement that any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, can you? All of those refutations you claim were made and you can't point to a single one. So let's call me names instead. Is that what we are calling rational thought now?

 

[Truman123]

.

 

[PratchettFan]

.View attachment 32942

Another bumper sticker.

 

[Hollie]

Lots of evidence. Why there is no god

ev·i·dence

1.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

Yes. I have told you before I read your web site. I've also told you I'm not a Christian. There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God. Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God. Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult. You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.

Maybe because god is a Baseless assertion and Unfalsifiable?

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.

A justification for calling belief knowledge. A worthless justification. If you cannot support a claim, then you don't pretend you don't have to support it - you don't make it.

The reason it can't be falsified is because there is no evidence. None. Nada. Zip. In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief. You are a believer.

You are a stalker.

Still can't come up with all of those refutations to my statement that any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, can you? All of those refutations you claim were made and you can't point to a single one. So let's call me names instead. Is that what we are calling rational thought now?

The refutations to your silly statements have been made throughout this thread. Denial on your part is your own waking nightmare to deal with.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes. I have told you before I read your web site. I've also told you I'm not a Christian. There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God. Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God. Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult. You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.

Maybe because god is a Baseless assertion and Unfalsifiable?

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.

A justification for calling belief knowledge. A worthless justification. If you cannot support a claim, then you don't pretend you don't have to support it - you don't make it.

The reason it can't be falsified is because there is no evidence. None. Nada. Zip. In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief. You are a believer.

You are a stalker.

Still can't come up with all of those refutations to my statement that any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, can you? All of those refutations you claim were made and you can't point to a single one. So let's call me names instead. Is that what we are calling rational thought now?

The refutations to your silly statements have been made throughout this thread. Denial on your part is your own waking nightmare to deal with.

No. The refutations, which you can't produce, are in your head. It is easy enough to prove me wrong, but you won't do it. You will just continue to make the claim and never produce a shred of evidence to back it up. This is because there are no refutations. I kept asking people if they disagreed and the only person who ever actually responded was Sealy, and he did not refute it.

If you want to make the claim that your position is based upon rational examination of the facts, the standards you need to meet are not lower than those who just claim belief, they are higher. But you seem to think all you need to do is claim something and the rest of us are supposed to just accept it. You are dreaming. You are, in fact, just another believer who thinks that is the same thing as knowing.

 

[Hollie]

Maybe because god is a Baseless assertion and Unfalsifiable?

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.

A justification for calling belief knowledge. A worthless justification. If you cannot support a claim, then you don't pretend you don't have to support it - you don't make it.

The reason it can't be falsified is because there is no evidence. None. Nada. Zip. In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief. You are a believer.

You are a stalker.

Still can't come up with all of those refutations to my statement that any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, can you? All of those refutations you claim were made and you can't point to a single one. So let's call me names instead. Is that what we are calling rational thought now?

The refutations to your silly statements have been made throughout this thread. Denial on your part is your own waking nightmare to deal with.

No. The refutations, which you can't produce, are in your head. It is easy enough to prove me wrong, but you won't do it. You will just continue to make the claim and never produce a shred of evidence to back it up. This is because there are no refutations. I kept asking people if they disagreed and the only person who ever actually responded was Sealy, and he did not refute it.

If you want to make the claim that your position is based upon rational examination of the facts, the standards you need to meet are not lower than those who just claim belief, they are higher. But you seem to think all you need to do is claim something and the rest of us are supposed to just accept it. You are dreaming. You are, in fact, just another believer who thinks that is the same thing as knowing.

I'm afraid that you're simply cutting and pasting the same tired arguments which have already been refuted any number of times in this thread.

Repeating your falsehoods won't change their status as falsehoods.

 

[PratchettFan]

A justification for calling belief knowledge. A worthless justification. If you cannot support a claim, then you don't pretend you don't have to support it - you don't make it.

The reason it can't be falsified is because there is no evidence. None. Nada. Zip. In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief. You are a believer.

You are a stalker.

Still can't come up with all of those refutations to my statement that any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, can you? All of those refutations you claim were made and you can't point to a single one. So let's call me names instead. Is that what we are calling rational thought now?

The refutations to your silly statements have been made throughout this thread. Denial on your part is your own waking nightmare to deal with.

No. The refutations, which you can't produce, are in your head. It is easy enough to prove me wrong, but you won't do it. You will just continue to make the claim and never produce a shred of evidence to back it up. This is because there are no refutations. I kept asking people if they disagreed and the only person who ever actually responded was Sealy, and he did not refute it.

If you want to make the claim that your position is based upon rational examination of the facts, the standards you need to meet are not lower than those who just claim belief, they are higher. But you seem to think all you need to do is claim something and the rest of us are supposed to just accept it. You are dreaming. You are, in fact, just another believer who thinks that is the same thing as knowing.

I'm afraid that you're simply cutting and pasting the same tired arguments which have already been refuted any number of times in this thread.

Repeating your falsehoods won't change their status as falsehoods.

As I said, it would be easy to prove me wrong if I was wrong. But you won't do it. And you won't admit you won't do it. You'll just keep repeating the same unsupported claims.