Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.The refutations to your silly statements have been made throughout this thread. Denial on your part is your own waking nightmare to deal with.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?
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.
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.
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.The refutations to your silly statements have been made throughout this thread. Denial on your part is your own waking nightmare to deal with.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?
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.
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.
"As I said". Actually, there are too many instances to count where you've written that after your last "As I said" wherein your mantra has been addressed and refuted.
You have already been proven wrong. There are now 122 pages in this thread and you're still unwilling to address the repeated times your silly claims have been addressed and refuted.
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.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.
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.
"As I said". Actually, there are too many instances to count where you've written that after your last "As I said" wherein your mantra has been addressed and refuted.
You have already been proven wrong. There are now 122 pages in this thread and you're still unwilling to address the repeated times your silly claims have been addressed and refuted.
Bullshit. But you have a nice day.
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.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.
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.
"As I said". Actually, there are too many instances to count where you've written that after your last "As I said" wherein your mantra has been addressed and refuted.
You have already been proven wrong. There are now 122 pages in this thread and you're still unwilling to address the repeated times your silly claims have been addressed and refuted.
Bullshit. But you have a nice day.
Don't go away mad....
Just ask the same questions for which you already have answers.
The thread is only 123 pages. Ask away.
How is it different? As different as straight and gay marriage.
Actually more different. Polar opposites. If anything it is anti evalelizing. Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.
And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up. For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time. First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country. The last will be the bible belt hold outs. But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume. But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000. We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!
I see. You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.
Now you are getting it. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
Oh, I got it before. Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe. I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian. So yes, I got it. You are still wrong.
If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist. In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist. You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma. You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
No actually one of the biggest problems I had with the Christian story is all non believers wouldn't go to heaven. I could not imagine every Chinese and Russian and Muslim burning in hell.
Your Christian religion is the reason Joseph Smith was able to convert so many people away from your traditional "corrupt" churches and go join his cult. Same thing I'm saying about your religion is the same thing God told Joseph Smith about it. Why mad at me?
As for your comments, please explain to me what I'm missing. How are you the closest thing to an atheist? Explain what you mean please. How come the definition isn't important? You've peaked my interest.
I'm not a Christian. Unlike you, I have never been a Christian. I have told you this many times.
I am the closest thing to an Atheist under the definition that an Atheist is one who lacks beliefs in gods because I really don't give a damn whether or not there is a God. I fully admit that there is zero evidence to support either side of the issue, so the chances of either being correct is the same - 50/50. The only way one can actually lack beliefs in gods is if one is entirely neutral on the subject, because any position other than neutrality is a belief.
The definition is not important because what you are is what you are, not what you say you are. I can define myself as anything I like, but that does not make me that thing. I can define Buddhism as the attainment of spiritual perfection, but that does not mean by calling myself a Buddhist that I have attained spiritual perfection.
If you lack beliefs in gods, it is only true if you actually lack beliefs in gods. If your only support to that claim is because you define yourself as lacking beliefs, then it is a worthless claim. If while you are defining yourself as such you continue to make claims which are beliefs, then the claim is false. It is not the definition which makes you what you are.
do most bald people deny the existence of hair?.....I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179
That wasn't a joke?
You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
RFOLMAO.
OK, that is out of my system, for now.
This is the definition you insist is wrong.
A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
As for writing a letter to Webster, they only accept business or advertising letters or someone wishing to add a new word.
And you know this because...
Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color
Assessing Hysteria?
Atheists often claim that their philosophy can be construed as a religion, since it offers more moderate and hence 'balanced' attitudes towards eternity, emotion, and evil.
View attachment 32995
I see. You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.
Now you are getting it. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
Oh, I got it before. Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe. I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian. So yes, I got it. You are still wrong.
If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist. In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist. You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma. You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
No actually one of the biggest problems I had with the Christian story is all non believers wouldn't go to heaven. I could not imagine every Chinese and Russian and Muslim burning in hell.
Your Christian religion is the reason Joseph Smith was able to convert so many people away from your traditional "corrupt" churches and go join his cult. Same thing I'm saying about your religion is the same thing God told Joseph Smith about it. Why mad at me?
As for your comments, please explain to me what I'm missing. How are you the closest thing to an atheist? Explain what you mean please. How come the definition isn't important? You've peaked my interest.
I'm not a Christian. Unlike you, I have never been a Christian. I have told you this many times.
I am the closest thing to an Atheist under the definition that an Atheist is one who lacks beliefs in gods because I really don't give a damn whether or not there is a God. I fully admit that there is zero evidence to support either side of the issue, so the chances of either being correct is the same - 50/50. The only way one can actually lack beliefs in gods is if one is entirely neutral on the subject, because any position other than neutrality is a belief.
The definition is not important because what you are is what you are, not what you say you are. I can define myself as anything I like, but that does not make me that thing. I can define Buddhism as the attainment of spiritual perfection, but that does not mean by calling myself a Buddhist that I have attained spiritual perfection.
If you lack beliefs in gods, it is only true if you actually lack beliefs in gods. If your only support to that claim is because you define yourself as lacking beliefs, then it is a worthless claim. If while you are defining yourself as such you continue to make claims which are beliefs, then the claim is false. It is not the definition which makes you what you are.
Is that your dogma?
preach it, Sister Carla, preach it!......do most bald people deny the existence of hair?.....I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179
That wasn't a joke?
You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
RFOLMAO.
OK, that is out of my system, for now.
This is the definition you insist is wrong.
A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
As for writing a letter to Webster, they only accept business or advertising letters or someone wishing to add a new word.
And you know this because...
Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color
Only when you discuss their hairdo.
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?.....
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.
????.....100/100......the chance that the universe we have is the result of random shit happening randomly?......0obviously nothing more than a throwaway, unproveable comment.....there is no valid way to quantify either.....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.
Really? What odds do you give god? 50 50 odds?
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.
do most bald people deny the existence of hair?.....I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179
That wasn't a joke?
You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
RFOLMAO.
OK, that is out of my system, for now.
This is the definition you insist is wrong.
A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
As for writing a letter to Webster, they only accept business or advertising letters or someone wishing to add a new word.
And you know this because...
Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color
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 just stupid and stubborn. Whatever you want to think.
do most bald people deny the existence of hair?.....I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179
That wasn't a joke?
You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
RFOLMAO.
OK, that is out of my system, for now.
This is the definition you insist is wrong.
A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
As for writing a letter to Webster, they only accept business or advertising letters or someone wishing to add a new word.
And you know this because...
Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color
Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
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.
So if the bible god is completely made up, what makes you think any god(s) are real? Why can't you see that before Christianity was made up, god himself was made up?
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 just stupid and stubborn. Whatever you want to think.
An ad hominem is not a replacement for evidence or reason. Your conclusions are entirely unsupported by anything except belief. Whatever you want to think.
