Poll: Percent of Christians drop, those identifying as "none" soars

[Avatar4321]

Militant atheists do not reason well.

Pointless jake'isms are pointless for a reason.

Its so funny for a person who believes something without having one bit of evidence for it to say we dont reason well


Stop being unreasonable!

You realize that just because you aren't convinced by the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist, right?

Is it any wonder someone might say you don't reason well?

 

[PratchettFan]

Militant atheists do not reason well.

Pointless jake'isms are pointless for a reason.

Its so funny for a person who believes something without having one bit of evidence for it to say we dont reason well


Stop being unreasonable!

You realize that just because you aren't convinced by the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist, right?

Is it any wonder someone might say you don't reason well?

There may be evidence, but nothing we can point to as evidence. So, for practical purposes, there is no evidence to convince anyone of anything. Instead, there is belief - on both sides of the issue. You believe there is a God and so you see evidence to support that position. Sealy believes there is no God, and he sees evidence to support that position. Neither of you actually has any evidence, just belief. Your positions are essentially identical, just with different conclusions.

 

[sealybobo]

Militant atheists do not reason well.

Pointless jake'isms are pointless for a reason.

Its so funny for a person who believes something without having one bit of evidence for it to say we dont reason well


Stop being unreasonable!

You realize that just because you aren't convinced by the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist, right?

Is it any wonder someone might say you don't reason well?

There is no credible evidence. You saw god is not evidence. The bible is not evidence. Miracles are not evidence a god gets involved. The universes beauty is not evidence for a god. What evidence do you refer to?

You are probably horrible at the game clue.

Mr peacock in the library with a candlestick? Nope!

 

[sealybobo]

Militant atheists do not reason well.

Pointless jake'isms are pointless for a reason.

Its so funny for a person who believes something without having one bit of evidence for it to say we dont reason well


Stop being unreasonable!

You realize that just because you aren't convinced by the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist, right?

Is it any wonder someone might say you don't reason well?

There may be evidence, but nothing we can point to as evidence. So, for practical purposes, there is no evidence to convince anyone of anything. Instead, there is belief - on both sides of the issue. You believe there is a God and so you see evidence to support that position. Sealy believes there is no God, and he sees evidence to support that position. Neither of you actually has any evidence, just belief. Your positions are essentially identical, just with different conclusions.

If he doesnt have any good evidence to show me then we are not the same. Dont you get that? None of his evidence is good or credible. If it were I would not reject it. So its not like I'm rejecting good points the person is making. I'm simply unconvinced.

I have evidence the loch ness monster is real. None of it convinces you. That doesnt mean there's a 50 50 chance I'm right.

 

[PratchettFan]

Militant atheists do not reason well.

Pointless jake'isms are pointless for a reason.

Its so funny for a person who believes something without having one bit of evidence for it to say we dont reason well


Stop being unreasonable!

You realize that just because you aren't convinced by the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist, right?

Is it any wonder someone might say you don't reason well?

There may be evidence, but nothing we can point to as evidence. So, for practical purposes, there is no evidence to convince anyone of anything. Instead, there is belief - on both sides of the issue. You believe there is a God and so you see evidence to support that position. Sealy believes there is no God, and he sees evidence to support that position. Neither of you actually has any evidence, just belief. Your positions are essentially identical, just with different conclusions.

If he doesnt have any good evidence to show me then we are not the same. Dont you get that? None of his evidence is good or credible. If it were I would not reject it. So its not like I'm rejecting good points the person is making. I'm simply unconvinced.

I have evidence the loch ness monster is real. None of it convinces you. That doesnt mean there's a 50 50 chance I'm right.

I can, if you like, break down precisely what evidence I would require for the Loch Ness Monster and I can explain why that would be pertinent evidence. Hint: it begins with a definition of "Loch Ness Monster".

Tell me precisely what evidence would be needed to convince you of the existence of God and why it would be pertinent evidence. Hint: it begins with a definition of "God".

We've been through this before so I know you can't do it, and that is the difference. Your position is based wholly upon belief, just as Avatar's is. Your positions are identical and both conclusions are entirely belief based. Hammering away without a nail.

 

[Hollie]

Militant atheists do not reason well.

Pointless jake'isms are pointless for a reason.

Its so funny for a person who believes something without having one bit of evidence for it to say we dont reason well


Stop being unreasonable!

You realize that just because you aren't convinced by the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist, right?

Is it any wonder someone might say you don't reason well?

There may be evidence, but nothing we can point to as evidence. So, for practical purposes, there is no evidence to convince anyone of anything. Instead, there is belief - on both sides of the issue. You believe there is a God and so you see evidence to support that position. Sealy believes there is no God, and he sees evidence to support that position. Neither of you actually has any evidence, just belief. Your positions are essentially identical, just with different conclusions.

The above represents your beliefs and you're entitled to your beliefs. It has been explained to you on many occasions that it is possible to reach rational conclusions absent belief. The fact there there has never been any incontrovertible evidence for any of the thousands of gawds carries no requirement for belief. Its just a fact. Your belief that evidence of non-existence is required for proof of non-existence is circular and pointless.

 

[PratchettFan]

Militant atheists do not reason well.

Pointless jake'isms are pointless for a reason.

Its so funny for a person who believes something without having one bit of evidence for it to say we dont reason well


Stop being unreasonable!

You realize that just because you aren't convinced by the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist, right?

Is it any wonder someone might say you don't reason well?

There may be evidence, but nothing we can point to as evidence. So, for practical purposes, there is no evidence to convince anyone of anything. Instead, there is belief - on both sides of the issue. You believe there is a God and so you see evidence to support that position. Sealy believes there is no God, and he sees evidence to support that position. Neither of you actually has any evidence, just belief. Your positions are essentially identical, just with different conclusions.

The above represents your beliefs and you're entitled to your beliefs. It has been explained to you on many occasions that it is possible to reach rational conclusions absent belief. The fact there there has never been any incontrovertible evidence for any of the thousands of gawds carries no requirement for belief. Its just a fact. Your belief that evidence of non-existence is required for proof of non-existence is circular and pointless.

Yes, I know it has been explained to me. It has also been explained to me that belief in God is a rational conclusion. Just because it has been explained does not mean the explanation has any basis in rational thought. It is entirely possible to reach a rational conclusion in the absence of belief. It is, however, not possible in the absence of evidence. And that, regardless of the explanations, is how you have reached your conclusion. You can prove me wrong by presenting your evidence which, we both know, you can't do.

 

[Hollie]

Pointless jake'isms are pointless for a reason.

Its so funny for a person who believes something without having one bit of evidence for it to say we dont reason well


Stop being unreasonable!

You realize that just because you aren't convinced by the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist, right?

Is it any wonder someone might say you don't reason well?

There may be evidence, but nothing we can point to as evidence. So, for practical purposes, there is no evidence to convince anyone of anything. Instead, there is belief - on both sides of the issue. You believe there is a God and so you see evidence to support that position. Sealy believes there is no God, and he sees evidence to support that position. Neither of you actually has any evidence, just belief. Your positions are essentially identical, just with different conclusions.

The above represents your beliefs and you're entitled to your beliefs. It has been explained to you on many occasions that it is possible to reach rational conclusions absent belief. The fact there there has never been any incontrovertible evidence for any of the thousands of gawds carries no requirement for belief. Its just a fact. Your belief that evidence of non-existence is required for proof of non-existence is circular and pointless.

Yes, I know it has been explained to me. It has also been explained to me that belief in God is a rational conclusion. Just because it has been explained does not mean the explanation has any basis in rational thought. It is entirely possible to reach a rational conclusion in the absence of belief. It is, however, not possible in the absence of evidence. And that, regardless of the explanations, is how you have reached your conclusion. You can prove me wrong by presenting your evidence which, we both know, you can't do.

I'm under no obligation to provide evidence of non-existence of the supernatural. That's silly.

If you have evidence for one or more supernatural gawds, or the Loch Ness monster, or the Easter Bunny, present your evidence. The above entities may exist as a part of your beliefs, but no one else is under any obligation to accept your beliefs absent your presenting evidence for your beliefs.

As it has been explained to you, others can come to rational conclusions about the non-existence of supernatural entities you have no evidence for.

 

[PratchettFan]

Its so funny for a person who believes something without having one bit of evidence for it to say we dont reason well


Stop being unreasonable!

You realize that just because you aren't convinced by the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist, right?

Is it any wonder someone might say you don't reason well?

There may be evidence, but nothing we can point to as evidence. So, for practical purposes, there is no evidence to convince anyone of anything. Instead, there is belief - on both sides of the issue. You believe there is a God and so you see evidence to support that position. Sealy believes there is no God, and he sees evidence to support that position. Neither of you actually has any evidence, just belief. Your positions are essentially identical, just with different conclusions.

The above represents your beliefs and you're entitled to your beliefs. It has been explained to you on many occasions that it is possible to reach rational conclusions absent belief. The fact there there has never been any incontrovertible evidence for any of the thousands of gawds carries no requirement for belief. Its just a fact. Your belief that evidence of non-existence is required for proof of non-existence is circular and pointless.

Yes, I know it has been explained to me. It has also been explained to me that belief in God is a rational conclusion. Just because it has been explained does not mean the explanation has any basis in rational thought. It is entirely possible to reach a rational conclusion in the absence of belief. It is, however, not possible in the absence of evidence. And that, regardless of the explanations, is how you have reached your conclusion. You can prove me wrong by presenting your evidence which, we both know, you can't do.

I'm under no obligation to provide evidence of non-existence of the supernatural. That's silly.

If you have evidence for one or more supernatural gawds, or the Loch Ness monster, or the Easter Bunny, present your evidence. The above entities may exist as a part of your beliefs, but no one else is under any obligation to accept your beliefs absent your presenting evidence for your beliefs.

As it has been explained to you, others can come to rational conclusions about the non-existence of supernatural entities you have no evidence for.

The difference between us is that I am not claiming anything, other than you lack any basis for a rational conclusion. You are the one making the claim, so you have the obligation to support your claim. As I said, we both know you can't do that. So your conclusion is not rational.

 

[Hollie]

You realize that just because you aren't convinced by the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist, right?

Is it any wonder someone might say you don't reason well?

There may be evidence, but nothing we can point to as evidence. So, for practical purposes, there is no evidence to convince anyone of anything. Instead, there is belief - on both sides of the issue. You believe there is a God and so you see evidence to support that position. Sealy believes there is no God, and he sees evidence to support that position. Neither of you actually has any evidence, just belief. Your positions are essentially identical, just with different conclusions.

The above represents your beliefs and you're entitled to your beliefs. It has been explained to you on many occasions that it is possible to reach rational conclusions absent belief. The fact there there has never been any incontrovertible evidence for any of the thousands of gawds carries no requirement for belief. Its just a fact. Your belief that evidence of non-existence is required for proof of non-existence is circular and pointless.

Yes, I know it has been explained to me. It has also been explained to me that belief in God is a rational conclusion. Just because it has been explained does not mean the explanation has any basis in rational thought. It is entirely possible to reach a rational conclusion in the absence of belief. It is, however, not possible in the absence of evidence. And that, regardless of the explanations, is how you have reached your conclusion. You can prove me wrong by presenting your evidence which, we both know, you can't do.

I'm under no obligation to provide evidence of non-existence of the supernatural. That's silly.

If you have evidence for one or more supernatural gawds, or the Loch Ness monster, or the Easter Bunny, present your evidence. The above entities may exist as a part of your beliefs, but no one else is under any obligation to accept your beliefs absent your presenting evidence for your beliefs.

As it has been explained to you, others can come to rational conclusions about the non-existence of supernatural entities you have no evidence for.

The difference between us is that I am not claiming anything, other than you lack any basis for a rational conclusion. You are the one making the claim, so you have the obligation to support your claim. As I said, we both know you can't do that. So your conclusion is not rational.

Of course you're claiming something. Do you typically argue for the positive attributes of having no position?

My position is that supernaturalism remains demonstrated. The very suggestion that something is supernatural is both unreasoned and beyond the bounds of rationality. Therefore, it is rational to conclude that such extraordinary claims are unreasonable.

Your belief is apparently that proof for non-existence of non-existence is the burden of one who doesn't share your beliefs. Well sorry, but it's not up to me to prove the non-existence of every supernatural entity you believe may exist because there is not conclusive evidence for its non-existence.

 

[RKMBrown]

Christians drop nones soar in new religion portrait

Christianity still dominates American religious identity (70%), but the survey shows dramatic shifts as more people move out the doors of denominations, shedding spiritual connections along the way.
Atheists and agnostics have nearly doubled their share of the religious marketplace, and overall indifference to religion of any sort is rising as well. Only the historically black Protestant churches have held a steady grip through the years of change.

The shrinking numbers of Christians and their loss of market share is the most significant change since 2007 (when Pew did its first U.S. Religious Landscape survey) and the new, equally massive survey of 35,000 U.S. adults.
The percentage of people who describe themselves as Christians fell about 8 points — from 78.4% to 70.6%. This includes people in virtually all demographic groups, whether they are "nearing retirement or just entering adulthood, married or single, living in the West or the Bible Belt," according to the survey report
The "nones" — Americans who are unaffiliated with brand-name religion — are the new major force in American faith. And they are more secular in outlook — and "more comfortable admitting it" than ever before


Nones," at 22.8% of the U.S. (up from 16% just eight years ago) run second only to evangelicals (25.4%) and ahead of Catholics (20.8%) in religious market share.



.

So im at a new job for about 3 months and I bring up to a guy I went to a wedding at a church. No drinking. He asks what denomination, I tell him "some white" denomination. I say I'm greek orthodox he says he's catholic. I say, you know we are a spin off. Actually they all are. I say a couple more things and he finally admits he doesnt believe and he believes in evolution. I say you know you can believe in both and he confirms he doesnt.

Notice how we both lied at first and said catholic or greek orthodox first before we knew if we were talking to a Jesus Jew or Mohammad freak?

I suspect a good 25% dont believe. 25% would say they were agnostic if they even really thought about it. 25% are moderate half christians then 25% of america believes in the creation.story.

I'd say you are full of shit about 99% of the time when you are explaining what us christians are all about.

You know how Muslims and Mormons look to you? That's exactly how we see you, and we are right.

I see Muslims and Mormons as people with a slightly different wardrobe and different customs, but for the most part good people with strong family structures. Is that how you see us Christians?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Christians drop nones soar in new religion portrait

Christianity still dominates American religious identity (70%), but the survey shows dramatic shifts as more people move out the doors of denominations, shedding spiritual connections along the way.
Atheists and agnostics have nearly doubled their share of the religious marketplace, and overall indifference to religion of any sort is rising as well. Only the historically black Protestant churches have held a steady grip through the years of change.

The shrinking numbers of Christians and their loss of market share is the most significant change since 2007 (when Pew did its first U.S. Religious Landscape survey) and the new, equally massive survey of 35,000 U.S. adults.
The percentage of people who describe themselves as Christians fell about 8 points — from 78.4% to 70.6%. This includes people in virtually all demographic groups, whether they are "nearing retirement or just entering adulthood, married or single, living in the West or the Bible Belt," according to the survey report
The "nones" — Americans who are unaffiliated with brand-name religion — are the new major force in American faith. And they are more secular in outlook — and "more comfortable admitting it" than ever before


Nones," at 22.8% of the U.S. (up from 16% just eight years ago) run second only to evangelicals (25.4%) and ahead of Catholics (20.8%) in religious market share.



.

So im at a new job for about 3 months and I bring up to a guy I went to a wedding at a church. No drinking. He asks what denomination, I tell him "some white" denomination. I say I'm greek orthodox he says he's catholic. I say, you know we are a spin off. Actually they all are. I say a couple more things and he finally admits he doesnt believe and he believes in evolution. I say you know you can believe in both and he confirms he doesnt.

Notice how we both lied at first and said catholic or greek orthodox first before we knew if we were talking to a Jesus Jew or Mohammad freak?

I suspect a good 25% dont believe. 25% would say they were agnostic if they even really thought about it. 25% are moderate half christians then 25% of america believes in the creation.story.

you are asking us if we are surprised that atheists don't admit to others that they are atheists?.......lol......

Its like being gay.

another abnormality?.......understood.....

 

[PratchettFan]

There may be evidence, but nothing we can point to as evidence. So, for practical purposes, there is no evidence to convince anyone of anything. Instead, there is belief - on both sides of the issue. You believe there is a God and so you see evidence to support that position. Sealy believes there is no God, and he sees evidence to support that position. Neither of you actually has any evidence, just belief. Your positions are essentially identical, just with different conclusions.

The above represents your beliefs and you're entitled to your beliefs. It has been explained to you on many occasions that it is possible to reach rational conclusions absent belief. The fact there there has never been any incontrovertible evidence for any of the thousands of gawds carries no requirement for belief. Its just a fact. Your belief that evidence of non-existence is required for proof of non-existence is circular and pointless.

Yes, I know it has been explained to me. It has also been explained to me that belief in God is a rational conclusion. Just because it has been explained does not mean the explanation has any basis in rational thought. It is entirely possible to reach a rational conclusion in the absence of belief. It is, however, not possible in the absence of evidence. And that, regardless of the explanations, is how you have reached your conclusion. You can prove me wrong by presenting your evidence which, we both know, you can't do.

I'm under no obligation to provide evidence of non-existence of the supernatural. That's silly.

If you have evidence for one or more supernatural gawds, or the Loch Ness monster, or the Easter Bunny, present your evidence. The above entities may exist as a part of your beliefs, but no one else is under any obligation to accept your beliefs absent your presenting evidence for your beliefs.

As it has been explained to you, others can come to rational conclusions about the non-existence of supernatural entities you have no evidence for.

The difference between us is that I am not claiming anything, other than you lack any basis for a rational conclusion. You are the one making the claim, so you have the obligation to support your claim. As I said, we both know you can't do that. So your conclusion is not rational.

Of course you're claiming something. Do you typically argue for the positive attributes of having no position?

My position is that supernaturalism remains demonstrated. The very suggestion that something is supernatural is both unreasoned and beyond the bounds of rationality. Therefore, it is rational to conclude that such extraordinary claims are unreasonable.

Your belief is apparently that proof for non-existence of non-existence is the burden of one who doesn't share your beliefs. Well sorry, but it's not up to me to prove the non-existence of every supernatural entity you believe may exist because there is not conclusive evidence for its non-existence.

Your position is certainly more than that, as you have shown repeatedly in the past. Your position is that gods do not exist. That is a belief and nothing more than a belief.

 

[RKMBrown]

Christians drop nones soar in new religion portrait

Christianity still dominates American religious identity (70%), but the survey shows dramatic shifts as more people move out the doors of denominations, shedding spiritual connections along the way.
Atheists and agnostics have nearly doubled their share of the religious marketplace, and overall indifference to religion of any sort is rising as well. Only the historically black Protestant churches have held a steady grip through the years of change.

The shrinking numbers of Christians and their loss of market share is the most significant change since 2007 (when Pew did its first U.S. Religious Landscape survey) and the new, equally massive survey of 35,000 U.S. adults.
The percentage of people who describe themselves as Christians fell about 8 points — from 78.4% to 70.6%. This includes people in virtually all demographic groups, whether they are "nearing retirement or just entering adulthood, married or single, living in the West or the Bible Belt," according to the survey report
The "nones" — Americans who are unaffiliated with brand-name religion — are the new major force in American faith. And they are more secular in outlook — and "more comfortable admitting it" than ever before


Nones," at 22.8% of the U.S. (up from 16% just eight years ago) run second only to evangelicals (25.4%) and ahead of Catholics (20.8%) in religious market share.



.

So im at a new job for about 3 months and I bring up to a guy I went to a wedding at a church. No drinking. He asks what denomination, I tell him "some white" denomination. I say I'm greek orthodox he says he's catholic. I say, you know we are a spin off. Actually they all are. I say a couple more things and he finally admits he doesnt believe and he believes in evolution. I say you know you can believe in both and he confirms he doesnt.

Notice how we both lied at first and said catholic or greek orthodox first before we knew if we were talking to a Jesus Jew or Mohammad freak?

I suspect a good 25% dont believe. 25% would say they were agnostic if they even really thought about it. 25% are moderate half christians then 25% of america believes in the creation.story.

I'd say you are full of shit about 99% of the time when you are explaining what us christians are all about.

In terms of the number of sects and subdivisions that Christianity has splintered into, I'd say that 99% of Christians are at odds with each other regarding what Christians think that Christianity is all about.

I disagree, but hey what do I know I'm just a christian. I'm not as informed as the atheists.

t doesn't take more than a working knowledge of religions to understand that most have been subdivided into many sects and divisions, many of those at odds with one another. If you want a demonstration of that, you can prime Jeremiah with a comment about Catholicism for a multi-paragraph rant.

"Just a Christian" ill-defines you as a Christian. What does that mean? Lutheran? Presbyterian? Evangelical? There are, obviously, differences in theology, beliefs, practices, etc., unique to those sub-sects.

True.. I'm methodist... so I'm a little more relaxed about the fire and brimstone stuff. I believe, personally, that many of the stories of the old testament are allegories, tales of yore if you will. I believe some of the old jewish rabbinical laws may have made sense to rabbi thousands of years ago based on how people lived thousands of years ago, but need a modern revamp.

 

[PostmodernProph]

My position is that supernaturalism remains demonstrated.

Freudian slip or innate knowledge?.....

 

[Hollie]

The above represents your beliefs and you're entitled to your beliefs. It has been explained to you on many occasions that it is possible to reach rational conclusions absent belief. The fact there there has never been any incontrovertible evidence for any of the thousands of gawds carries no requirement for belief. Its just a fact. Your belief that evidence of non-existence is required for proof of non-existence is circular and pointless.

Yes, I know it has been explained to me. It has also been explained to me that belief in God is a rational conclusion. Just because it has been explained does not mean the explanation has any basis in rational thought. It is entirely possible to reach a rational conclusion in the absence of belief. It is, however, not possible in the absence of evidence. And that, regardless of the explanations, is how you have reached your conclusion. You can prove me wrong by presenting your evidence which, we both know, you can't do.

I'm under no obligation to provide evidence of non-existence of the supernatural. That's silly.

If you have evidence for one or more supernatural gawds, or the Loch Ness monster, or the Easter Bunny, present your evidence. The above entities may exist as a part of your beliefs, but no one else is under any obligation to accept your beliefs absent your presenting evidence for your beliefs.

As it has been explained to you, others can come to rational conclusions about the non-existence of supernatural entities you have no evidence for.

The difference between us is that I am not claiming anything, other than you lack any basis for a rational conclusion. You are the one making the claim, so you have the obligation to support your claim. As I said, we both know you can't do that. So your conclusion is not rational.

Of course you're claiming something. Do you typically argue for the positive attributes of having no position?

My position is that supernaturalism remains demonstrated. The very suggestion that something is supernatural is both unreasoned and beyond the bounds of rationality. Therefore, it is rational to conclude that such extraordinary claims are unreasonable.

Your belief is apparently that proof for non-existence of non-existence is the burden of one who doesn't share your beliefs. Well sorry, but it's not up to me to prove the non-existence of every supernatural entity you believe may exist because there is not conclusive evidence for its non-existence.

Your position is certainly more than that, as you have shown repeatedly in the past. Your position is that gods do not exist. That is a belief and nothing more than a belief.

My conclusion is that gawds don't exist. That's a perfectly rational conclusion in terms of the fact (and it is a fact), that no conclusive evidence has ever been presented for the assertion of any supernatural entity.

Your belief is that such supernatural entities exist. Where is your evidence? I'm under no obligation to accept your beliefs when you offer no evidence.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, I know it has been explained to me. It has also been explained to me that belief in God is a rational conclusion. Just because it has been explained does not mean the explanation has any basis in rational thought. It is entirely possible to reach a rational conclusion in the absence of belief. It is, however, not possible in the absence of evidence. And that, regardless of the explanations, is how you have reached your conclusion. You can prove me wrong by presenting your evidence which, we both know, you can't do.

I'm under no obligation to provide evidence of non-existence of the supernatural. That's silly.

If you have evidence for one or more supernatural gawds, or the Loch Ness monster, or the Easter Bunny, present your evidence. The above entities may exist as a part of your beliefs, but no one else is under any obligation to accept your beliefs absent your presenting evidence for your beliefs.

As it has been explained to you, others can come to rational conclusions about the non-existence of supernatural entities you have no evidence for.

The difference between us is that I am not claiming anything, other than you lack any basis for a rational conclusion. You are the one making the claim, so you have the obligation to support your claim. As I said, we both know you can't do that. So your conclusion is not rational.

Of course you're claiming something. Do you typically argue for the positive attributes of having no position?

My position is that supernaturalism remains demonstrated. The very suggestion that something is supernatural is both unreasoned and beyond the bounds of rationality. Therefore, it is rational to conclude that such extraordinary claims are unreasonable.

Your belief is apparently that proof for non-existence of non-existence is the burden of one who doesn't share your beliefs. Well sorry, but it's not up to me to prove the non-existence of every supernatural entity you believe may exist because there is not conclusive evidence for its non-existence.

Your position is certainly more than that, as you have shown repeatedly in the past. Your position is that gods do not exist. That is a belief and nothing more than a belief.

My conclusion is that gawds don't exist. That's a perfectly rational conclusion in terms of the fact (and it is a fact), that no conclusive evidence has ever been presented for the assertion of any supernatural entity.

Your belief is that such supernatural entities exist. Where is your evidence? I'm under no obligation to accept your beliefs when you offer no evidence.

Let me get this straight. You define god as a supernatural entity that does not exist and in turn you want proof that one does exist. Me on the other hand define god as the fabric of the universe, which clearly exists, and I ask you to show me proof that the fabric of universe does not exist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one has conclusive evidence whether God exists or not.

So, yes, all of us are in the same boat. A denial of that point is meaningless. A denier is in the same boat. If you are not, give me your evidence.

Silly discussion.

 

[Hollie]

I'm under no obligation to provide evidence of non-existence of the supernatural. That's silly.

If you have evidence for one or more supernatural gawds, or the Loch Ness monster, or the Easter Bunny, present your evidence. The above entities may exist as a part of your beliefs, but no one else is under any obligation to accept your beliefs absent your presenting evidence for your beliefs.

As it has been explained to you, others can come to rational conclusions about the non-existence of supernatural entities you have no evidence for.

The difference between us is that I am not claiming anything, other than you lack any basis for a rational conclusion. You are the one making the claim, so you have the obligation to support your claim. As I said, we both know you can't do that. So your conclusion is not rational.

Of course you're claiming something. Do you typically argue for the positive attributes of having no position?

My position is that supernaturalism remains demonstrated. The very suggestion that something is supernatural is both unreasoned and beyond the bounds of rationality. Therefore, it is rational to conclude that such extraordinary claims are unreasonable.

Your belief is apparently that proof for non-existence of non-existence is the burden of one who doesn't share your beliefs. Well sorry, but it's not up to me to prove the non-existence of every supernatural entity you believe may exist because there is not conclusive evidence for its non-existence.

Your position is certainly more than that, as you have shown repeatedly in the past. Your position is that gods do not exist. That is a belief and nothing more than a belief.

My conclusion is that gawds don't exist. That's a perfectly rational conclusion in terms of the fact (and it is a fact), that no conclusive evidence has ever been presented for the assertion of any supernatural entity.

Your belief is that such supernatural entities exist. Where is your evidence? I'm under no obligation to accept your beliefs when you offer no evidence.

Let me get this straight. You define god as a supernatural entity that does not exist and in turn you want proof that one does exist. Me on the other hand define god as the fabric of the universe, which clearly exists, and I ask you to show me proof that the fabric of universe does not exist.

I don't define any of the gawds as anything more than inventions of humans. It is the obligation of those claiming the existence of these supernatural entities to demonstrate their existence.

 

[RKMBrown]

The difference between us is that I am not claiming anything, other than you lack any basis for a rational conclusion. You are the one making the claim, so you have the obligation to support your claim. As I said, we both know you can't do that. So your conclusion is not rational.

Of course you're claiming something. Do you typically argue for the positive attributes of having no position?

My position is that supernaturalism remains demonstrated. The very suggestion that something is supernatural is both unreasoned and beyond the bounds of rationality. Therefore, it is rational to conclude that such extraordinary claims are unreasonable.

Your belief is apparently that proof for non-existence of non-existence is the burden of one who doesn't share your beliefs. Well sorry, but it's not up to me to prove the non-existence of every supernatural entity you believe may exist because there is not conclusive evidence for its non-existence.

Your position is certainly more than that, as you have shown repeatedly in the past. Your position is that gods do not exist. That is a belief and nothing more than a belief.

My conclusion is that gawds don't exist. That's a perfectly rational conclusion in terms of the fact (and it is a fact), that no conclusive evidence has ever been presented for the assertion of any supernatural entity.

Your belief is that such supernatural entities exist. Where is your evidence? I'm under no obligation to accept your beliefs when you offer no evidence.

Let me get this straight. You define god as a supernatural entity that does not exist and in turn you want proof that one does exist. Me on the other hand define god as the fabric of the universe, which clearly exists, and I ask you to show me proof that the fabric of universe does not exist.

I don't define any of the gawds as anything more than inventions of humans. It is the obligation of those claiming the existence of these supernatural entities to demonstrate their existence.

You need me to demonstrate the fabric of the universe in which you live? Odd request. That you replied to my post is my proof. Next.