Rubio vs. Athiest

[Tuatara]

Let's shut this up for good. Mr Wesel was too much of a weasel to answer this. Let see if you can.

I already did , unfortunately the logic proof shell you have constructed around your brain has proven to be impenetrable, unfortunately for you that shell is so similar to those that religious zealots construct for themselves as to be entirely indistinguishable from them.

First of all, do you believe in ALL the gods ever described by humans.

Umm..no, I believe in the existence of the divine (absent empirical evidence therefore I have FAITH that it's true), I do not claim to know the nature, methods and purposes of that divinity; those are things that I can only glean hints about from observing nature, introspection and study of the voluminous body of work regarding the subject.

Do you believe fairies and unicorns exist. I'm not asking you if there is a possibility for their existence or a probability. I just want to know if you believe in their existence.

False analogy, I have no evidence that "fairies and unicorns" exist however the Universe is so vast and human knowledge of it so limited that I don't rule out the possibility that they exist, thus I have no definitive answer (SEE : AGNOSTIC).

Second, Assuming you have said no to even one of my questions then by your standards it is faith not to believe in anything I just presented. A man walking down the street could tell you he has seen a floating purple and green Brachiosaurus that remains invisible most of the time in his backyard.

According to your logic if you "believed it didn't exist and had no evidence of it's non-existence (which you wouldn't of course) then this by your accord would also be a belief by faith.

Yeah and? Do I have empirical evidence that what the man said is untrue? No I don't, so based on my own experience I take it on FAITH that it's isn't true, just like you take it on FAITH that the non-existence of the divine is true.

Now answer the question or concede.

Now that I've destroyed your vapid argument for the 3rd time... perhaps you'll have learned not to bring a spoon to a gunfight, although I doubt it.

You already did? Can you tell which post you did this. I certainly don't see this. As for this logic proof shell, we;ll see that logic is something that escapes you.

A simple no would have been suffice. So you admit you do not believe in every god ever described. No belief in Vishnu, Deva or Ahura Mazda. These are gods that their believers believe are just as real as yours.yours. I did not ask you methods or purpose. I just simply asked about your beliefs. Since you admit you don't believe in all these other gods is your non-belief in them attributed to faith?

False analogy? I'm not asking whether or not you have evidence. You certainly don't have evidence for the existence of your god. Also I made it quite clear that I'm not asking about possibilities or probabilities. I'm asking about belief. So if someone asks about your belief in fairies and unicorns you are on the fence with them

So anything you believe not to be true you do so on faith. You better contact all the dictionairies because that is excatly the opposite of what they claim is the definition of faith.


From Oxford:
Faith
-Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof:
-A particular religion:

Merriam Webster:
Faith

• : belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs
  
  
• : a system of religious beliefs
  

Mmmm, can't seem to find atheism or non-religious beliefs. I guess you're smarter than all the people at Merriam or Oxford. I'll be waiting for the new definitions of the word faith to be admitted. Let me know when you are successful.


What's this about destroying my vapid argument. What a joke.

 

[NightFox]

You already did? Can you tell which post you did this. I certainly don't see this. As for this logic proof shell, we;ll see that logic is something that escapes you.

Why ? You've already made it abundantly clear that in addition to your enfeebled logic you lack sufficient comprehension of the English language to understand what would be patently obvious to any 5 year old, go back and re-read the thread and look up the multisyllabic words, perhaps in a year or three you'll get it.

A simple no would have been suffice. So you admit you do not believe in every god ever described. No belief in Vishnu, Deva or Ahura Mazda. These are gods that their believers believe are just as real as yours.yours.

No shit Sherlock, I'm not the one attempting to deny faith, YOU ARE because you're too obtuse and arrogant to admit that atheism is just another FAITH. I don't pass judgement on the FAITH of others that's your department and those that think like you do, my role here is to point out how jejune your attempt at simulating reason is.

False analogy?

Yeah, why am I NOT surprised that you don't understand what that term means.

What's this about destroying my vapid argument. What a joke.

*YAWN*
Yes your "argument" is a joke (thank you for all the laughs BTW), perhaps you should stick to your USMB font finger painting and leave the weighty discussions to the adults in the room.

 

[Tuatara]

You already did? Can you tell which post you did this. I certainly don't see this. As for this logic proof shell, we;ll see that logic is something that escapes you.

Why ? You've already made it abundantly clear that in addition to your enfeebled logic you lack sufficient comprehension of the English language to understand what would be patently obvious to any 5 year old, go back and re-read the thread and look up the multisyllabic words, perhaps in a year or three you'll get it.

A simple no would have been suffice. So you admit you do not believe in every god ever described. No belief in Vishnu, Deva or Ahura Mazda. These are gods that their believers believe are just as real as yours.yours.

No shit Sherlock, I'm not the one attempting to deny faith, YOU ARE because you're too obtuse and arrogant to admit that atheism is just another FAITH. I don't pass judgement on the FAITH of others that's your department and those that think like you do, my role here is to point out how jejune your attempt at simulating reason is.

False analogy?

Yeah, why am I NOT surprised that you don't understand what that term means.

What's this about destroying my vapid argument. What a joke.

*YAWN*
Yes your "argument" is a joke (thank you for all the laughs BTW), perhaps you should stick to your USMB font finger painting and leave the weighty discussions to the adults in the room.

You seemed to gloss over the meat of the argument. Did you read those definitions. I'll be waiting for your new definitions of "Faith" to be passed on to all the dictionaries of the world. Maybe you can ask ol' weasel to help. Maybe you will get some sort of literary reward when this happens. Too funny.

 

[Moonglow]

Any comments or counter-arguments to Rubio from this clip?

 

[dblack]

You already did? Can you tell which post you did this. I certainly don't see this. As for this logic proof shell, we;ll see that logic is something that escapes you.

Why ? You've already made it abundantly clear that in addition to your enfeebled logic you lack sufficient comprehension of the English language to understand what would be patently obvious to any 5 year old, go back and re-read the thread and look up the multisyllabic words, perhaps in a year or three you'll get it.

A simple no would have been suffice. So you admit you do not believe in every god ever described. No belief in Vishnu, Deva or Ahura Mazda. These are gods that their believers believe are just as real as yours.yours.

No shit Sherlock, I'm not the one attempting to deny faith, YOU ARE because you're too obtuse and arrogant to admit that atheism is just another FAITH. I don't pass judgement on the FAITH of others that's your department and those that think like you do, my role here is to point out how jejune your attempt at simulating reason is.

False analogy?

Yeah, why am I NOT surprised that you don't understand what that term means.

What's this about destroying my vapid argument. What a joke.

*YAWN*
Yes your "argument" is a joke (thank you for all the laughs BTW), perhaps you should stick to your USMB font finger painting and leave the weighty discussions to the adults in the room.

You seemed to gloss over the meat of the argument. Did you read those definitions. I'll be waiting for your new definitions of "Faith" to be passed on to all the dictionaries of the world. Maybe you can ask ol' weasel to help. Maybe you will get some sort of literary reward when this happens. Too funny.

The very best refutation of this nonsense comes from a friend of mine who is a devout Christian. In his view, equating the lack of faith expressed by an atheist with the religious faith of a believer is an insult. Real religious faith is a deliberate choice to believe in something without material evidence. It's a 'leap of faith' that is valuable because it transcends rationality.