This should help, Gnostic vs. Agnostic Atheism

Oh, so science CAN be tested and eiminate things?

So tell me, if love is just a brain activity, than we should be able to introduce it artificially shouldn't we? We just manipulate the brain and, viola, you are in love permanently!

Oh wait, we can - its called extasy, and the high it produces .... is not love, not even real affection, and yet people are able to tell the difference? Hmmm ....

What is amazing is that an atheist can use sceince to explain and demonstrate something as untestable and ... invisible ... as love, but is absolutely baffled in how to use the same logical process when approaching God? Love can be proven, Zues? He's an invisible bird.

The nature of the game is denial at any cost for such obvious misapplication of double standards.

 

I only know what followers of your god have claimed he is responsible for, and that's what I've been referring to this entire time: what the followers of a god have claimed about that god. Part of your evidence for your god is a book, written by men, that describes things he is responsible for. Many of these things have scientific explanations. So why does a scientific explanation for these activities not disprove your god's existence, but explanations for Zeus' activities do disprove his?

This is all about claims and the burden of proof. You say atheists have a burden of proof to show that god doesn't exist, simply because we don't believe. Well, do you believe Vishnu exists? If not, can you prove he doesn't exist?

 

What God claims is in the Bible.

Stop making excuses and follow through with the logical thought process.

You guys are all experts on the Bible, you claimed that God makes all kinds of claims that are falsifiable .... and, like aways, all we get is opinions.

In fact, we know you are wrong, because one of the things that God claims are miracles - and they are indeed out there.

But they may have a valid scientific reason? So faith in science, which is not even a religion, is better than saying, "God claimed this and it is real, its inconclusive, but strongly suggestive?"

And you are claiming that it is all rubbish - proveable so - again - so step up with something beisdes you restated opinion.

Atheists do have a burden of proof, let me show you why again:

Enough with the excuses already.

 

I've explained to you before how to artificially cause love in an individual.

The exact amounts of the neurotransmitters isn't known because the necessary kind of research is unethical, but we know most of what there is to know about the chemical processes involving love.

Love is plenty testable. I just described the process for testing for it. I'm all for testing for the existence of your god. Tell me the objective process that can be used to observe him and I will be happy to do it.

 

And I just explained, indeed demonstrated, that the artificial means is known to be artificial, temporary, and discernably fake. Again.

In other words, you are right because you .... previous said something? Not because it is correct? Proveably so.

Once again, its funny how atheists will use proof, but when a hole is found in their proof, despite encapsulating skepticism and the Hegelian dialetic are apparently tossed out in favor of a personal opinion?

Interesting.

Agh, so there is a moral consideration to things, outside of science, after all?

So is God.

Once again, there are places where we can take a look at claims made by God and see whether or not they are real. And the problem is, what God claims, is all verified.

Its inconclusive, which is why we have the logical requirement of faith. That is scientific though isn't it? When math proved that black holes might be possible, if you assumed that it was ... were you a heretic? Or did you keep looking for more and more suggestive evidence? And we cannot touch or see or even directly test for an otherwise completely invisible black hole (apparently is morphs into invisible birds whenever we get too close), and yet, most scientists are convinced that they are real.

Indeed, using this inductive reasoning, we can look for the effects of black holes and make a predicitive arguement about whether or not a certain region of space has a black hole in it or not. We can prove both a positive and a negative, all without demanding that black hole appear right before us.

We can do the same thing with something as fickle as love, clearly demonstrate that it is real, even as we do not understand the exact causes of such a powerful emotion.

Yet with God, all the sudden, atheists are stumped? Incapable of discerning between Santa (which we have a large body of factual information about that clearly indicates he was made up) and Jesus (whom we also have a large body of information about and he seems to be quite real)?

Either logic can solve problems or it cannot.

Its not, "Logic can solve all problems that atheists want it to, and then, when we would rather badger people based on their religion, is suddenly useless."

 

I didn't claim that your god makes all kinds of claims that are falsifiable. I said his followers make claims about him that are explainable instead by science.

I am unaware of any actual, observed miracles that your god has claimed. There are plenty that his followers have claimed for him, though. Regardless, there are plenty of gods, worshiped now or in the past, to whom miracles have been attributed. How do you know its your god that caused those miracles and not any of the other myriad gods?

If we have a burden of proof, then so do you. Do you believe in Vishnu? If not, please prove he doesn't exist. I say we don't have a burden of proof because it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, and also we (most if not all atheists in this thread) aren't making a claim about any god's existence. You can easily prove me wrong by proving that Vishnu doesn't exist (assuming you don't believe in Vishnu).

 

Yes, you did:

Go ahead.

Show me how SCIENCE and not GOD did this:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009/05/scientifically-documented-miracles.html

No thesis, no evidence, no conclusion = atheism. Pretty much defines irrational does it not?

Splitting hairs again.

Wht part of strongly suggestive did you not understand?

Why is is that every atheist comes up with this lame ass excuse?

Maybe you should stop before making the same childish excuse? We DO have a burden of proof.

For teh upteenth time, the entire process is loooking at claims, to the extent possible, and seeing whether or not there is evidence. Its called the preponderance of the evidence cases, and WE do make them.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

In fact, there is an entire field of evidence known as apologetics.

Yet you are relieved from the logical requirement for a burden of proof because we have one too? That we do. Unlike you, we meet it - to the maximum extent possible.

Once again, why do I have to address Vishnu? He's not part of my thesis statement or the rational process necessary to prove a genaric God or Creator, much less the specific God of the Bible.

My thesis is that the evidence out there is suggestive that God, a creator, is probable.

Yours? Who the hell knows. You are uttery convinced without using even the basics of a logical reasoning.

And you do have a burden of proof.

And you can prove a negative.

 

Artificial and fake aren't necessarily the same thing. Is your life fake if a doctor uses an artificial drug to save you from an infection?

Of course. It's bizarre that this frustrates you.

If you verify something, then it isn't inconclusive. Those two words are mutually exclusive. Either your god claims something, and it can be verified, or you can't conclude that what your god says is actually true.

The evidence for black holes and love is repeatedly observable. What such evidence is there for your god?

 

Thanks for quoting that for me. Now read it again and pay attention to the bolded part.

I can't show you how science did those things. That doesn't automatically mean your god did them. Show me how you know your god did those things and not Vishnu.

It's strongly suggestive of something supernatural. I have no doubt that the Hindi lady I work with would attribute miracles to Brahman rather than your god. So please, again, show me how you know your god is performing miracles and not some other supernatural entity.

I'm not utterly convinced one way or the other about your god's existence. I just don't believe.

One more time: you say I have a burden of proof to show that your god doesn't exist because I don't believe in him. Do you believe in Vishnu? If not, then you have a burden of proof to show he doesn't exist. Please, prove that he doesn't exist.

 

Not only are they the same thing, but the fact that induced love is not love, and identifiably so, is the point.

You are playing at semantics.

Agh, so the hundreds of times I have introduced these concepts as part of teh judgement process actually indicates that it is me that is frustrated with it?

Did you just artifically introduce a fake emotional strawman position onto your opponent?

Seems so.

What indeed is your thesis statement, because what it looks like is you are just claiming whatever to be obstinate at this point.

There are claims that God says and they are indeed there, we just can't proveabley associate teh cause with God.

Why this is an emotionally frustrating problem for you is a given.

Besides, with no evidence whatsoever, you are ready to indicate that there is no God at all. Yet this cannot be verified.

Let me guess, you are another who lectures others about the stupidity of faith ... until called on it?

Funny how standards that atheists wish to apply to others seem to not apply to atheism .... again.

And so it is for Gods.

I mean the gravitational flux that black holes cause MIGHT have some other cause that we cannot see correct?

Yet God claims miracles and we see them .... but ... hypocrisy galore today.

Pretty much everyday with atheists. One standard for X, andother for them.

 

Yep, God claims miracles and answered prayers and we see them.

Why is this hard for you?

Now, pay attention to the rest. You claimed that science explained them.

Now do so.

Or are you having problems comprehending your own words?

I believe that part about faith has been stated as has the part about a preponderance of the evidence case and an arguement from absurdity.

Feel free to address any of those points whenever you wish.

Well, then she would have a burden of proof. I am not her am I? I have no obligation to prove anyone else's God.

I use science to show that God is indeed probable.

I use scripture and faith to say that Jesus and the Bible are the best, but not necessarily only, representation of that manifestation.

Its quite logical.

That is if logic is problem solving rather than obfuscation - which for atheism .... who knows?

And the thesis statement changes yet again! You are convinced enough to think that everyone is wrong but you .... yet utterly unable to produce anything of consequence.

Basically, you want your personal opinion to be enshrined as superior? And that is not science or logic, its arrogance.

See above.

Oncae again, I don;t have to prove Vishnu to prove God. We are talking about a genaric supernatura creator in terms of science. You are rushing to a specific that has no bearing on the subject.

If Vishnu, like Zues, is wrong, what does that have to do with the subject?

Nothing.

Its just being a dick about an opinion, and we already know that you don;t think God is real (but then I guess that depends on everything as you both do but don't).

My job is not to disprove every other God out there.

My thesis, again, is to demonstrate that God is probable.

Yours would be to demonstrate why God is improbable.

Of course, you can't even make a thesis statement, which is probably why you keep introducing elements that are simply not germaine to the subject.

Its called ever changing goal posts to never being wrong. Simple obfuscataion. But then, that's all atheism has.

You can prove a negative.

Atheists have a burden of proof.

For some reason, atheists are the ones talking about magic invisible birds and Vishnu.

BTW - why do you keep asking for evidence of God, like all atheists, and then patently ignoring it? Denial is human, not scientific. Atheists are human, and they retain, as we see, human biases.

 

Is your life fake if a doctor uses an artificial drug to save you from an infection? If I induce love in someone and then completely remove the artificial drugs, but the love continues, is that love fake?

The "agh" is what indicates frustration. If you're not frustrated, then what does the inclusion of "agh" at the beginning of some of your sentences mean?

I was just answering revol's post about how atheists can prove that love exists. And then I answered your subsequent posts that were in response to mine. We can prove that love exists. That's my thesis statement.

How do you know your god even said these things? If you could prove your god said anything it seems like that would be pretty conclusive.

I don't know why you think this is frustrating for me, emotionally or otherwise.

No, I just don't believe. I make no indications about the existence of any gods. I only make indications about my own lack of belief. I know you can't understand the distinction, and I don't expect you to suddenly understand now.

Nope. I've never lectured anyone on faith.

A miracle is not repeatedly observable. It's a onetime event that there isn't a current scientific explanation for. Meanwhile, we repeatedly observe the gravitational effects associated with a black hole. Yeah, it might be something else. We have no evidence to suggest that it is something else, though. HIV might not cause AIDS (there are plenty of people who think that way), but we have no indication to the contrary.

 

I didn't say everything that people claim for god is explainable by science. And I definitely never said that science could explain miracles.

You seem to be having problems comprehending my words.

At the end of the day, all you've provided is evidence of something supernatural, then. Faith isn't evidence.

My position hasn't changed at all. And I've never said, or even indicated, that "[I am] convinced enough to think that everyone is wrong but [me]" or that I "want [my] personal opinion to be enshrined as superior." Who are you arguing with?

This entire thread is about belief (or lack there of) and burdens of proof. You have repeatedly claimed that an atheist, by virtue of not believing in your god, has a burden of proof to show that your god doesn't exist. By that exact same argument, you have a burden of proof to show that Vishnu does not exist if you don't believe in him. It's the exact same thing. To make your point, all you have to do is prove that Vishnu doesn't exist.

I think you might be in the wrong thread, then. This thread isn't about whether your god is probable or not. Anyway, I don't disagree with the idea that your god is probable. I don't think it's possible to prove the probability of your god, though.

I thought your thesis statement was that your god is probable. What does an atheist's burden of proof have to do with that? What is the atheist's burden of proof?

 

What does that have to do with the reality of euphoric induced by drug haze and teh actuality of love?

Can you change my brain chemistry and make me love a country?

I am not attempting to prove love false, on the contrary, I am attempting to prove that your explanation of scientific love is flawed.

Based on the strawmen you keep introducing in response, that would clearly be a successful endeavor on my part.

Agh indicates frustration? So, now you are inferring an emotion in me through the use of the word, "Agh," and then directly contradicting what I am telling you is my intent?

It indicates that you have again made a logical error and I am eager to point it out. The opposite of frustration.

And now ignoring everything that has come since.

Yep, and mine would be that by using the SAME logical thought process, you can prove that things similarly as intangible are ALSO real or at leats probable ... I.E. God.

Yet this is difficult for you?

Its in the Bible.

If what is in the Bible that I can verify is true, why would I doubt what the truth teller claims is the source?

Again, inductive reasoning is not difficult .... if you use it.

Because your arguementation is all over the place.

then all you have is faith. Nothing more. Just disbelief.

Kindly acknowledge the point that atheism is just a faith choice and we'll move on.

Pretty simple.

What it can't be is BOTH an evidenced based bit of science .... and just a belief - not the way atheists act on this forum and in real life:

"We're respectful of the American people's individual rights to practice as they see fit (equal to our rights to do the same), but this does not mean we have to respect the decision. If you choose to ignore logic and knowledge in order to believe in an invisible magic man in the sky, or Santa Claus for that matter, you've made a ridiculous decision and we're not going to pretend it's "just another way of looking at things."

http://www.atheists.org/religion

In fact, YOU'VE been making that exact same kind of arguementation haven't you?

But when called on it ... now you just don't believe, that is all ...

Right, of course not, you, and other atheists, just declared my religion to be a mythology - just like Zues - but you have never done anything wrong. You are an innocent victim of religious oppression to bambi eyed adventures?

No, they are repeatedly observable, they are simply not induced by a methodology that we can replicate - yet they keep happening.

Again, that goes to the point about not being able to confirm the SOURCE - not that these events are not observable, documentable, and verifiable.

Nothing about atheism, BTW, meets any of that. Can't prove a negative right? Oh wait, you can.

So would you care to explain why one side has to meet and exacting and ever changing set of standards ... but atheists get to get away with ... well, we just dont believe .... just because. But please treat atheism as if it is the pinnacle of intellectual prowess and science, and everything else like crap.

Preponderance of the evidence show probability. Either its probable or improbable. We can't both be right - but then, only one of us is actually making a case, and that does indicate which side the preponderance actually supports.

Always does.

 

Wait, love is provable by the chemical mind and body candy that is produced from it?????
The belief of God can in effect provide the same if not more mind and body candy in the form of this chemical production….. AND?
We're not talking about the simple mechanics of something, we are talking about the validity and depth behind this chemical production.
What is the depth of the emotion that supplies this stimuli and is it any more valid than what is supplied through the belief of God?
A child consumes time, it consumes resources, it consumes energy and it consumes a huge portion of our lives. A parent will actually place themselves in harms way in order to protect this thing that is so consuming…. Why? Because of the attachment of emotion that is placed upon it, intellectually it's actually senseless to our form to do so; so how is such an act any more valid than the act of believing in God?
Atheists want to love, and they want to do so with depth, intellectually there is none beyond the simple and many times absurd mechanics of it….. AND?
"I love you" is an absurd statement…. I think atheists should be honest with themselves and everyone they purport to love and change this statement to "You stimulate me"…. It has very little to do with the other person beyond the attachments we have placed upon it….. Intellectually, this is our capacity!

 

We can further this emotional attachment within thought by asking why an atheist is posting on the religious portion of a forum….. Do they think that they are or even have the capacity to offer something to another? Intellectually, what form of stimuli could it possibly provide for them?
Is it some sort of sick form of need searching for acknowledgement? Isn't it rather infantile and an insult to intellect to consider that being met with an adverse or negative exchange actually supplies one with stimuli? Or is it a desire to "connect" (have to use this term loosely) with other atheists in some sort of sick mind circle jerk to "intellectually" (again I use the term loosely) pop each other off?
HMMMMM! disturbing thought!

 

Yes, you did. I quoted you doing it. Now you deny it.

Here it is again:

And you can't.

The point is not that you never said it, you clearly did.

The point is that you are failing to back it up .... and getting frsutrated - because no self congratulatory atheist can acknoweldge that they are wrong.

That might lead them to question their faith ... which of course they do not have.

Yep, science is fulfilled by claiming other people are illiterate on a forum that requires literacy.

Another falsifiable, demonstrateably so, claim from an atheist.

Well, then it looks like the preponderance of the evidence does indeed support my position - just like a claimed.

You on the other hand are left with a dearth, indeed entirely absent any evidence, and are left with just faith ....

Logically, my position is the better position to hold. Faith is all you have.

Bull (*)(*)(*)(*).

You are atheist. You, and indeed many atheists, routine lecture people about how stupid they and their faith choices are.

Well, looks like all you've been is arrogant.

Your atheism has ZERO support. Just faith - and a crappy one at that.

You don't just NOT believe in MY God. You don;t believe in ANY GODS.

That is the DEFINITION OF ATHEISM. Its the ONE TENET THAT HOLDS ALL ATHEISTS TOGETHER.

Yet when called on to support it .... all you have is faith.

Your position is not logical or tenable - its in the same category as Santa.

Changing goals posts. Vishnu? Zues?

Now suddenly, when rebutted, its other people being obtuse?

Its ANOTHER atheist being dishonest to avoid having to question his fallacious beliefs.

Because as an atheist, you clearly think that my thesis is incorrect. Otherwise, you couldn't be an atheist could you?

So, you merely don;t believe there is a God .... well, something tangible and explanable should have driven you to that conclusion - that God is improbable.

Apparently, its just faith.

Blind faith at that.

 

I posed this question to our family dog, - ( the most loving creature imaginable,) he looked me staright in the eye , wagged his tail , that answered the question .


cheers..

 

Funny.

No one makes that claim.

What we claim is that atheists never talk about it unless prompted, and that it figures into none of their science based discourse in the slightest.

So when we ask someone to prove love using science, to the same standards that they demand we prove God to, we get a strawman instead ... that belief in God is a pre-requisite to being capable of identifying love?

The claim is that atheists, who insist repeatedly, that the yonly think they believe in are tangible, testable and acientififc - all else being unimportant - simply do not value love.

Well, you do don't you? And yet when we figure these intangible aspects into a faith choice from an inconclusive scientific basis ... we are daft? Unscientific, cads, irrational, prone to delusion.

Well, is just another atheist strawman. Dog's wagging tales and all.

 

Questions are strawmen, now? You said love caused by the introduction of chemicals which are already naturally produced is fake love. It's artificial, in that an outside source directly introduced the chemicals, but I'm saying it isn't fake. If outside chemicals are used to save your life, your life isn't fake. Someone who takes an antidepressant for 6 months to combat depression is not in a fake state of happiness a year later after ending the drug treatment.

I must be saying it wrong in my head, then. Because it looks like it would be pronounced like the sound that Charlie Brown makes when Lucy pulls the football away from him at the last second. How would you pronounce "agh?"

You have a funny definition of ignore, seeing as we're now 7 or 8 exchanges past that first post.

I didn't describe a thought process, though. I described a process of experimentation.

When there are so many other things in a book that can be verified as being untrue, there is reason to doubt whether the "truth teller" is in fact telling the truth.

Sure, atheism is a choice to not have faith.

What kind of argumentation? Ignoring logic? I don't see that at all.

I don't think I've ever said that your religion is a myth. I've asked you to consider Zeus as if he isn't a myth, that's all. It's really, really funny that you'd try to paint me (and other atheists) as someone with a victim mentality immediately after making a false claim of offense.

Let me ask you something: why are you putting forth all of this evidence to say that your god is probable? What happens if everyone agrees with you?

 

Yeah, I didn't say that everything that was claimed could be explained by science. That was an extension of my original statement, in which I said that many things that people attributed to god could be explained by science.

I've said twice already, and here's a third time, that I don't have a scientific explanation for those miracles. But you don't have any conclusive evidence that your god is responsible for them, either.

Was I trying to fulfill science, or just turning your phrase a bit?

I thought your position was about the existence of a god, not merely something supernatural. That's all you've provided evidence for: something supernatural.

Please, show me where I have every lectured anyone about "how stupid they and their faith choices are."

By your exact same logic, your position that Vishnu does not exist (assuming that you don't believe in him) is not logical or tenable. Please, prove that Vishnu doesn't exist and I will use the same proof to show that your god doesn't exist.

Where did the goal posts change? I just keep seeing you bounce from "god is probable" to "atheists have a burden of proof" and back again. Since this thread is about knowledge and burdens proof, it seems weird that you would bring the probability of god into this since it doesn't seem like something that can be proven.

I can't think that a god could exist and still be an atheist? Why not?

 

Can we move these two to another thread so that they can grunt, throw poo at one another and beat their chests?

I've always observed that those who are incapable of responding to one another without dissecting a post into tiny little pieces, have very little to offer towards knowledge.
When we dissect a post in the attempt to disprove it, we offer very little towards our own offering of truth; the result is that we only accomplish entering into pointless diatribe. We remove the body of context to what is being said, and it prevents us from providing any body of response, or any contextual value within that response.
In other words.....
When we seek to prove someone to be a fool by indulging their foolery, all we have succeeded in doing is becoming a fool's fool.

 

A statement that science CAN prove things is not a question. And yes, a question can be a strawman. For example, when someone asks about comparative intellect in humanity, and someone else asks, "Oh, so you you think black people are stupid do you?" Such a question is quite clearly a strawman presentation of someone else's thesis.

Which is what you are doing here.

Drugs to save a life has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to articfically induce the reality of love.

Its evidence to an arguement that is not being made, nor is it germaine to the discussion. Its a strawman.

Its would be the equivalent of me saying, "Well, grass is green isn't it. So why do you deny God?"

Only, when atheists behave like this, we are supposed to pat them on the back and congratulate them for the use of such brazen intellectualism?

Or, you could just ask fof clarification in the future rather than rushing to judgement.

When I pointed give you three things, repeatedly:

1. Apologetics.
2. Proofs - Preponderanec of the evidence.
3. Arguements from absurdity - which atheists use.

You rebut none of them, and them make the assinine claim that it is OTHERS who are avoiding things? Do you understand how proof works?

We both claim that the other is avoiding something, one of us is able to come back and demonstrate what is being avoided. The other is simply making a claim.

There is a lot of that in atheist arguementation.

Well, then use of them to actually explain and support a conclusion.

Yep, but none of them relate to a claim that God did. Indeed, the Old Testament is about exactly that, the Jews rebelling and doing stupid, incorrect things in MANY cases.

They are presented that way.

You think this proves something? I think it proves you have no idea what my religion, or any of them (given that you have trouble differentiating them from Zues) for that matter.

Semantics. It is a conclusion based on no evidence. It is faith. In fact, your claim that it is not faith is just that - faith.

Well, there is a lot that you don;t want to see. And as I have said, if indeed one sticks there head in the sand and ignores thinks that conflict with their beliefs, then there is indeed no evidence for such a person.

That is however a problem from atheism when they claim the mantel of logic. Which is what you are doing .... but logic requires support ...

.... and you don;t have any.

Which brings us right back to faith.

Oh please, at least attempt to be honest for a change.

You are an atheist. Not some chronically misunderstood and victimized Van Gogh waiting in paranoia to have his ear cut off.

Once again, if you think it is false you have an obligation to back it up - othereise you are just finding an excuse to not question your precious beliefs - and that is all they are.

Perhaps a debate forum is just not for you then?

THen there are a lot fewer atheists. God rejoices the death of deliberate ignorance and the devil says, "Harumph!," which is in sharp contrast to, "Agh."

 

so are you saying that because I don't believe in God, my love for my children is not as valid or as deep as your love for your children?

 

Well, you claimed MANY could. Still waiting on ONE.

In fact, I gave you one, you ducked.

Its called an unsupported conclusion. THat would be the point.

And for an equal number of times, its called a preponderance of the evidence case.

Miracles are claimed by God, so are answered prayers, etc. And they ALL seem to be there.

It's called preponderance.

YOU claim there is NO evidence for God. You are wrong. The ONLY thing you can say is that nothing can be definitively proven to be from God. But neither can it be disproven.

Yet you are not an agnostic?

And all those intagible things like ethics, which are important, and only strengthen the case for God, haven't even entered into the equation yet. And that is where the real pudding is made.

Of course, as you have no thesis statement with God - you can't even make a supporting arguement - which means you can never be wrong, because you believe in nothing.

Apparently, atheists are stuck in second grade? Realizing that santa was not real was traumatic, and, gosh darn it, they'll never be made to feel like that again, so they will believe in nothing - not even the statement that there is no God.

Anything to avoid those playground tears again? Is that it?

Explain to me, as you thesis is appatrently about proving love, what all this arguementation that has nothing to do with love is all about then?

Certainly it has nothing to do with your thesis - unless of course atheism is your thesis? Then it might make sense - its still wrong though.

Because you claim that atheism is correct and religion is flawed. You do realize that the forum has a search function don't you?

Agh, so we pick and choose.

Lets spell this out again for the serial strawman.

Science cannot prove God one way of the other in a definitive means. All we can do is look for PREPONDERANCE and probability.

The specifics, which inolve A LOT more than just science, come from a host of sources, much of which is deeply personal, that make the final judgement call in humanity.

It means, like most rational people out there, that there is a God, but we simple humans haven't got it all figured out yet. (Unlike atheists, who have it all figured out, they just can't explain any of it). THat means you TOLERATE different FAITHS.

We acknowledge the requirement for FAITH.

Its YOU that says YOU are not using faith.

Its YOU that rejects all religion.

Its YOU that cannot tell the difference between a legitimate faith and mythology.

And yet, you cannot answer one simple question in a logical or otherwise thoughful manner: why?

Seriously? Did you just ignore the example I gave you?

I have stated no position in Vishnu.

What I said is that a person who claims that Vishnu is real has a burden of proof to support it. Just like I do.

Unlike you, I don;t run around badgering Hindu's and saying, "You guys are wrong, but ... well, I merely believe that there was maybe kinda a Jesus, so I have nio burden of proof to tell you why your are wrong. It just is."

Well, when you pull the ostrich, it once again comes back to what you cannot do - and that is begin.

What is your thesis statement on God? We all know what it is but therein lies the logical trap - and the real reason you will not spell it out.

1. If its the result of science and logic .... then you have to explain it to THAT standard. You KNOW you cannot do that - so that is obviously not your thesis.

2. If your thesis is JUST that it is a belief, or lack thereof, then its just a matter of faith - one that lacks even the semblance of support and is in fact blind faith.

So, tell us what your thesis statement is on God. Actually establish a position and support it.

Instead, you attempt to do both, and fail at both. The only real goal seems to avoid the logical dialetic to avoid being wrong at any cost. Playgrounds?

Because that is not how atheists define themselves. If you think a god exists, its a pretty natural extension that you BELIEVE in him.

Its a bit like saying, "I think the Hawaiian Islands exist, I've never been there of course, but really, the I just don't believe in the Islands."

If that is what atheism is, then my job was done a long time ago where atheism is concerned.

Now we just have to get the atheists to stop writing crap like this:

"We're respectful of the American people's individual rights to practice as they see fit (equal to our rights to do the same), but this does not mean we have to respect the decision. If you choose to ignore logic and knowledge in order to believe in an invisible magic man in the sky, or Santa Claus for that matter, you've made a ridiculous decision and we're not going to pretend it's "just another way of looking at things."

http://www.atheists.org/religion