atheism and its follower are not bright

[edthecynic]

View attachment 80913

Thank you for running and hiding!

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[emilynghiem]

You really do not understand terms and definitions that reasonable standards employ. Trot along, you little punk.

I understand that energy is a THING and a God is NOT a THING, so when science says that the universe is energy in all its forms they are NOT saying the universe came from nothing exploding as your OP dishonestly claims. That is a lie of a Creationist created in the image of God.

See, I told you did not have the terms and definitions to explain your nonsense. You are simply talking in the mirror.

No I have simplified the definitions so you have no wiggle room!
Either your God is a thing or your God is nothing. Since Creationists insist God is not a thing then it is Creationism that claims everything came from nothing. Your inability to identify what THING exactly is God proves I am right!!!!!

You have misdefined the terms, and that you don't get to do. You live in a rational world with the rest of us, so you get to use the standard terms and definitions, or you fail.

I have not misdefined anything.

Let's start with this simple question.
Is God a THING?
It is a yes or no answer. Saying I lack understanding is not an honest answer.

Yes and no edthecynic
God representing things on an infinite level means that ppl refer to God in terms of reflections or relationships which are finite and more tangible in comparison.

This is relative to different ppls experiences perceptions and expressions of both.

God can be a thing to some ppl, or greater than all things combined to others. Since ppl may not all agree how to express what they mean by God, what I have suggested is to map out ppls systems, and then draw parallels between the positions and relationships that are the "equivalent" of God in each system of exoression.

So if one person frames the forces in life as
God the Father
Jesus the son
Holy Spirit

And another looks at human experiences in life as
Spiritual collective or superego level
Psychological level of conscience or ego or human will
Physical level of body and empirical senses

And others frames the laws of life as
The Buddha or perfect understanding and awareness or knowledge
The Dharma or the laws
The Sangha or the physical community or order in society

And secular humanist universalists call it
Truth
JUSTICE
peace on earth for all humanity

Then we take the TOP level of whatever is the highest, the absolute, or collective level that is faith based and align that with what ppl mean by GOD.

We take the human level of the individual or physical experience and align those.

And we take the Intermediary level that JOINS the individual with the collective level and align those. That Central level is where LAWS describe Relationships between the individual human level or will and the highest collective level of truth, laws, or life energy on the level of God.

So even if we don't frame life or laws the same way, we can compare and align the Variables we use for the three basic levels. And try to work in parallel with each other, despite our different perspectives or languages we use to express concepts and relationships in life.

 

[Agit8r]

Just a simple fact.

You guys are not the logic queens you believe you are. Sorry: you are not very sharp,

Actually, it is just the lack of a belief. We just believe in one fewer god than you do.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

First of all by stating the current hypotheses for angiogenesis as "rock turns into organic life" is a misrepresentation and a straw man fallacy.

Secondly, that you're incredulous about the theory of common descent and the processes of evolution is not a good argument and is also an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Thirdly, that no one knows the processes from which reality comes or how life formed is not an argument for a creator but is god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Lastly, even if one acknowledges that the universe is apparently designed, it does not mean the universe is actually designed because that cannot be known with any real confidence (it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis) nor does it mean the designer is the God of the Bible or even a deity at all.

The best argument, in my opinion, based on evidence for a "god" is the fine-tuning argument and it in no way supports only that the God of the Bible designed the Universe that way, that any deity is responsible for the fine-tuning, or that the fine-tuning is even intentional.

To think the argument for God is dependent on the need to prove evolution needed an intelligent designer would be a major fallacy. God can be proven in a myriad of ways via empirical evidence.

Secondly, the argument from incredulity, and I do not care what the wanting science body wants to argue, is a heavily and strongly reasoned argument. For anyone to think that eyeballs and brains can just happen is absurd. And yet that is what atheism argues and Richard Dawkins. No will, no intelligence, no plan, just the illusion of design. And they want to throw incredulity in our face?

Back to God. Once evidence for Him can be shown in other ways, then it stands to reason God would have had a fundamental part in creation. God of the gaps, yes, absolutely. Science is a great benefit to man and a great harm unto itself. Just because science has uncovered many answers about life and the universe in no way shape or form does should it think it has the answers to that which up until now they are in total darkness. Of course, if science and atheism were not so filled with pride and foolishness it would recognize all of the signs and wonders God has provided over history. Including life after death experiences in the thousands to give man a glimpse of life after death. Major miracles prophesied by very young children that came true on the exact day it was predicted such as at FAtima. The Virgin Mary appearing to 250,000 Egyptians over the course of 20 evenings in 1968, all forgotten by those who do not want to believe. Weeping statues with no scientific explanation. The Shroud of Turin with qualities on that cloth that would be totally impossible for some medieval forger to dream up, much less make happen. Science today cannot even duplicate those qualities. But man is too proud or man is too full of himself where he wants to have his pleasures and not be accountable to any Creator who is telling Him something He does not want to hear.

Dear turzovka
Trying to prove that God exists is like trying to prove the existence of
* love
* truth or wisdom
* universal laws
* nature or forces of life and or where those come from
* collective knowledge or good will for all humanity

You can see this gets beyond human limits quickly. Clearly all these things we take for granted are faith based. At best we agree what to call these things, so we know what we're talking about when we refer to them. But we can't possibly prove where life came from or what all the laws in the universe are

We merely AGREE to use symbols in either science or religion to represent global phenomena or universal principles. And even those are relative and different for each person or audience

The concepts may be universal but the expressions and systems of representation are relative. Regardless if we cannot prove any of this definitively, we can agree what terms to use to refer to certain concepts or contexts. and try to agree how to apply systems consistently.

I will not argue with your philosophy / theology. Nor can I improve upon your kinder approach.

However, as for me, no, I do not agree with you that God cannot be proven. I know “He is” just as sure as I know I am. Just as certain of His reality as were so many saints who had visions of Christ and visits from the heavens. Perhaps our interpretations of faith and how it is applied also differ greatly. I love all Christians and all people, but I also embrace Catholicism as the highest fullness of truth as revealed by our Lord (for many reasons).

I seriously doubt the Mother of God would not tell 3 devout young shepherd children on July 13th, 1917 to tell all the people present that she will perform a miracle on October 13th so that all will know she is from God and what these young children are reporting is from God ---- if in fact it was not God speaking to them. And what occurred at Fatima on October 13th in front of 70,000 people who trudged through the mud and rain to be present was a spectacular miracle of the sun. Soon after the three Portugese children arrived around noon that day in the rain, then so did the Virgin Mother in a flash of lightning above a small oak (but seen only by the three children). Then Lucia pointed up to the sky and the dark clouds were split open by a blazing the sun. The sun then “began to dance” as the spellbound crowd reported. It defied cosmic laws and bounced and spun like a pinwheel shooting off multi-colored rays that engulfed the entire landscape. The ground and people’s faces turned red, blue, green, yellow. Then after 12 minutes the sun grew extremely large, turned blood red, and charged the earth. All thought it was the end but then suddenly the sun receded to its normal position and all was peaceful. - - - No one there doubted any longer.

Marxist journalists there to mock this prophecy humbly reported the truth in their Lisbon paper. Scientists there gave testimony to what they witnessed for themselves. Essentials: The Facts: The Miracle of the Sun There are hundreds of eye witness testimonies recorded both in print and on film. A number of eye witnesses from 10 and 20 miles away testified to the same phenomenon. In addition, they testified to the fact that their totally rain-soaked clothing and the ground was bone dry after this miracle. The prime message of Mary --- repentance and prayer, especially the rosary.

There is much more to be said about this one miracle alone. But there is no doubt this was a supernatural manifestation from God. Unless someone wants to boldly state it was of the devil --- there are no other plausible explanations. The skeptics and unbelievers have nothing to counter this --- it is the evidence that demands a verdict.

So you can hold fast to the position that belief in God rests solely on faith, and I hold to the fact that God has provided so many signs and wonders over history there is no need for faith to believe in Him. We know.

So Turzo- how is this 'evidence of God'?

It is indisputable evidence for a supernatural manifestation. A child says a great miracle will occur 90 days in advance and says the exact day it will occur --- and it does! --- before 70,000 eye witnesses. That, is supernatual

Now if you cannot connect the dots from there to understand that supernatural event is surrounded by prayers and references to Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary and the rosary and heaven and hell --- as all is well documented --- well then I can't begin to help you.

Could you please either link this or tell me what this event was called so I can research it myself?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just a simple fact.

You guys are not the logic queens you believe you are. Sorry: you are not very sharp,

Actually, it is just the lack of a belief. We just believe in one fewer god than you do.

There is that word belief again. You can't prove your belief,

 

[turzovka]

To think the argument for God is dependent on the need to prove evolution needed an intelligent designer would be a major fallacy. God can be proven in a myriad of ways via empirical evidence.

Secondly, the argument from incredulity, and I do not care what the wanting science body wants to argue, is a heavily and strongly reasoned argument. For anyone to think that eyeballs and brains can just happen is absurd. And yet that is what atheism argues and Richard Dawkins. No will, no intelligence, no plan, just the illusion of design. And they want to throw incredulity in our face?

Back to God. Once evidence for Him can be shown in other ways, then it stands to reason God would have had a fundamental part in creation. God of the gaps, yes, absolutely. Science is a great benefit to man and a great harm unto itself. Just because science has uncovered many answers about life and the universe in no way shape or form does should it think it has the answers to that which up until now they are in total darkness. Of course, if science and atheism were not so filled with pride and foolishness it would recognize all of the signs and wonders God has provided over history. Including life after death experiences in the thousands to give man a glimpse of life after death. Major miracles prophesied by very young children that came true on the exact day it was predicted such as at FAtima. The Virgin Mary appearing to 250,000 Egyptians over the course of 20 evenings in 1968, all forgotten by those who do not want to believe. Weeping statues with no scientific explanation. The Shroud of Turin with qualities on that cloth that would be totally impossible for some medieval forger to dream up, much less make happen. Science today cannot even duplicate those qualities. But man is too proud or man is too full of himself where he wants to have his pleasures and not be accountable to any Creator who is telling Him something He does not want to hear.

Dear turzovka
Trying to prove that God exists is like trying to prove the existence of
* love
* truth or wisdom
* universal laws
* nature or forces of life and or where those come from
* collective knowledge or good will for all humanity

You can see this gets beyond human limits quickly. Clearly all these things we take for granted are faith based. At best we agree what to call these things, so we know what we're talking about when we refer to them. But we can't possibly prove where life came from or what all the laws in the universe are

We merely AGREE to use symbols in either science or religion to represent global phenomena or universal principles. And even those are relative and different for each person or audience

The concepts may be universal but the expressions and systems of representation are relative. Regardless if we cannot prove any of this definitively, we can agree what terms to use to refer to certain concepts or contexts. and try to agree how to apply systems consistently.

I will not argue with your philosophy / theology. Nor can I improve upon your kinder approach.

However, as for me, no, I do not agree with you that God cannot be proven. I know “He is” just as sure as I know I am. Just as certain of His reality as were so many saints who had visions of Christ and visits from the heavens. Perhaps our interpretations of faith and how it is applied also differ greatly. I love all Christians and all people, but I also embrace Catholicism as the highest fullness of truth as revealed by our Lord (for many reasons).

I seriously doubt the Mother of God would not tell 3 devout young shepherd children on July 13th, 1917 to tell all the people present that she will perform a miracle on October 13th so that all will know she is from God and what these young children are reporting is from God ---- if in fact it was not God speaking to them. And what occurred at Fatima on October 13th in front of 70,000 people who trudged through the mud and rain to be present was a spectacular miracle of the sun. Soon after the three Portugese children arrived around noon that day in the rain, then so did the Virgin Mother in a flash of lightning above a small oak (but seen only by the three children). Then Lucia pointed up to the sky and the dark clouds were split open by a blazing the sun. The sun then “began to dance” as the spellbound crowd reported. It defied cosmic laws and bounced and spun like a pinwheel shooting off multi-colored rays that engulfed the entire landscape. The ground and people’s faces turned red, blue, green, yellow. Then after 12 minutes the sun grew extremely large, turned blood red, and charged the earth. All thought it was the end but then suddenly the sun receded to its normal position and all was peaceful. - - - No one there doubted any longer.

Marxist journalists there to mock this prophecy humbly reported the truth in their Lisbon paper. Scientists there gave testimony to what they witnessed for themselves. Essentials: The Facts: The Miracle of the Sun There are hundreds of eye witness testimonies recorded both in print and on film. A number of eye witnesses from 10 and 20 miles away testified to the same phenomenon. In addition, they testified to the fact that their totally rain-soaked clothing and the ground was bone dry after this miracle. The prime message of Mary --- repentance and prayer, especially the rosary.

There is much more to be said about this one miracle alone. But there is no doubt this was a supernatural manifestation from God. Unless someone wants to boldly state it was of the devil --- there are no other plausible explanations. The skeptics and unbelievers have nothing to counter this --- it is the evidence that demands a verdict.

So you can hold fast to the position that belief in God rests solely on faith, and I hold to the fact that God has provided so many signs and wonders over history there is no need for faith to believe in Him. We know.

So Turzo- how is this 'evidence of God'?

It is indisputable evidence for a supernatural manifestation. A child says a great miracle will occur 90 days in advance and says the exact day it will occur --- and it does! --- before 70,000 eye witnesses. That, is supernatual

Now if you cannot connect the dots from there to understand that supernatural event is surrounded by prayers and references to Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary and the rosary and heaven and hell --- as all is well documented --- well then I can't begin to help you.

Could you please either link this or tell me what this event was called so I can research it myself?

Actually, my composite is as good as any brief account. If you go here http://www.theholyrosary.org/fatimaapparitions just read about the third apparition and the sixth apparition. If you go back to my post the link I provided is short and gives one testimony of a doctor of science. I am trying to save you time. If you go to wikipedia you will get the most downplayed dishonest rendition, replete with all the bogus skeptics trying to explain away the sun's inexplicable activity. They say it was not seen anywhere else, and yet there are many testimonies of those not present who saw it 20 miles away. There are thousands of books and articles and church documents on this miracle.

Fatima is not the only major miracle of the Church well documented. In 1968 the Virgin Mary appeared on top of the domes of a cathedral in Zeitoun Egypt on more than 20 different nights. Over that summer more than 250,000 Egyptians witnessed the phenomenon for itself. Two articles of this are in the NY Times. The Apparitions of the Blessed Holy Virgin Mary to Millions in Zeitoun, Egypt

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear turzovka
Trying to prove that God exists is like trying to prove the existence of
* love
* truth or wisdom
* universal laws
* nature or forces of life and or where those come from
* collective knowledge or good will for all humanity

You can see this gets beyond human limits quickly. Clearly all these things we take for granted are faith based. At best we agree what to call these things, so we know what we're talking about when we refer to them. But we can't possibly prove where life came from or what all the laws in the universe are

We merely AGREE to use symbols in either science or religion to represent global phenomena or universal principles. And even those are relative and different for each person or audience

The concepts may be universal but the expressions and systems of representation are relative. Regardless if we cannot prove any of this definitively, we can agree what terms to use to refer to certain concepts or contexts. and try to agree how to apply systems consistently.

I will not argue with your philosophy / theology. Nor can I improve upon your kinder approach.

However, as for me, no, I do not agree with you that God cannot be proven. I know “He is” just as sure as I know I am. Just as certain of His reality as were so many saints who had visions of Christ and visits from the heavens. Perhaps our interpretations of faith and how it is applied also differ greatly. I love all Christians and all people, but I also embrace Catholicism as the highest fullness of truth as revealed by our Lord (for many reasons).

I seriously doubt the Mother of God would not tell 3 devout young shepherd children on July 13th, 1917 to tell all the people present that she will perform a miracle on October 13th so that all will know she is from God and what these young children are reporting is from God ---- if in fact it was not God speaking to them. And what occurred at Fatima on October 13th in front of 70,000 people who trudged through the mud and rain to be present was a spectacular miracle of the sun. Soon after the three Portugese children arrived around noon that day in the rain, then so did the Virgin Mother in a flash of lightning above a small oak (but seen only by the three children). Then Lucia pointed up to the sky and the dark clouds were split open by a blazing the sun. The sun then “began to dance” as the spellbound crowd reported. It defied cosmic laws and bounced and spun like a pinwheel shooting off multi-colored rays that engulfed the entire landscape. The ground and people’s faces turned red, blue, green, yellow. Then after 12 minutes the sun grew extremely large, turned blood red, and charged the earth. All thought it was the end but then suddenly the sun receded to its normal position and all was peaceful. - - - No one there doubted any longer.

Marxist journalists there to mock this prophecy humbly reported the truth in their Lisbon paper. Scientists there gave testimony to what they witnessed for themselves. Essentials: The Facts: The Miracle of the Sun There are hundreds of eye witness testimonies recorded both in print and on film. A number of eye witnesses from 10 and 20 miles away testified to the same phenomenon. In addition, they testified to the fact that their totally rain-soaked clothing and the ground was bone dry after this miracle. The prime message of Mary --- repentance and prayer, especially the rosary.

There is much more to be said about this one miracle alone. But there is no doubt this was a supernatural manifestation from God. Unless someone wants to boldly state it was of the devil --- there are no other plausible explanations. The skeptics and unbelievers have nothing to counter this --- it is the evidence that demands a verdict.

So you can hold fast to the position that belief in God rests solely on faith, and I hold to the fact that God has provided so many signs and wonders over history there is no need for faith to believe in Him. We know.

So Turzo- how is this 'evidence of God'?

It is indisputable evidence for a supernatural manifestation. A child says a great miracle will occur 90 days in advance and says the exact day it will occur --- and it does! --- before 70,000 eye witnesses. That, is supernatual

Now if you cannot connect the dots from there to understand that supernatural event is surrounded by prayers and references to Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary and the rosary and heaven and hell --- as all is well documented --- well then I can't begin to help you.

Could you please either link this or tell me what this event was called so I can research it myself?

Actually, my composite is as good as any brief account. If you go here http://www.theholyrosary.org/fatimaapparitions just read about the third apparition and the sixth apparition. If you go back to my post the link I provided is short and gives one testimony of a doctor of science. I am trying to save you time. If you go to wikipedia you will get the most downplayed dishonest rendition, replete with all the bogus skeptics trying to explain away the sun's inexplicable activity. They say it was not seen anywhere else, and yet there are many testimonies of those not present who saw it 20 miles away. There are thousands of books and articles and church documents on this miracle.

Fatima is not the only major miracle of the Church well documented. In 1968 the Virgin Mary appeared on top of the domes of a cathedral in Zeitoun Egypt on more than 20 different nights. Over that summer more than 250,000 Egyptians witnessed the phenomenon for itself. Two articles of this are in the NY Times. The Apparitions of the Blessed Holy Virgin Mary to Millions in Zeitoun, Egypt

Dear turzovka belief in the testimony and experiences of others is still faith based.
So you end up going in circles, where people need to have faith in order to believe in these faith based phenomena.

In order for each person "to experience for THEMSELVES" so it isn't based on "faith in the testimony of others"
this is where I recommend studies on Spiritual Healing that can be replicated for each person, as well
as for entire communities. Some even report whole cities being changed by group prayer.

If you are relatively new, you may not have read all my other msgs where the issue has been discussed on replicating medical research on Spiritual Healing. If you are coming from a Catholic background, this is very good because the Catholic priests and church have the longest established history of cases of using these spiritual methods for diagnosing the cause and cure of spiritual sickness and generational conditions related to dark forces that have to be removed before the affected people can be healed and returned to normal.

Are you familiar with Scott Peck's book he wrote, where he hoped to disprove his friend Malachi Martin's claims about exorcism being real, and instead found the process to be valid and instrumental in helping severely ill if not "incureable" schizophrenic patients to restore their normal states of mind? He was able to explain that while the unseen part of the process remains "faith based" on a spiritual level, the actual steps before, during and after the deliverance therapy DO follow observable patterns that he argued CAN be measured and quantified by the scientific method, similar to how current therapy works to track improvement in patients based on their reports and the observations of the doctor.

So this opens the door to formal medical research to follow up and replicate the observations and trials that Peck undertook on his own, to experience and see for himself. Because this is on a spiritual level, each team that studies this can document their own observations and results, before and after the therapy is applied step by step. And in order for other researchers to understand, they may also have to replicate it themselves because each case and process differs.

But it can be replicated. Not all the Virgin Mary experiences can be replicated for each person, who then has to know someone personally or read of some case they believe in order to take this on faith.

But the Spiritual Healing can be replicated as many times and in as many situations as needed
for people to experience first hand, or as close as needed in order to understand it directly themselves.

Are you interested in this, because I believe it is part of where the Catholic Church is going.
by teaching all people the process of spiritual healing so that we can address physical, and even criminal illness at the root source and help the most people to reduce ills in society by curing the causes (instead of placating symptoms which is too expensive and exceeding our health care and social resources).

Thank you turzovka

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is why antiGodism is smacked down every time it raises its evil head.

Russia's Newest Law: No Evangelizing Outside of Church

 

[Syriusly]

I hold to the fact that God has provided so many signs and wonders over history there is no need for faith to believe in Him. We know.

---
In psychology, we call that "confirmation bias", i.e., cherry picking information (not necessarily evidence) to support your pre-existing beliefs.

In science, to avoid that, we compare null hypotheses with alternative hypotheses that may provide better predictions or explanations.

For example, it was once thought that a "god" threw lightning bolts, but we now have better explanations.
If we were able to go back to ancient time and show people a TV with someone on its screen claiming to be "God", you would likely have a 100% rate of suckers.
.

Cherry picking what? One piece of evidence for the supernatural? How many do you require before you and science come to some logical conclusion the supernatural is the only reasonable answer for said manifestations? I am forever waiting for a plausible counter-explanation for these events witnessed by thousands, sometimes filmed, and most highly documented..

There have been multiple plausible counter explanations offered- you just don't find them plausible.

You will never find any alternative explanation plausable.

Confirmation bias or faith- the same thing in this case.

 

[Syriusly]

This is why antiGodism is smacked down every time it raises its evil head.

Russia's Newest Law: No Evangelizing Outside of Church

More along the lines of Russian autocraticism requires worship only of the approved Church. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Orthodox Church has rebounded- but Russia has been very aggresively against competing Christian churches.

Proposed by United Russia party lawmaker Irina Yarovaya, the law appears to target religious groups outside the Russian Orthodox church. Because it defines missionary activities as religious practices to spread a faith beyond its members, “if that is interpreted as the Moscow Patriarchate is likely to, it will mean the Orthodox Church can go after ethnic Russians but that no other church will be allowed to,” according to Frank Goble, an expert on religious and ethnic issues in the region.


Russian nationalist identity remains tied up with the Russian Orthodox church.

 

[Syriusly]

Liar, made in the image of God!
Your OP claimed Atheism believed that everything came from nothing, which is the essence of Creationism, not Atheism. Creationists insist that God is NOT a thing and that everything comes from God, therefore everything comes from no thing. You ran like a lying coward, made in the image of God, from my post that pointed that out.

If I am wrong then tell me what THING God is.

You really do not understand terms and definitions that reasonable standards employ. Trot along, you little punk.

I understand that energy is a THING and a God is NOT a THING, so when science says that the universe is energy in all its forms they are NOT saying the universe came from nothing exploding as your OP dishonestly claims. That is a lie of a Creationist created in the image of God.

See, I told you did not have the terms and definitions to explain your nonsense. You are simply talking in the mirror.

No I have simplified the definitions so you have no wiggle room!
Either your God is a thing or your God is nothing. Since Creationists insist God is not a thing then it is Creationism that claims everything came from nothing. Your inability to identify what THING exactly is God proves I am right!!!!!

You have misdefined the terms, and that you don't get to do. You live in a rational world with the rest of us, so you get to use the standard terms and definitions, or you fail.

'with the rest of us'

Not all of us have the irrational belief in fairy tales.

 

[Syriusly]

Just a simple fact.

You guys are not the logic queens you believe you are. Sorry: you are not very sharp,

Actually, it is just the lack of a belief. We just believe in one fewer god than you do.

LOL- very nicely stated.

 

[Syriusly]

Just a simple fact.

You guys are not the logic queens you believe you are. Sorry: you are not very sharp,

Actually, it is just the lack of a belief. We just believe in one fewer god than you do.

There is that word belief again. You can't prove your belief,

According to Jake's 'logic'- if I tell Jake I have a lack of fish- Jake will tell me I can't prove I have fish.

 

[Agit8r]

Just a simple fact.

You guys are not the logic queens you believe you are. Sorry: you are not very sharp,

Actually, it is just the lack of a belief. We just believe in one fewer god than you do.

There is that word belief again. You can't prove your belief,

Really dude?! Your argument comes down to syntax?

You don't believe in Vishnu do you? Why not?

I happen not to believe in Vishnu. I also happen not to believe in YHWH. get over it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just a simple fact.

You guys are not the logic queens you believe you are. Sorry: you are not very sharp,

Actually, it is just the lack of a belief. We just believe in one fewer god than you do.

There is that word belief again. You can't prove your belief,

According to Jake's 'logic'- if I tell Jake I have a lack of fish- Jake will tell me I can't prove I have fish.

Fallacy of false equivalents. You just can't do logic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just a simple fact.

You guys are not the logic queens you believe you are. Sorry: you are not very sharp,

Actually, it is just the lack of a belief. We just believe in one fewer god than you do.

There is that word belief again. You can't prove your belief,

Really dude?! Your argument comes down to syntax?

You don't believe in Vishnu do you? Why not?

I happen not to believe in Vishnu. I also happen not to believe in YHWH. get over it.

Syntax means word order. Diction means right word choice. Semantics is meanings. Now try again.

 

[HenryBHough]

We do, however, have living proof that guardian angels actually DO exist......

 

[edthecynic]

We do, however, have living proof that guardian angels actually DO exist......

Yeah, I saw it on TV.

Angel From Hell - CBS.com

 

[PK1]

Just a simple fact.

your premise is faulty.

---
Exactly.
Jake does not know simple facts, e.g., the basic meaning of atheism:
"lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
Atheism by itself has no beliefs related to "creation". Atheists simply do not believe what theists claim.
.