Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Hollie]

Fact: gods can neither be proved or disproved.

Thus: if one believes one way or another, one has a faith.

Look the terms up.

Agreed.
And that's why atheism, as a simple rejection of a theory, is not a "belief" system. And therefore not a "religion".
Atheism is no more a religion than silence is a "sound".

False. If you say "I reject," you also say, "I have faith I am right."

Can't get away from it, guys.

Nonsense. None of the above supports your gods.

Faith is not a requirement to conclude that supernatural entities don't exist.

Your inability to force your religious beliefs on others is the weakness of your belief system, not a flaw in reason and rationality.

I have yet to see any reason or rationality. Only an unshakeable faith.

It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.

I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.

I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.

 

[Hollie]

False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.

Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.

What about this fact do you not grasp?

The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.

What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?

The part where you present your evidence. Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.

You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence. Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.

You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.

You are the one who said you could easily do it. I am simply asking you to back up your claim. I assume you can't, so your position is faith based. There really is no other option. Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.

I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone. Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?

I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.

Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.

I think I have proven my argument. My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief. As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable. That is the only argument I have made here.

Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part. It would help if you just said "oops".

You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.

You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.

It would help if you just append "... because I say so", to your claims.

I have made no claims about gods, you have. I would not even attempt to prove gods as there is no evidence. It is a matter of pure belief. I fully admit it is a matter of pure belief. In the absence of evidence, one belief is no superior to any other belief. You, on the other hand, insist your belief is not belief. You have no evidence, you make claims you cannot support, and then you blame me because you can't support your unsupportable claims.

Atheism is not of itself a religion. But you have clearly shown it can be turned into one. What you are currently doing is accusing me of blasphemy, of questioning the holy writ. But while I may be a believer, I am not confused into thinking my beliefs are anything more than beliefs and I am certainly not confused that yours are either.

You're a bit reality challenged. I have made no positive claims about gods. I've simply required people like you to support your claims to the supernatural.

I have no more beliefs about your gods than I have beliefs about Bigfoot. And by the way, I suppose that your inability to disprove Bigfoot makes him/ her just as likely as your gods, of which you require belief until disproved.

You think because your beliefs are negative you get off scot free? It doesn't work that way. I do not require belief from you. I require you support your claims. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right. Or admit your just operating on faith.

You have said you can disprove gods. Do it.
You have said you think gods are improbable. Produce the objective evidence you used to arrive at that conclusion.

These are claims you have made. The onus is on you, not me.

I have already disproven your gods. Prove I haven't.

Have you still not seen the futility of your nonsensical "prove it isn't" fallacy you use to prop-up your gods?

I haven't seen your proof yet, so I can't respond to it. And the only reason I have asked that you "prove it isn't" is because you made the claim you could. Is this an example of the "reason and rationality" you spoke of?

I have no proof of your gods or anyone else's gods. Neither do you.

 

[PratchettFan]

Fact: gods can neither be proved or disproved.

Thus: if one believes one way or another, one has a faith.

Look the terms up.

Agreed.
And that's why atheism, as a simple rejection of a theory, is not a "belief" system. And therefore not a "religion".
Atheism is no more a religion than silence is a "sound".

False. If you say "I reject," you also say, "I have faith I am right."

Can't get away from it, guys.

Nonsense. None of the above supports your gods.

Faith is not a requirement to conclude that supernatural entities don't exist.

Your inability to force your religious beliefs on others is the weakness of your belief system, not a flaw in reason and rationality.

I have yet to see any reason or rationality. Only an unshakeable faith.

It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.

I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.

I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.

No. I can't. I never once claimed I could. Do you see how that works? I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it. You do make a claim so you do have to support it.

My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief. The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit. It is false. Untrue. Pure crap. Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is belief and nothing but belief. I think there is something I call God, but that is a belief. It is supported by nothing except the fact that I think it. There is no evidence to support it. I not only could be wrong, I fully concede I probably am wrong. But since there is no evidence one way or the other, I'll go with what feels right to me. You can believe whatever feels right to you. But don't even try and tell me that you are operating on reason and rationality rather than belief, because that is flat untrue. You have no more evidence to support your conclusion than I have to support mine, so your conclusion is just as much belief as mine. The only difference between us is that I can recognize when I am operating on belief alone.

 

[PratchettFan]

False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.

Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.

What about this fact do you not grasp?

The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.

What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?

The part where you present your evidence. Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.

You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence. Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.

You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.

You are the one who said you could easily do it. I am simply asking you to back up your claim. I assume you can't, so your position is faith based. There really is no other option. Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.

I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone. Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?

I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.

Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.

I think I have proven my argument. My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief. As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable. That is the only argument I have made here.

Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part. It would help if you just said "oops".

You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.

You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.

It would help if you just append "... because I say so", to your claims.

I have made no claims about gods, you have. I would not even attempt to prove gods as there is no evidence. It is a matter of pure belief. I fully admit it is a matter of pure belief. In the absence of evidence, one belief is no superior to any other belief. You, on the other hand, insist your belief is not belief. You have no evidence, you make claims you cannot support, and then you blame me because you can't support your unsupportable claims.

Atheism is not of itself a religion. But you have clearly shown it can be turned into one. What you are currently doing is accusing me of blasphemy, of questioning the holy writ. But while I may be a believer, I am not confused into thinking my beliefs are anything more than beliefs and I am certainly not confused that yours are either.

You're a bit reality challenged. I have made no positive claims about gods. I've simply required people like you to support your claims to the supernatural.

I have no more beliefs about your gods than I have beliefs about Bigfoot. And by the way, I suppose that your inability to disprove Bigfoot makes him/ her just as likely as your gods, of which you require belief until disproved.

You think because your beliefs are negative you get off scot free? It doesn't work that way. I do not require belief from you. I require you support your claims. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right. Or admit your just operating on faith.

You have said you can disprove gods. Do it.
You have said you think gods are improbable. Produce the objective evidence you used to arrive at that conclusion.

These are claims you have made. The onus is on you, not me.

I have already disproven your gods. Prove I haven't.

Have you still not seen the futility of your nonsensical "prove it isn't" fallacy you use to prop-up your gods?

I haven't seen your proof yet, so I can't respond to it. And the only reason I have asked that you "prove it isn't" is because you made the claim you could. Is this an example of the "reason and rationality" you spoke of?

I have no proof of your gods or anyone else's gods. Neither do you.

I never claimed I did. You, however, made exactly that claim.

 

[Hollie]

False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.

Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.

What about this fact do you not grasp?

The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.

What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?

The part where you present your evidence. Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.

You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence. Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.

You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.

You are the one who said you could easily do it. I am simply asking you to back up your claim. I assume you can't, so your position is faith based. There really is no other option. Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.

I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone. Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?

I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.

Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.

I think I have proven my argument. My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief. As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable. That is the only argument I have made here.

Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part. It would help if you just said "oops".

You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.

You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.

It would help if you just append "... because I say so", to your claims.

I have made no claims about gods, you have. I would not even attempt to prove gods as there is no evidence. It is a matter of pure belief. I fully admit it is a matter of pure belief. In the absence of evidence, one belief is no superior to any other belief. You, on the other hand, insist your belief is not belief. You have no evidence, you make claims you cannot support, and then you blame me because you can't support your unsupportable claims.

Atheism is not of itself a religion. But you have clearly shown it can be turned into one. What you are currently doing is accusing me of blasphemy, of questioning the holy writ. But while I may be a believer, I am not confused into thinking my beliefs are anything more than beliefs and I am certainly not confused that yours are either.

You're a bit reality challenged. I have made no positive claims about gods. I've simply required people like you to support your claims to the supernatural.

I have no more beliefs about your gods than I have beliefs about Bigfoot. And by the way, I suppose that your inability to disprove Bigfoot makes him/ her just as likely as your gods, of which you require belief until disproved.

You think because your beliefs are negative you get off scot free? It doesn't work that way. I do not require belief from you. I require you support your claims. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right. Or admit your just operating on faith.

You have said you can disprove gods. Do it.
You have said you think gods are improbable. Produce the objective evidence you used to arrive at that conclusion.

These are claims you have made. The onus is on you, not me.

I have already disproven your gods. Prove I haven't.

Have you still not seen the futility of your nonsensical "prove it isn't" fallacy you use to prop-up your gods?

I haven't seen your proof yet, so I can't respond to it. And the only reason I have asked that you "prove it isn't" is because you made the claim you could. Is this an example of the "reason and rationality" you spoke of?

I have no proof of your gods or anyone else's gods. Neither do you.

I never claimed I did. You, however, made exactly that claim.

False. Nowhere did I claim to have proof of anyone's gods.

 

[PratchettFan]

False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.

Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.

What about this fact do you not grasp?

The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.

What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?

The part where you present your evidence. Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.

You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence. Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.

You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.

You are the one who said you could easily do it. I am simply asking you to back up your claim. I assume you can't, so your position is faith based. There really is no other option. Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.

I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone. Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?

I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.

Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.

I think I have proven my argument. My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief. As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable. That is the only argument I have made here.

Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part. It would help if you just said "oops".

You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.

You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.

It would help if you just append "... because I say so", to your claims.

I have made no claims about gods, you have. I would not even attempt to prove gods as there is no evidence. It is a matter of pure belief. I fully admit it is a matter of pure belief. In the absence of evidence, one belief is no superior to any other belief. You, on the other hand, insist your belief is not belief. You have no evidence, you make claims you cannot support, and then you blame me because you can't support your unsupportable claims.

Atheism is not of itself a religion. But you have clearly shown it can be turned into one. What you are currently doing is accusing me of blasphemy, of questioning the holy writ. But while I may be a believer, I am not confused into thinking my beliefs are anything more than beliefs and I am certainly not confused that yours are either.

You're a bit reality challenged. I have made no positive claims about gods. I've simply required people like you to support your claims to the supernatural.

I have no more beliefs about your gods than I have beliefs about Bigfoot. And by the way, I suppose that your inability to disprove Bigfoot makes him/ her just as likely as your gods, of which you require belief until disproved.

You think because your beliefs are negative you get off scot free? It doesn't work that way. I do not require belief from you. I require you support your claims. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right. Or admit your just operating on faith.

You have said you can disprove gods. Do it.
You have said you think gods are improbable. Produce the objective evidence you used to arrive at that conclusion.

These are claims you have made. The onus is on you, not me.

I have already disproven your gods. Prove I haven't.

Have you still not seen the futility of your nonsensical "prove it isn't" fallacy you use to prop-up your gods?

I haven't seen your proof yet, so I can't respond to it. And the only reason I have asked that you "prove it isn't" is because you made the claim you could. Is this an example of the "reason and rationality" you spoke of?

I have no proof of your gods or anyone else's gods. Neither do you.

I never claimed I did. You, however, made exactly that claim.

False. Nowhere did I claim to have proof of anyone's gods.

Sigh..... Do you bother to read what you write? "I have already disproven your gods." It's just a few lines up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.

What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?

The part where rejection of evidence is the same as absence thereof.

 

[Hollie]

False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.

Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.

What about this fact do you not grasp?

The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.

What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?

The part where you present your evidence. Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.

You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence. Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.

You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.

You are the one who said you could easily do it. I am simply asking you to back up your claim. I assume you can't, so your position is faith based. There really is no other option. Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.

I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone. Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?

I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.

Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.

I think I have proven my argument. My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief. As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable. That is the only argument I have made here.

Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part. It would help if you just said "oops".

You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.

You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.

It would help if you just append "... because I say so", to your claims.

I have made no claims about gods, you have. I would not even attempt to prove gods as there is no evidence. It is a matter of pure belief. I fully admit it is a matter of pure belief. In the absence of evidence, one belief is no superior to any other belief. You, on the other hand, insist your belief is not belief. You have no evidence, you make claims you cannot support, and then you blame me because you can't support your unsupportable claims.

Atheism is not of itself a religion. But you have clearly shown it can be turned into one. What you are currently doing is accusing me of blasphemy, of questioning the holy writ. But while I may be a believer, I am not confused into thinking my beliefs are anything more than beliefs and I am certainly not confused that yours are either.

You're a bit reality challenged. I have made no positive claims about gods. I've simply required people like you to support your claims to the supernatural.

I have no more beliefs about your gods than I have beliefs about Bigfoot. And by the way, I suppose that your inability to disprove Bigfoot makes him/ her just as likely as your gods, of which you require belief until disproved.

You think because your beliefs are negative you get off scot free? It doesn't work that way. I do not require belief from you. I require you support your claims. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right. Or admit your just operating on faith.

You have said you can disprove gods. Do it.
You have said you think gods are improbable. Produce the objective evidence you used to arrive at that conclusion.

These are claims you have made. The onus is on you, not me.

I have already disproven your gods. Prove I haven't.

Have you still not seen the futility of your nonsensical "prove it isn't" fallacy you use to prop-up your gods?

I haven't seen your proof yet, so I can't respond to it. And the only reason I have asked that you "prove it isn't" is because you made the claim you could. Is this an example of the "reason and rationality" you spoke of?

I have no proof of your gods or anyone else's gods. Neither do you.

I never claimed I did. You, however, made exactly that claim.

False. Nowhere did I claim to have proof of anyone's gods.

Sigh..... Do you bother to read what you write? "I have already disproven your gods." It's just a few lines up.

Are you really that out of touch?

"I have no proof of your gods" is a different statement than "I have already disproven your gods."

How did you miss that?

 

[Pogo]

It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.

I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.

I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.

No. I can't. I never once claimed I could. Do you see how that works? I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it. You do make a claim so you do have to support it.

My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief. The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit. It is false. Untrue. Pure crap.

Sorry, that's false. Untrue. Pure crap.

I don't believe in the Easter Bunny. That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".

That's all there is to it. You yourself admitted it earlier. And I quote:

Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one. Same with Atheism. In and of itself, it is not a religion. But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way. Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.

And you were right. So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hollie has so lost this discussion,

It is amazing that people who claim they have no beliefs in gods seem incapable of separating gods from their thoughts.

^^^ that

Hollie, you got to support empirically that deity does not exist, you can't, yet you believe it. Faith, yo

 

[Hollie]

The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.

What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?

The part where rejection of evidence is the same as absence thereof.

The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.

What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?

The part where rejection of evidence is the same as absence thereof.

The part where you offered no evidence?

I can't reject evidence you have never offered.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie has so lost this discussion,

It is amazing that people who claim they have no beliefs in gods seem incapable of separating gods from their thoughts.

^^^ that

Hollie, you got to support empirically that deity does not exist, you can't, yet you believe it. Faith, yo

I can't be held responsible for your hurt feelings.

I have no responsibility to disprove claims that are utterly absent a meaningful proposal.

Here's how it works: you are now tasked to support empirically that Zeus does not exist. We'll then assign to you "does not exist" for all manner of fears and superstitions that define claims to the supernatural.

Report back to us what you find.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hollie, no one is caring what you reject or accept except you.

Since you cannot or will not deal empirically, then you are right there with koshergrl on religion or stephanie on anti-obama or LadyGunSlinger on everybody haters: but none of them have the evidence. Just like you.

Getting upset will not make you feel better: doesn't work that way.

Go take comfort in your faith that a God that does not exist will not get you. Boo!

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, no one is caring what you reject or accept except you.

Since you cannot or will not deal empirically, then you are right there with koshergrl on religion or stephanie on anti-obama or LadyGunSlinger on everybody haters: but none of them have the evidence. Just like you.

No one is caring what I reject or accept? That's a remarkable statement as you are continuing to care profoundly about my conclusion to reject claims to magic and supernaturalism, "yo".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boo! You left that out. I don't care what you believe; I do care that you not abuse logic to come up with your silly conclusions. You may have the last word, because it will mean nothing at all to the discussion.

 

[Hollie]

Boo! You left that out. I don't care what you believe; I do care that you not abuse logic to come up with your silly conclusions. You may have the last word, because it will mean nothing at all to the discussion.

"Abusing logic" is defined by concluding unsubstantiated claims to magic and supernaturalism as the foundation for a reality based worldview is... abusive?

Narly, yo.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.

I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.

I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.

What the fuck is supportable evidence? I have heard of supportable thesis and premises, but never new that I had to support evidence, or that supportable evidence even exist. A Google search didn't turn up any reference to the term in English, which leads me to conclude that it doesn't exist. Given that the term doesn't exist, the fact that no one can provide supportable evidence for anything is completely irrelevant.

That said, evidence for the existence of God does actually exist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you really that out of touch?

"I have no proof of your gods" is a different statement than "I have already disproven your gods."

How did you miss that?

How did you?

I have already disproven your gods.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The part where you offered no evidence?

I can't reject evidence you have never offered.

I have provided evidence, go read the thread.

 

[Pogo]

In a related story, we do have evidence that trolls exist. And that they practice when they've lost the argument.

/thread