Darwin vs DNA

[ima]

The atheists are fakers: they have faith in their belief that God does not exist.

Ima, at least, is saying "the proof is not there for either side", or words to that effect.

Ringo, you said that "god is" with no proof to back up your statement. Does that make you a faker as well?

 

[LOki]

The atheists are fakers: they have faith in their belief that God does not exist.

It's just funny to me that you keep saying this. Apart from you and a few other retards who insist upon leveraging imprecise meanings of the terms you use, every believer in God, that has voiced an analysis of my lack of belief in their God, has told me that I lacked faith.

How is it that we could all be so wrong, and you and your tribe of intellectually dishonest retards must be so right?

Ima, at least, is saying "the proof is not there for either side", or words to that effect.

I have certainly made not different claim.

You have yet to explain why it is that you require "proof" of the validity of my beliefs regarding God, when you didn't even require verifiable evidence and/or valid logic--let alone "proof"--to consider your own belief in God valid.

Why is it that you just obtusely refuse to provide ANY of the explanations I ask for that would certainly validate the rational sensibility of your claims? Why is that, Cupcake?

 

[Hollie]

The atheists are fakers: they have faith in their belief that God does not exist.

Ima, at least, is saying "the proof is not there for either side", or words to that effect.

Hi, Jake. I believe the underlying issue being missed in these discussions is that the thread is not addressing atheism v. theism directly, (and not nebulus descriptions of atheism, agnosticism and the "levels" of each), but is discussing philosophy. It is pretty self-explanatory. A god by definition has the attribute of being incomprehensible. If something incomprehensible is responsible for all of existence, then ultimately, the universe is made incomprehensible at its source. I disagree that the universe is ultimately incomprehensible. In time, I believe that these mysteries will be plumbed.

My atheism is not based on omniscience, but on possibility v. probability. Many atheists proclaim a distinct "knowledge" that gods don't exist--- and I find that to be an impossible rational statement to make. It is possible that given our present lack of knowledge that a god or gods do exist (or have) existed, but then, using the same progression of ideas, it is equally possible that leprechauns and pixies exist as well. Further, with all of the past configurations of gods, why would anyone presume to believe that their particular configuration of the gods is the true god(s)? I don't find the existence of a god to be totally out of the realm of possibility, I find the existence of beings such as this highly, highly, improbable, and more importantly; unnecessary. In some definitions, perhaps this makes me a militant agnostic, but that's not quite right either. I think we will/can find out one way or the other-- and given all the evidence available, I come down on the side of atheism. If I'm wrong, I have no problem admitting it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You guys are engaged in proof of asserting. You keep asserting that God does not exist without any proof. Thus if you have no proof, then you have faith that it is so.

Nope. Asserting that God does not exist requires no faith. Asserting that God does not exist can be an expression of a rational belief--a belief founded upon and validated by evidence and valid logic. Faith is not rational, and Asserting that God exists can ONLY be an expression of faith.

Your attempts to conflate reason and faith are illegitimate, and intellectually dishonest.

What do you base this view on ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

newpolitics, put your fantasies on someone else.

No one is buying your man behind the curtain. You are a believer, son.

I'm not buying you're invisible man in the sky theory. And who are you calling son? Try to not to sound like such a tool.

Besides, who is putting who's fantasies where? You believe in something as believable as the spaghetti monster. How ironic you are.

What do you base your belief on ?

 

[Hollie]

newpolitics, put your fantasies on someone else.

No one is buying your man behind the curtain. You are a believer, son.

I'm not buying you're invisible man in the sky theory. And who are you calling son? Try to not to sound like such a tool.

Besides, who is putting who's fantasies where? You believe in something as believable as the spaghetti monster. How ironic you are.

What do you base your belief on ?

Rejecting the existence of gods (including the more recently configured Abrahamic god), is not a belief but a conclusion.

 

[LOki]

You guys are engaged in proof of asserting. You keep asserting that God does not exist without any proof. Thus if you have no proof, then you have faith that it is so.

(A) Nope. Asserting that God does not exist requires no faith. Asserting that God does not exist can be an expression of a rational belief--a belief founded upon and validated by evidence and valid logic. Faith is not rational, and Asserting that God exists can ONLY be an expression of faith.

(B) Your attempts to conflate reason and faith are illegitimate, and intellectually dishonest.

What do you base this view on ?

Which view are you referring to? (A) or (B)?

BTW, I can't help but notice your tacit validation of the final conclusion made here.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm not buying you're invisible man in the sky theory. And who are you calling son? Try to not to sound like such a tool.

Besides, who is putting who's fantasies where? You believe in something as believable as the spaghetti monster. How ironic you are.

What do you base your belief on ?

Rejecting the existence of gods (including the more recently configured Abrahamic god), is not a belief but a conclusion.

Based on what ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

(A) Nope. Asserting that God does not exist requires no faith. Asserting that God does not exist can be an expression of a rational belief--a belief founded upon and validated by evidence and valid logic. Faith is not rational, and Asserting that God exists can ONLY be an expression of faith.

(B) Your attempts to conflate reason and faith are illegitimate, and intellectually dishonest.

What do you base this view on ?

Which view are you referring to? (A) or (B)?

BTW, I can't help but notice your tacit validation of the final conclusion made here.

Based on what ? you guys sure are afraid to answer a simple question.

 

[Hollie]

What do you base your belief on ?

Rejecting the existence of gods (including the more recently configured Abrahamic god), is not a belief but a conclusion.

Based on what ?

Based on no viable reason to accept biblical claims. Based on no viable evidence to support claims of the supernatural.

Why should anyone accept your claims to supernaturalism when you offer not a wit of evidence to support your claims?

 

[Hollie]

What do you base this view on ?

Which view are you referring to? (A) or (B)?

BTW, I can't help but notice your tacit validation of the final conclusion made here.

Based on what ? you guys sure are afraid to answer a simple question.

Your questions have been addressed. It is actually you who has been unable to address questions regarding your claims to supernaturalism.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I'm not buying you're invisible man in the sky theory. And who are you calling son? Try to not to sound like such a tool.

Besides, who is putting who's fantasies where? You believe in something as believable as the spaghetti monster. How ironic you are.

What do you base your belief on ?

Rejecting the existence of gods (including the more recently configured Abrahamic god), is not a belief but a conclusion.

Sorry, but if your conclusion can't be proven, it's speculation and not fact. If you believe your conclusion and it is not fact, it is a belief.

Now, if by rejecting the existence of Gods you simply mean that you don't buy into anyone's particular explanation, that requires no faith. If by rejecting the existence of Gods you mean that you believe there is no God. . . faith.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The point is to be precise, meaningful and accurate. Or are you just refusing to see that point. There's a reason that intellectually dishonest retards won't accept the point, and that's because is serves their purposes to conflate the terms belief, reason/rational, and faith.

For my purposes, I don't care how you define terms as long as they are precise, meaningful AND accurate. Submit your own. But you'll find that when you do, the discussion will come to the exact same conclusions.

No offense, but precision has to be measured against some standard. When you throw darts, you have a target with a bullseye. How close you get to that bullseye determines how accurate and precise your throw was.

In this case, I don't see what you're measuring your accuracy and precision against in this definition. The standard bullseye would be the actual definition of the word you're using. The standard for an actual definition is the dictionary.

I can't help but assume that your standard for accuracy is your own idea of faith.

In an argument with other people, your own idea of faith is notwithstanding. You don't get to redefine a word because you feel that the dictionary is wrong.

I made an accounting for it. YOU even validated it (thank you).

And don't be retarded, please, there's plenty around--I DIDN'T SAY THE DICTIONARY WAS FUCKING WRONG!

Also, lest you continue to think that the meanings of the terms as I use them is some arbitrary contrivance of my own, it might be worth investigating this discussion on the board from a few years ago.

If you're gonna keep up the condescending tone of your argument and tell me I'm being retarded, it would behoove you to keep up with the logical parts of said argument.

You didn't -say- the dictionary was wrong. You imply it repeatedly when you assert that beliefs and faith are separate concepts because faith has to be irrational. According to the basic dictionary definitions, faith requires no such lack of thought. You also say that faith is only a belief that one refuses to question in light of contradicting evidence. Once again, the dictionary definitions of faith require no such qualification.

Not sure if you realize it, but the crux of this entire argument rests on your definition of faith and the fact that you've separated the concepts of faith and beliefs. I, in agreement with the standard for English definitions, have made no such separation. It is only there that we disagree.

 

[Hollie]

What do you base your belief on ?

Rejecting the existence of gods (including the more recently configured Abrahamic god), is not a belief but a conclusion.

Sorry, but if your conclusion can't be proven, it's speculation and not fact. If you believe your conclusion and it is not fact, it is a belief.

Now, if by rejecting the existence of Gods you simply mean that you don't buy into anyone's particular explanation, that requires no faith. If by rejecting the existence of Gods you mean that you believe there is no God. . . faith.

I understand your argument but I propose it carries an inherent flaw. Try this: Faith is the process of making claims and holding opinions in the absence of knowledge. If something is known and/or understood, then we have knowledge and Faith is not required.

To claim that something is unknowable or unfathomable immediately negates any current or future knowledge. You are defining that Faith must be maintained because:

knowledge would supersede faith, questioning religious dogma is often defined as losing one’s faith,

I may have "trust" in the process of gravity to act according to processes we have knowledge of, thus, there is no need for "faith" relative to gravity.

There is a deep difference between trust and faith. Faith is belief despite or contrary to evidence, whereas trust requires evidence to be maintained. People talk about "faith" in one's doctor or "faith" in one's friends, but I maintain it's really trust based upon their patterns of behavior. If your doctor botches an operation on a loved one or a friend fully betrays you, your "faith" is gone. What you had all along was trust, which they betrayed, which is why you no longer trust them.

With faith, you would continue to trust them no matter what they did to you.

That's why people have "faith" in an all-loving god… who wiped out most of humanity because they were a disappointment to him… and he will do it again… because he loves you…

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Rejecting the existence of gods (including the more recently configured Abrahamic god), is not a belief but a conclusion.

Sorry, but if your conclusion can't be proven, it's speculation and not fact. If you believe your conclusion and it is not fact, it is a belief.

Now, if by rejecting the existence of Gods you simply mean that you don't buy into anyone's particular explanation, that requires no faith. If by rejecting the existence of Gods you mean that you believe there is no God. . . faith.

I understand your argument but I propose it carries an inherent flaw. Try this: Faith is the process of making claims and holding opinions in the absence of knowledge. If something is known and/or understood, then we have knowledge and Faith is not required.

To claim that something is unknowable or unfathomable immediately negates any current or future knowledge. You are defining that Faith must be maintained because:

knowledge would supersede faith, questioning religious dogma is often defined as losing one’s faith,

I may have "trust" in the process of gravity to act according to processes we have knowledge of, thus, there is no need for "faith" relative to gravity.

There is a deep difference between trust and faith. Faith is belief despite or contrary to evidence, whereas trust requires evidence to be maintained. People talk about "faith" in one's doctor or "faith" in one's friends, but I maintain it's really trust based upon their patterns of behavior. If your doctor botches an operation on a loved one or a friend fully betrays you, your "faith" is gone. What you had all along was trust, which they betrayed, which is why you no longer trust them.

With faith, you would continue to trust them no matter what they did to you.

That's why people have "faith" in an all-loving god… who wiped out most of humanity because they were a disappointment to him… and he will do it again… because he loves you…

Now, as with my argument with Loki, we're simply splitting hairs on the definition of faith. The inherent flaw in your reasoning is as follows:


faith   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.


I'm sure your definitions were reached via some profound bit of reasoning, but nowhere in my understanding of faith (or apparently the online dictionary's) is the qualification that faith and evidence are mutually exclusive.

Even rational beliefs, in that they are beliefs absent undeniable proof, are a form of faith.

Trust is faith.

 

[Hollie]

Sorry, but if your conclusion can't be proven, it's speculation and not fact. If you believe your conclusion and it is not fact, it is a belief.

Now, if by rejecting the existence of Gods you simply mean that you don't buy into anyone's particular explanation, that requires no faith. If by rejecting the existence of Gods you mean that you believe there is no God. . . faith.

I understand your argument but I propose it carries an inherent flaw. Try this: Faith is the process of making claims and holding opinions in the absence of knowledge. If something is known and/or understood, then we have knowledge and Faith is not required.

To claim that something is unknowable or unfathomable immediately negates any current or future knowledge. You are defining that Faith must be maintained because:

knowledge would supersede faith, questioning religious dogma is often defined as losing one’s faith,

I may have "trust" in the process of gravity to act according to processes we have knowledge of, thus, there is no need for "faith" relative to gravity.

There is a deep difference between trust and faith. Faith is belief despite or contrary to evidence, whereas trust requires evidence to be maintained. People talk about "faith" in one's doctor or "faith" in one's friends, but I maintain it's really trust based upon their patterns of behavior. If your doctor botches an operation on a loved one or a friend fully betrays you, your "faith" is gone. What you had all along was trust, which they betrayed, which is why you no longer trust them.

With faith, you would continue to trust them no matter what they did to you.

That's why people have "faith" in an all-loving god… who wiped out most of humanity because they were a disappointment to him… and he will do it again… because he loves you…

Now, as with my argument with Loki, we're simply splitting hairs on the definition of faith. The inherent flaw in your reasoning is as follows:


faith   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.


I'm sure your definitions were reached via some profound bit of reasoning, but nowhere in my understanding of faith (or apparently the online dictionary's) is the qualification that faith and evidence are mutually exclusive.

Even rational beliefs, in that they are beliefs absent undeniable proof, are a form of faith.

Trust is faith.

We certainly may be splitting hairs on the definition of faith. As noted earlier, I see a need by some to equate religious faith (belief in the supernatural, supermagical) with rejection of such ideas. I don't need faith to understand that gods, demons and such inventions of man have no quantifiable support. I don't need faith to reject unsupportable claims.

To play the "you can't disprove it" canard that has been used in this thread to support faith-based claims, I will claim that I have unalterable proof that gods don't exist. If no one can disprove my disproof, it will stand that gods do not exist.

Who can disprove my claim?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I understand your argument but I propose it carries an inherent flaw. Try this: Faith is the process of making claims and holding opinions in the absence of knowledge. If something is known and/or understood, then we have knowledge and Faith is not required.

To claim that something is unknowable or unfathomable immediately negates any current or future knowledge. You are defining that Faith must be maintained because:

knowledge would supersede faith, questioning religious dogma is often defined as losing one’s faith,

I may have "trust" in the process of gravity to act according to processes we have knowledge of, thus, there is no need for "faith" relative to gravity.

There is a deep difference between trust and faith. Faith is belief despite or contrary to evidence, whereas trust requires evidence to be maintained. People talk about "faith" in one's doctor or "faith" in one's friends, but I maintain it's really trust based upon their patterns of behavior. If your doctor botches an operation on a loved one or a friend fully betrays you, your "faith" is gone. What you had all along was trust, which they betrayed, which is why you no longer trust them.

With faith, you would continue to trust them no matter what they did to you.

That's why people have "faith" in an all-loving god… who wiped out most of humanity because they were a disappointment to him… and he will do it again… because he loves you…

Now, as with my argument with Loki, we're simply splitting hairs on the definition of faith. The inherent flaw in your reasoning is as follows:


faith   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.


I'm sure your definitions were reached via some profound bit of reasoning, but nowhere in my understanding of faith (or apparently the online dictionary's) is the qualification that faith and evidence are mutually exclusive.

Even rational beliefs, in that they are beliefs absent undeniable proof, are a form of faith.

Trust is faith.

We certainly may be splitting hairs on the definition of faith. As noted earlier, I see a need by some to equate religious faith (belief in the supernatural, supermagical) with rejection of such ideas. I don't need faith to understand that gods, demons and such inventions of man have no quantifiable support. I don't need faith to reject unsupportable claims.

To play the "you can't disprove it" canard that has been used in this thread to support faith-based claims, I will claim that I have unalterable proof that gods don't exist. If no one can disprove my disproof, it will stand that gods do not exist.

Who can disprove my claim?

As I noted before, not buying into a particular explanation requires no faith. Asserting firmly that an explanation is definitively incorrect, however, does require faith.

We agree that not buying into something that you can't disprove requires nothing, I only make the assertion that buying into something that you can't prove (which includes, "There is NO God") does require faith.

Aside from differences in defintion, I'm fairly certain that we see eye to eye on this matter.

 

[LOki]

Sorry, but if your conclusion can't be proven, it's speculation and not fact. If you believe your conclusion and it is not fact, it is a belief.

Now, if by rejecting the existence of Gods you simply mean that you don't buy into anyone's particular explanation, that requires no faith. If by rejecting the existence of Gods you mean that you believe there is no God. . . faith.

I understand your argument but I propose it carries an inherent flaw. Try this: Faith is the process of making claims and holding opinions in the absence of knowledge. If something is known and/or understood, then we have knowledge and Faith is not required.

To claim that something is unknowable or unfathomable immediately negates any current or future knowledge. You are defining that Faith must be maintained because:

knowledge would supersede faith, questioning religious dogma is often defined as losing one’s faith,

I may have "trust" in the process of gravity to act according to processes we have knowledge of, thus, there is no need for "faith" relative to gravity.

There is a deep difference between trust and faith. Faith is belief despite or contrary to evidence, whereas trust requires evidence to be maintained. People talk about "faith" in one's doctor or "faith" in one's friends, but I maintain it's really trust based upon their patterns of behavior. If your doctor botches an operation on a loved one or a friend fully betrays you, your "faith" is gone. What you had all along was trust, which they betrayed, which is why you no longer trust them.

With faith, you would continue to trust them no matter what they did to you.

That's why people have "faith" in an all-loving god… who wiped out most of humanity because they were a disappointment to him… and he will do it again… because he loves you…

Now, as with my argument with Loki, we're simply splitting hairs on the definition of faith. The inherent flaw in your reasoning is as follows:


faith   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.


I'm sure your definitions were reached via some profound bit of reasoning, but nowhere in my understanding of faith (or apparently the online dictionary's) is the qualification that faith and evidence are mutually exclusive.

Even rational beliefs, in that they are beliefs absent undeniable proof, are a form of faith.

Trust is faith.

"Nowhere ... in the on-line dictionaries" ... Really.

proof [proof]
noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law . (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

"Trust is faith." Welcome to the fallacy of equivocation. It's the problem my usage avoids.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I understand your argument but I propose it carries an inherent flaw. Try this: Faith is the process of making claims and holding opinions in the absence of knowledge. If something is known and/or understood, then we have knowledge and Faith is not required.

To claim that something is unknowable or unfathomable immediately negates any current or future knowledge. You are defining that Faith must be maintained because:

knowledge would supersede faith, questioning religious dogma is often defined as losing one’s faith,

I may have "trust" in the process of gravity to act according to processes we have knowledge of, thus, there is no need for "faith" relative to gravity.

There is a deep difference between trust and faith. Faith is belief despite or contrary to evidence, whereas trust requires evidence to be maintained. People talk about "faith" in one's doctor or "faith" in one's friends, but I maintain it's really trust based upon their patterns of behavior. If your doctor botches an operation on a loved one or a friend fully betrays you, your "faith" is gone. What you had all along was trust, which they betrayed, which is why you no longer trust them.

With faith, you would continue to trust them no matter what they did to you.

That's why people have "faith" in an all-loving god… who wiped out most of humanity because they were a disappointment to him… and he will do it again… because he loves you…

Now, as with my argument with Loki, we're simply splitting hairs on the definition of faith. The inherent flaw in your reasoning is as follows:


faith   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.


I'm sure your definitions were reached via some profound bit of reasoning, but nowhere in my understanding of faith (or apparently the online dictionary's) is the qualification that faith and evidence are mutually exclusive.

Even rational beliefs, in that they are beliefs absent undeniable proof, are a form of faith.

Trust is faith.

"Nowhere ... in the on-line dictionaries" ... Really.

proof [proof]
noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law . (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

"Trust is faith." Welcome to the fallacy of equivocation. It's the problem my usage avoids.

You should have also highlighted the part that says, "sufficient to establish a thing as true"

Currently there is no such conclusive evidence (proof) that God does or does not exist.

 

[LOki]

Now, as with my argument with Loki, we're simply splitting hairs on the definition of faith. The inherent flaw in your reasoning is as follows:


faith   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.


I'm sure your definitions were reached via some profound bit of reasoning, but nowhere in my understanding of faith (or apparently the online dictionary's) is the qualification that faith and evidence are mutually exclusive.

Even rational beliefs, in that they are beliefs absent undeniable proof, are a form of faith.

Trust is faith.

"Nowhere ... in the on-line dictionaries" ... Really.

proof [proof]
noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law . (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

"Trust is faith." Welcome to the fallacy of equivocation. It's the problem my usage avoids.

You should have also highlighted the part that says, "sufficient to establish a thing as true"

Currently there is no such conclusive evidence (proof) that God does or does not exist.

Well, there are some who will assert that there is no conclusive evidence (proof) that ANYTHING does or does not exist.

Outside of areas like mathematics, "conclusive proof" is a moving target. Really, the reasonable expectation is to try to achieve "convincing evidence." The fact of the matter is, there is NOTHING about faith that in ANY way requires evidence and or valid logic to establish a belief that a thing as true. AND there is a very important component of faith that values commitment over evidence so much, that it is commitment, rather than evidence that validates faith. You cannot deny that someone who would maintain their faith in the face absolute "proof" is someone who has strong faith. Such a person would proudly proclaim that the strength of their faith is what validates their faith. Am I wrong?

Of course you just off-handedly reject my notions; so sure I'm all "wrong" about this. :whateverface: So, as you apply every meaning the dictionary offers, clue me into your means of avoiding the semantic-shift and equivocation that intellectually dishonest retards leverage to argue that imaginary things are (not could be, ARE) truly real--so truly real in fact, that they don't have to produce any evidence at all, let alone "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true" to claim their belief is rationally valid.