Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[newpolitics]

Well, I am not a theist, and I believe a spiritual realm exists and there is proof for it, which is why I presented the OP argument, which you cannot refute. You and MaryL refuse to acknowledge spiritual evidence, which is required in order to establish proof of any spiritual entity, the same as physical evidence is used to confirm existence of physical things.

Oh.... and I hate to inform you, but every man who has ever held the office of President, professed to believe in the spiritual realm and God, and swore an oath on the Holy Bible.

Weve been lucky so far. Atomic bombs have only existed for the past 70 years, not to mention that in this highly christian country, only a christian can become president (de facto) so this isn't saying much. There is something called "degrees of belief." Not all Christians are waiting for the end, although some are, and with every new Christian president we might have might be one who has no qualms about using those launch codes to "bring about the reign of Jesus on Earth!" These people exist.

Again, you beg the question using spiritual evidence. No dice. You are trying to prove the spiritual. You cant start there. Basic stuff.

I don't need to prove spirituality exists, it has existed for 70,000 years, we have evidence.

First of all, Neanderthals had spiritual belief, and this trend didn't start 70,000 years ago in humans. More like 200,000 years, since we've been human. So, we are not the only species to have this behavioral trait.

Again, time is irrelevant. If it had been 30,000 years, would that still count as evidence? 20? 10? 5? How many thousands of years do you need before belief means something is actually true? What is the cutoff and how have you determines that 70,000 constitutes evidence? Why can't humans simply be wrong?

 

[Boss]

Weve been lucky so far. Atomic bombs have only existed for the past 70 years, not to mention that in this highly christian country, only a christian can become president (de facto) so this isn't saying much. There is something called "degrees of belief." Not all Christians are waiting for the end, although some are, and with every new Christian president we might have might be one who has no qualms about using those launch codes to "bring about the reign of Jesus on Earth!" These people exist.

I think you are confusing Christianity with Islam.

I also think, since all US presidents have been spiritual, we're safe with them. What I would fear, would be a closed minded Atheist bigot, such as yourself. Someone who refuses to accept logical evidence, demands illogical evidence, and perpetually lies and distorts to get what he wants. But then, we've lived through Obama, so maybe we could survive that? My guess is, you'd arrogantly chortle out an executive order to ban religion and religious thought, as soon as you took office.

 

[Boss]

Weve been lucky so far. Atomic bombs have only existed for the past 70 years, not to mention that in this highly christian country, only a christian can become president (de facto) so this isn't saying much. There is something called "degrees of belief." Not all Christians are waiting for the end, although some are, and with every new Christian president we might have might be one who has no qualms about using those launch codes to "bring about the reign of Jesus on Earth!" These people exist.

Again, you beg the question using spiritual evidence. No dice. You are trying to prove the spiritual. You cant start there. Basic stuff.

I don't need to prove spirituality exists, it has existed for 70,000 years, we have evidence.

First of all, Neanderthals had spiritual belief, and this trend didn't start 70,000 years ago in humans. More like 200,000 years, since we've been human. So, we are not the only species to have this behavioral trait.

No, I am sorry, there is no evidence Neanderthals ever practiced any kind of spiritual belief.

Again, time is irrelevant. If it had been 30,000 years, would that still count as evidence? 20? 10? 5? How many thousands of years do you need before belief means something is actually true? What is the cutoff and how have you determines that 70,000 constitutes evidence? Why can't humans simply be wrong?

I'm using 70k years, because that is the oldest human civilization we've unearthed. Of course, archeologists do differ in opinion on this, some say 80k, some say 60k.. there is an ongoing debate. Nevertheless, from the earliest civilization of man, spirituality has been present.

Belief doesn't mean something is actually true. I never argued this. Profoundly intrinsic and inherent behavior in a species for all of it's existence, does mean something.

 

[newpolitics]

God has been defined several times for you in this thread. Stop lying.

Oh it's back to this now? Just a few posts ago you declared you don't need to define god. We're on the second cycle of you doubling back on this.

Nope, not doubling back on anything. You continue to want me to define god in theological terms so you can attack the theological concept. I refused to do that, and you became petulant. I believe it was on page 1 or 2, where I sufficiently defined "god" to emily, as the metaphoric representation of the spiritual entity humans have always been connected to. You don't like my definition because it is too broad for you to attack, but it is all the definition needed to evaluate existence, the evidence of which, is overwhelming.

It's also all the definition you're going to get from me, because I didn't claim to be able to specifically define god. Now you can keep on lying to people, like you've basically done the entire thread, and claim I haven't met your demand, but it has been presented.

Yes, you have doubled back, twice now. First you defiantly proclaim that you don't have to define god, and tried to use the insides of black holes as an analogy. Remember that? Then you do a 180 and concede this half-assed definition that doesn't equate to anything having to do with god, but a spiritual realm, and yet title this thread as "definitive proof for god" and even proclaim this at the end of your OP. Yet again, without definition. All youve actually proven, is that humans have an inclination to believe in something spiritual. This is already known. It doesn't mean a sport world actually exists.

Your definition needs to be upfront, and in the beginning. You've been doing this dance around defining god the entire thread. Then you absurdly accuse people of wanting to box you into a theological notion of god. The truth is, you like the attention, and know that the second you define god this thread will die immediately, because this debate is as old as history, and all arguments for god have been refuted.

 

[newpolitics]

I don't need to prove spirituality exists, it has existed for 70,000 years, we have evidence.

First of all, Neanderthals had spiritual belief, and this trend didn't start 70,000 years ago in humans. More like 200,000 years, since we've been human. So, we are not the only species to have this behavioral trait.

No, I am sorry, there is no evidence Neanderthals ever practiced any kind of spiritual belief.

Again, time is irrelevant. If it had been 30,000 years, would that still count as evidence? 20? 10? 5? How many thousands of years do you need before belief means something is actually true? What is the cutoff and how have you determines that 70,000 constitutes evidence? Why can't humans simply be wrong?

I'm using 70k years, because that is the oldest human civilization we've unearthed. Of course, archeologists do differ in opinion on this, some say 80k, some say 60k.. there is an ongoing debate. Nevertheless, from the earliest civilization of man, spirituality has been present.

Belief doesn't mean something is actually true. I never argued this. Profoundly intrinsic and inherent behavior in a species for all of it's existence, does mean something.

Yes, behavior is significant. That doesn't mean that the belief tied to that behavior is true.

 

[newpolitics]

Oh, and yes there is evidence that Neanderthals practiced spirituality.

"So evidence suggests that perhaps the Neanderthals had some sort of preoccupation with death. They were self-conscious beings and this itself can bring about an awareness of death and the meaning and implications of death. And this awareness of death embodies our ideas, as it probably did theirs, on God, religion and an afterlife. They, like so many religions of today saw death as not the end, but merely the beginning of a new cycle of existence.

Neanderthals


So were the Neanderthals the first hominoids to be aware of religion? Evidence does suggest so. What do we know about them? We know they had a culture, planning abilities, a ritualistic type of life. They had similar abilities that we have today, but probably in a more basic form. We know they were unselfish in their concerns for their young, their sick and their elders and were altruistic in nature. There is evidence that many lived longer than their individual life expectancy, perhaps cut short due to illness or injury, suggesting that the social unit looked after the sick and the infirmed. However their altruism did appear to be localised within small groups rather than universal altruism within their species (Is this why they became extinct?)."

http://www.garvandwane.com/religion/early_religion.html

 

[Aristotle]

We often hear the God-haters chortle... you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy. I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.

You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with. Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love?

As you can see, the "existence" of something can be physical or nonphysical, or even spiritual. So in order to evaluate the existence of something spiritual, we have to use spiritual evidence, since physical evidence doesn't logically apply. We don't demand spiritual evidence to prove the physical.... if you demonstrate how rain is caused with physical science, and someone says...well God tells me that rain is His tears... what would you say to that? It's backward, mouth-breathing and knuckle-dragging? Right? Well, that is someone applying spiritual evidence to the physical, and rejecting physical evidence. Yes, it's kind of stupid, isn't it? Just as stupid as demanding physical evidence to support a spiritual entity, and rejecting spiritual evidence.

Now to the "definitive proof" part. Since we have now determined that Spiritual evidence is what is needed to prove God's existence, we take you back 70,000 years or so, to the ancient people of Lake Mungo, one of the oldest human civilizations ever discovered. There, they found evidence of ritual burial using red ochre in ceremony. This is important because it signifies presence of spirituality. We can trace this human connection with spirituality all through mankind's history to present day religions. Mankind has always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. Since our very origins.

Perhaps this is where we can interject some relative physical science, from none other than the father of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin. In his book, Origin of the Species, Darwin points out that behavioral traits which are inherent in a species, exist for some fundamental reason pertaining to the advancement of the species, otherwise they are discarded over time through natural selection. No species of animal we have ever studied, just does something inherently, with no fundamental reason. Salmon swim upstream for a reason. Dogs wag their tails for a reason. We may not understand the reason, but Darwin tells us, there has to be one.

So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists![/QUO
Boss I re-read your post and I have to say as a philosophy guy myself, you present a very weak argumen.


Flaw #1

Customs of ancient civilizations do not indicate any metaphysical truth as these cultural practices are nothing more than subjective truth because various customs are from the perspective of that culture. In addition, cultures that develop "spiritual customs" and whp continue to do so is based on psychological conditioning because these practices are ingrained in society.


Flaw #2

Your statement about spirituality was not defined. I mean, what does it mean to be spiritual?


Flaw #3


What is God?

Flaw# 4

Your thread posits a claim with little definition on what spirituality is or what God is


Flaw # 5


You said you cannot measure a metaphysical deity through physical measurement thus you need to measure spiritual reality through spiritual measurement. This is a clear strawman.

For one to get to this statement the burden is on you to define what spirituality is. In addition, once that has been achieved, then you must define how spirituality is measured.

Air, thoughts, dreams, love, are all measurable, spirituality is not.

 

[Boss]

Oh it's back to this now? Just a few posts ago you declared you don't need to define god. We're on the second cycle of you doubling back on this.

Nope, not doubling back on anything. You continue to want me to define god in theological terms so you can attack the theological concept. I refused to do that, and you became petulant. I believe it was on page 1 or 2, where I sufficiently defined "god" to emily, as the metaphoric representation of the spiritual entity humans have always been connected to. You don't like my definition because it is too broad for you to attack, but it is all the definition needed to evaluate existence, the evidence of which, is overwhelming.

It's also all the definition you're going to get from me, because I didn't claim to be able to specifically define god. Now you can keep on lying to people, like you've basically done the entire thread, and claim I haven't met your demand, but it has been presented.

Yes, you have doubled back, twice now. First you defiantly proclaim that you don't have to define god, and tried to use the insides of black holes as an analogy. Remember that? Then you do a 180 and concede this half-assed definition that doesn't equate to anything having to do with god, but a spiritual realm, and yet title this thread as "definitive proof for god" and even proclaim this at the end of your OP. Yet again, without definition. All youve actually proven, is that humans have an inclination to believe in something spiritual. This is already known. It doesn't mean a sport world actually exists.

Your definition needs to be upfront, and in the beginning. You've been doing this dance around defining god the entire thread. Then you absurdly accuse people of wanting to box you into a theological notion of god. The truth is, you like the attention, and know that the second you define god this thread will die immediately, because this debate is as old as history, and all arguments for god have been refuted.

No, you keep distorting my words, I defiantly proclaimed we do not have to define things to prove they exist... see Einstein. You goofed around like an obtuse asshole for about a page, chortling at the notion that I was trying to prove something without defining it, so I presented a definition for clarification. Since then, you have continued to lie and claim I haven't defined god. I've popped you in the nose twice about it, but you persist on "doubling back" for yet another nose pop. I'm happy to oblige!

I've not danced around anything, I have put up with you lying and distorting almost everything you've claimed I said. You are the most utterly dishonest person I believe I have ever conversed with on a forum. And that is saying something, I assure you.

 

[newpolitics]

Nope, not doubling back on anything. You continue to want me to define god in theological terms so you can attack the theological concept. I refused to do that, and you became petulant. I believe it was on page 1 or 2, where I sufficiently defined "god" to emily, as the metaphoric representation of the spiritual entity humans have always been connected to. You don't like my definition because it is too broad for you to attack, but it is all the definition needed to evaluate existence, the evidence of which, is overwhelming.

It's also all the definition you're going to get from me, because I didn't claim to be able to specifically define god. Now you can keep on lying to people, like you've basically done the entire thread, and claim I haven't met your demand, but it has been presented.

Yes, you have doubled back, twice now. First you defiantly proclaim that you don't have to define god, and tried to use the insides of black holes as an analogy. Remember that? Then you do a 180 and concede this half-assed definition that doesn't equate to anything having to do with god, but a spiritual realm, and yet title this thread as "definitive proof for god" and even proclaim this at the end of your OP. Yet again, without definition. All youve actually proven, is that humans have an inclination to believe in something spiritual. This is already known. It doesn't mean a sport world actually exists.

Your definition needs to be upfront, and in the beginning. You've been doing this dance around defining god the entire thread. Then you absurdly accuse people of wanting to box you into a theological notion of god. The truth is, you like the attention, and know that the second you define god this thread will die immediately, because this debate is as old as history, and all arguments for god have been refuted.

No, you keep distorting my words, I defiantly proclaimed we do not have to define things to prove they exist... see Einstein. You goofed around like an obtuse asshole for about a page, chortling at the notion that I was trying to prove something without defining it, so I presented a definition for clarification. Since then, you have continued to lie and claim I haven't defined god. I've popped you in the nose twice about it, but you persist on "doubling back" for yet another nose pop. I'm happy to oblige!

I've not danced around anything, I have put up with you lying and distorting almost everything you've claimed I said. You are the most utterly dishonest person I believe I have ever conversed with on a forum. And that is saying something, I assure you.

I feel the same way about you. It's all subjective, just like your evidence for god.

Yes, you do need to define things to prove they exist. That is the whole point. You write "see Einstein." What does THAT MEAN? You need to explain yourself rather than just name drop.

 

[Boss]

Boss I re-read your post and I have to say as a philosophy guy myself, you present a very weak argumen.


Flaw #1

Customs of ancient civilizations do not indicate any metaphysical truth as these cultural practices are nothing more than subjective truth because various customs are from the perspective of that culture. In addition, cultures that develop "spiritual customs" and whp continue to do so is based on psychological conditioning because these practices are ingrained in society.

What you are saying is, spirituality doesn't exist, it's just ingrained into society as a matter of psychological conditioning. This makes absolutely NO logical sense. You've not pointed out a flaw, you've reaffirmed that man could not have progressed without spirituality, which was ingrained into society and psychologically conditioned. Regardless of the perspective of a given culture, the commonality is spiritual belief. This attribute has been present in humans since humans first existed, and remains our most defining characteristic as a species.

Flaw #2

Your statement about spirituality was not defined. I mean, what does it mean to be spiritual?

It means different things to different people, but basically, it is the belief in some supernatural power beyond our own physical realm of existence or comprehension. Our imaginations have forged this profound connection we can't deny, into various "religions" which attempt to define god in theological parameters. I am not here to argue theology, only the existence of spirituality and a spiritual power greater than self.

Flaw #3
What is God?

Answered already. In this particular argument, "god" is a metaphoric representation of what humans have spiritually acknowledged for all their existence. It does not have to be defined specifically, I never claimed I could prove the existence of any particular incarnation of god. Also, if you read the OP, it states this very clearly in the first two paragraphs, that we have to clearly define the words used in the question, and what they mean.

Flaw# 4
Your thread posits a claim with little definition on what spirituality is or what God is

Again, things do not have to be specifically defined to determine existence. I see a person in the courtyard... it is confirmed this person exists without me determining if it's a man or woman, what religion they are, what color eyes and hair they have, etc. Please tell me this isn't over your head?

Flaw # 5
You said you cannot measure a metaphysical deity through physical measurement thus you need to measure spiritual reality through spiritual measurement. This is a clear strawman.

For one to get to this statement the burden is on you to define what spirituality is. In addition, once that has been achieved, then you must define how spirituality is measured.

Air, thoughts, dreams, love, are all measurable, spirituality is not.

Spirituality is non physical. Thoughts, dreams and love, are byproducts of something that is physical, and there is physical evidence to show they happen. The same is true with spirituality, but it doesn't come from a physical entity.

There is not a strawman, unless it is the continued demanding of physical evidence to prove a spiritual entity, and denying existence because this illogical criteria hasn't been met.

 

[Boss]

Yes, you do need to define things to prove they exist. That is the whole point. You write "see Einstein." What does THAT MEAN? You need to explain yourself rather than just name drop.

No, things do not have to be specifically defined to prove they exist. See my "person in courtyard" example above. If you are still confused, read up on Einstein's theories, most of which theorize existence of things we have yet to specifically define. If you need more, The Uncertainty Principle, Hidden Variables Theory, Quantum Physics, Black Holes... all dealing with determinism, what is there but not defined, what is there but we're unable to define.

But here, the real problem is your comprehension of what it means to "exist." Your brain does not comprehend a spiritual existence, it can only relate to physical existence. A spiritual entity will never have a physical existence, else it becomes a physical entity. So there is no way to prove spiritual existence to you, and I established this in the first two paragraphs of this thread.

 

[newpolitics]

Weve been lucky so far. Atomic bombs have only existed for the past 70 years, not to mention that in this highly christian country, only a christian can become president (de facto) so this isn't saying much. There is something called "degrees of belief." Not all Christians are waiting for the end, although some are, and with every new Christian president we might have might be one who has no qualms about using those launch codes to "bring about the reign of Jesus on Earth!" These people exist.

I think you are confusing Christianity with Islam.

I also think, since all US presidents have been spiritual, we're safe with them. What I would fear, would be a closed minded Atheist bigot, such as yourself. Someone who refuses to accept logical evidence, demands illogical evidence, and perpetually lies and distorts to get what he wants. But then, we've lived through Obama, so maybe we could survive that? My guess is, you'd arrogantly chortle out an executive order to ban religion and religious thought, as soon as you took office.

How am I a bigot? You just love to throw insults around when people don't agree with you, so who's the bigot?

 

[newpolitics]

Yes, you do need to define things to prove they exist. That is the whole point. You write "see Einstein." What does THAT MEAN? You need to explain yourself rather than just name drop.

No, things do not have to be specifically defined to prove they exist. See my "person in courtyard" example above. If you are still confused, read up on Einstein's theories, most of which theorize existence of things we have yet to specifically define. If you need more, The Uncertainty Principle, Hidden Variables Theory, Quantum Physics, Black Holes... all dealing with determinism, what is there but not defined, what is there but we're unable to define.

But here, the real problem is your comprehension of what it means to "exist." Your brain does not comprehend a spiritual existence, it can only relate to physical existence. A spiritual entity will never have a physical existence, else it becomes a physical entity. So there is no way to prove spiritual existence to you, and I established this in the first two paragraphs of this thread.

The effort it would take to correct you on things where you are so fundamentally wrong, is not worth it, considering your track record of ignoring everything you can't handle or understand. You are so convinced of the "truth," I don't even understand why you are debating. Nothing about what Einstein or the uncertainty principle did or says is an example of something being claimed this is "undefined," as you are doing. The uncertainty principle is a fact of measurement at the quantum level. People know exactly what it means when they hear this term, and what it is referring to, so please enlighten me: where in the uncertainty principle or quantum mechanics is a lack of definition?

 

[HUGGY]

This thread is getting tiresome. There is no god. There are things..forces...senses..paths the brain can access that are not listed in a traditional science book. "Boss" calls "spiritualism" God. He is wrong. They are not the same thing. He can try to muddy the waters and re-invent something according to his own needs but his attempt to convince everyone else that his interpretation is equivelant to what faith is..is fraud.

 

[S.J.]

This thread is getting tiresome. There is no god. There are things..forces...senses..paths the brain can access that are not listed in a traditional science book. "Boss" calls "spiritualism" God. He is wrong. They are not the same thing. He can try to muddy the waters and re-invent something according to his own needs but his attempt to convince everyone else that his interpretation is equivelant to what faith is..is fraud.

Well that's good enough for me.

 

[Aristotle]

Boss I haven't mastered the piece by piece quote function so I will highlight your responses to me in bold

Boss you said:

What you are saying is, spirituality doesn't exist, it's just ingrained into society as a matter of psychological conditioning. This makes absolutely NO logical sense. You've not pointed out a flaw, you've reaffirmed that man could not have progressed without spirituality, which was ingrained into society and psychologically conditioned. Regardless of the perspective of a given culture, the commonality is spiritual belief. This attribute has been present in humans since humans first existed, and remains our most defining characteristic as a species.

My response:

No. I'm saying there is no proof of spirituality and that cultures that practice "spiritual customs" do so based on whatever understanding of the natural world they experience. I, therefore, also added that the continuation of so-called spiritual customs and their survival is due to the fact that certain rituals and other religious customs have become apart of that particular culture in that given region of the world. As far as spirituality contributing to the progression of man I just don't see how you've come up with the idea of progression through spirituality. If anything spiritualuity (whatever that is) has become apart of society because its a different way humans view the world.



It means different things to different people, but basically, it is the belief in some supernatural power beyond our own physical realm of existence or comprehension. Our imaginations have forged this profound connection we can't deny, into various "religions" which attempt to define god in theological parameters. I am not here to argue theology, only the existence of spirituality and a spiritual power greater than self.


If spirituality means different things to different people then there is (according to how you've stated in your first sentence) no real universal definition of what spirituality is. It appears that your subsequent comments thereafter was merely defining what "religious spirituality" is more than a core definition.


Answered already. In this particular argument, "god" is a metaphoric representation of what humans have spiritually acknowledged for all their existence. It does not have to be defined specifically, I never claimed I could prove the existence of any particular incarnation of god. Also, if you read the OP, it states this very clearly in the first two paragraphs, that we have to clearly define the words used in the question, and what they mean.

I would highly doubt a Muslim would treat "God" as an idea, than an actual deity. I would also have to disagree with your assertion that something doesn't have to be specifically defined. I believe all ideas, thoughts, feelings, even religious beliefs are compartmentalized in their respective categories because humans need to make distinctions. It is virtually impossible for any human to not define something whatever it is because the human language makes it impossible to do so.

Again, things do not have to be specifically defined to determine existence. I see a person in the courtyard... it is confirmed this person exists without me determining if it's a man or woman, what religion they are, what color eyes and hair they have, etc. Please tell me this isn't over your head?

Naturally, we tend to see objects or people without having to breakdown exactly what they are, this is a natural function of the human brain. However the fact that you make a determination that you see someone in the courtyard means that you have indirectly defined them as a "person" regardless of their gender, your mind makes the determination that you "see a person." Using your example, "you see someone in the courtyard" that means you've naturally determined that it was a person in a courtyard. If you were to say you see "something" in the courtyard, you've determined that you see an object in the courtyard. Either way, youir mind is making a determination of something that is there.


Spirituality is non physical. Thoughts, dreams and love, are byproducts of something that is physical, and there is physical evidence to show they happen. The same is true with spirituality, but it doesn't come from a physical entity.

There is not a strawman, unless it is the continued demanding of physical evidence to prove a spiritual entity, and denying existence because this illogical criteria hasn't been met

If thoughts, and dreams are byproducts of physical reality then how do we know what humans experience regarding spirituality is not merely a byproduct of what their mind experiences in the world? In actuality what you said in the above, God can be merely a byproduct of what people experience in society which leaves no room to determine a distinction between physical reality and spirituality.

 

[newpolitics]

This thread is getting tiresome. There is no god. There are things..forces...senses..paths the brain can access that are not listed in a traditional science book. "Boss" calls "spiritualism" God. He is wrong. They are not the same thing. He can try to muddy the waters and re-invent something according to his own needs but his attempt to convince everyone else that his interpretation is equivelant to what faith is..is fraud.

Well that's good enough for me.

SJ. Boss isn't even arguing whatever god you believe in, so I don't understand why you even think your on the same side. It is simply your virulent hatred of atheists that drives you to his side.

 

[S.J.]

This thread is getting tiresome. There is no god. There are things..forces...senses..paths the brain can access that are not listed in a traditional science book. "Boss" calls "spiritualism" God. He is wrong. They are not the same thing. He can try to muddy the waters and re-invent something according to his own needs but his attempt to convince everyone else that his interpretation is equivelant to what faith is..is fraud.

Well that's good enough for me.

SJ. Boss isn't even arguing whatever god you believe in, so I don't understand why you even think your on the same side. It is simply your virulent hatred of atheists that drives you to his side.

You're babbling.

 

[newpolitics]

Right on. That's what I thought: you had no response. Just the usual sideline cheer leading for your team because you can't actually debate for yourself.

 

[S.J.]

Right on. That's what I thought: you had no response. Just the usual sideline cheer leading for your team because you can't actually debate for yourself.

All you said was you don't know why I think Boss and I are on the same side, and that I hate atheists. You call that debating?
If you want to debate, make a valid point. So far, all you've done is attack, insult, and lie about what the other person said.