Poll: Percent of Christians drop, those identifying as "none" soars

[Hollie]

Of course you're claiming something. Do you typically argue for the positive attributes of having no position?

My position is that supernaturalism remains demonstrated. The very suggestion that something is supernatural is both unreasoned and beyond the bounds of rationality. Therefore, it is rational to conclude that such extraordinary claims are unreasonable.

Your belief is apparently that proof for non-existence of non-existence is the burden of one who doesn't share your beliefs. Well sorry, but it's not up to me to prove the non-existence of every supernatural entity you believe may exist because there is not conclusive evidence for its non-existence.

Your position is certainly more than that, as you have shown repeatedly in the past. Your position is that gods do not exist. That is a belief and nothing more than a belief.

My conclusion is that gawds don't exist. That's a perfectly rational conclusion in terms of the fact (and it is a fact), that no conclusive evidence has ever been presented for the assertion of any supernatural entity.

Your belief is that such supernatural entities exist. Where is your evidence? I'm under no obligation to accept your beliefs when you offer no evidence.

Let me get this straight. You define god as a supernatural entity that does not exist and in turn you want proof that one does exist. Me on the other hand define god as the fabric of the universe, which clearly exists, and I ask you to show me proof that the fabric of universe does not exist.

I don't define any of the gawds as anything more than inventions of humans. It is the obligation of those claiming the existence of these supernatural entities to demonstrate their existence.

You need me to demonstrate the fabric of the universe in which you live? Odd request. That you replied to my post is my proof. Next.

I accept the existence of the universe. What does something you call the fabric of the universe have to do with any gawds?

 

[RKMBrown]

Your position is certainly more than that, as you have shown repeatedly in the past. Your position is that gods do not exist. That is a belief and nothing more than a belief.

My conclusion is that gawds don't exist. That's a perfectly rational conclusion in terms of the fact (and it is a fact), that no conclusive evidence has ever been presented for the assertion of any supernatural entity.

Your belief is that such supernatural entities exist. Where is your evidence? I'm under no obligation to accept your beliefs when you offer no evidence.

Let me get this straight. You define god as a supernatural entity that does not exist and in turn you want proof that one does exist. Me on the other hand define god as the fabric of the universe, which clearly exists, and I ask you to show me proof that the fabric of universe does not exist.

I don't define any of the gawds as anything more than inventions of humans. It is the obligation of those claiming the existence of these supernatural entities to demonstrate their existence.

You need me to demonstrate the fabric of the universe in which you live? Odd request. That you replied to my post is my proof. Next.

I accept the existence of the universe. What does something you call the fabric of the universe have to do with any gawds?

What part of me defining god as the fabric of the universe did you find confusing? The fabric of the universe is space and time.

 

[Hollie]

My conclusion is that gawds don't exist. That's a perfectly rational conclusion in terms of the fact (and it is a fact), that no conclusive evidence has ever been presented for the assertion of any supernatural entity.

Your belief is that such supernatural entities exist. Where is your evidence? I'm under no obligation to accept your beliefs when you offer no evidence.

Let me get this straight. You define god as a supernatural entity that does not exist and in turn you want proof that one does exist. Me on the other hand define god as the fabric of the universe, which clearly exists, and I ask you to show me proof that the fabric of universe does not exist.

I don't define any of the gawds as anything more than inventions of humans. It is the obligation of those claiming the existence of these supernatural entities to demonstrate their existence.

You need me to demonstrate the fabric of the universe in which you live? Odd request. That you replied to my post is my proof. Next.

I accept the existence of the universe. What does something you call the fabric of the universe have to do with any gawds?

What part of me defining god as the fabric of the universe did you find confusing? The fabric of the universe is space and time.

I agree that space and time, natural phenonenon, describe the universe. God (Amun Ra), may be the true gawd who set space and time into existence but there's no evidence of that.

 

[RKMBrown]

Let me get this straight. You define god as a supernatural entity that does not exist and in turn you want proof that one does exist. Me on the other hand define god as the fabric of the universe, which clearly exists, and I ask you to show me proof that the fabric of universe does not exist.

I don't define any of the gawds as anything more than inventions of humans. It is the obligation of those claiming the existence of these supernatural entities to demonstrate their existence.

You need me to demonstrate the fabric of the universe in which you live? Odd request. That you replied to my post is my proof. Next.

I accept the existence of the universe. What does something you call the fabric of the universe have to do with any gawds?

What part of me defining god as the fabric of the universe did you find confusing? The fabric of the universe is space and time.

I agree that space and time, natural phenonenon, describe the universe. God (Amun Ra), may be the true gawd who set space and time into existence but there's no evidence of that.

So you, again, define god as something that can not be proven, then ask us to provide evidence.

This despite the fact that I said god is the fabric of the universe, that which you agree exists.

Why do you insist on denying god? What benefit do you get by defining him as that which can not be proven?

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, I know it has been explained to me. It has also been explained to me that belief in God is a rational conclusion. Just because it has been explained does not mean the explanation has any basis in rational thought. It is entirely possible to reach a rational conclusion in the absence of belief. It is, however, not possible in the absence of evidence. And that, regardless of the explanations, is how you have reached your conclusion. You can prove me wrong by presenting your evidence which, we both know, you can't do.

I'm under no obligation to provide evidence of non-existence of the supernatural. That's silly.

If you have evidence for one or more supernatural gawds, or the Loch Ness monster, or the Easter Bunny, present your evidence. The above entities may exist as a part of your beliefs, but no one else is under any obligation to accept your beliefs absent your presenting evidence for your beliefs.

As it has been explained to you, others can come to rational conclusions about the non-existence of supernatural entities you have no evidence for.

The difference between us is that I am not claiming anything, other than you lack any basis for a rational conclusion. You are the one making the claim, so you have the obligation to support your claim. As I said, we both know you can't do that. So your conclusion is not rational.

Of course you're claiming something. Do you typically argue for the positive attributes of having no position?

My position is that supernaturalism remains demonstrated. The very suggestion that something is supernatural is both unreasoned and beyond the bounds of rationality. Therefore, it is rational to conclude that such extraordinary claims are unreasonable.

Your belief is apparently that proof for non-existence of non-existence is the burden of one who doesn't share your beliefs. Well sorry, but it's not up to me to prove the non-existence of every supernatural entity you believe may exist because there is not conclusive evidence for its non-existence.

Your position is certainly more than that, as you have shown repeatedly in the past. Your position is that gods do not exist. That is a belief and nothing more than a belief.

My conclusion is that gawds don't exist. That's a perfectly rational conclusion in terms of the fact (and it is a fact), that no conclusive evidence has ever been presented for the assertion of any supernatural entity.

Your belief is that such supernatural entities exist. Where is your evidence? I'm under no obligation to accept your beliefs when you offer no evidence.

I fully admit there is a lack of evidence. That is a fact. But that does not make a conclusion rational - just the opposite. Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is irrational. I have no objection to your having an irrational conclusion. My objection is on your insistence that it is rational. It is just another belief.

 

[Hollie]

I'm under no obligation to provide evidence of non-existence of the supernatural. That's silly.

If you have evidence for one or more supernatural gawds, or the Loch Ness monster, or the Easter Bunny, present your evidence. The above entities may exist as a part of your beliefs, but no one else is under any obligation to accept your beliefs absent your presenting evidence for your beliefs.

As it has been explained to you, others can come to rational conclusions about the non-existence of supernatural entities you have no evidence for.

The difference between us is that I am not claiming anything, other than you lack any basis for a rational conclusion. You are the one making the claim, so you have the obligation to support your claim. As I said, we both know you can't do that. So your conclusion is not rational.

Of course you're claiming something. Do you typically argue for the positive attributes of having no position?

My position is that supernaturalism remains demonstrated. The very suggestion that something is supernatural is both unreasoned and beyond the bounds of rationality. Therefore, it is rational to conclude that such extraordinary claims are unreasonable.

Your belief is apparently that proof for non-existence of non-existence is the burden of one who doesn't share your beliefs. Well sorry, but it's not up to me to prove the non-existence of every supernatural entity you believe may exist because there is not conclusive evidence for its non-existence.

Your position is certainly more than that, as you have shown repeatedly in the past. Your position is that gods do not exist. That is a belief and nothing more than a belief.

My conclusion is that gawds don't exist. That's a perfectly rational conclusion in terms of the fact (and it is a fact), that no conclusive evidence has ever been presented for the assertion of any supernatural entity.

Your belief is that such supernatural entities exist. Where is your evidence? I'm under no obligation to accept your beliefs when you offer no evidence.

I fully admit there is a lack of evidence. That is a fact. But that does not make a conclusion rational - just the opposite. Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is irrational. I have no objection to your having an irrational conclusion. My objection is on your insistence that it is rational. It is just another belief.

Yes. There is a lack of evidence for assertions of supernatural gawds. There is no rational case to be be made for supernaturalism. Your beliefs that supernaturalism is a rational belief is therefore irrational.

Tell us about your belief in Leprechauns, the gawd Thor and chariots being pulled by winged horses across the heavens.

 

[Esmeralda]

Christians drop nones soar in new religion portrait

Christianity still dominates American religious identity (70%), but the survey shows dramatic shifts as more people move out the doors of denominations, shedding spiritual connections along the way.
Atheists and agnostics have nearly doubled their share of the religious marketplace, and overall indifference to religion of any sort is rising as well. Only the historically black Protestant churches have held a steady grip through the years of change.

The shrinking numbers of Christians and their loss of market share is the most significant change since 2007 (when Pew did its first U.S. Religious Landscape survey) and the new, equally massive survey of 35,000 U.S. adults.
The percentage of people who describe themselves as Christians fell about 8 points — from 78.4% to 70.6%. This includes people in virtually all demographic groups, whether they are "nearing retirement or just entering adulthood, married or single, living in the West or the Bible Belt," according to the survey report
The "nones" — Americans who are unaffiliated with brand-name religion — are the new major force in American faith. And they are more secular in outlook — and "more comfortable admitting it" than ever before


Nones," at 22.8% of the U.S. (up from 16% just eight years ago) run second only to evangelicals (25.4%) and ahead of Catholics (20.8%) in religious market share.



.

Some how or another, I'm sure this must be Obama's fault.

 

[PratchettFan]

The difference between us is that I am not claiming anything, other than you lack any basis for a rational conclusion. You are the one making the claim, so you have the obligation to support your claim. As I said, we both know you can't do that. So your conclusion is not rational.

Of course you're claiming something. Do you typically argue for the positive attributes of having no position?

My position is that supernaturalism remains demonstrated. The very suggestion that something is supernatural is both unreasoned and beyond the bounds of rationality. Therefore, it is rational to conclude that such extraordinary claims are unreasonable.

Your belief is apparently that proof for non-existence of non-existence is the burden of one who doesn't share your beliefs. Well sorry, but it's not up to me to prove the non-existence of every supernatural entity you believe may exist because there is not conclusive evidence for its non-existence.

Your position is certainly more than that, as you have shown repeatedly in the past. Your position is that gods do not exist. That is a belief and nothing more than a belief.

My conclusion is that gawds don't exist. That's a perfectly rational conclusion in terms of the fact (and it is a fact), that no conclusive evidence has ever been presented for the assertion of any supernatural entity.

Your belief is that such supernatural entities exist. Where is your evidence? I'm under no obligation to accept your beliefs when you offer no evidence.

I fully admit there is a lack of evidence. That is a fact. But that does not make a conclusion rational - just the opposite. Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is irrational. I have no objection to your having an irrational conclusion. My objection is on your insistence that it is rational. It is just another belief.

Yes. There is a lack of evidence for assertions of supernatural gawds. There is no rational case to be be made for supernaturalism. Your beliefs that supernaturalism is a rational belief is therefore irrational.

Tell us about your belief in Leprechauns, the gawd Thor and chariots being pulled by winged horses across the heavens.

There is a lack of evidence.... period. No rational case be made for either side of the issue because..... there is a lack of evidence. I have never stated supernaturalism is a rational conclusion. It isn't. But that does not make your position any more rational. Any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is irrational - including yours.

 

[Hollie]

Of course you're claiming something. Do you typically argue for the positive attributes of having no position?

My position is that supernaturalism remains demonstrated. The very suggestion that something is supernatural is both unreasoned and beyond the bounds of rationality. Therefore, it is rational to conclude that such extraordinary claims are unreasonable.

Your belief is apparently that proof for non-existence of non-existence is the burden of one who doesn't share your beliefs. Well sorry, but it's not up to me to prove the non-existence of every supernatural entity you believe may exist because there is not conclusive evidence for its non-existence.

Your position is certainly more than that, as you have shown repeatedly in the past. Your position is that gods do not exist. That is a belief and nothing more than a belief.

My conclusion is that gawds don't exist. That's a perfectly rational conclusion in terms of the fact (and it is a fact), that no conclusive evidence has ever been presented for the assertion of any supernatural entity.

Your belief is that such supernatural entities exist. Where is your evidence? I'm under no obligation to accept your beliefs when you offer no evidence.

I fully admit there is a lack of evidence. That is a fact. But that does not make a conclusion rational - just the opposite. Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is irrational. I have no objection to your having an irrational conclusion. My objection is on your insistence that it is rational. It is just another belief.

Yes. There is a lack of evidence for assertions of supernatural gawds. There is no rational case to be be made for supernaturalism. Your beliefs that supernaturalism is a rational belief is therefore irrational.

Tell us about your belief in Leprechauns, the gawd Thor and chariots being pulled by winged horses across the heavens.

There is a lack of evidence.... period. No rational case be made for either side of the issue because..... there is a lack of evidence. I have never stated supernaturalism is a rational conclusion. It isn't. But that does not make your position any more rational. Any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is irrational - including yours.

Your beliefs are your own. No one suggesting you cannot believe in supernaturalism, ancient gawds, fat, naked babies playing harps in heaven, whatever. Those beliefs are just not rationally based.

It is rational to conclude that beliefs in entities such as those described above are not a part of the rational world.

 

[PratchettFan]

Your position is certainly more than that, as you have shown repeatedly in the past. Your position is that gods do not exist. That is a belief and nothing more than a belief.

My conclusion is that gawds don't exist. That's a perfectly rational conclusion in terms of the fact (and it is a fact), that no conclusive evidence has ever been presented for the assertion of any supernatural entity.

Your belief is that such supernatural entities exist. Where is your evidence? I'm under no obligation to accept your beliefs when you offer no evidence.

I fully admit there is a lack of evidence. That is a fact. But that does not make a conclusion rational - just the opposite. Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is irrational. I have no objection to your having an irrational conclusion. My objection is on your insistence that it is rational. It is just another belief.

Yes. There is a lack of evidence for assertions of supernatural gawds. There is no rational case to be be made for supernaturalism. Your beliefs that supernaturalism is a rational belief is therefore irrational.

Tell us about your belief in Leprechauns, the gawd Thor and chariots being pulled by winged horses across the heavens.

There is a lack of evidence.... period. No rational case be made for either side of the issue because..... there is a lack of evidence. I have never stated supernaturalism is a rational conclusion. It isn't. But that does not make your position any more rational. Any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is irrational - including yours.

Your beliefs are your own. No one suggesting you cannot believe in supernaturalism, ancient gawds, fat, naked babies playing harps in heaven, whatever. Those beliefs are just not rationally based.

It is rational to conclude that beliefs in entities such as those described above are not a part of the rational world.

I really don't know how many times I have to agree with you that belief in the supernatural, gods, afterlife, etc. is irrational. I have run out of way to express it.

Your belief these things do not exist is equally irrational.

 

[Hollie]

My conclusion is that gawds don't exist. That's a perfectly rational conclusion in terms of the fact (and it is a fact), that no conclusive evidence has ever been presented for the assertion of any supernatural entity.

Your belief is that such supernatural entities exist. Where is your evidence? I'm under no obligation to accept your beliefs when you offer no evidence.

I fully admit there is a lack of evidence. That is a fact. But that does not make a conclusion rational - just the opposite. Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is irrational. I have no objection to your having an irrational conclusion. My objection is on your insistence that it is rational. It is just another belief.

Yes. There is a lack of evidence for assertions of supernatural gawds. There is no rational case to be be made for supernaturalism. Your beliefs that supernaturalism is a rational belief is therefore irrational.

Tell us about your belief in Leprechauns, the gawd Thor and chariots being pulled by winged horses across the heavens.

There is a lack of evidence.... period. No rational case be made for either side of the issue because..... there is a lack of evidence. I have never stated supernaturalism is a rational conclusion. It isn't. But that does not make your position any more rational. Any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is irrational - including yours.

Your beliefs are your own. No one suggesting you cannot believe in supernaturalism, ancient gawds, fat, naked babies playing harps in heaven, whatever. Those beliefs are just not rationally based.

It is rational to conclude that beliefs in entities such as those described above are not a part of the rational world.

I really don't know how many times I have to agree with you that belief in the supernatural, gods, afterlife, etc. is irrational. I have run out of way to express it.

Your belief these things do not exist is equally irrational.

That is your belief and you are entitled to your beliefs.

Supernaturalism is not a part of the rational world. You have yet to even define supernaturalism and how that would apply to the rational world.

Therefore, it is rational to reject your appeals to a realm you cannot define, cannot describe and cannot offer evidence for. Concluding that your asserted supernatural realms, agents, entities, etc., are non existent is perfectly rational

 

[sealybobo]

Christians drop nones soar in new religion portrait

Christianity still dominates American religious identity (70%), but the survey shows dramatic shifts as more people move out the doors of denominations, shedding spiritual connections along the way.
Atheists and agnostics have nearly doubled their share of the religious marketplace, and overall indifference to religion of any sort is rising as well. Only the historically black Protestant churches have held a steady grip through the years of change.

The shrinking numbers of Christians and their loss of market share is the most significant change since 2007 (when Pew did its first U.S. Religious Landscape survey) and the new, equally massive survey of 35,000 U.S. adults.
The percentage of people who describe themselves as Christians fell about 8 points — from 78.4% to 70.6%. This includes people in virtually all demographic groups, whether they are "nearing retirement or just entering adulthood, married or single, living in the West or the Bible Belt," according to the survey report
The "nones" — Americans who are unaffiliated with brand-name religion — are the new major force in American faith. And they are more secular in outlook — and "more comfortable admitting it" than ever before


Nones," at 22.8% of the U.S. (up from 16% just eight years ago) run second only to evangelicals (25.4%) and ahead of Catholics (20.8%) in religious market share.



.

So im at a new job for about 3 months and I bring up to a guy I went to a wedding at a church. No drinking. He asks what denomination, I tell him "some white" denomination. I say I'm greek orthodox he says he's catholic. I say, you know we are a spin off. Actually they all are. I say a couple more things and he finally admits he doesnt believe and he believes in evolution. I say you know you can believe in both and he confirms he doesnt.

Notice how we both lied at first and said catholic or greek orthodox first before we knew if we were talking to a Jesus Jew or Mohammad freak?

I suspect a good 25% dont believe. 25% would say they were agnostic if they even really thought about it. 25% are moderate half christians then 25% of america believes in the creation.story.

I'd say you are full of shit about 99% of the time when you are explaining what us christians are all about.

You know how Muslims and Mormons look to you? That's exactly how we see you, and we are right.

I see Muslims and Mormons as people with a slightly different wardrobe and different customs, but for the most part good people with strong family structures. Is that how you see us Christians?

No. 51% divorce in america. And you guys claim 90% of us are christians so you do the math.

 

[sealybobo]

My conclusion is that gawds don't exist. That's a perfectly rational conclusion in terms of the fact (and it is a fact), that no conclusive evidence has ever been presented for the assertion of any supernatural entity.

Your belief is that such supernatural entities exist. Where is your evidence? I'm under no obligation to accept your beliefs when you offer no evidence.

I fully admit there is a lack of evidence. That is a fact. But that does not make a conclusion rational - just the opposite. Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is irrational. I have no objection to your having an irrational conclusion. My objection is on your insistence that it is rational. It is just another belief.

Yes. There is a lack of evidence for assertions of supernatural gawds. There is no rational case to be be made for supernaturalism. Your beliefs that supernaturalism is a rational belief is therefore irrational.

Tell us about your belief in Leprechauns, the gawd Thor and chariots being pulled by winged horses across the heavens.

There is a lack of evidence.... period. No rational case be made for either side of the issue because..... there is a lack of evidence. I have never stated supernaturalism is a rational conclusion. It isn't. But that does not make your position any more rational. Any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is irrational - including yours.

Your beliefs are your own. No one suggesting you cannot believe in supernaturalism, ancient gawds, fat, naked babies playing harps in heaven, whatever. Those beliefs are just not rationally based.

It is rational to conclude that beliefs in entities such as those described above are not a part of the rational world.

I really don't know how many times I have to agree with you that belief in the supernatural, gods, afterlife, etc. is irrational. I have run out of way to express it.

Your belief these things do not exist is equally irrational.

So youre an athiest?

 

[sealybobo]

The above represents your beliefs and you're entitled to your beliefs. It has been explained to you on many occasions that it is possible to reach rational conclusions absent belief. The fact there there has never been any incontrovertible evidence for any of the thousands of gawds carries no requirement for belief. Its just a fact. Your belief that evidence of non-existence is required for proof of non-existence is circular and pointless.

Yes, I know it has been explained to me. It has also been explained to me that belief in God is a rational conclusion. Just because it has been explained does not mean the explanation has any basis in rational thought. It is entirely possible to reach a rational conclusion in the absence of belief. It is, however, not possible in the absence of evidence. And that, regardless of the explanations, is how you have reached your conclusion. You can prove me wrong by presenting your evidence which, we both know, you can't do.

I'm under no obligation to provide evidence of non-existence of the supernatural. That's silly.

If you have evidence for one or more supernatural gawds, or the Loch Ness monster, or the Easter Bunny, present your evidence. The above entities may exist as a part of your beliefs, but no one else is under any obligation to accept your beliefs absent your presenting evidence for your beliefs.

As it has been explained to you, others can come to rational conclusions about the non-existence of supernatural entities you have no evidence for.

The difference between us is that I am not claiming anything, other than you lack any basis for a rational conclusion. You are the one making the claim, so you have the obligation to support your claim. As I said, we both know you can't do that. So your conclusion is not rational.

Of course you're claiming something. Do you typically argue for the positive attributes of having no position?

My position is that supernaturalism remains demonstrated. The very suggestion that something is supernatural is both unreasoned and beyond the bounds of rationality. Therefore, it is rational to conclude that such extraordinary claims are unreasonable.

Your belief is apparently that proof for non-existence of non-existence is the burden of one who doesn't share your beliefs. Well sorry, but it's not up to me to prove the non-existence of every supernatural entity you believe may exist because there is not conclusive evidence for its non-existence.

Your position is certainly more than that, as you have shown repeatedly in the past. Your position is that gods do not exist. That is a belief and nothing more than a belief.

There isnt any evidence something created us let alone cares and wants to live with you in heaven forever after you die if you pass the test.

We dont know if something created all we see or if its a god or just another living thing. Who created it? Must be god. I dont know. 3rd base.

But you arent just talking about a creator. You claim a god that visits and cares. No evidence to support that.

 

[PratchettFan]

I fully admit there is a lack of evidence. That is a fact. But that does not make a conclusion rational - just the opposite. Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is irrational. I have no objection to your having an irrational conclusion. My objection is on your insistence that it is rational. It is just another belief.

Yes. There is a lack of evidence for assertions of supernatural gawds. There is no rational case to be be made for supernaturalism. Your beliefs that supernaturalism is a rational belief is therefore irrational.

Tell us about your belief in Leprechauns, the gawd Thor and chariots being pulled by winged horses across the heavens.

There is a lack of evidence.... period. No rational case be made for either side of the issue because..... there is a lack of evidence. I have never stated supernaturalism is a rational conclusion. It isn't. But that does not make your position any more rational. Any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is irrational - including yours.

Your beliefs are your own. No one suggesting you cannot believe in supernaturalism, ancient gawds, fat, naked babies playing harps in heaven, whatever. Those beliefs are just not rationally based.

It is rational to conclude that beliefs in entities such as those described above are not a part of the rational world.

I really don't know how many times I have to agree with you that belief in the supernatural, gods, afterlife, etc. is irrational. I have run out of way to express it.

Your belief these things do not exist is equally irrational.

That is your belief and you are entitled to your beliefs.

Supernaturalism is not a part of the rational world. You have yet to even define supernaturalism and how that would apply to the rational world.

Therefore, it is rational to reject your appeals to a realm you cannot define, cannot describe and cannot offer evidence for. Concluding that your asserted supernatural realms, agents, entities, etc., are non existent is perfectly rational

I really don't know if it is a reading comprehension problem or if you simply aren't capable of engaging in an honest discussion. In either case, having a discussion with you just isn't productive.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, I know it has been explained to me. It has also been explained to me that belief in God is a rational conclusion. Just because it has been explained does not mean the explanation has any basis in rational thought. It is entirely possible to reach a rational conclusion in the absence of belief. It is, however, not possible in the absence of evidence. And that, regardless of the explanations, is how you have reached your conclusion. You can prove me wrong by presenting your evidence which, we both know, you can't do.

I'm under no obligation to provide evidence of non-existence of the supernatural. That's silly.

If you have evidence for one or more supernatural gawds, or the Loch Ness monster, or the Easter Bunny, present your evidence. The above entities may exist as a part of your beliefs, but no one else is under any obligation to accept your beliefs absent your presenting evidence for your beliefs.

As it has been explained to you, others can come to rational conclusions about the non-existence of supernatural entities you have no evidence for.

The difference between us is that I am not claiming anything, other than you lack any basis for a rational conclusion. You are the one making the claim, so you have the obligation to support your claim. As I said, we both know you can't do that. So your conclusion is not rational.

Of course you're claiming something. Do you typically argue for the positive attributes of having no position?

My position is that supernaturalism remains demonstrated. The very suggestion that something is supernatural is both unreasoned and beyond the bounds of rationality. Therefore, it is rational to conclude that such extraordinary claims are unreasonable.

Your belief is apparently that proof for non-existence of non-existence is the burden of one who doesn't share your beliefs. Well sorry, but it's not up to me to prove the non-existence of every supernatural entity you believe may exist because there is not conclusive evidence for its non-existence.

Your position is certainly more than that, as you have shown repeatedly in the past. Your position is that gods do not exist. That is a belief and nothing more than a belief.

There isnt any evidence something created us let alone cares and wants to live with you in heaven forever after you die if you pass the test.

We dont know if something created all we see or if its a god or just another living thing. Who created it? Must be god. I dont know. 3rd base.

But you arent just talking about a creator. You claim a god that visits and cares. No evidence to support that.

There is no evidence at all. And it is not true that I claim a god that visits and cares. If you want to have a conversation with me, have it with me. Not some voice in your head. Right now I am getting a little tired of being constantly misquoted by people who claim to be rational.

 

[PratchettFan]

I fully admit there is a lack of evidence. That is a fact. But that does not make a conclusion rational - just the opposite. Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is irrational. I have no objection to your having an irrational conclusion. My objection is on your insistence that it is rational. It is just another belief.

Yes. There is a lack of evidence for assertions of supernatural gawds. There is no rational case to be be made for supernaturalism. Your beliefs that supernaturalism is a rational belief is therefore irrational.

Tell us about your belief in Leprechauns, the gawd Thor and chariots being pulled by winged horses across the heavens.

There is a lack of evidence.... period. No rational case be made for either side of the issue because..... there is a lack of evidence. I have never stated supernaturalism is a rational conclusion. It isn't. But that does not make your position any more rational. Any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is irrational - including yours.

Your beliefs are your own. No one suggesting you cannot believe in supernaturalism, ancient gawds, fat, naked babies playing harps in heaven, whatever. Those beliefs are just not rationally based.

It is rational to conclude that beliefs in entities such as those described above are not a part of the rational world.

I really don't know how many times I have to agree with you that belief in the supernatural, gods, afterlife, etc. is irrational. I have run out of way to express it.

Your belief these things do not exist is equally irrational.

So youre an athiest?

No.

 

[featherlite]

Let me get this straight. You define god as a supernatural entity that does not exist and in turn you want proof that one does exist. Me on the other hand define god as the fabric of the universe, which clearly exists, and I ask you to show me proof that the fabric of universe does not exist.

I don't define any of the gawds as anything more than inventions of humans. It is the obligation of those claiming the existence of these supernatural entities to demonstrate their existence.

You need me to demonstrate the fabric of the universe in which you live? Odd request. That you replied to my post is my proof. Next.

I accept the existence of the universe. What does something you call the fabric of the universe have to do with any gawds?

What part of me defining god as the fabric of the universe did you find confusing? The fabric of the universe is space and time.

I agree that space and time, natural phenonenon, describe the universe. God (Amun Ra), may be the true gawd who set space and time into existence but there's no evidence of that.

The combination of the sun god The "cackling one" who morphed into different animals...even had a frog head? Id call that a gawd...but not God.

 

[RKMBrown]

Christians drop nones soar in new religion portrait

Christianity still dominates American religious identity (70%), but the survey shows dramatic shifts as more people move out the doors of denominations, shedding spiritual connections along the way.
Atheists and agnostics have nearly doubled their share of the religious marketplace, and overall indifference to religion of any sort is rising as well. Only the historically black Protestant churches have held a steady grip through the years of change.

The shrinking numbers of Christians and their loss of market share is the most significant change since 2007 (when Pew did its first U.S. Religious Landscape survey) and the new, equally massive survey of 35,000 U.S. adults.
The percentage of people who describe themselves as Christians fell about 8 points — from 78.4% to 70.6%. This includes people in virtually all demographic groups, whether they are "nearing retirement or just entering adulthood, married or single, living in the West or the Bible Belt," according to the survey report
The "nones" — Americans who are unaffiliated with brand-name religion — are the new major force in American faith. And they are more secular in outlook — and "more comfortable admitting it" than ever before


Nones," at 22.8% of the U.S. (up from 16% just eight years ago) run second only to evangelicals (25.4%) and ahead of Catholics (20.8%) in religious market share.



.

So im at a new job for about 3 months and I bring up to a guy I went to a wedding at a church. No drinking. He asks what denomination, I tell him "some white" denomination. I say I'm greek orthodox he says he's catholic. I say, you know we are a spin off. Actually they all are. I say a couple more things and he finally admits he doesnt believe and he believes in evolution. I say you know you can believe in both and he confirms he doesnt.

Notice how we both lied at first and said catholic or greek orthodox first before we knew if we were talking to a Jesus Jew or Mohammad freak?

I suspect a good 25% dont believe. 25% would say they were agnostic if they even really thought about it. 25% are moderate half christians then 25% of america believes in the creation.story.

I'd say you are full of shit about 99% of the time when you are explaining what us christians are all about.

You know how Muslims and Mormons look to you? That's exactly how we see you, and we are right.

I see Muslims and Mormons as people with a slightly different wardrobe and different customs, but for the most part good people with strong family structures. Is that how you see us Christians?

No. 51% divorce in america. And you guys claim 90% of us are christians so you do the math.

What does divorce have to do with being a christian?

 

[Hollie]

supernaturalismchettFan, post: 11427845, member: 37752"]

Yes. There is a lack of evidence for assertions of supernatural gawds. There is no rational case to be be made for supernaturalism. Your beliefs that supernaturalism is a rational belief is therefore irrational.

Tell us about your belief in Leprechauns, the gawd Thor and chariots being pulled by winged horses across the heavens.

There is a lack of evidence.... period. No rational case be made for either side of the issue because..... there is a lack of evidence. I have never stated supernaturalism is a rational conclusion. It isn't. But that does not make your position any more rational. Any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is irrational - including yours.

Your beliefs are your own. No one suggesting you cannot believe in supernaturalism, ancient gawds, fat, naked babies playing harps in heaven, whatever. Those beliefs are just not rationally based.

It is rational to conclude that beliefs in entities such as those described above are not a part of the rational world.

I really don't know how many times I have to agree with you that belief in the supernatural, gods, afterlife, etc. is irrational. I have run out of way to express it.

Your belief these things do not exist is equally irrational.

That is your belief and you are entitled to your beliefs.

Supernaturalism is not a part of the rational world. You have yet to even define supernaturalism and how that would apply to the rational world.

Therefore, it is rational to reject your appeals to a realm you cannot define, cannot describe and cannot offer evidence for. Concluding that your asserted supernatural realms, agents, entities, etc., are non existent is perfectly rational

really don't know if it is a reading comprehension problem or if you simply aren't capable of engaging in an honest discussion. In either case, having a discussion with you just isn't productive.

I suppose that's one way to defend an indefensible argument - get angry and emotive.

A better tactic would be to make your case for why anyone should rationally accept claims to supernatural objects de' Art?