Esquilax Wrote:So, ladies and gentlemen, this is what we now know: Mickiel doesn't know what evidence is, what claims are, or what the basis of debate and the burden of proof is. He doesn't know what logical fallacies are, and he doesn't care enough to look into any of this.

And so the question we now all must ask is this: why should we continue to argue with a person who literally does not understand how argumentation works, and is perfectly willing to disrespect us by wallowing in his ignorance and pretending that it's superior to logic?

Well I do my best. One poster here said he needs more to accept that god is real, I understand that; its not a simple x=y kind of thing; the evidence is empirical in some areas, more visible by experience or personal observation, such as answered prayer or intervention by unseen things, like you should have died in that accident but came away unscratched; or common sense - things which can be independent of specialized knowledge like science, such as Consciousness only can be derived from consciousness, life from life, humans from human and so on.

But yet Can god be deduced from a mathematical equation? I tried to show yes, by using the common sense that the universe is designed to be just what it is; every position of the planets around earth had to be exact, especially the distance between it and the sun. No closer no further, it had to be arranged by an arranger, a designer who mathematically deduced those distances; that was labeled as no evidence. I disagreed with that as well.

Can god be proven by laws? Well yes, gravity, transmutation, polarity, cause and effect, vibration or gestation; all laws we agree exist, yet the common sense of understanding that laws are formulated by a law giver, even the laws of man, is ignored and even those great laws are being transferred over to being created and put in place by random unorganized occurance and senseless nature, as if those things have creative minds.

The question is why do I continue to argue?

The answer is I got nothing better to do.

Not sure whether this thread is showcasing the best of atheist forums or the absolute worst.

It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

Oh, that's cute. You think the bible is historically accurate.

Where's Min?

OP, explain something to me. You claim to believe in a god, but not be religious. However, you also have a mythology (a belief about how we came to be) attached to your belief. This is contradictory. Can you accurately explain how you can believe in a god, have a mythology, possibly things that your god wants you/us to do (though I'm not sure about this part, it seems to be a universal theme in theism), and beliefs about what your god is, what it wants, and why it did things, and not be religious?

(June 6, 2014 at 2:54 pm)mickiel Wrote: I like debating

No you don't You like flinging shit at the wall to see what sticks.

---

(June 6, 2014 at 3:02 pm)mickiel Wrote: Evidence is something that gives signs of proof, and I have given a lot of those signs, they are being ignored or dismissed as not being evidence. It supports proof.

Proper evidence is testable and verifiable. Your bare assertions are neither, therefore are not evidence.

---

(June 6, 2014 at 3:12 pm)mickiel Wrote: evolution is inherited change, its a process which cannot create ANYTHING!

It's the process that created EVERYTHING (living on this planet) including your incredibly closed mind. Read a book for fucks sake!

---

(June 6, 2014 at 3:20 pm)mickiel Wrote: I am curious, would anything I would have said have matter to you?

If you bring actual, testable, verifiable evidence to the table you'll find it matters to most, if not all, of us here.

(June 6, 2014 at 8:11 pm)mickiel Wrote: Its the best of times, even the biblical king Solomon copper mines may have been found;

How many times do we have to tell you;

1. we don't claim the Bible gets everything wrong historically and archeologically.

2. the Bible gets more wrong than it gets right historically and archeologically.

3. the historical and archeological things that the Bible gets right, on their own, offer ZERO evidence that a god exists.

If so, why isn't the historical and archeological things the Iliad and Odyssey gets right evidence for Zeus, Hera, Venus, etc?

You really don't understand what counts as evidence for your god claims. Seriously. You don't.