Christian Paradox

[tavarish]

Hmmm. Really hard to find out whether it is homeopathic water, holy roman pedarastic water, or new age energized water in that bottle of yours. It seems everybody is in our water nowadays. Maybe we should tax it.

My girlfriend, who is a Russian Orthodox Christian, said that there was a show that proved that water that had been blessed was more pure than water that had not beed blessed. I'm still trying to find that shit online.

Seeing how it was a Russian show, and they openly admit their bias and corruption, I wouldn't be surprised if the results were faked or skewed.

You know what? I'll do this myself. I have a church near my house, some bottles of water, and I can call a few laboratories.

God's about to get owned with a microscope.

[Purple Rabbit]

According to Watson you need a telescope. Go figure.

[fr0d0]

Am I also arrogant that I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?

Don't change the subject... own your position.

[you continue to repeat the illogic we've already dismissed in another thread, which you refuse to address]

Conveniently your poor memory lets you repeat your blind assertions like they're actually still applicable.

Ahh so you also think you have some new approach. Well, I got news for you, many of us have been there and now we are here, sans God.

You say that like you're claiming unbelief is somehow the only logical conclusion, which is of course ridiculous. Not a valid conclusion. It's ironic how you keep bringing this up. Do you really believe that? I wish I could be as delusional. If that's the arrogance of disbelief (and I think I suffered the same delusion), it says something don't you think?

My non-belief is supported by the non-verifiable claus, Santa that is...

If there is no evidence for something that is supposedly everywhere, um, YES non-belief IS the only logical conclusion. Also the magic aether told me so while it was holding me to the Earth.

Rhizo

Fact is Rhiz... your position is no more sure than mine. My point. You shouldn't feel so self righteous as to infer superiority like you do.

If I believe in God, evidence is everywhere. If I don't, it isn't. I'm pretty sure you didn't need that pointing out to you. If you were expecting verifiable evidence of the transcendental... may I recommend counselling.

---

God's about to get owned with a microscope.

LOL good luck with that one! I don't know who of you is more delusional, but then it seems you're well matched.

[Watson]

According to Watson you need a telescope. Go figure.

I said this where, exactly?

[Autumnlicious]

Don't change the subject... own your position.

[you continue to repeat the illogic we've already dismissed in another thread, which you refuse to address]

Conveniently your poor memory lets you repeat your blind assertions like they're actually still applicable.

You failed to refute those assertions, log them for all to see and merely insulted him. Please either correct that or consider your aforementioned statement as is quoted as lacking proof and therefore irrelevant to this discussion.

Fact is Rhiz... your position is no more sure than mine. My point. You shouldn't feel so self righteous as to infer superiority like you do.

If I believe in God, evidence is everywhere. If I don't, it isn't. I'm pretty sure you didn't need that pointing out to you. If you were expecting verifiable evidence of the transcendental... may I recommend counselling.

The position of lacking a belief in a deity is logical due to the lack of verifiable evidence of one. It doesn't dismiss such deity, simply is a lack of belief in it. Hence to a logical mind, one does not believe in a god. Since you stated that belief has a non-verifiable clause, which is inherently impossible to verify and hence a lack of belief is the only logical course (indecision until evidence is provided to make a decision), it appears to me that a logical being does not believe in any deity.

And please, do not recommend counseling - you are neither qualified to make such assertions and it is uncertain if you are being genuine or merely throwing out insults, as you did earlier in this thread.

LOL good luck with that one! I don't know who of you is more delusional, but then it seems you're well matched.

I am simply unable to state what is required in this context - it is obvious enough to make me cringe.

[Minimalist]

that water that had been blessed was more pure than water that had not beed blessed.

How about water that's been pissed in? What about water that's pissed in by the pope? There are wheels-within-wheels here.

[tavarish]

Don't change the subject... own your position.

[you continue to repeat the illogic we've already dismissed in another thread, which you refuse to address]

Conveniently your poor memory lets you repeat your blind assertions like they're actually still applicable.

I gave you more credit than you were due if you think I changed the subject by making an apples to apples analogy.

You continue to dig a hole for yourself and lack the intellectual honesty to admit any wrongdoing. Arguing with you has turned into nothing less than a clusterfuck because you fail to realize what a logical point of view would be.

You say your point of view if logical? Prove it. What is your evidence for such a claim? I told you my reasoning.

You ever think that your reasoning might be strong enough to convince others? Or is it a "true for you" type thing?

I'm not going to insult your intelligence, but I am making the point that you're showing nothing but willful ignorance on the subject. Either that, or you just need to learn how logic and reality work - it's not what works FOR YOU. It's an objective standard.

Fact is Rhiz... your position is no more sure than mine. My point. You shouldn't feel so self righteous as to infer superiority like you do.

*buzzzz* Wrong!

You're making a positive claim by saying God exists. Rhiz rejects your claim on the basis that you cannot provide evidence.

If I believe in God, evidence is everywhere. If I don't, it isn't. I'm pretty sure you didn't need that pointing out to you. If you were expecting verifiable evidence of the transcendental... may I recommend counselling.

---

If you believe in something, evidence is everywhere. I understand.

This is called rationalization and confirmation bias. We've discussed this before. Just because you make things fit in your head doesn't make them true for anyone else. I can't take your word for it. Please understand this.

LOL good luck with that one! I don't know who of you is more delusional, but then it seems you're well matched.

Yes, I'm sure delusional with all my crazy non-beliefs. I once denied existence of the sun because it wasn't out at night. True story.

[Rhizomorph13]

Fact is Rhiz... your position is no more sure than mine. My point. You shouldn't feel so self righteous as to infer superiority like you do.

To the bold... EXACTOMUNDO! I am not sure! Hence agnostic atheism. Tada!

Self-righteous? LO fucking L! It is LOGIC I claim not righteousness. I'm not even that logical, but I have at least sorted out that if a thing is not evinced, then it probably doesn't exist and I will hold out for evidence. Maybe if I start worshipping Baal (or was it Astoreth? I forget), God might see fit to burn another offering with a large flame that comes wooshing down from the clouds even after water was poured out upon it.

I would ask you for your reasons that you believe in god but we have trotted up and down that path many times and it never goes anywhere.

Cheers to your illogical belief,
Rhizo

[fr0d0]

Don't change the subject... own your position.

[you continue to repeat the illogic we've already dismissed in another thread, which you refuse to address]

Conveniently your poor memory lets you repeat your blind assertions like they're actually still applicable.

You failed to refute those assertions, log them for all to see and merely insulted him. Please either correct that or consider your aforementioned statement as is quoted as lacking proof and therefore irrelevant to this discussion.

Did you not read the thread Syn? I pointed out tavares' logical fallacies and all he did was reword and repeat them. I don't consider this a refutation. Tavares was liberal with the insults and attempted derision where I was not. This is entirely relevant to tavares repeating the unsupported assertion already refuted successfully like it hadn't been.

Fact is Rhiz... your position is no more sure than mine. My point. You shouldn't feel so self righteous as to infer superiority like you do.

If I believe in God, evidence is everywhere. If I don't, it isn't. I'm pretty sure you didn't need that pointing out to you. If you were expecting verifiable evidence of the transcendental... may I recommend counselling.

The position of lacking a belief in a deity is logical due to the lack of verifiable evidence of one. It doesn't dismiss such deity, simply is a lack of belief in it. Hence to a logical mind, one does not believe in a god. Since you stated that belief has a non-verifiable clause, which is inherently impossible to verify and hence a lack of belief is the only logical course (indecision until evidence is provided to make a decision), it appears to me that a logical being does not believe in any deity.

Disbelief is no more logical than belief. That you choose to use illogic to support you position doesn't make it stronger.

---

Don't change the subject... own your position.

[you continue to repeat the illogic we've already dismissed in another thread, which you refuse to address]

Conveniently your poor memory lets you repeat your blind assertions like they're actually still applicable.

You continue to dig a hole for yourself and lack the intellectual honesty to admit any wrongdoing. Arguing with you has turned into nothing less than a clusterfuck because you fail to realize what a logical point of view would be.

You say your point of view if logical? Prove it. What is your evidence for such a claim? I told you my reasoning.

You showed me your illogic is all... and I pointed out why very clearly. Perhaps you would like to deal with that rather than waving your arms around pointlessly.

Fact is Rhiz... your position is no more sure than mine. My point. You shouldn't feel so self righteous as to infer superiority like you do.

*buzzzz* Wrong!

You're making a positive claim by saying God exists. Rhiz rejects your claim on the basis that you cannot provide evidence.

Open your mouth... here it comes:

Not in this thread. Rhiz made the comment that somehow belief is illogical - which is unsubstantiated. He made the positive claim... I called him on it.

If I believe in God, evidence is everywhere. If I don't, it isn't. I'm pretty sure you didn't need that pointing out to you. If you were expecting verifiable evidence of the transcendental... may I recommend counselling.

If you believe in something, evidence is everywhere. I understand.

This is called rationalization and confirmation bias. We've discussed this before. Just because you make things fit in your head doesn't make them true for anyone else. I can't take your word for it. Please understand this.

Again with the holier than thou attitude.

You are also biased... moot point.

Fact is Rhiz... your position is no more sure than mine. My point. You shouldn't feel so self righteous as to infer superiority like you do.

Self-righteous? LO fucking L! It is LOGIC I claim not righteousness. I'm not even that logical, but I have at least sorted out that if a thing is not evinced, then it probably doesn't exist and I will hold out for evidence. Maybe if I start worshipping Baal (or was it Astoreth? I forget), God might see fit to burn another offering with a large flame that comes wooshing down from the clouds even after water was poured out upon it.

That isn't logic Rhiz.. it's fallacial. You're demanding evidence of the transcendal. Do you not see the absurdity of your position?

[Autumnlicious]

Fact is Rhiz... your position is no more sure than mine. My point. You shouldn't feel so self righteous as to infer superiority like you do.

If I believe in God, evidence is everywhere. If I don't, it isn't. I'm pretty sure you didn't need that pointing out to you. If you were expecting verifiable evidence of the transcendental... may I recommend counselling.

The position of lacking a belief in a deity is logical due to the lack of verifiable evidence of one. It doesn't dismiss such deity, simply is a lack of belief in it. Hence to a logical mind, one does not believe in a god. Since you stated that belief has a non-verifiable clause, which is inherently impossible to verify and hence a lack of belief is the only logical course (indecision until evidence is provided to make a decision), it appears to me that a logical being does not believe in any deity.

Disbelief is no more logical than belief. That you choose to use illogic to support you position doesn't make it stronger.

I bolded my previous statement as you demonstrated you do not appear to have comprehended it correctly.

It isn't disbelief, as disbelief is an active rejection of something by virtue of it being untrue. It is simply a lack of belief, which is the act of not making a decision on believing or rejecting thereof. Since the broad definition of atheist defines a lack of belief in a deity (not active acceptance or rejection), I have defined the logic in being atheistic.

Because some wish to actively believe there is no god, the association strong atheist is used to denote such, leaving terminology such as agnostic atheist for the statement that there cannot be a decision made on whether or not deities exist, therefore the correct action is to wait until enough information is accumulated to make a decision.

Therefore agnostic atheism is a logical position, while agnostic theism isn't, as agnostic theism has taken the action of believing, while agnostic atheism is a statement that no action has been taken.

In effect, agnostic atheism is a request for evidence and information on a deity with no action taken [belief and disbelief is nonexistent].

My statement is strong and logical.