Reasons

[fr0d0]

1: You say you DO have reasons for believing in God but it's not evidence (although if the reasons are valid and are anything more than personal opinion then that's basically the same thing as saying it's evidence).

Right?

Not empirical evidence. So you're saying that valid reasoning = evidence?

2: You say it is not just a personal thing - you say that God exists in reality not just in someone's mind.

Right?

No. I say that I believe that God exists. I can claim nothing.

3. You say there are no more rational reasons (or no evidence of any kind, scientific or otherwise) to believe that God exists in an objective sense than there is for Santa, etc.

Right?

I can't say objectively (factually) that God exists. No one can, as it's impossible. A ridiculous question.

And if so, don't you see any contradictions or at least a conflict of some kind between 3 of these points?

So... not so. Your understanding of my position is still incorrect. What I'm saying isn't rocket science EvF, it's very simple. How can you be an atheist when you don't understand what it is you're not accepting?

---

I wonder what Fr0d0 think of the bible and what he really meant acctually.

First of all.Fr0d0 since you said that it's theoretical possible for a god/gods to exist then I want you to explain this.

Tall order!

One rational idea at a time Giff. Read my posts

Second of all do I wonder what evidence you have that non of the non-christians gods doesn't exist?

Like I said, I followed rational process.

I don't believe in any gods but you seem to think your own god does, but what tells you that yur god exist and other relgions doesn't?

See above.

---

I think atheists are more objective that theist like you yes and, guess what, 7 votes in and everyone who has voted reckons Catholics are Christians so let's just drop it eh? Whether you believe it to be so or not, Catholics are as Christian as any other Christian cult.

What a pile of crock. If we're courting opinion exclusively from those who can't know, then the possibilities are endless. C'mon Kyu you can do better than this.

As opposed to the opinion of those with an agenda? I don't think so ... I think those removed from the specific arena in question are far better qualified to judge the objective merits of something.

That's ridiculous Kyu. There's no debatable point here to have an agenda about. You don't understand the subject - simple.

Not here they don't ... I don't believe any rationalist here (apart form theists) "gets" the idea that lack of evidence can be positive for a claim.

Yes they do Kyu.

No they don't Frodo.

Read the posts Kyu - they're in the Evidence thread.

No, I didn't!

*sighs*

Yawns!

This is you being the opposite of disingenuous is it Kyu?

Yet you apparently maintain that that lack of evidence is somehow a positive evidence for your deity ... THAT is what I have a problem with. If it's just faith, no problem (I disagree but no issue) but you somehow twist that to say that is exactly what is expected and implicitly claim it's positive evidence for your god.

I don't maintain that it's positive evidence of my deity at all! What nonsense! Have you listened to yourself lately? Lack of empirical evidence supports what the Bible says, and what I believe to be true about empirical evidence.

You see? That's EXACTLY what I mean ... you are saying that no evidence is what we should expect THEREFORE (implicitly) you are claiming a lack of evidence as a positive proof! It's offensive on every intellectual level I can consider.

Nonsense.

[All it debunks is the mindless assertion that empirical evidence is required to prove Gods existence when talking about Christian faith.

No, the implications go far beyond that.

Elucidate please.