Reasons

[Kyuuketsuki]

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

Everything else so far accepted has evidential backing so typically yes but in any case as the claimant (implied) you are making the extraordinary claim it is up to you justify why your particular claim should be excepted from the usual standards of explanation supported by evidence. IOW you are operating from a position of special pleading.

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

Yes you do, your claim is implicit and I recall there was a time in this forum when it was explicit.

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

Then why not keep the stupid fucking idea to yourself? Why advance it or even discuss it here?

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?

And you're being arrogant to claim that we cannot comprehend your god or any other and that our own theistic experiences, the beliefs many of us now reject, do not qualify us (arguably even more so than you) to understand such concepts ... all you appear to be doing is advancing a No True Scotsman style argument which is a fallacy.

Your replies to Giff are all dodges ... why don't you actually try answering the points he makes?

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.

Your agenda? I assume to prove you are in some way different from Catholics when, from the POV of the objective critic, you're all the same, you're all Christians.

No they don't Frodo.

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

Try posting a reference link Frodo.

Yawns!

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

This is me responding like for like.

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.

What is? That you are doing it or that it's intellectually offensive? Both are true IMO.

No, the implications go far beyond that.

Elucidate please.

I have done many times ... firstly you specifically refer to "Christian faith", does that mean the same logic does not apply to other's faiths and gods? Secondly by putting your beliefs "out there" in the manner you have done (here in an atheism forum, defending those undefendable points of view with claims like a lack of evidence is what is to be expected and indeed actually supports such claims) and apparently expecting them to be taken seriously you are implicitly advancing a claim and thirdly, by doing so, you are elevating belief alone to be the equivalent of reasoned, rational, evidence based inductive research when belief alone has, to date, not explained a damned thing.

And that last, BTW, explains why your stated views are intellectually offensive.

Kyu