Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[lucent]

"I had never given your objection any thought. Now that I find myself in the position of looking like an absolute moron I'm going to attempt to steer the discussion back to my list of prepared points that I believe to be unassailable, as always."

The question of whether there is a God, and who that God is are separate questions. To answer the later you must presume the former. The attempt to conflate them is not a valid objection.

Correction, no one has any reason to believe in god. Because bad reasons are exactly the same as no reasons at all with regards to truth claims. An atheist is not only saying that he has reasons, but is exhibiting a thing called reason. You're exhibiting a thing called wishful thinking.

An atheist cannot even account for his own reason without circularity. How do you know your reasoning is valid?

Nothing in the entirety of human experience is "best explained by god". God isn't an explanation, it's an excuse for not having an explanation.

God is an explanation for the existence of the Universe, life, the fine tuning of physical laws, design, morality, uniformity in nature, the laws of logic, and many other things.

The only logical move then, allows for any faith whatsoever. Making your thinly veiled wager full of shit, again. "Spiritual discernment" must mean the ability to keep a straight face whilst spouting complete bullshit. There are no contradictions in Dracula either, and? You see, even if your claim as to the bibles lack of contradiction were true it means exactly nothing.

It isn't a wager, it is just meaningless to consider if God is causing us to believe an illusion. There would be no way to tell the difference. I never said a lack of contradictions proves anything, except for the fact that it is internally consistant. I didn't raise the objection.

"You cannot account for, you cannot account for!" The "christian worldview" is one of ignorance, which accounts for nothing save it's own ignorance (by reference to it's source).

This is the argumentitive form of "i know you are but what i am". How do you account for the laws of logic?

A worldview that has been falsified, repeatedly.

Feel free to present evidence that macroevolution is true, at any time.

You'd be hard pressed to find a mythology that doesn't have a creation story, which is where most mythologies tend to attempt to draw their authority from in the first place (yours included). With regards to your creation story, we have matched it to the evidence, it doesn't fit. You would very much like for it to fit, and thats why you've left the rez and found charlatans willing to lie through their teeth in order to prop up a tired fairy tale. Well, have fun with that, forcing yourself to ignore reality can't be easy.

You have matched it to the evidence you have presupposed is true because someone else told you it is. Again, feel free to present evidence that macroevolution is true, at any time.

As is repeating worthless arguments over and over again, or attempting to dominate the topic or terms of a discussion, or evading the responses of others by swiftly moving on to the next talking point your holy man provided you with. "Thoughful people" don't advocate ignorance, as you have made a habit of doing. I don't have any confidence that you would have even the slightest inkling of what "thoughtful people" might do. You aren't such a person.

Thoughtful people don't construct a page long diatribe in an attempt to diminish another person. Thoughtful people attempt to engage instead of ridicule. Your position is a brick wall of blanket denial.

Correction, christ is a fairy tale. My knee isn't bowed, because I reject the "authority" of fairy tales. What you mean to say here is "Everyone should bow to my beliefs". Well, thanks but no thanks, your beliefs are far too petty and irrelevant for me. But feel free to bow to whatever you like with your own knees.

Good, because I don't know anything about any god in reality, the only thing I know anything about are fairy tales. So I guess I'm safe on that count. You might want to crack open a book and get an idea as to which group of people does any sort of "suppressing" between the religious and the reasonable.

Believe that she, like I, know what you would like to claim about god. That's what we're rejecting. Your myth, your fairy tale, your interpretation. In short, everything that you've posted thusfar is repugnant if only for it's abject stupidity (and many times for other reasons as well). It's your bullshit that's being rejected, and unless you're willing to demonstrate that god appointed you his official mouthpiece (and provided you with the secrets of the cosmos), you should probably stop making him sound like a douche and take credit for the god you've created as a mirror of your own horrid personality.

You don't have any excuse for your unbelief. You know there is a God, and you know who He is.

Garbage as expected, I didn't see any evidence for your own claims here, just canned response that has been annihilated (just like your narrative) every time it's been offered up.

You made the statement that Christianity had been disproven by the evidence. So let's see the evidence for macroevolution.

I'd rather you educated yourself beyond the bounds of your fairy tale. If you can't do that then maybe we are better off without you and yours muddying the waters. Still, I'd rather you go live in a cave where you can't cause damage to other's minds, rather than offing yourself(take the rest of the religious with you, if you go, please).

I'd rather you understood that Jesus loves you, and that you if place your trust in Him, and ask forgiveness for your sins, He will give you eternal life.