The debate is over

[fr0d0]

Errr...none of those posted are actually "scientists" f0d0s.... charlatans yes, scientist? Umm NO

I didn't comment

And how exactly is reality on your side?

Reality is what I claim. If you claim that there is no such thing as non empirical then that's up to you to prove against the hard evidence.

If god is real, he or his effects SHOULD be empirically testable. This much is simply obvious.

There is mounting empirical evidence that this "god" does not exist outside the minds of those afflicted with the god-complex or those under 5years of age (mentally or chronologically)

Mounting evidence huh? Care to share a single shred with us?

---

Scientists who observe the common sense attitude that science deals with the observable

I actually agree, Frods, except by insisting on belief in the un-observable you place us in the position of having to take your word for it.

That's asking a bit much, don't you think?

You don't have to take my word for it. All you need do is use your inate reasoning powers.

---

And of course you demand empirical evidence of a non empirical subject.

Thank you for admitting that you have absolutely nothing to support or substantiate your fairy tale.

Are you even aware of what we're talking about here?

It appears not.

Scientists find you embarrasasing.

They might, if embarrasasing were even a word. However, they would not find me embarrassing, which is what your fifth grade English teacher would find you.

Well there's your best point scored.

... It's a matter of understanding information. Lack of understanding = lack of belief. Belief = informed choice.

It is arbitrary in nature, and Dawkins challenges it by pointing out that it holds no more claim to being accurate than claims of Zeus, Wotan, or the many thousands of other fairy tale deities that have been made up by others.

And we have established that Dawkins is ignorant on the subject. For those who progress out of kindergarten there's a whole grown up world to explore.

The existence of a single person who exhibits moral behavior and does not believe in your sky fairy refutes your assertion of "morality being rooted in gawd". There are and have been billions.

Oh so you're arguing FOR a moral imperitive now? And what is your world view might I ask? How do you justify your intellectual standpoint?

Did I claim exclusivity? *goes take a looksie* ...hmm... no. That's a fail then.

"Logic and reason" and "belief without proof" are mutually exclusive.

Listen up shit for brains...

Proofs of logic require that no evidence be present. For with evidence logic is unnecessary. I don't need to prove that you have access to the forum when I have evidence of you shitting in it.

So to correct your statement above: "Logic and reason" and "belief with proof" are mutually exclusive.

Yes. Dawkins wants proof that circles aren't squares. He's that fucking ignorant.

Look, asshole, if your sky fairy could create the entire fucking universe, then it could show itself to us and and end all of our skepticism here and now, forever and ever amen. According to your fairy tales, your sky fairy has appeared to other humans at will, and, being omniscient as you assholes claim, it would know perfectly well that we would not be skeptical it it were to show itself. Your claim that it is "non-empirical" is just a bullshit smoke screen. You are a pathological liar.

Ah you really are that ignorant.

Please provide proof to us, addressing the subject, and not drifting off into your own fantasy, as is usually what happens, that God is empirically proven in Christian tradition.

If you can't, I expect you to be honest and retract your statement (I won't be holding my breath).