Strong Atheism starts from faith

[tavarish]

Read it again, I made no positive claim. I've told you several time now that looking for validatable proof is fallacial. If you claim that you require evidence of that which by definition cannot have validatable evidence I'd like to see your reasoning for such apparent illogic.

You fail to see my argument, that I've repeated many times over:

Here it is, please digest it.

Something that can have no valid evidence and is irrefutable by nature is not a logical argument. You make the positive claim that God exists and he interferes with our lives. That is a positive claim.

I'll make it easy for you:

Find evidence for me (any that you want, doesn't have to be empirical) that you would consider evidence of God's existence, that would show me that he exists, without me having to first assume he already exists.

What is your personal subjective evidence? I want to see how you first came up with the notion, then I'll decide for myself. Fair enough?

He can be measured, tested and observed, but not transferably. If you could 'know' for sure that God existed, then there would be no reason for religion or faith. Are you seriously suggesting anyone should accept such a brainless suggestion?

In what context was God measured and tested? If it isn't transferable, what good is it to anyone else? Why even make such a weak argument?

If God made his presence known, it would be your choice to follow him or not to follow him, it would not negate the free will argument. The Bible has lots of instances where he does this. The 10 commandments states that no one should follow any other Gods or false prophets. I would think a direct influence on his creation, which have deductive reasoning and logic, would clear up a LOT of issues in the world. It's not brainless in the least. If the existence of God was knowledge instead of blind faith, we'd have a lot less problems in the world. But of course God doesn't work like that, unless he's doing personal miracles and appearing in toast and making statues cry blood.

I understand fully the implications. I also understand what does and does not apply when following my faith. You apparently like to apply serious illogic and discriminate unfairly.

Unfairly? Most of the politicians in this country are Christian, who in turn push legislation that is in line with their ideology and gets skewed into racist and bigoted hatred, making real problems for real people. My point is religion is a dividing force for humanity which, in the 21st century, is all but obsolete.

No. JW's don't follow Christ. They don't believe he is God. It doesn't get any clearer. Christians accept the Nicene creed. that's pretty much the rule of thumb.. no matter what you decide it is.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was Jehovah's first and only direct creation,[144] that Jehovah then created everything else by means of Christ, and that the initial unassisted act of creation uniquely identifies Jesus as God's 'only-begotten Son'.[145][146] Jesus served as a redeemer and a ransom sacrifice to pay for the sins of humankind.[147] They believe that Jesus died on a single upright torture stake rather than the traditional cross.[148] They believe that references in the Bible to the Archangel Michael, Apollyon (a.k.a. Abaddon), and the Word all refer to Jesus.[149][150][151]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s...sus_Christ

It is never a scientific question! You can test, feel, experience the reality of everything around you. That God is in it is a theological consideration. Yes, a conclusion can't be validated either way... as I said.

Your logic is fallacial.

Subjective evidence is not objective evidence. There are no personal truths or personal logic. Either it is true or it isn't. Our method of distinguishing fact from fantasy is logic, reason and the scientific method.

If it cannot be validated either way, guess what, the question falls into the category of "inconclusive", and you positive claim that a God exists in reality is unfounded and illogical.

Understand this:
You're making a statement that God exists for ALL PEOPLE. He intervenes in the lives of ALL PEOPLE. Yet all you have to go on is subjective experiences. Without any kind of objective verification, you CANNOT make such a claim.

Can anyone else chime in here? It feels like I'm talking to someone who doesn't understand that an apple is an apple.

How do take fables or Hitch hikers Guide?

Metaphorically, just as i would any work of fiction. Thanks for clearing that one up.

You're getting confused and conflating ideas out of their context. 'Exist' is not relevant to God's relationship with our physical universe. He is transcendent.

He lives in and out of our reality and universe, he exists and does not exist. He is everything around us. Am I getting this right?

Can you understand how this can work only as a concept and have no logical basis in reality?

You say you will not consider it more like. Your logic is fallacious and you can't fight your way out of that particular paper bag. I lose yet you fail to make one logical point why that should be so. It appears logic isn't your strong point.

Nice talking to you.

You keep struggling to understand that reality is not something that exists solely in your head. We don't have subjective reality. Reality is reality. Any deviation from that is delusion and illogical thinking coupled with psychological defense mechanisms.

Here's our argument in a nuthshell:

you: There is a god
me: There is no evidence to support such a claim
you: God doesn't need evidence, he is everywhere and all things
me: Your argument has no basis and cannot be refuted, therefore it is moot.
you: you can't use science to prove God, we need faith.
me: that doesn't make any sense, if he was in reality, his existence would be abundantly apparent
you: his existence is irrelevant, he is transcendent.
me: That doesn't explain anything. You're basically saying anything you say can't be refuted as is doesn't use logic or reason behind it. That is illogical and a void argument.
you: You have a logical fallacy because my unfounded and unprovable phenomenon can't be proved. I win LOLZ.