Completely skipped this section.

[MJ the Skeptical]

I think this frodo character likes to stir shit up. This should have been over when you didn't understand where the burden of proof rests...Okay then...

Yes it has. You haven't, until this point, enquired about what that burden might be, so you're being a little presumptuous I think. Let's see...

What's the problem with stating an opinion that the religions haven't met their burden of proof for me? That's not saying you couldn't be delusional and think it's been met. So I don't even understand why you decided to troll-bait me with your ignorance on this topic of the burden of proof. It's still begging the question. The burden of proof of a positive claim is on the one making the claim. Basically what you're saying is the burden of proof has been met for you, and so what? not in any real way, like meeting the actual standards of evidence. That's why it hasn't met the burden of proof.

No, it is not. Existence is a claim of material substance. God is immaterial.

Then this god clearly doesn't exist if existence is based on material and clearly this claim hasn't met the burden of proof via evidence. Yet you continue to type and dig a bigger hole for yourself.

That's a pretty basic attribute. Christians believe that God exists.

Basic is right.

Believing in an immaterial deity based on a world where we determine existence on whether we can test it's manifestation, is ludicrous and is why the Christian ways are fading away. Good luck with your fairy tales, they'll be campfire stories someday.

Belief through faith, an acceptance if information to be true, and to trust in that information: a rational process.

Faith is believing without evidence, so again, not meeting the burden of proof through proper standards of evidence. This has got to be the 3rd or 4th logical failing you've had in this short quote-cutting response you made. Faith is anything but rational, which shows why you're willing to believe that an immaterial deity exists in a world based on materials.

So if that's the basis of your claim, you've failed on a basic ignorance of the subject, which is what I thought.

I don't have a claim. All I stated was my opinion that no religion has met the proper standards of evidence to meet the burden of proof. This is pretty standard for scientifically inclined people. And I bet if you asked other people, they'd also agree that the burden of proof has never been met, otherwise they'd be part of that religion.

Your burden was to show how theology failed, and it's still yours to prove.

Now who's showing their ignorance. Even if I said those exact words, that's not making the claim. That's a RESPONSE to a claim, is this that hard for you to understand what a positive claim is. Believers say there is a god, where there is burden of proof, you can't shift it onto to me and say prove that this doesn't exist. THUS the PIXIE EXAMPLE I gave.

Anybody else reading this, did I claim that I could disprove religions? I can point out many ways in which your theology fails but clearly you've talked to others about this so what's the point of going through this with stubborn creatard attitudes like yours.

What evidence of this non temporal being would you like to see? Please explain how that evidence could be acceptable to you, given your temporal limitations.

This is gibberish, like your whole post. A non material being (non-temporal) is no different from non-existence. So you've got your work cut out for you meeting that burden of proof by proper standards of evidence.

---

Y'ok sorry boss

The challenge was there... what's a hobbit to do but accept it?

It was not a challenge, you egomaniac. It was an opinion in an intro thread.

A response to theistic claims is not a positive claim. Get that through your head.