The Long and the Short of it.

[tackattack]

1- Car is a word in the English language
2- Words are verballizations of concepts used for communication
3- concepts are used to identify observances in our reality
4- Car is in our reality as a concept

You'd have to have another list for it's physical properties... how would you do that for the immaterial?

[fr0d0]

Demonstrate it, in any context. It's fine for you, but if you're trying to assert that this is somehow a fact, you need to provide evidence for it - not necessarily empirical. Any evidence would be fine.

Go.

I've explained that to you already Tav. Whenever I answer you you change the subject adding a few more questions. It goes nowhere.

[tavarish]

1- Car is a word in the English language
2- Words are verballizations of concepts used for communication
3- concepts are used to identify observances in our reality
4- Car is in our reality as a concept

You'd have to have another list for it's physical properties... how would you do that for the immaterial?

A concept is immaterial, as you just listed. You can apply different demonstrable elements to make a cohesive argument. However, every one of the premises have to be true and internally consistent for the argument to be plausible.

I'd make an example, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

[tackattack]

my stong suit isn't formulae Tav so feel free to site an example and I'll critique if that accumenable.

[Godhead]

In response to the opening post, I think that my total honesty annoys a lof of atheists. As soon as a theists comes along, atheists start itching for an argument, and try to assert their intellectual superiority over theists. However when the theist doesn't play along, the atheist gets angry. During the time that I've been here, I've observed the undercurrents going on underneath the surface, and really, it boils down to atheists having no intention at all of trying to understand theists. All they want to do is repeatedly play out the senario that gives them the most satisfaction, which is to affirm to themselves how clever they are. I am completely honest about my reasons for believing in god, as well as my ability to articulate those reasons. I have no need to constantly reference other people's words to try and give my arguments credibility as I simply don't care about credibility in the slightest. It's very telling for an atheist forum to have a mechanism by which everyone can give each other "Reputation" points, it really does sum up what's really going on. Right now I have 1 point (which I wouldn't miss if it disappeared), and although I appreciate the positive comments I don't have have a psychological need to collect them. That's the difference between people who are secure in themselves, and people whose goal in life is to be validated by their "peers". "Peer review", that's another one, which makes me laugh, and it goes to show that it's the same in the scientific "community" (read : clique), and the way even scientists ridicule each other shows that science has been hijacked by deeply insecure individuals whose goal is a nobel prize, fame and recognition, and the validation of their equally insecure 'peers" (clique). Many atheists lack the ability to think for themselves, which is why they constantly ask the other person to provide proof. I say you seek it, and judge it for yourself. If you don't then you have no interest in anything other than defending your view. "Defending", that's another telling word. It's really just a game, defend your view, defend your position within the clique. I have not once posted a link to anything to back up anything I've said and I have no intention to do so. I have no interest in defending my view, only expressing it and explaining it as best as I can, using my own words. It's the same thing in debating societies, the point isn't to express your view and hear the other person's view, and perhaps learn something from each other, it is to play verbal chess, it's always win-lose, never win-win, and people who are good "debators" aren't necessarily right in their views at all. So the long and the short of it is that a lot of the atheists are deeply insecure.

[Edwardo Piet]

The one reason I don't believe in God is because I'm unconvinced. I don't find his existence at all probable due to his complexity and - at least insofar as I am aware - complete absence of evidence

[Paul the Human]

Yes, yes, Godhead. We are insecure and you are honest. You've made it quite clear that you think that... or at least like to use it as a defense mechanism. The truth is, you have not answered the original post in this thread at any point since you arrived here. All you did above was take another opportunity to dis on the atheists here by pretending you know what our motivations are. You do not. Your post had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread. You are just being a troll... and you necro-posted to do it.

The question is: Why do you believe? What reasons do you have to believe that a god (any god at all) exists?

You say that you believe because you believe, which is not a convincing reason to anyone but you. It leaves us with no choice but to consider it an exercise in make-believe. At least other theists have been able to express their personal reasons for belief as reasons. We may not consider those reasons valid, but at least they (some, not all) have reasons beyond, "Because I want it to be true, so I believe it is."

[Tiberius]

In response to the opening post, I think that my total honesty annoys a lof of atheists. As soon as a theists comes along, atheists start itching for an argument, and try to assert their intellectual superiority over theists. However when the theist doesn't play along, the atheist gets angry. During the time that I've been here, I've observed the undercurrents going on underneath the surface, and really, it boils down to atheists having no intention at all of trying to understand theists. All they want to do is repeatedly play out the senario that gives them the most satisfaction, which is to affirm to themselves how clever they are. I am completely honest about my reasons for believing in god, as well as my ability to articulate those reasons. I have no need to constantly reference other people's words to try and give my arguments credibility as I simply don't care about credibility in the slightest. It's very telling for an atheist forum to have a mechanism by which everyone can give each other "Reputation" points, it really does sum up what's really going on. Right now I have 1 point (which I wouldn't miss if it disappeared), and although I appreciate the positive comments I don't have have a psychological need to collect them. That's the difference between people who are secure in themselves, and people whose goal in life is to be validated by their "peers". "Peer review", that's another one, which makes me laugh, and it goes to show that it's the same in the scientific "community" (read : clique), and the way even scientists ridicule each other shows that science has been hijacked by deeply insecure individuals whose goal is a nobel prize, fame and recognition, and the validation of their equally insecure 'peers" (clique). Many atheists lack the ability to think for themselves, which is why they constantly ask the other person to provide proof. I say you seek it, and judge it for yourself. If you don't then you have no interest in anything other than defending your view. "Defending", that's another telling word. It's really just a game, defend your view, defend your position within the clique. I have not once posted a link to anything to back up anything I've said and I have no intention to do so. I have no interest in defending my view, only expressing it and explaining it as best as I can, using my own words. It's the same thing in debating societies, the point isn't to express your view and hear the other person's view, and perhaps learn something from each other, it is to play verbal chess, it's always win-lose, never win-win, and people who are good "debators" aren't necessarily right in their views at all. So the long and the short of it is that a lot of the atheists are deeply insecure.

WALL OF TEXT

[Godhead]

Paul -

There's a difference between asking me why I believe, and asking me to convince you. You're confusing the two and you're jumping from one to the other. I really have no need to convince you although I don't mind talking about my beliefs and why I believe. If it doesn't convince you that doesn't matter to me, I'm not trying to make you agree with my point of view.

[Paul the Human]

I never asked you to convince me, you idiot. I asked you for your reasons to believe. You have categorically failed to provide any, so I am not convinced to take your beliefs seriously... and I even take Theophilus' beliefs seriously. I obviously do not agree with him, but I know he has reasons that add up to more than, 'if I can imagine it, it must be true.'

Nevermind. You have proven that you cannot or will not explain how or why you believe what you do. Why are you even here? Just to spill buckets of bullshit all over the forums?