If I say that the sky is orange, should anyone expect to believe me? Should it require a positive belief to not accept that the sky is orange?

I am working over time here, I think this is pointless.

So you aren't absolutely sure of what you believe? Why would you need to strengthen it if you were sure of it? I must be tired..

What does objective mean?

And again logical consistency is imperative to your argument. I am not sure you understand this.

The problem is my definition is not only simple but logically consistent. While yours is all over the place.

If you try to use logic to make your arguments then all of your arguments must then follow the same rules of logic.

Nubby, I am sorry bro, but you fail.

I live in Alabama, the bible belt, there are about 4000 churches in my county. And I'm not overexaggerating. It's not complicated to see. I talk to people everyday, I hear about how much is given and have people knock on my door constantly wanting to spread the gospel.

I know enough.

Look nubby something I think you fail to understand, is that encyclopedia's and dictionaries are in the business of describing all possible ways to define a given term.

What this means that we cannot use every single variable in every single dictionary or encyclopedia to define what we mean, we must agree on it before setting out on this debate otherwise we sure to fail at conveying unintelligible statements.

There for I have specified what atheism is for me, and you have quoted others who's arguments you hold in esteem as well as a passage from an encyclopedia that favors your argument (who cant do that lol), I have at least made my rebuttals, you have done nothing to further this conversation.

While you are trying to do is form a logical, coherent, and undeniable claim that god MUST exist, all that I am doing is saying that there is no logical, nor empirical evidence to convince me of such a beings existence.

Describe to me how that is not atheism, also describe to me exactly how that is a positive assertion, please do so, as you have failed to do so as of yet.

Not sure about something THAT crazy and big, but people are being brainwashed every Wednesday and Sunday when they walk into their church. Giving their hard earned money away to these theives.

Neither.

An atheist is merely the lack of belief in a god, agnostic is the belief that it is unknowable, you can believe in god and believe its unknowable and be an agnostic theist, or you could be an agnostic atheist. I would say I am the later.



If you have a concept of god, and believe it to be true, you are probably either a theist, deist, pagan ect.

I guess spiritualist if you just believe in some kind of universal subconscious mind ect, I have heard that one before also.

I can respect that, and I do respect you sharp. If only all theist where like you. Sigh.
Its really called intellectually honesty. I myself do not have the answers, so regardless of our differences in belief we are in this together.
Cheers my friend!


Another I am incapable of refuting you so "nahuh!" Nubby moment.
Fascinating.

1) So are you saying that what I have said has no basis in logic? Are you saying that?

2) Are you then saying that since the only way to not believe in god is by positively asserting that god cannot exist, there fore all beliefs are then structured the same way?

I await direct answers to these two questions?

That’s not what I am talking about though. A material atheist believes that once you die, you simply cease to be. Get it? Finito. Done. There is no judgment by some cosmic bad ass. No worries. Its lights out. Game over.

Seems to me that YOU changed the definition, to give yourself the illusion that you have good points. . .

What real difference does it make in the end? It won’t matter until you are deceased. If it’s as the material atheists believe, then you won’t even be aware you are dead because everything ends at that point. If you are right and there is some kind of heaven, fine. The one difference is atheists don’t live in fear of anything.

Very selective post reading, not true at all. Again a whole thread I created on the cosmological argument, also the idea of a positive assertion being required for every non-belief. Which is right here in this thread, and you have decided to ignored it like many other questions and positions you have ignored.

I have showed how that leads to absurdity by using an example of anything of which we do not believe and showing how absurd it would be and impossible to have a positive belief in the lack of something farcical.

Nubby you do not even clearly articulate your arguments this is half your problem.

It is also clear you do not really think about, or are incapable of thinking or understanding the arguments of others.

This I can only assume because you have not even tried to refute anything that has been said.

You just make Nahuh statements.