Not in tradition sense that Perry is inclining. In that ready, he makes deliberate remarks on his agenda (citing Jesus multiple times), you can ignore it if you want to.

using realism for supernaturalism? no

using logic to explain why someone who presumes to KNOW of something 'not EXISTING' merely because of an absence of evidence

is the same as someone who presumes to KNOW of something Existing in spite of an absence of evidence


we know the earth exists,, we also know humans exist
to analyze the specifics of the earth being round or flat is just
as is to analyze the specifics of HOW and WHY humans came to exist

As stated before, there is a difference between knowing and not accepting because there is no evidence. Essentially i can assert to you this is all a computer stimulation and we are in some kind of Matrix, would you believe me or not? Would you say it is improbable? IF so why would it be improbable? Point being as silly is the idea might seem, people would come to that conclusion because there is no evidence. And yes you are, this is like your third time doing the "i'm going to use a realistic analogy to bring fourth a supernatural one". But what God do we have evidence for, or what supernatural thing do we have evidence for to conclude a deity does exist? Why should i take it seriously or even scientist for that matter? We have models of the beginning of why we are here, to simply say God did it because of your bias belief in one is not different then any other religion, or ancient Greek who didn't understand thunder say "Zeus did it". To be honest, i'm half way done this circle argument. Like i said before, funny you won't even consider the possible of a God not existing, i been to both sides of the plane, can you say you really dug deep into scientific evidence or are you just using wishful thinking, because you don't understand the universe - really hope that is not the case.

I consider it, and it doesnt make sense to me. Im sane, Im logical, I have a decent IQ, A student in school. No mental or intellectual deficiencies,, I just believe its the most PROBABLE truth.

I am not a God to have any absolute truth, but I do live life on certain foundations , otherwise called my 'truth', which are based upon experience and those things MOST PROBABLE.

the point JB made however, was someone who says they KNOW God doesnt exist is no more/less delusional than someone who says they KNOW God does exist

,, however much their egos push them to believe otherwise

Yes, but deep in you heart i'm pretty sure you believe in FACT a God exist rather than one don't. So in retrospect, wouldn't that make you Delusional? Or would you be a "agnostic Christian"?

Hello??

You might want to do a little more study on this.

deep in my heart,,lol

my heart feels there is a God , of course

but , I explained how that works in terms of 'absolute truth'

90 percent of what is 'true' is 'believed' to be true because it seems most probable from what one experiences and reads,,,,

my faith in God being true is no different than anothers faith that He isnt true

they discern its most probable(that he doesnt exist) from what they experience and read

I discern, for the same reason, that he does exist


I dont walk through life on shaky foundation, or waiting to be proven 'wrong' on the things I believe,, so this serves as my foundational 'truth', although I realize I cant KNOW absolutely anymore than I can know that Pluto exists(existed), I have seen neither for myself and must rely on the integrity of those who have taught and written about it,,,

I disagree with this, it's like saying atheism is a faith, i don't have faith that God doesn't exist. It's almost like saying i have faith the SnowMan Jukaka doesn't exist hidden on MT. Everest. How can you be proven wrong on a negative, especially on something you already agree on without evidence? That's like saying you are waiting for someone to prove Zeus don't exist and until then you will believe the contrary (which i'm assuming you mean). So basically, what i'm gathering is you have an integrity of people, who wrote a Bible, containing many things found rational improbable of happening, but people who dedicate there life work in science is more so improbable of being true than that of stuff like, Noah Ark?

I agree with what you said earlier about circular logic

we can agree to disagree,, neither of us are changing what we feel and I think we have re iterated the same points long enough,,,

Touche, nice to meet you anyway the name is Myke. :)

ditto, name is Michel

Real name is Michael, now i just thinking you're biting off me. :p

haaaaaaa

not what i said. i said that a person who CLAIMS that there is no god is delusional just as a person who CLAIMS there is a god is delusional. never said a person who doesn't believe there is a god because there is no evidence is delusional. that person is a weak atheist and does not CLAIM it to be fact as a strong atheist would.





not so in the least. he's excercising his right to free speech and to practice his religion. becoming president does not require one to give up his rights guaranteed by the first amendment.



i don't watch you tube videos here. the speaker is not here for me to challenge. make your point yourself or don't make it at all. up to you. i'm here to debate you and others. got my own souped up search engine.

cough; buddhism is not a religion as they worship no deity. cough:

FSM bless you,

Buddhism is a religion/philosophy because of it's practices, traits it shares with religion and certain denominations of it, whether it fully is a religion or just simply a philosophy is irrelevant. You're preaching to choir on its overall ideology (being atheistic in a sense of not believing in God(s)), but thanks anyway.

actually the buddhists i know claim to be agnostic. agnostics don't believe in a deity either you realize, no? whatever, i won't argue definitions. i, and the courts, see buddhism as a practice in philosophy not a practice in religion.

Well i got Buddhist friends who claim they're atheistic, so i guess we have our on friends for our own world view, funny how that works out, hehe.

happens often. obviously a buddhist can be atheist or agnostic just like all nonreligious folks.

Referring to "Buddhism" as though it's a single philosophy is really not much different from referring to the Abrahamic religion as a single religion.

Usually you'd like to know whether a person follows Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, or one of the myriad of protesting Protestant denominations. There are many different beliefs associated with the Abrahamic religion.

The same is true of Buddhism. There is an extreme range of Buddhist philosophies.

So if someone tells you that they are a Buddhist, you should follow that up immediately by asking which form of Buddhism. Assuming that you'd like to know.

The original "Buddhism" became popular by Siddhartha Gautama, but very much like in Christianity where Jesus didn't start a new religion, neither did Siddhartha either. Siddhartha just made an existing spiritual philosophy very popular though his life's experiences and teachings. Very much the same way as Jesus caused a spin-off from Judaism that became "Christianity".

Siddhartha's Buddhism was indeed quite spiritual and pantheistic. And just like with Christianity, there were many different interpretations that came out of that.

These many different interpretations were collected together and give birth to Mahayana Buddhism which was also quite spiritual. That was the Buddhism that was at it's peak at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived.

Many other forms of Buddhism also arose, from Tantra Buddhism to the Buddhism of Tibet that is currently practiced by the Dalai Lama. As Buddhism moved through China it also took on many different forms. In China Buddhism became mixed with Taoism. As it continued to move out of China into Japan it became Zen Buddhism.

Zen Buddhism was strongly influenced by Taoism and is almost a glorified form of atheism. It's certainly less spiritual than the origin forms that had been started in India by Siddhartha Gautama.

So the degree to which Buddhism is a "spiritual" religion has a lot to do with which version of it is being considered.

It can range from the actual worshiping of deities, to basically glorified atheism and everything in between.

So you really can't just talk about "Buddhism" as if it's just one single philosophy. It has a far richer history than that.