Claiming to believe in a non-physical being does not require me to prove that He exists. The only claim I made it to believe in Him- to prove that claim all I have to do is say "I beleive in Him"- there is your proof that I believe.
Once again, your claim of "belief" wasn't being disputed; the disputed claim was/is in _what_ that belief is in. In light of your continued evasion of this point, it can only be concluded that you believe in something which doesn't exist. This constitutes a choice to make an irrational decision, as Abrupt and I were debating, (and thanks for providing an evidentiary example to support my premise).
You act as if I am trying to convince you that God is real. I'm not. Not at all.
Your 'arguments', (such as they have been), have been singularly weak and unsupported by reasoning. It must therefore be concluded that you are either unable to provide a substantial argument to show that what you believe in is "real" or, that what you believe in is unreal. After all of the foregoing repetition of this point, (without progress beyond your attempts to shift the focus of your claim from what it is in to "belief", in and of itself), you've convinced me that your belief is in something which is unreal.
(I know that you do not agree that people have the right to believe different things but they actually do.)
There is no need to fabricate things which I never stated or implied; I'm available to remark on that subject. In fact, I do agree that people have the "right" to believe whatever they wish - be it nonsense or not. Such a "right" ends when it impinges on anyone else's "right" to do the same. More specifically, an evangelical fundamentalist's "right" to spread their "beliefs" ends when they ring someone else's doorbell to 'spread the word'. Hypothetically, if someone were locked in a room with an evangelical fundamentalist, a werewolf and a weapon loaded with two silver bullets I'd have to go along with the decision to shoot the fundy. Twice.
However, if you are going to claim that God is not real- then prove it.
You can't have it both ways; either you're not claiming that "god is real" and neither am I claiming that "god is not real" or, you are making the latter initial claim and the burden of proof rests with you for making that claim.
You said that since I claimed to "believe" in God that I am required to prove he exists (this is a false debate tactic)
No, you continue to attempt to evade the crux of your claim; it isn't in your "belief", it's in _what_ you believe in, (since one could easily substitute another belief - say, in those invisible unicorns from a previous analogy - and the claim would become 'I believe in invisible unicorns' ... which would require the claimant to support their contended claim in the existance of invisible unicorns or admit that what they believe in doesn't exist). Yours is the evasive debate tactic, as you've continued to demonstrate all along.
However, if that is the game you want to play then since you claimed to believe that God does not exist you must also prove this as fact.
By now, anyone reading this exchange is aware of the fact that repeated requests for you to quote where I claimed any such thing have been repeatedly ignored by you. Since the posts in this thread show this to be the case, the only conclusion possible is that your "game" is to repeat your false accusation until the one being falsely accused simply gives up on you as a lost cause.
'However, I know that you will further avoid this questiona as you have been proven wrong by me, cribb, and abrupt and just refuse to admit it.
Your false claim as to my having been "proven wrong" is a unsubstantiated one. Merely claiming 'victory' does not confer it and doing so simply indicates that your position and arguments are weak. Thanks for tacitly conceding that.
I hope you will read over these threads and realize the debate skills you feel you have are severely lacking and are obvious attempts to dodge each and every attempt that someone makes at having you proof your claims.
Such hypocritical irony from you would be surprising, were it not so common in those who falsely accuse others of doing precisely what they are doing, (were I to speculate, I'd estimate that such a 'tactic' might be intended to divert attention away from the evidence that "the debate skills you feel you have are severely lacking and are obvious attempts to dodge each and every attempt that someone makes at having you proof your claims", as shown by following the exchanges in these threads on the subject). As the colloquialism goes, "epic fail" on your part.
You will respond to this by claiming some sort of technicality in my response (that is all you have done so far) further proving that you have lost the argument.
Again, your merely claiming 'victory' without acheiving it indicates your loss of this debate. Your tacit concession of defeat is accepted.
I have proven my claim that I believe in God.
I'll do it again.
I believe in God.
If someone did tell you they believed in invisible unicorns, they would not be claiming invisible unicorns are real, simply that they believe in them. So saying that they would be required to prove the existence of the unicorns is absurd.
The reason I purposely did not say "God is real" is because I know that any proof I offer you will be called "false"- for example, the Bible.
There is no need to answer this with WHY you will not accept the Bible as proof as I am not offering it as proof.
This is because I am not offering any proof at all.
This is because I am not required to offer any proof to you.
This is because I did not claim God was real, merely that I have chosen to believe in him.
I will once again prove I believe in God.
I believe in God.
There, I proved it again.
You keep trying to make me prove the existence of something that I never claimed exists, despite what I believe- I did not come on this thread and claim something is real and try convincing you of it, so why are you pretending that I did.
Community Forum
Topic: Do you believe in the afterlife? (Read 44789 times)
