Do you believe in the afterlife?

[falcon9]

Did you or did you not compare my belief ... ?

Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational.  Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.


Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?
Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?

Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational.  Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.

So, since "the belief itself" is God [/quote]

No, it is NOT in _what_ was being believed in, it referred to "belief itself, (rather than "the" belief itself; again, I realize this escapes you due to your intential obfuscation.  To reiterate the salient point; by substituting the _What_, (in this case, unicorns and gods), the emphasis is upon the act of believing, (no matter what the professed belief is _in_).  Yet again, you base your inaccurate conclusion upon a false premise.  You do that  quite a bit; as references to your own words in these threads directly show.

[SurveyMack10]

Did you or did you not compare my belief ... ?

Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational.  Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.


Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?
Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?

Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational.  Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.

So, since "the belief itself" is God

No, it is NOT in _what_ was being believed in, it referred to "belief itself, (rather than "the" belief itself; again, I realize this escapes you due to your intential obfuscation.  To reiterate the salient point; by substituting the _What_, (in this case, unicorns and gods), the emphasis is upon the act of believing, (no matter what the professed beleif is _in_).  Yet again, you base your inaccurate conclusion upon a false premise.  You do that  quite a bit; as references to your own words in these threads directly show.
[/quote]

You are either asserting that a specific belief (in God) is nonsense
or you are asserting that any belief at all is nonsense by calling belief in general nonsense
Which is it?

[falcon9]

You are either asserting that a specific belief (in God) is nonsense
or you are asserting that any belief at all is nonsense by calling belief in general nonsense
Which is it?

The latter; since any belief is essentially 'faith' without evidence.

[SurveyMack10]

You are either asserting that a specific belief (in God) is nonsense
or you are asserting that any belief at all is nonsense by calling belief in general nonsense
Which is it?

The latter; since any belief is essentially 'faith' without evidence.

So, by asserting that any belief is nonsense that would mean that a belief in God is nonsense. Right?
(Saying no will prove illogical)

[falcon9]

You are either asserting that a specific belief (in God) is nonsense
or you are asserting that any belief at all is nonsense by calling belief in general nonsense
Which is it?

The latter; since any belief is essentially 'faith' without evidence.

So, by asserting that any belief is nonsense that would mean that a belief in God is nonsense. Right?

The direction you are taking is obvious and the ploy, transparent.  Once again, for the comprehension-impaired, (that would be Surveymack10); an inferred or, implicit assertion is not equivalent to an explicit, (stated), assertion.  Your attempts to provoke an explicit claim are duly noted and dismissed.

[SurveyMack10]

You are either asserting that a specific belief (in God) is nonsense
or you are asserting that any belief at all is nonsense by calling belief in general nonsense
Which is it?

The latter; since any belief is essentially 'faith' without evidence.

So, by asserting that any belief is nonsense that would mean that a belief in God is nonsense. Right?

The direction you are taking is obvious and the ploy, transparent.  Once again, for the comprehension-impaired, (that would be Surveymack10); an inferred or, implicit assertion is not equivalent to an explicit, (stated), assertion.  Your attempts to provoke an explicit claim are duly noted and dismissed.

Actually it is only logical that if all beliefs are nonsense that a belief in God is nonsense.

You said "any belief is essentially faith without evidence"
belief in God falls under the category of "any belief"

You cannot even argue that this is not true and it is not some kind of trick(that's your style not mine), it is YOUR words.

[falcon9]

You are either asserting that a specific belief (in God) is nonsense
or you are asserting that any belief at all is nonsense by calling belief in general nonsense
Which is it?

The latter; since any belief is essentially 'faith' without evidence.

So, by asserting that any belief is nonsense that would mean that a belief in God is nonsense. Right?

The direction you are taking is obvious and the ploy, transparent.  Once again, for the comprehension-impaired, (that would be Surveymack10); an inferred or, implicit assertion is not equivalent to an explicit, (stated), assertion.  Your attempts to provoke an explicit claim are duly noted and dismissed.

Actually it is only logical that if all beliefs are nonsense that a belief in God is nonsense.

You said "any belief is essentially faith without evidence"
belief in God falls under the category of "any belief"

You cannot even argue that this is not true and it is not some kind of trick(that's your style not mine), it is YOUR words.

It is an inferred or, implicit deduction - not a directly stated or, explicit claim; which is what 'an inferred or, implicit assertion is not equivalent to an explicit, (stated), assertion' means.

[SurveyMack10]

You are either asserting that a specific belief (in God) is nonsense
or you are asserting that any belief at all is nonsense by calling belief in general nonsense
Which is it?

The latter; since any belief is essentially 'faith' without evidence.

So, by asserting that any belief is nonsense that would mean that a belief in God is nonsense. Right?

The direction you are taking is obvious and the ploy, transparent.  Once again, for the comprehension-impaired, (that would be Surveymack10); an inferred or, implicit assertion is not equivalent to an explicit, (stated), assertion.  Your attempts to provoke an explicit claim are duly noted and dismissed.

Actually it is only logical that if all beliefs are nonsense that a belief in God is nonsense.

You said "any belief is essentially faith without evidence"
belief in God falls under the category of "any belief"

You cannot even argue that this is not true and it is not some kind of trick(that's your style not mine), it is YOUR words.

It is an inferred or, implicit deduction - not a directly stated or, explicit claim; which is what 'an inferred or, implicit assertion is not equivalent to an explicit, (stated), assertion' means.

So the same thing as you saying that my claim to believe in God is equivalent to saying that God is real by fact. Your hypocrisy is alarming.

[falcon9]

You are either asserting that a specific belief (in God) is nonsense
or you are asserting that any belief at all is nonsense by calling belief in general nonsense
Which is it?

The latter; since any belief is essentially 'faith' without evidence.

So, by asserting that any belief is nonsense that would mean that a belief in God is nonsense. Right?

The direction you are taking is obvious and the ploy, transparent.  Once again, for the comprehension-impaired, (that would be Surveymack10); an inferred or, implicit assertion is not equivalent to an explicit, (stated), assertion.  Your attempts to provoke an explicit claim are duly noted and dismissed.

Actually it is only logical that if all beliefs are nonsense that a belief in God is nonsense.

You said "any belief is essentially faith without evidence"
belief in God falls under the category of "any belief"

You cannot even argue that this is not true and it is not some kind of trick(that's your style not mine), it is YOUR words.

It is an inferred or, implicit deduction - not a directly stated or, explicit claim; which is what 'an inferred or, implicit assertion is not equivalent to an explicit, (stated), assertion' means.

So the same thing as you saying that my claim to believe in God is equivalent to saying that God is real by fact. Your hypocrisy is alarming.

You've amply demonstrated a severe deficiency in reading comprehension so, I pretty much expected you not to get that.  Once again, I never asserted that you claimed that "god was real by fact", nor did I imply that you implied it.  What I actually did do was ask you whether or not you believed that you believed in something that was real when you made your claim of belief in god.  You subsequently claimed that "belief IS God".  Those are your unaltered, quoted words.  The logical deduction stemming from them is that, if your belief is a fact, (as you asserted), and that "belief is god", (also asserted by you), then combining your documented claims yields the conclusion that your claim consists of 'your factual belief in god is real because your belief is real and belief is god = god is real'.  Not the same thing as something you inferred from my statement at all.  Your accusation of hypocrisy on my part is disproven.  Thanks for 'playing'.

[SurveyMack10]

You are either asserting that a specific belief (in God) is nonsense
or you are asserting that any belief at all is nonsense by calling belief in general nonsense
Which is it?

The latter; since any belief is essentially 'faith' without evidence.

So, by asserting that any belief is nonsense that would mean that a belief in God is nonsense. Right?

The direction you are taking is obvious and the ploy, transparent.  Once again, for the comprehension-impaired, (that would be Surveymack10); an inferred or, implicit assertion is not equivalent to an explicit, (stated), assertion.  Your attempts to provoke an explicit claim are duly noted and dismissed.

Actually it is only logical that if all beliefs are nonsense that a belief in God is nonsense.

You said "any belief is essentially faith without evidence"
belief in God falls under the category of "any belief"

You cannot even argue that this is not true and it is not some kind of trick(that's your style not mine), it is YOUR words.

It is an inferred or, implicit deduction - not a directly stated or, explicit claim; which is what 'an inferred or, implicit assertion is not equivalent to an explicit, (stated), assertion' means.

So the same thing as you saying that my claim to believe in God is equivalent to saying that God is real by fact. Your hypocrisy is alarming.

You've amply demonstrated a severe deficiency in reading comprehension so, I pretty much expected you not to get that.  Once again, I never asserted that you claimed that "god was real by fact", nor did I imply that you implied it.  What I actually did do was ask you whether or not you believed that you believed in something that was real when you made your claim of belief in god.  You subsequently claimed that "belief IS God".  Those are your unaltered, quoted words.  The logical deduction stemming from them is that, if your belief is a fact, (as you asserted), and that "belief is god", (also asserted by you), then combining your documented claims yields the conclusion that your claim consists of 'your factual belief in god is real because your belief is real and belief is god = god is real'.  Not the same thing as something you inferred from my statement at all.  Your accusation of hypocrisy on my part is disproven.  Thanks for 'playing'.

By suggesting that I owed you proof that God was real you were asserting that I had made such a claim. So you are correct that you did not accuse me in the exact words of "God is real by fact", but you are incorrect that you did not assert that notion. Therefore you are wrong once again.

[falcon9]

By suggesting that I owed you proof that God was real you were asserting that I had made such a claim. So you are correct that you did not accuse me in the exact words of "God is real by fact"...

No, I 'suggested' that the burden of proof lies with the one asserting the claim, (which was/is you).  That claim consists of you asserting it as "belief itself IS God", that your "belief is real" and "belief requires faith".  Since "faith" is belief in that which lacks evidence, the terms are essentially synonymous and therefore "belief" is that which lacks evidence.  Consequently, if belief lacks evidence of what is believed in, then your claim that "belief itself IS God" becomes 'the lack of evidence for the existance of god IS god'.  That which lacks evidence of existance cannot rationally be assumed to be real in that conclusive proof substantiating the claim has never been presented.

but you are incorrect that you did not assert that notion. Therefore you are wrong once again.

You've failed to demonstrate both of these contentions.  Simply asserting them without supporting your contention with evidence does not constitute evidence.  Although you have, once again, demonstrated your deficient debating skills.

[SurveyMack10]

By suggesting that I owed you proof that God was real you were asserting that I had made such a claim. So you are correct that you did not accuse me in the exact words of "God is real by fact"...

No, I 'suggested' that the burden of proof lies with the one asserting the claim, (which was/is you).  That claim consists of you asserting it as "belief itself IS God", that your "belief is real" and "belief requires faith".  Since "faith" is belief in that which lacks evidence, the terms are essentially synonymous and therefore "belief" is that which lacks evidence.  Consequently, if belief lacks evidence of what is believed in, then your claim that "belief itself IS God" becomes 'the lack of evidence for the existance of god IS god'.  That which lacks evidence of existance cannot rationally be assumed to be real in that conclusive proof substantiating the claim has never been presented.

Your inability to comprehend is astounding. I will try to explain this once again.
I am not trying to convince you that God is real.
I do not care whatsoever what you believe in.
The only fact I have stated is that I have faith in the existence of God.
I believe in God.
The fact is found in the verb (believe).
This would mean that I am claiming that it is a fact that I believe in Go's existence.
I did not claim that God is real by fact.
I can choose to believe that God is real without claiming it as a scientific fact.
You want so badly for me to say God is real and it's a fact, but I am not going to make that claim because it is not a known fact- which is why there is an element of faith involved in religion.
I hope you can clear up your confusion because your total disregard of what I say is not helping your case at all.
To summarize, I do not owe you proof that God is real (no matter what you say) because I did not claim he is real by fact. Rather that I choose to put my faith in God because I have that freedom.

but you are incorrect that you did not assert that notion. Therefore you are wrong once again.

You've failed to demonstrate both of these contentions.  Simply asserting them without supporting your contention with evidence does not constitute evidence.  Although you have, once again, demonstrated your deficient debating skills.

No matter how many times I answer your challenges you just avoid any challenges made to you by accusing me of not answering yours. This tactic is obvious to all observors of your tired debate tactics.

[falcon9]

No matter how many times I answer your challenges you just avoid any challenges made to you by accusing me of not answering yours. This tactic is obvious to all observors of your tired debate tactics.

You haven't "answered" any challenges to your unsupported claims; you've merely attempted weak diversions.  On the other hand, you haven't offered a challenge which I haven't been able to refute, (as substantiated by a myriad of refutations presented in these threads).  Any readers with adaquate comprehension skills, (this demonsarablt excludes you), can decide for themselves who has been dodging such challenges, (hint: they're on to you, Mack), and who has been employing logical reasoning to your detriment.  No wonder you're tired; it must take some effort to be as intentionally obtuse as you appear to be.

[SurveyMack10]

No matter how many times I answer your challenges you just avoid any challenges made to you by accusing me of not answering yours. This tactic is obvious to all observors of your tired debate tactics.

You haven't "answered" any challenges to your unsupported claims; you've merely attempted weak diversions.  On the other hand, you haven't offered a challenge which I haven't been able to refute, (as substantiated by a myriad of refutations presented in these threads).  Any readers with adaquate comprehension skills, (this demonsarablt excludes you), can decide for themselves who has been dodging such challenges, (hint: they're on to you, Mack), and who has been employing logical reasoning to your detriment.  No wonder you're tired; it must take some effort to be as intentionally obtuse as you appear to be.

Please repeat any challenges you feel I have not answered and I will repost my responses (not diversions) and clear up your confusion. Also, I am going to abstain from answering any of the rest of your post as it was just an attempt at making yourself look better by insulting me (did not work). Also please define "demonsarablt" as I guess I have never encountered that word before.

[falcon9]

Please repeat any challenges you feel I have not answered and I will repost my responses

No, they're all there, upthread.  Your lack of reading & comprehension skills isn't my problem, nor am I "confused" by them.  That lack is merely disappointing.

(not diversions) and clear up your confusion.

As demonstrated, they were & are attempts at diversions which failed.  Your bland denial, sans evidence, is accepted as your tacitly conceding this point.

Also, I am going to abstain from answering any of the rest of your post as it was just an attempt at making yourself look better by insulting me (did not work).

Your own replies, in your own words, support my contention that you possess deficient debating skills to proceed with this discussion much further.  Be a woman and own your own words or, be a weasel and keep trying to weasel out of them - your choice.

Also please define "demonsarablt" as I guess I have never encountered that word before. 

A grievious typo, no doubt.  Perhaps I should use your same lame diversion and list your myriad typos too ... nah, that would be a cheap trick like yours and besides, they're all available as intact quotes in these threads.  I could be in error in that you are implicitly requesting that your nose be rubbed in your own hypocrisy.  Again.