God is a Fake

[Bungie2]

god is not a fake because he made this world, he the one that made us who we are today, his the one who made humans everything around us. He Created this world for us to do whats right and figure whats your true meanings of life. I hope ya understand what im trying to say.  

[CARRIE71818]

if god is not real then who woke u up this morning  read the story of adam and eve.

[chadw97]

Of course he is real. how else would we all be here. Do you believe an explosion could create life.

[Falconer02]

Of course he is real. how else would we all be here. Do you believe an explosion could create life.

Well...as far as our research has shown, there is physical evidence of the big bang happening. There are a lot of holes between then and now, but that's no reason to throw a specific defined god or gods into the mix. It's called a "god of the gaps" scenario and it's a completely fallible argument.

[falcon9]

1.  Why do radical atheists oppose, with such a vengeance, something they say doesn’t exist, and why does it bother them that someone else chooses to believe in Christ?

If you mean, why do _some- of the more radical atheists oppose some of the more radical xtians with such a "vengence", I could offer some speculative opinions, (numbered below, in correspondance with your numbered, multi-part questions).  Here's the inverse question back at you; why do some of the more radical xtian react with such spiteful vengence when their "faith" is challenged?  Is it that weak a faith?  Why would such a challenge bother them in the least, were their faith as strong as they claim it to be? *

2.  Why do athiests say Christians are too pushy and delusional, etc., (while we try to tell them that not all Christians are that way and should not be boxed in the same one box); yet can't admit that there are athiests who also are too pushy, delusional, vocal, and even threatening?

2. Again, I'd be speculating here however, I'd estimate a strong possibility rests with a combination of highly subjective perceptions of what constitutes "too pushy" and "delusional", (as opposed to reasoned, unemotional determinations as to what actually constitutes such descriptive aspects), and with there being _some_ of both on both ends of the religious/nonreligious spectrum. 

Here is a new article that has come out:  What do you think this "top athiest" means by saying we Christians need to be eradicated?  Do you agree with this man? Is he psycho?  Should Christians lump him in the same box as all athiests?

"e·rad·i·cate   /ɪˈrædɪˌkeɪt/  Show Spelled[ih-rad-i-keyt]  Show IPA
verb (used with object), -cat·ed, -cat·ing. 
1. to remove or destroy utterly; extirpate: to eradicate smallpox throughout the world.
2. to erase by rubbing or by means of a chemical solvent: to eradicate a spot.
3. to pull up by the roots: to eradicate weeds."
(Sounds like a threat on Christians' lives, in my opinion)

Link:
 http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/09/top-atheist-calls-for-eradication-of-dangerous-damaging-and-disingenuous-christians.php#ixzz1YiDAYpdB?source=NEWSLETTER&nlsource=11&ppc=&utm_campaign=Bible&utm_source=NL&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_term=att.net

3. If you really do want to take that tactic, I could easily come up with 'authortive xtian' opinions regarding nonxtians which are just as hostile.  My own view on that matter of "eradication" of opponents is to do so through defeating their 'arguments' via reasoning, (as opposed to sophistry/pseudo-reasoning, or relying upon 'blind faith', for instance).  Although I would be remiss were I not to point to the documented historical exaamples of religiously-based atempts to 'convert the nonbelievers by sword' on a much vaste scale than any uch attempts by "atheists" to convert 'believers' to atheism.

*-1) My own speculations on your first set of questions would be that some atheist/nonreligious persons might well view such vehemently- evangelical-fundamentaliist and faith-based opinions as offenive to critical thinking and reason.  Again, this is merely speculation and the 'rationale' behind such opposition of 'blind faith' can, (and does), vary from person to person.  I've seen a few of the excuses put forth by these evangelical fundamenalists however, in order not to assume yours, which one explains why you do it?
 
   
 









[/quote]

[SurveyMack10]

Now you've got someone else trying to get you to "prove your claim" after they've failed to prove their initial claims concerning their 'defined deities', (which is a dodge effectively insisting that their initial claim be disproved so that they don't have to substantiate their initial claims).  Seems to me it would be easier for the initial claimants to just admit that they cannot substantiate their claims and rely upon faith alone.

I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is, but I did not get on this thread and start asserting that I am right and everyone else is wrong. I am simply asking the person who claimed it was a fact that God does not exist to prove it.

Stating a belief that something is "real" is the same thing a claiming something is real.  There is no need to overtly assert that such a claim is "right" since making a claim one believes is tacitly wrong would be even more irrational than going around making unsubstantiated claims which rest upon baseless belief.  Regardless, you are again requesting that someone else prove a negative.  This isn't how reasoning works; it is however, how those who eschew reasoning work.  It's a sad state of affairs but, since the original claim/belief that "god(s)" exist remains unsubstantiated, it's a moot point.

Mackenzie, I don't know if this is what you have been looking for in regards to falcon9 saying God is not real.  He is not saying that in those exact words but is implying that it would be 'irrational and tacitly wrong to make a claim based on baseless belief.'
[/quote]

He has many times accused me of believing in something that cannot be substantiated and on another thread compared God to invisible unicorns, but he will not admit that is the equivalent of saying God is not real- it is just a tactic he uses to evade having to support the claim that God is not real. I have realized he is never going to admit that he made that claim just because he did not say the exact words, even though it is clear in most of his posts that he was accusing me of believing in something imaginary and calling me irrational. It is just a technicality he uses to get out of proving his claim that God does not exist. In the quote you provided he openly claimed that belief in God is a "baseless belief", but I would say it is a safe bet he will make an excuse as to why that is not good enough prove that he said God does not exist just so he does not have to support the claim...

[SurveyMack10]

falcon9,
I am not offended that you do not believe in God, it does not hurt ME in any way.

Yet, your previous dissembling and ouright lies are mildly offensive to me.  And yes, you are free to believe any nonsense you wish.  Good luck with that.

I can hope that you will have the maturity to say that it is OKAY for others to not believe the same way you do.

Already did - not my concern that you lack basic comprehension skills.

opposed to arrogance in saying your way is the only way.

Since I never stated nor implied that my "way is the only way", I reject your penchant for attempting to attribute things I didn't say to me.  That constitutes lying, which makes you a liar.  Knock it off or you'll be called on it as bluntly as this, got it?  As a reminder, you've still failed to produce that quote of my claiming that "god is not real" - have you got that one handy or, are you okay with your lie?

I am sorry that you could not twist my words into that no matter how hard you tried.

Since I quoted your words, none were "twisted" unless you did the twisting.  That you fail to acknowledge the meaning of your own claim is unltimately your own self-deception; you aren't deceiving me no matter how hard you've tried.

I have summarized everything from my side of the debate in a polite, respectful way.

Bit late for that after your previously hostility and diversions.

I suppose saying my beliefs are nonsense isnt equivalent to saying I believe in something that doesn't exist either?

[falcon9]

He has many times accused me of believing in something that cannot be substantiated and on another thread compared God to invisible unicorns

Since you've repeatedly obfuscated the distinction between whether or not your "belief" is real and whether or not _what_ that belief is in is real, clarification was sought.  Only _after_ your contention that you "believe god is real" was the burden of proof to substantiate your claim that "god is real" established.  As to the unicorn analogy, you misrepresent what the analogy described; which was a comparison of 'belief itself' and _not_ particularly in WHAT was being believed in.  This distinction has been intentionally blurred by "SurveyMack10" in her attempts at deception.

but he will not admit that is the equivalent of saying God is not real- it is just a tactic he uses to evade having to support the claim that God is not real. I have realized he is never going to admit that he made that claim just because he did not say the exact words ...

It isn't the equivalent of making an implicit claim just because you incorrectly interpret the analogy that way.  As you conceded, it also does not constitute an explicit claim therefore, I am not required to support a claim never made.

In the quote you provided he openly claimed that belief in God is a "baseless belief"

Quote where I "openly claimed that belief in god is a baseless belief" or, own your lie.

[falcon9]

I suppose saying my beliefs are nonsense isnt equivalent to saying I believe in something that doesn't exist either?

Having you falsely attribute things I never stated to me, instead to your false accusations is beginning to get tedious.  Quote where I asserted that or, can we just put that on your tab as yet another cheap trick lie?

[SurveyMack10]

I suppose saying my beliefs are nonsense isnt equivalent to saying I believe in something that doesn't exist either?

Having you falsely attribute things I never stated to me, instead to your false accusations is beginning to get tedious.  Quote where I asserted that or, can we just put that on your tab as yet another cheap trick lie?

falcon9,
I am not offended that you do not believe in God, it does not hurt ME in any way.

Yet, your previous dissembling and ouright lies are mildly offensive to me.  And yes, you are free to believe any nonsense you wish.  Good luck with that.

[SurveyMack10]

He has many times accused me of believing in something that cannot be substantiated and on another thread compared God to invisible unicorns

Since you've repeatedly obfuscated the distinction between whether or not your "belief" is real and whether or not _what_ that belief is in is real, clarification was sought.  Only _after_ your contention that you "believe god is real" was the burden of proof to substantiate your claim that "god is real" established.  As to the unicorn analogy, you misrepresent what the analogy described; which was a comparison of 'belief itself' and _not_ particularly in WHAT was being believed in.  This distinction has been intentionally blurred by "SurveyMack10" in her attempts at deception.

but he will not admit that is the equivalent of saying God is not real- it is just a tactic he uses to evade having to support the claim that God is not real. I have realized he is never going to admit that he made that claim just because he did not say the exact words ...

It isn't the equivalent of making an implicit claim just because you incorrectly interpret the analogy that way.  As you conceded, it also does not constitute an explicit claim therefore, I am not required to support a claim never made.

In the quote you provided he openly claimed that belief in God is a "baseless belief"

Quote where I "openly claimed that belief in god is a baseless belief" or, own your lie.

Now you've got someone else trying to get you to "prove your claim" after they've failed to prove their initial claims concerning their 'defined deities', (which is a dodge effectively insisting that their initial claim be disproved so that they don't have to substantiate their initial claims).  Seems to me it would be easier for the initial claimants to just admit that they cannot substantiate their claims and rely upon faith alone.

I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is, but I did not get on this thread and start asserting that I am right and everyone else is wrong. I am simply asking the person who claimed it was a fact that God does not exist to prove it.

Stating a belief that something is "real" is the same thing a claiming something is real.  There is no need to overtly assert that such a claim is "right" since making a claim one believes is tacitly wrong would be even more irrational than going around making unsubstantiated claims which rest upon baseless belief.  Regardless, you are again requesting that someone else prove a negative.  This isn't how reasoning works; it is however, how those who eschew reasoning work.  It's a sad state of affairs but, since the original claim/belief that "god(s)" exist remains unsubstantiated, it's a moot point.
[/quote]


^^above is a direct quote from falcon9, the only thing that has been altered is that I bolded a significant portion.

[falcon9]

I suppose saying my beliefs are nonsense isnt equivalent to saying I believe in something that doesn't exist either?

Having you falsely attribute things I never stated to me, instead to your false accusations is beginning to get tedious.  Quote where I asserted that or, can we just put that on your tab as yet another cheap trick lie?

falcon9,
I am not offended that you do not believe in God, it does not hurt ME in any way.

Yet, your previous dissembling and ouright lies are mildly offensive to me.  And yes, you are free to believe any nonsense you wish.  Good luck with that.

As the quote shows, (_not_ as your interpretation accuses), I clearly stated that "you are free to believe any nonsense you wish" and so is anyone else.  Your particular beliefs were not specifically classified as nonsense, (although it was 'implied' and not explicit, I've previously outlined the reasons for contending that "faith" & "belief" form an insubstantial basis and therefore, can result in believing in such things as invisible unicorns).  If you wish to conclude an inference that this means your _particular_, (and vague), "beliefs" are nonsense, go ahead.

[SurveyMack10]

I suppose saying my beliefs are nonsense isnt equivalent to saying I believe in something that doesn't exist either?

Having you falsely attribute things I never stated to me, instead to your false accusations is beginning to get tedious.  Quote where I asserted that or, can we just put that on your tab as yet another cheap trick lie?

falcon9,
I am not offended that you do not believe in God, it does not hurt ME in any way.

Yet, your previous dissembling and ouright lies are mildly offensive to me.  And yes, you are free to believe any nonsense you wish.  Good luck with that.

As the quote shows, (_not_ as your interpretation accuses), I clearly stated that "you are free to believe any nonsense you wish" and so is anyone else.  Your particular beliefs were not specifically classified as nonsense, (although it was 'implied' and not explicit, I've previously outlined the reasons for contending that "faith" & "belief" form an insubstantial basis and therefore, can result in believing in such things as invisible unicorns).  If you wish to conclude an inference that this means your _particular_, (and vague), "beliefs" are nonsense, go ahead.

You were obviously implying my beliefs in God were nonsense since that is what we were discussing, denying it is a technicality and basically a lie.

[falcon9]

He has many times accused me of believing in something that cannot be substantiated and on another thread compared God to invisible unicorns

Since you've repeatedly obfuscated the distinction between whether or not your "belief" is real and whether or not _what_ that belief is in is real, clarification was sought.  Only _after_ your contention that you "believe god is real" was the burden of proof to substantiate your claim that "god is real" established.  As to the unicorn analogy, you misrepresent what the analogy described; which was a comparison of 'belief itself' and _not_ particularly in WHAT was being believed in.  This distinction has been intentionally blurred by "SurveyMack10" in her attempts at deception.

It isn't the equivalent of making an implicit claim just because you incorrectly interpret the analogy that way.  As you conceded, it also does not constitute an explicit claim therefore, I am not required to support a claim never made.

In the quote you provided he openly claimed that belief in God is a "baseless belief"

Quote where I "openly claimed that belief in god is a baseless belief" or, own your lie.

I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is, but I did not get on this thread and start asserting that I am right and everyone else is wrong. I am simply asking the person who claimed it was a fact that God does not exist to prove it.

Stating a belief that something is "real" is the same thing a claiming something is real.  There is no need to overtly assert that such a claim is "right" since making a claim one believes is tacitly wrong would be even more irrational than going around making unsubstantiated claims which rest upon baseless belief.  Regardless, you are again requesting that someone else prove a negative.  This isn't how reasoning works; it is however, how those who eschew reasoning work.  It's a sad state of affairs but, since the original claim/belief that "god(s)" exist remains unsubstantiated, it's a moot point.

Yes, as the quote clearly shows, (no need for "SurveyMack10" to reinterpret it to force-fit it into her false assertion); the statement emphasizes that the _basis_ for an unspecified belief is not substantiated, (it relies upon "faith", which is equally baseless in that "faith" is that for which there is no evidence).  It also re-emphasizes the contention that those who made the Initial claim that "god exists" by asserting that they "believe that god exists", (whether or not the that person's "belief" exists is irrelavent), continue to fail to substantiate such an initial claim.  By dodging this and demanding that opposing arguments instead substantiate a negative, ("prove that god doesn't exist"), those who hope such dodging constitutes 'debate' are sadly mistaken.

[falcon9]

You were obviously implying my beliefs in God were nonsense since that is what we were discussing, denying it is a technicality and basically a lie.

An implication, (which is open to interpretation since is is not an explicit claim), is not equivalent to making an explicit claim.  If it were, I could simply greet a neighbor with a "good morning" and he'd be free to interpret that as a grave insult which resulted in inaccurately characterizing my greeting as hostile.  Back to your sophist conclusion that the distinction between "implicit" and "explicit" is some sort of "technicality and basically a lie"; this is another of your false conclusions based upon a faulty premise.  As there IS a valid distinction between "implicit" and "explicit" claims, this is no mere technicality, (therefore, your premise is false).  Since your premise is false, the fabricated conclusion you based it on is false.  Secondarily, you false conclusion that I lied is, itself, a lie.  You do have an established propensity for lying, as can be easily requoted from two D+D threads, (and thus, substantiated).  Is this complusive or, pathological for you?