God is a Fake

[falcon9]

The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God.

Wow, this is a new claim within this discussion.  You are seriously claiming that "the belief itself", (a belief in god), "IS God"?  Belief is god?  Care to support this directly quoted claim or, will it be your usual non-rebuttal/non-refutation/nonsense?

[Falconer02]

I god in gravity  

(Ok I'll shutup now)

[falcon9]

I have answered the challenges you made to both of these claims by
1) Proving that I do believe in God (by telling you)

That wasn't the challenge; that was your failed attempt at misdirection.  The challenge was not to prove whether or not you _have_ any particular belief but, that you failed to substantiate _what_ that belief was in.  You therefore failed to answer the actual challenge, as opposed to the one you fabricated.

If you feel that I have not answered any challenges to a claim please state so DIRECTLY (do not dance around the issue as you have been) and I will answer that claim now.

I have stated so directly, (as the above quoted direct statement shows) however, you've repeatedly 'danced around' such challenges so often that I don't believe your intention to answer them now.

You challenged be to prove the existence of God, however I never claimed this existence to be fact so no matter how much you want me to prove his existence I have no responsibility to do so.

Nope, that wasn't my challenge.  My challenge was for you to substantiate that your belief was in something that was either real or, unreal, (as the unicorn analogy was emphatically intended to illuminate - subtlely or not so subtlely).  As previously stated several times, (and just as often ignored by you); either your belief is in something which is real or, unreal.  Recently however, you directly claimed that your "belief itself IS God".  These are your unaltered words.  Prior to that interesting and unsupported claim, you'd claimed that your belief had nothing to do with whether or not "god was real" and that you were trying to shift emphasis onto your "belief" being real, (by way of stating that this is your belief and therefore, that your belief was real ... a good example of circular reasoning but, I disgress).  Taken together, these claims of yours are that, since your "belief is real and the beleif itself IS God" = a claim that god is real.  If you want to deny your own words, go right ahead.  That will provide further evidence of your duplicitious pattern here.

[falcon9]

I have answered the challenges you made to both of these claims by
1) Proving that I do believe in God (by telling you)

That wasn't the challenge; that was your failed attempt at misdirection.  The challenge was not to prove whether or not you _have_ any particular belief but, that you failed to substantiate _what_ that belief was in.  You therefore failed to answer the actual challenge, as opposed to the one you fabricated.

If you feel that I have not answered any challenges to a claim please state so DIRECTLY (do not dance around the issue as you have been) and I will answer that claim now.

I have stated so directly, (as the above quoted direct statement shows) however, you've repeatedly 'danced around' such challenges so often that I don't believe your intention to answer them now.

I have not and will not ever danced around a challenge. That state is false.

Then someone is forging replies which seemed to have been coming from "SurveyMack10".

[falcon9]

I god in gravity  

(Ok I'll shutup now)

But, you don't have to god in gravity because that satellite is coming down whether you god in it or not.

[SurveyMack10]

I have answered the challenges you made to both of these claims by
1) Proving that I do believe in God (by telling you)

That wasn't the challenge; that was your failed attempt at misdirection.  The challenge was not to prove whether or not you _have_ any particular belief but, that you failed to substantiate _what_ that belief was in.  You therefore failed to answer the actual challenge, as opposed to the one you fabricated.

If you feel that I have not answered any challenges to a claim please state so DIRECTLY (do not dance around the issue as you have been) and I will answer that claim now.

I have stated so directly, (as the above quoted direct statement shows) however, you've repeatedly 'danced around' such challenges so often that I don't believe your intention to answer them now.

You challenged be to prove the existence of God, however I never claimed this existence to be fact so no matter how much you want me to prove his existence I have no responsibility to do so.

Nope, that wasn't my challenge.  My challenge was for you to substantiate that your belief was in something that was either real or, unreal, (as the unicorn analogy was emphatically intended to illuminate - subtlely or not so subtlely).  As previously stated several times, (and just as often ignored by you); either your belief is in something which is real or, unreal.  Recently however, you directly claimed that your "belief itself IS God".  These are your unaltered words.  Prior to that interesting and unsupported claim, you'd claimed that your belief had nothing to do with whether or not "god was real" and that you were trying to shift emphasis onto your "belief" being real, (by way of stating that this is your belief and therefore, that your belief was real ... a good example of circular reasoning but, I disgress).  Taken together, these claims of yours are that, since your "belief is real and the beleif itself IS God" = a claim that god is real.  If you want to deny your own words, go right ahead.  That will provide further evidence of your duplicitious pattern here.

I claimed that I choose to believe in God, not that his existence is fact. Everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of religion, I choose to believe in God. I am not claiming his existence is fact as you keep asserting.

[SurveyMack10]

I have answered the challenges you made to both of these claims by
1) Proving that I do believe in God (by telling you)

That wasn't the challenge; that was your failed attempt at misdirection.  The challenge was not to prove whether or not you _have_ any particular belief but, that you failed to substantiate _what_ that belief was in.  You therefore failed to answer the actual challenge, as opposed to the one you fabricated.

If you feel that I have not answered any challenges to a claim please state so DIRECTLY (do not dance around the issue as you have been) and I will answer that claim now.

I have stated so directly, (as the above quoted direct statement shows) however, you've repeatedly 'danced around' such challenges so often that I don't believe your intention to answer them now.

I have not and will not ever danced around a challenge. That state is false.

Then someone is forging replies which seemed to have been coming from "SurveyMack10".

Very cute! Your condescending attitude is really helping your point get across (sarcasm)

[falcon9]

My challenge was for you to substantiate that your belief was in something that was either real or, unreal, (as the unicorn analogy was emphatically intended to illuminate - subtlely or not so subtlely).  As previously stated several times, (and just as often ignored by you); either your belief is in something which is real or, unreal.  Recently however, you directly claimed that your "belief itself IS God".  These are your unaltered words.  Prior to that interesting and unsupported claim, you'd claimed that your belief had nothing to do with whether or not "god was real" and that you were trying to shift emphasis onto your "belief" being real, (by way of stating that this is your belief and therefore, that your belief was real ... a good example of circular reasoning but, I disgress).  Taken together, these claims of yours are that, since your "belief is real and the belief itself IS God" = a claim that god is real.  If you want to deny your own words, go right ahead.  That will provide further evidence of your duplicitious pattern here.

I claimed that I choose to believe in God, not that his existence is fact. I am not claiming his existence is fact as you keep asserting.

This is what was meant by your continued dodging your own claims; you also claimed that "belief itself is God" - your words.  "Real" means having the quality of _existance_.  This means that you are indeed claiming that 'god is real/exists'.  Otherwise, the tacit claim would be that you believe in something which doesn't exist.  There's not of lot of wriggle room there, despite your squirming.  In case you conveniently 'forget' what you claimed again;

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 itself 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'.   

By all means, feel free to wriggle and squirm as much as you want.  The fish enjoy that.

[SurveyMack10]

My challenge was for you to substantiate that your belief was in something that was either real or, unreal, (as the unicorn analogy was emphatically intended to illuminate - subtlely or not so subtlely).  As previously stated several times, (and just as often ignored by you); either your belief is in something which is real or, unreal.  Recently however, you directly claimed that your "belief itself IS God".  These are your unaltered words.  Prior to that interesting and unsupported claim, you'd claimed that your belief had nothing to do with whether or not "god was real" and that you were trying to shift emphasis onto your "belief" being real, (by way of stating that this is your belief and therefore, that your belief was real ... a good example of circular reasoning but, I disgress).  Taken together, these claims of yours are that, since your "belief is real and the belief itself IS God" = a claim that god is real.  If you want to deny your own words, go right ahead.  That will provide further evidence of your duplicitious pattern here.

I claimed that I choose to believe in God, not that his existence is fact. I am not claiming his existence is fact as you keep asserting.

This is what was meant by your continued dodging your own claims; you also claimed that "belief itself is God" - your words.  "Real" means having the quality of _existance_.  This means that you are indeed claiming that 'god is real/exists'.  Otherwise, the tacit claim would be that you believe in something which doesn't exist.  There's not of lot of wriggle room there, despite your squirming.  In case you conveniently 'forget' what you claimed again;

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 itself 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'.   

By all means, feel free to wriggle and squirm as much as you want.  The fish enjoy that.

I did not say God was real by fact. I simply said I choose to believe in Him. Belief in God requires faith, not simple science which is why I did not claim he is real by fact. I hope you can wrap your mind around this sometime soon.

Your attempts to twist my words into something they are not have been dismissed.

Also, you are being hypocritical. Why? Because you assert that I cannot say I believe in God without that meaning His existence is fact. Yet you allow yourself to claim that belief in general is nonsense without that meaning belief in God is nonsense.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Do not make the rules into whatever is convenient for you at the time. This is inconsistent and serverely hurts your credibility. Luckily, I have not faltered in anything I have said and have lost no credibility in result.

[falcon9]

I did not say God was real by fact. I simply said I choose to believe in Him. Belief in God requires faith...

You also claimed that "belief itself is God" - your quoted words.   

As far as "faith" goes, that simply means belief in something without evidenceof it's existance.  By asserting that your belief requires a lack of evidence in what is being believed in, you are inherently claiming that your belief is in something which cannot be proven to exist.   Now, your tacit claim means that you believe in something which lacks evidence of existance and is therefore and irrational belief, (which is what teh invisible unicorn analogy emphasizes).

Your attempts to twist my words into something they are not have been dismissed.

This is not a "twist" of your own words; it is putting your quoted claims together according to their combined meanings and logical reasoning.  Your objection is actually to what _you_ stated, (with the exception of the incoherent "they are not have been dismissed" bit).

Also, you are being hypocritical. Why? Because you assert that I cannot say I believe in God without that meaning His existence is fact.

Well, now that you have submitted your claim that you believe that "belief itself is god", that your "belief is real" and since in something which lacks evidence of existance cannot be assumed to be real/have existance, your claims are contradictory, (and therefore, hypocritical).

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Your non sequitur disregarded.

Do not make the rules into whatever is convenient for you at the time.

These aren't my "rules", unless you're implying that I invented logical reasoning.  If so, I should be famous by now.  Don't have a tantrum just because _you_ aren't being permitted to make up your own rules or, meanings of the words you chose to use to make outrageous claims, (sans substantiation).

This is inconsistent and serverely hurts your credibility. Luckily, I have not faltered in anything I have said and have lost no credibility in result.

The inconsistancies and contradictions are yours, as demonstrated in this reply above.  Once again, your penchant for denying your own words turns around to and bites your hindquarters.  The resultant loss of your "credibility" is represented by your inconsistant and contradictory claims.

[SurveyMack10]

I did not say God was real by fact. I simply said I choose to believe in Him. Belief in God requires faith...

You also claimed that "belief itself is God" - your quoted words.   

As far as "faith" goes, that simply means belief in something without evidenceof it's existance.  By asserting that your belief requires a lack of evidence in what is being believed in, you are inherently claiming that your belief is in something which cannot be proven to exist.   Now, your tacit claim means that you believe in something which lacks evidence of existance and is therefore and irrational belief, (which is what teh invisible unicorn analogy emphasizes).

I have admitted many times that my belief is not in something that is considered fact, so I do not know why you are acting as if you are putting me in my place by saying God's existence is not considered fact as that is what I have been saying all along.

Your attempts to twist my words into something they are not have been dismissed.

This is not a "twist" of your own words; it is putting your quoted claims together according to their combined meanings and logical reasoning.  Your objection is actually to what _you_ stated, (with the exception of the incoherent "they are not have been dismissed" bit).

this is false and your attempt at continuing to twist my words will further be dismissed as the condescending immature ploy at faking your way through an argument that it is.

Also, you are being hypocritical. Why? Because you assert that I cannot say I believe in God without that meaning His existence is fact.

Well, now that you have submitted your claim that you believe that "belief itself is god", that your "belief is real" and since in something which lacks evidence of existance cannot be assumed to be real/have existance, your claims are contradictory, (and therefore, hypocritical).

You act like it is new that I say I believe in God. I have been saying that all along. Also, I have been emphasizing that I am not claiming his existence as fact. Therefore your attempt to make it seem like you "tricked" me into saying that is immature and false as I have been the one saying it all along without need of coertion by one 'falcon9."

I did not claim that God is real by fact- I claimed that it is a fact that I believe in something. The act of me beliving is a fact, the proper noun which i believe in is not proven by fact rather is believed by faith. Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Your non sequitur disregarded.

Your attempt at appearing superior duly noted.

Do not make the rules into whatever is convenient for you at the time.

These aren't my "rules", unless you're implying that I invented logical reasoning.  If so, I should be famous by now.  Don't have a tantrum just because _you_ aren't being permitted to make up your own rules or, meanings of the words you chose to use to make outrageous claims, (sans substantiation).

Please show where I exhibited any behavior that would constitute a tantrum. I am going to refrain from pointing out your hypocrisy again as you clearly ignored the explanation and further dodged another challenge by attempting to make a personal attack (a habit you have).

This is inconsistent and serverely hurts your credibility. Luckily, I have not faltered in anything I have said and have lost no credibility in result.

The inconsistancies and contradictions are yours, as demonstrated in this reply above.  Once again, your penchant for denying your own words turns around to and bites your hindquarters.  The resultant loss of your "credibility" is represented by your inconsistant and contradictory claims.

Luckily you demonstrated none of that in your reply and instead just attempted once again to appear superior, and failed.  Please strengthen your arguments for the next reply so this will be more time worthy.

[falcon9]

I did not say God was real by fact. I simply said I choose to believe in Him. Belief in God requires faith...

You also claimed that "belief itself is God" - your quoted words.   

As far as "faith" goes, that simply means belief in something without evidenceof it's existance.  By asserting that your belief requires a lack of evidence in what is being believed in, you are inherently claiming that your belief is in something which cannot be proven to exist.   Now, your tacit claim means that you believe in something which lacks evidence of existance and is therefore and irrational belief, (which is what teh invisible unicorn analogy emphasizes).

Your attempts to twist my words into something they are not have been dismissed.

This is not a "twist" of your own words; it is putting your quoted claims together according to their combined meanings and logical reasoning.  Your objection is actually to what _you_ stated, (with the exception of the incoherent "they are not have been dismissed" bit).

this is false and ...

No, it isn'ty false merely becauses you don't like it and declare it to be false.  Where's the reasoning beneath such a declaration?  Ah, there isn't any, is there?  Shameful debating tactic on your part.

your attempt at continuing to twist my words will further be dismissed as the condescending immature ploy at faking your way through an argument that it is. 

What a load of weaseling crap!  Your own words were quoted, not "twisted".  Thank you for again demonstrated your severe lack of reading comprehension, (and lame ad hominem insults - right back atcha).

Also, you are being hypocritical. Why? Because you assert that I cannot say I believe in God without that meaning His existence is fact.

Well, now that you have submitted your claim that you believe that "belief itself is god", that your "belief is real" and since in something which lacks evidence of existance cannot be assumed to be real/have existance, your claims are contradictory, (and therefore, hypocritical).

You act like it is new that I say I believe in God.

On the contrary, I acted like "belief IS God" was your newest claim - because it was.  I never expected you to substantiate this new claim, (based upon evidence that you've consistantly declined to do so since this began).

I did not claim that God is real by fact- I claimed that it is a fact that I believe in something. The act of me beliving is a fact, the proper noun which i believe in is not proven by fact rather is believed by faith. Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.

Yes, that aspect was already covered in my rebuttal, (which you apparently don't comprehend).  To reiterate, (even though you quoted it); now that you have submitted your claim that you believe that "belief itself is god", that your "belief is real" and since in something which lacks evidence of existance cannot be assumed to be real/have existance, your claims are contradictory, (and therefore, hypocritical).

Do not make the rules into whatever is convenient for you at the time.

These aren't my "rules", unless you're implying that I invented logical reasoning.  If so, I should be famous by now.  Don't have a tantrum just because _you_ aren't being permitted to make up your own rules or, meanings of the words you chose to use to make outrageous claims, (sans substantiation).

Please show where I exhibited any behavior that would constitute a tantrum.

When I have more time, I'll list them by message ID for you to speciously deny again, alright?

"I am going to refrain from pointing out your hypocrisy again as you clearly ignored the explanation and further dodged another challenge by attempting to make a personal attack (a habit you have)." <-- your hypocritically-ironic words apply more accurately to you, Mack.

This is inconsistent and serverely hurts your credibility. Luckily, I have not faltered in anything I have said and have lost no credibility in result.

The inconsistancies and contradictions are yours, as demonstrated in this reply above.  Once again, your penchant for denying your own words turns around to and bites your hindquarters.  The resultant loss of your "credibility" is represented by your inconsistant and contradictory claims.

[jmeierdierck23]

one day u will see, u will meet him one day. and that is a date u will not be late for

[SurveyMack10]

I did not say God was real by fact. I simply said I choose to believe in Him. Belief in God requires faith...

You also claimed that "belief itself is God" - your quoted words.   

As far as "faith" goes, that simply means belief in something without evidenceof it's existance.  By asserting that your belief requires a lack of evidence in what is being believed in, you are inherently claiming that your belief is in something which cannot be proven to exist.   Now, your tacit claim means that you believe in something which lacks evidence of existance and is therefore and irrational belief, (which is what teh invisible unicorn analogy emphasizes).

Your attempts to twist my words into something they are not have been dismissed.

This is not a "twist" of your own words; it is putting your quoted claims together according to their combined meanings and logical reasoning.  Your objection is actually to what _you_ stated, (with the exception of the incoherent "they are not have been dismissed" bit).

this is false and ...

No, it isn'ty false merely becauses you don't like it and declare it to be false.  Where's the reasoning beneath such a declaration?  Ah, there isn't any, is there?  Shameful debating tactic on your part.

your attempt at continuing to twist my words will further be dismissed as the condescending immature ploy at faking your way through an argument that it is. 

What a load of weaseling crap!  Your own words were quoted, not "twisted".  Thank you for again demonstrated your severe lack of reading comprehension, (and lame ad hominem insults - right back atcha).

Also, you are being hypocritical. Why? Because you assert that I cannot say I believe in God without that meaning His existence is fact.

Well, now that you have submitted your claim that you believe that "belief itself is god", that your "belief is real" and since in something which lacks evidence of existance cannot be assumed to be real/have existance, your claims are contradictory, (and therefore, hypocritical).

You act like it is new that I say I believe in God.

On the contrary, I acted like "belief IS God" was your newest claim - because it was.  I never expected you to substantiate this new claim, (based upon evidence that you've consistantly declined to do so since this began).

I did not claim that God is real by fact- I claimed that it is a fact that I believe in something. The act of me beliving is a fact, the proper noun which i believe in is not proven by fact rather is believed by faith. Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.

Yes, that aspect was already covered in my rebuttal, (which you apparently don't comprehend).  To reiterate, (even though you quoted it); now that you have submitted your claim that you believe that "belief itself is god", that your "belief is real" and since in something which lacks evidence of existance cannot be assumed to be real/have existance, your claims are contradictory, (and therefore, hypocritical).

Do not make the rules into whatever is convenient for you at the time.

These aren't my "rules", unless you're implying that I invented logical reasoning.  If so, I should be famous by now.  Don't have a tantrum just because _you_ aren't being permitted to make up your own rules or, meanings of the words you chose to use to make outrageous claims, (sans substantiation).

Please show where I exhibited any behavior that would constitute a tantrum.

When I have more time, I'll list them by message ID for you to speciously deny again, alright?

"I am going to refrain from pointing out your hypocrisy again as you clearly ignored the explanation and further dodged another challenge by attempting to make a personal attack (a habit you have)." <-- your hypocritically-ironic words apply more accurately to you, Mack.

This is inconsistent and serverely hurts your credibility. Luckily, I have not faltered in anything I have said and have lost no credibility in result.

The inconsistancies and contradictions are yours, as demonstrated in this reply above.  Once again, your penchant for denying your own words turns around to and bites your hindquarters.  The resultant loss of your "credibility" is represented by your inconsistant and contradictory claims.

I'm going to ask that you change the font or so something to differentiate what you added to this quote as I do not have the time to search for it.

[jenniferhoder]

This is a very disturbing topic. To me, it sounds as though maybe you haven't been dealt the best hand in life, and therefore are blaming this on God. Just remember that some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers. I pray for you that you will find your faith again one day.