Do you believe in the afterlife?

[JediJohnnie]

Ultimately,for all the pseudointellectual rhetoric that gets tossed around by the skeptics,it cannot be proven that God does not exist.As I said before,one would have to be an all knowing "god" to claim with such certainty that there is no God.It's the height of human arrogance to presume to have such complete knowledge that would preclude the possibility.

[JediJohnnie]

I do want to clarify one thing.  Not all athiests would agree with your parody listed.

True, and not all xtians would agree with your biased, god-mongering which shows in the xtian writings and "teachings".  

However, there are many that are so anti-God, that their attitude is totally biased and it shows in their writings and teachings, including this parody.  This parody is biased, anti-God, and saracastic of Christians and God.

As a Christian, I am stating this objectively.

Your assertion is a false claim; as a xtian, you are definitely _not_ making your statement of opinion objectively since it is manifestly filtered through your belief system.  

A non-christian friend also states that it comes through loud and clear "anti-God" with no respect of a Christian's decision to follow God.  There are things listed in there that are over-exaggerated just to make a Christian's choice look stupid and foolish.  

What specific portions are "anti-god", (since you are making the allegation through some so-called "non-xtian friend")?  Additionally, could you indicate which parts of the parody are "over-exaggerated", (supposedly to make a xtian's choice look stupid and foolish ... something for which little or no assistance is required)?

Um,I believe the term you're looking for is "Christian".Not sure if your "Xtian" reference is born of superstition or some form of passive aggression.

[falcon9]

I do want to clarify one thing.  Not all athiests would agree with your parody listed.

True, and not all xtians would agree with your biased, god-mongering which shows in the xtian writings and "teachings".  

However, there are many that are so anti-God, that their attitude is totally biased and it shows in their writings and teachings, including this parody.  This parody is biased, anti-God, and saracastic of Christians and God.

As a Christian, I am stating this objectively.

Your assertion is a false claim; as a xtian, you are definitely _not_ making your statement of opinion objectively since it is manifestly filtered through your belief system. 

A non-christian friend also states that it comes through loud and clear "anti-God" with no respect of a Christian's decision to follow God.  There are things listed in there that are over-exaggerated just to make a Christian's choice look stupid and foolish. 

What specific portions are "anti-god", (since you are making the allegation through some so-called "non-xtian friend")?  Additionally, could you indicate which parts of the parody are "over-exaggerated", (supposedly to make a xtian's choice look stupid and foolish ... something for which little or no assistance is required)?

Your assertion that Christians cannot speak objectively is false.

I didn't assert that, I questioned jcribb16's assertion that "As a Christian, I am stating this objectively."  That is, he made the false assertion.

Also, if that is the case then your opinions are all biased do to your involvement in atheism therefore making all of your arguments so far tainted.

Since it isn't the case, your conclusion does not follow.  To reiterate the point; jcribb16 made the "As a Christian, I am stating this objectively" asserted claim.

[SurveyMack10]

I do want to clarify one thing.  Not all athiests would agree with your parody listed.

True, and not all xtians would agree with your biased, god-mongering which shows in the xtian writings and "teachings".  

However, there are many that are so anti-God, that their attitude is totally biased and it shows in their writings and teachings, including this parody.  This parody is biased, anti-God, and saracastic of Christians and God.

As a Christian, I am stating this objectively.

Your assertion is a false claim; as a xtian, you are definitely _not_ making your statement of opinion objectively since it is manifestly filtered through your belief system. 

A non-christian friend also states that it comes through loud and clear "anti-God" with no respect of a Christian's decision to follow God.  There are things listed in there that are over-exaggerated just to make a Christian's choice look stupid and foolish. 

What specific portions are "anti-god", (since you are making the allegation through some so-called "non-xtian friend")?  Additionally, could you indicate which parts of the parody are "over-exaggerated", (supposedly to make a xtian's choice look stupid and foolish ... something for which little or no assistance is required)?

Your assertion that Christians cannot speak objectively is false.

I didn't assert that, I questioned jcribb16's assertion that "As a Christian, I am stating this objectively."  That is, he made the false assertion.

Also, if that is the case then your opinions are all biased do to your involvement in atheism therefore making all of your arguments so far tainted.

Since it isn't the case, your conclusion does not follow.  To reiterate the point; jcribb16 made the "As a Christian, I am stating this objectively" asserted claim.

jcribb CAN speak objectively, being a Christian does not change that- your statement is false

[falcon9]

I do want to clarify one thing.  Not all athiests would agree with your parody listed.

True, and not all xtians would agree with your biased, god-mongering which shows in the xtian writings and "teachings".  

However, there are many that are so anti-God, that their attitude is totally biased and it shows in their writings and teachings, including this parody.  This parody is biased, anti-God, and saracastic of Christians and God.

As a Christian, I am stating this objectively.

Your assertion is a false claim; as a xtian, you are definitely _not_ making your statement of opinion objectively since it is manifestly filtered through your belief system. 

A non-christian friend also states that it comes through loud and clear "anti-God" with no respect of a Christian's decision to follow God.  There are things listed in there that are over-exaggerated just to make a Christian's choice look stupid and foolish. 

What specific portions are "anti-god", (since you are making the allegation through some so-called "non-xtian friend")?  Additionally, could you indicate which parts of the parody are "over-exaggerated", (supposedly to make a xtian's choice look stupid and foolish ... something for which little or no assistance is required)?

Your assertion that Christians cannot speak objectively is false.

I didn't assert that, I questioned jcribb16's assertion that "As a Christian, I am stating this objectively."  That is, he made the false assertion.

Also, if that is the case then your opinions are all biased do to your involvement in atheism therefore making all of your arguments so far tainted.

Since it isn't the case, your conclusion does not follow.  To reiterate the point; jcribb16 made the "As a Christian, I am stating this objectively" asserted claim.

jcribb CAN speak objectively, being a Christian does not change that- your statement is false

Perhaps he is capable of it however, that was not demonstrated by his assertion that, "As a Christian, I am stating this objectively", clearly showing his opinion was filtered through his religious stance.  My statement has not been proven false, despite your bland and unsupported contention to teh contrary.  It becomes merely your unsupported opinion instead.

[hollister237]

Our bodies will die, and our souls and spirit will either go to heaven or hell. I have this theory though, that everyone dies at the same time, and the already dead people are experiencing a warped sense of time now. It's confusing. But as humans we cannot understand time; time isn't even the word for it anymore. But yes, our souls are our consciousness and our spirits only exist through God. Both of those will go to heaven if you are saved. If you are not... Well. Have fun making up theories to try and prove your intelligence. It doesn't have to be confusing unless you want it to however.

[falcon9]

Ultimately,for all the pseudointellectual rhetoric that gets tossed around by the skeptics

Characterizing the opposing dissent as "pseudo-intellectual rhetoric" constitutes an unsurprising degree of hypocrisy given the amount and content of such specious rhetoric coming from the 'god-mongerers' in lieu of reasoned replies.

it cannot be proven that God does not exist.
[/quote]

It is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion.  This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage and then challenging you to prove they don't.

[SurveyMack10]

I do want to clarify one thing.  Not all athiests would agree with your parody listed.

True, and not all xtians would agree with your biased, god-mongering which shows in the xtian writings and "teachings".  

However, there are many that are so anti-God, that their attitude is totally biased and it shows in their writings and teachings, including this parody.  This parody is biased, anti-God, and saracastic of Christians and God.

As a Christian, I am stating this objectively.

Your assertion is a false claim; as a xtian, you are definitely _not_ making your statement of opinion objectively since it is manifestly filtered through your belief system. 

A non-christian friend also states that it comes through loud and clear "anti-God" with no respect of a Christian's decision to follow God.  There are things listed in there that are over-exaggerated just to make a Christian's choice look stupid and foolish. 

What specific portions are "anti-god", (since you are making the allegation through some so-called "non-xtian friend")?  Additionally, could you indicate which parts of the parody are "over-exaggerated", (supposedly to make a xtian's choice look stupid and foolish ... something for which little or no assistance is required)?

Your assertion that Christians cannot speak objectively is false.

I didn't assert that, I questioned jcribb16's assertion that "As a Christian, I am stating this objectively."  That is, he made the false assertion.

Also, if that is the case then your opinions are all biased do to your involvement in atheism therefore making all of your arguments so far tainted.

Since it isn't the case, your conclusion does not follow.  To reiterate the point; jcribb16 made the "As a Christian, I am stating this objectively" asserted claim.

jcribb CAN speak objectively, being a Christian does not change that- your statement is false

Perhaps he is capable of it however, that was not demonstrated by his assertion that, "As a Christian, I am stating this objectively", clearly showing his opinion was filtered through his religious stance.  My statement has not been proven false, despite your bland and unsupported contention to teh contrary.  It becomes merely your unsupported opinion instead.

Being a Christian does not change that jcribb can state something objectively- your statement is FALSE.

[falcon9]

I do want to clarify one thing.  Not all athiests would agree with your parody listed.

True, and not all xtians would agree with your biased, god-mongering which shows in the xtian writings and "teachings".  

However, there are many that are so anti-God, that their attitude is totally biased and it shows in their writings and teachings, including this parody.  This parody is biased, anti-God, and saracastic of Christians and God.

As a Christian, I am stating this objectively.

Your assertion is a false claim; as a xtian, you are definitely _not_ making your statement of opinion objectively since it is manifestly filtered through your belief system.  

A non-christian friend also states that it comes through loud and clear "anti-God" with no respect of a Christian's decision to follow God.  There are things listed in there that are over-exaggerated just to make a Christian's choice look stupid and foolish.  

What specific portions are "anti-god", (since you are making the allegation through some so-called "non-xtian friend")?  Additionally, could you indicate which parts of the parody are "over-exaggerated", (supposedly to make a xtian's choice look stupid and foolish ... something for which little or no assistance is required)?

Um,I believe the term you're looking for is "Christian".Not sure if your "Xtian" reference is born of superstition or some form of passive aggression.

I'd considered pointing out where the reference originated and then it occurred to me that you could discover that your speculations are specious.

[SurveyMack10]

Ultimately,for all the pseudointellectual rhetoric that gets tossed around by the skeptics

Characterizing the opposing dissent as "pseudo-intellectual rhetoric" constitutes an unsurprising degree of hypocrisy given the amount and content of such specious rhetoric coming from the 'god-mongerers' in lieu of reasoned replies.

it cannot be proven that God does not exist.

It is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion.  This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage and then challenging you to prove they don't.
[/quote]


The ACTUAL reason you cannot prove that God does not exist is likely because he is not a PHYSICAL being at this time( which is why you brought up INVISIBLE unicorns)- this is the same reason it is hard to provide the proof that is accepted SCIENTIFICALLY that He does exist. However, since this is not accepted by non-believers as a reason for not providing "substantial proof" that God exists it should not be accepted as reasons for not proving that he does not. So, you still need to provide proof that he does not exist since you require the same from believers.

[falcon9]

Ultimately,for all the pseudointellectual rhetoric that gets tossed around by the skeptics

Characterizing the opposing dissent as "pseudo-intellectual rhetoric" constitutes an unsurprising degree of hypocrisy given the amount and content of such specious rhetoric coming from the 'god-mongerers' in lieu of reasoned replies.

it cannot be proven that God does not exist.

It is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion.  This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage and then challenging you to prove they don't.

The ACTUAL reason you cannot prove that God does not exist

I stated the actual reason and, because of the form logic takes, it is not the one you speculate about.

is likely because he is not a PHYSICAL being at this time( which is why you brought up INVISIBLE unicorns)

The purpose in using invisible unicorns in my analogy was that, were the unicorns visible we'd have verifiable evidence of the unicorns.  Making them as invisible as a theorectical "god" was merely substituting a religious contention for an equally improbable one.  Btw, are you asserting a non-physical "god" in order to skirt the burden of proving your prior claim?

- this is the same reason it is hard to provide the proof that is accepted SCIENTIFICALLY that He does exist.

No rational/reasonable argument has been presented, let alone any scientific evidence for the existance of a non-physical "god".  Interestingly enough, there has been mathematical evidence presented for certain theoretically non-physical dimensions, for instance.  I fully expect some 'god-mongerers' to latch onto that to claim that "god" exists in some dimensionless point.  They may have already done so, I could check ...
 

However, since this is not accepted by non-believers as a reason for not providing "substantial proof" that God exists it should not be accepted as reasons for not proving that he does not. So, you still need to provide proof that he does not exist since you require the same from believers.

That sophist nonsense doesn't make any sense.  Providing evidence of an assertion is not equivalent to providing evidence of a negative assertion.
Again, using illogical rhetoric as a challenge is a poor debate tactic on your part.

[SurveyMack10]

Ultimately,for all the pseudointellectual rhetoric that gets tossed around by the skeptics

Characterizing the opposing dissent as "pseudo-intellectual rhetoric" constitutes an unsurprising degree of hypocrisy given the amount and content of such specious rhetoric coming from the 'god-mongerers' in lieu of reasoned replies.

it cannot be proven that God does not exist.

It is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion.  This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage and then challenging you to prove they don't.

The ACTUAL reason you cannot prove that God does not exist

I stated the actual reason and, because of the form logic takes, it is not the one you speculate about.

is likely because he is not a PHYSICAL being at this time( which is why you brought up INVISIBLE unicorns)

The purpose in using invisible unicorns in my analogy was that, were the unicorns visible we'd have verifiable evidence of the unicorns.  Making them as invisible as a theorectical "god" was merely substituting a religious contention for an equally improbable one.  Btw, are you asserting a non-physical "god" in order to skirt the burden of proving your prior claim?

- this is the same reason it is hard to provide the proof that is accepted SCIENTIFICALLY that He does exist.

No rational/reasonable argument has been presented, let alone any scientific evidence for the existance of a non-physical "god".  Interestingly enough, there has been mathematical evidence presented for certain theoretically non-physical dimensions, for instance.  I fully expect some 'god-mongerers' to latch onto that to claim that "god" exists in some dimensionless point.  They may have already done so, I could check ...
 

However, since this is not accepted by non-believers as a reason for not providing "substantial proof" that God exists it should not be accepted as reasons for not proving that he does not. So, you still need to provide proof that he does not exist since you require the same from believers.

That sophist nonsense doesn't make any sense.  Providing evidence of an assertion is not equivalent to providing evidence of a negative assertion.
Again, using illogical rhetoric as a challenge is a poor debate tactic on your part.

So again your answer is NO you cannot prove that God does not exist-
the actual poor debate tactics are your attempt to repeatedly dodge a simple yes or no question.

[jcribb16]

I do want to clarify one thing.  Not all athiests would agree with your parody listed.

True, and not all xtians would agree with your biased, god-mongering which shows in the xtian writings and "teachings".  

However, there are many that are so anti-God, that their attitude is totally biased and it shows in their writings and teachings, including this parody.  This parody is biased, anti-God, and saracastic of Christians and God.

As a Christian, I am stating this objectively.

Your assertion is a false claim; as a xtian, you are definitely _not_ making your statement of opinion objectively since it is manifestly filtered through your belief system. 

A non-christian friend also states that it comes through loud and clear "anti-God" with no respect of a Christian's decision to follow God.  There are things listed in there that are over-exaggerated just to make a Christian's choice look stupid and foolish. 

What specific portions are "anti-god", (since you are making the allegation through some so-called "non-xtian friend")?  Additionally, could you indicate which parts of the parody are "over-exaggerated", (supposedly to make a xtian's choice look stupid and foolish ... something for which little or no assistance is required)?

First of all, I'm a she!  Second, I am a Christian, not an xtian.

Just because I am a Christian does not mean that I cannot make objective statements.  Actually, in reverse, your statements are being "filtered through your belief/non-belief system."   So please don't go calling my statement false unless you want to agree yours is also false.

It's late tonight and I don't have the time to specifically show you the over-exaggerated things.  Besides, they are so blatantly obvious that someone of maturity and intelligence could read them for themselves.  When I have more time, I will take the opportunity to show the exaggerations if it's really necessary.

You call my non-christian friend "so-called?"  Would you like to explain your biased or insensitive statement?  My friend is very real and is objective and considerate enough to accept my belief as mine (in the Lord) and I respect her wish to not believe in any god.  She knows I'm still praying for her, but she doesn't cut Christians down for their personal choice.

[falcon9]

Ultimately,for all the pseudointellectual rhetoric that gets tossed around by the skeptics

Characterizing the opposing dissent as "pseudo-intellectual rhetoric" constitutes an unsurprising degree of hypocrisy given the amount and content of such specious rhetoric coming from the 'god-mongerers' in lieu of reasoned replies.

it cannot be proven that God does not exist.

It is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion.  This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage and then challenging you to prove they don't.

The ACTUAL reason you cannot prove that God does not exist

I stated the actual reason and, because of the form logic takes, it is not the one you speculate about.

is likely because he is not a PHYSICAL being at this time( which is why you brought up INVISIBLE unicorns)

The purpose in using invisible unicorns in my analogy was that, were the unicorns visible we'd have verifiable evidence of the unicorns.  Making them as invisible as a theorectical "god" was merely substituting a religious contention for an equally improbable one.  Btw, are you asserting a non-physical "god" in order to skirt the burden of proving your prior claim?

- this is the same reason it is hard to provide the proof that is accepted SCIENTIFICALLY that He does exist.

No rational/reasonable argument has been presented, let alone any scientific evidence for the existance of a non-physical "god".  Interestingly enough, there has been mathematical evidence presented for certain theoretically non-physical dimensions, for instance.  I fully expect some 'god-mongerers' to latch onto that to claim that "god" exists in some dimensionless point.  They may have already done so, I could check ...
 

However, since this is not accepted by non-believers as a reason for not providing "substantial proof" that God exists it should not be accepted as reasons for not proving that he does not. So, you still need to provide proof that he does not exist since you require the same from believers.

That sophist nonsense doesn't make any sense.  Providing evidence of an assertion is not equivalent to providing evidence of a negative assertion.
Again, using illogical rhetoric as a challenge is a poor debate tactic on your part.

So again your answer is NO you cannot prove that God does not exist-
the actual poor debate tactics are your attempt to repeatedly dodge a simple yes or no question.

No one can prove or disprove that something does _NOT_ exist; it's logically impossible, not "poor debate tactics", (in one of your 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I ploys).  You remain unable to coerce a claim out of me; don't be frustrated, others have tried and failed too.

[SurveyMack10]

Ultimately,for all the pseudointellectual rhetoric that gets tossed around by the skeptics

Characterizing the opposing dissent as "pseudo-intellectual rhetoric" constitutes an unsurprising degree of hypocrisy given the amount and content of such specious rhetoric coming from the 'god-mongerers' in lieu of reasoned replies.

it cannot be proven that God does not exist.

It is not rational to require proof or, disproof of a negative assertion.  This would be like Falconeer02 asserting that invisible unicorns inhabit his garage and then challenging you to prove they don't.

The ACTUAL reason you cannot prove that God does not exist

I stated the actual reason and, because of the form logic takes, it is not the one you speculate about.

is likely because he is not a PHYSICAL being at this time( which is why you brought up INVISIBLE unicorns)

The purpose in using invisible unicorns in my analogy was that, were the unicorns visible we'd have verifiable evidence of the unicorns.  Making them as invisible as a theorectical "god" was merely substituting a religious contention for an equally improbable one.  Btw, are you asserting a non-physical "god" in order to skirt the burden of proving your prior claim?

- this is the same reason it is hard to provide the proof that is accepted SCIENTIFICALLY that He does exist.

No rational/reasonable argument has been presented, let alone any scientific evidence for the existance of a non-physical "god".  Interestingly enough, there has been mathematical evidence presented for certain theoretically non-physical dimensions, for instance.  I fully expect some 'god-mongerers' to latch onto that to claim that "god" exists in some dimensionless point.  They may have already done so, I could check ...
 

However, since this is not accepted by non-believers as a reason for not providing "substantial proof" that God exists it should not be accepted as reasons for not proving that he does not. So, you still need to provide proof that he does not exist since you require the same from believers.

That sophist nonsense doesn't make any sense.  Providing evidence of an assertion is not equivalent to providing evidence of a negative assertion.
Again, using illogical rhetoric as a challenge is a poor debate tactic on your part.

So again your answer is NO you cannot prove that God does not exist-
the actual poor debate tactics are your attempt to repeatedly dodge a simple yes or no question.

No one can prove or disprove that something does _NOT_ exist; it's logically impossible, not "poor debate tactics", (in one of your 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I ploys).  You remain unable to coerce a claim out of me; don't be frustrated, others have tried and failed too.

I am not at all frustrated that you cannot prove that God is not real.