Do you believe in the afterlife?

[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)?

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

Either way, the point stands; a "christian" is a 'xtian' since they are two different spellings for the same term.

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.

The two are not equivancies; a lack of a biased belief system is not the same thing as filtering through a biased belief system.  Since my remarks were not filtered through such a system, there was no religious bias in them.

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.

Since you were the one to wave vaguely at some "over-exaggerations", yes - it would support your contentions to actually quote them, )note; not retranslate, reinterpret, recharacterize or renege).

You call my non-christian friend "so-called?"  Would you like to explain your biased or insensitive statement?

Her bias, (as shown by the remarks you attributed to her), is that she's your friend and is far more likely to agree with you on any given point as she is to disagree with you on another point.  The phrase I used called into question her being a non-xtian based soley upon the remarks you'd previously attributed to her.  These can be requoted for reference if you'd like.

[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.

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

That's not what I was referring to and, unless you're being intentionally obtuse, the reference was to your being unable to coerce a negative proof out of me.  Here's one in turn for you;  wheel your "god" out right here, right now or admit you believe in something whose existance is speculation.

[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.

That's not what I was referring to and, unless you're being intentionally obtuse, the reference was to your being unable to coerce a negative proof out of me.  Here's one in turn for you;  wheel your "god" out right here, right now or admit you believe in something whose existance is speculation.

I literally JUST said that my God is not a physical being- or did you simply choose to ignore that?
And I have no reason to prove God's existence as I never claimed it as fact.

[falcon9]

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".

I literally JUST said that my God is not a physical being- or did you simply choose to ignore that?

Your remark wasn't ignored; the response was quoted above, (but perhaps you ignored it in your rush of irrationality?).  To reiterate, 'No rational/reasonable argument has been presented, let alone any scientific evidence for the existance of a non-physical "god"'

And I have no reason to prove God's existence as I never claimed it as fact.

   And around we go again.  For the third or fourth time now, you have claimed to believe in the existance of your non-physical god, (this claim has been quoted many times, in your own words).  The invisible unicorn analogy belies your claim to an invisble, non-physical god since anyone can equally claim various other insubstantial entities and be just as specious.

[SurveyMack10]

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".

I literally JUST said that my God is not a physical being- or did you simply choose to ignore that?

Your remark wasn't ignored; the response was quoted above, (but perhaps you ignored it in your rush of irrationality?).  To reiterate, 'No rational/reasonable argument has been presented, let alone any scientific evidence for the existance of a non-physical "god"'

And I have no reason to prove God's existence as I never claimed it as fact.

   And around we go again.  For the third or fourth time now, you have claimed to believe in the existance of your non-physical god, (this claim has been quoted many times, in your own words).  The invisible unicorn analogy belies your claim to an invisble, non-physical god since anyone can equally claim various other insubstantial entities and be just as specious.

Claiming to believe in a non-physical being does not require me to prove that He exists. The only claim I made it to believe in Him- to prove that claim all I have to do is say "I beleive in Him"- there is your proof that I believe. Now, sicne I never claimed his existence as fact I do not have to prove that he exists. I hope you can begin to understand this notion sometime soon and quit ignoring it just because it does not favor your argument.

You act as if I am trying to convince you that God is real. I'm not. Not at all. I do not care if you beliebe in God, you have a right to your own beliefs.
(I know that you do not agree that people have the right to believe different things but they actually do.)
However, if you are going to claim that God is not real- then prove it.
You said that since I claimed to "believe" in God that I am required to prove he exists (this is a false debate tactic)
However, if that is the game you want to play then since you claimed to believe that God does not exist you must also prove this as fact.

'However, I know that you will further avoid this questiona as you have been proven wrong by me, cribb, and abrupt and just refuse to admit it.
I hope you will read over these threads and realize the debate skills you feel you have are severely lacking and are obvious attempts to dodge each and every attempt that someone makes at having you proof your claims.
You will respond to this by claiming some sort of technicality in my response (that is all you have done so far) further proving that you have lost the argument.

[falcon9]

Claiming to believe in a non-physical being does not require me to prove that He exists. The only claim I made it to believe in Him- to prove that claim all I have to do is say "I beleive in Him"- there is your proof that I believe.

Once again, your claim of "belief" wasn't being disputed; the disputed claim was/is in _what_ that belief is in.  In light of your continued evasion of this point, it can only be concluded that you believe in something which doesn't exist.  This constitutes a choice to make an irrational decision, as Abrupt and I were debating, (and thanks for providing an evidentiary example to support my premise).

You act as if I am trying to convince you that God is real. I'm not. Not at all.

Your 'arguments', (such as they have been), have been singularly weak and unsupported by reasoning.  It must therefore be concluded that you are either unable to provide a substantial argument to show that what you believe in is "real" or, that what you believe in is unreal.  After all of the foregoing repetition of this point, (without progress beyond your attempts to shift the focus of your claim from what it is in to "belief", in and of itself), you've convinced me that your belief is in something which is unreal.

(I know that you do not agree that people have the right to believe different things but they actually do.)

There is no need to fabricate things which I never stated or implied; I'm available to remark on that subject.  In fact, I do agree that people have the "right" to believe whatever they wish - be it nonsense or not.  Such a "right" ends when it impinges on anyone else's "right" to do the same.  More specifically, an evangelical fundamentalist's "right" to spread their "beliefs" ends when they ring someone else's doorbell to 'spread the word'.  Hypothetically, if someone were locked in a room with an evangelical fundamentalist, a werewolf and a weapon loaded with two silver bullets I'd have to go along with the decision to shoot the fundy.  Twice.

However, if you are going to claim that God is not real- then prove it.

You can't have it both ways; either you're not claiming that "god is real" and neither am I claiming that "god is not real" or, you are making the latter initial claim and the burden of proof rests with you for making that claim.  

You said that since I claimed to "believe" in God that I am required to prove he exists (this is a false debate tactic)

No, you continue to attempt to evade the crux of your claim; it isn't in your "belief", it's in _what_ you believe in, (since one could easily substitute another belief - say, in those invisible unicorns from a previous analogy - and the claim would become 'I believe in invisible unicorns' ... which would require the claimant to support their contended claim in the existance of invisible unicorns or admit that what they believe in doesn't exist).  Yours is the evasive debate tactic, as you've continued to demonstrate all along.

However, if that is the game you want to play then since you claimed to believe that God does not exist you must also prove this as fact.

By now, anyone reading this exchange is aware of the fact that repeated requests for you to quote where I claimed any such thing have been repeatedly ignored by you.  Since the posts in this thread show this to be the case, the only conclusion possible is that your "game" is to repeat your false accusation until the one being falsely accused simply gives up on you as a lost cause.

'However, I know that you will further avoid this questiona as you have been proven wrong by me, cribb, and abrupt and just refuse to admit it.

Your false claim as to my having been "proven wrong" is a unsubstantiated one.  Merely claiming 'victory' does not confer it and doing so simply indicates that your position and arguments are weak.  Thanks for tacitly conceding that.

I hope you will read over these threads and realize the debate skills you feel you have are severely lacking and are obvious attempts to dodge each and every attempt that someone makes at having you proof your claims.

Such hypocritical irony from you would be surprising, were it not so common in those who falsely accuse others of doing precisely what they are doing, (were I to speculate, I'd estimate that such a 'tactic' might be intended to divert attention away from the evidence that "the debate skills you feel you have are severely lacking and are obvious attempts to dodge each and every attempt that someone makes at having you proof your claims", as shown by following the exchanges in these threads on the subject).  As the colloquialism goes, "epic fail" on your part.

You will respond to this by claiming some sort of technicality in my response (that is all you have done so far) further proving that you have lost the argument.

Again, your merely claiming 'victory' without acheiving it indicates your loss of this debate.  Your tacit concession of defeat is accepted.

[JediJohnnie]

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.

The fact that you've managed to dance all around the issue,all the while not being able to address the primary question posed to you,speaks for itself.You cannot prove to have such supreme knowledge to know for a certainty that God does not exist.Saying "I don't have to prove he doesn't exist,You must prove he exists." is simply deflecting the question yet again.


"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]


This is one of the most foolish analogies I've ever heard.Run his car for 20 minutes.Later,when you don't trip over a dead invisible unicorn,it's safe to say it was a figment of his imagination.I'm afraid you'll find it tougher to disprove the Living God.

[JediJohnnie]

At the end of the day,it's not difficult to see why these skeptics are unable to comprehend the existence of God,since they've very cleverly designed "qualifiers" that prevent any credit given to the Believer's point of view.

The Bible doesn't count as evidence,regardless of it's being historical accurate.It must be biased.

Any scientific fact supporting the Bible/Creationism is bias/lies/non-facts.

Faith is intangible and can't be excepted to any extent.

Miracles can't be scientifically explained,thus they cannot exist.(Despite the fact that the very definition of a Miracle is that it can't be scientifically explained.)

And (the one that tends to baffle me the most,) God can't possibly give us free will,extend punishment to the guilty,or have the Supreme knowledge to run the universe.

If you're stacking the deck like that,it's no wonder you can't believe.

That's why it's a waste of time debating with an obscurantist.It's like two teams meeting in the ball park.One team says to the other "Alright,we'll play.But just so you know,only hits from our bats are going to count."You may get a day's exercise,but the effort was ultimately futile.

[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.

The fact that you've managed to dance all around the issue,all the while not being able to address the primary question posed to you,speaks for itself.

I'm not the one evading the issue of posting a quote where I'm being accused of claiming that "god does not exist".  That would be one of you god-mongerers.  The fact that you aren't calling Surveymack10 on this aspect of her evasions speaks volumes for your evinced bias.  Your empty opinions can be effectively disregarded then.

You cannot prove to have such supreme knowledge to know for a certainty that God does not exist.Saying "I don't have to prove he doesn't exist,You must prove he exists." is simply deflecting the question yet again.

For the 'umteenth' time; your evasion, (and that of a few others), has been to avoid substantiating your claims to believe in an existant or, non-existant "god".  The burden of proof lies with the initial claimant, (and boy does it ever lie).  Attempts to deflect the burden onto those who challenge that initial claim are dissembling and specious.


"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.

This is one of the most foolish analogies I've ever heard.

Then you must not get out much.

Run his car for 5 minutes.Later,when you don't trip over a dead invisible unicorn,it's safe to say it was a figment of his imagination.I'm afraid you'll find it tougher to disprove the Living God.

Not at all, we'll simply use your 'test' and apply it to your 'invisible god'.  Let's see, according to you, we claim to believe that god in in the garage and run the car for 5 minutes.  Later, when we don't trip over a dead invisible "god", it's safe to say that this was a figment of your imaginations afterall.  Same test applied and it's your test.  It's not the most foolish test I've ever encountered but, I do get out a lot.

[falcon9]

At the end of the day,it's not difficult to see why these skeptics are unable to comprehend the existence of God,since they've very cleverly designed "qualifiers" that prevent any credit given to the Believer's point of view.

At thh beginning of any given day, unsupported opinions, (which include "faith" & "belief"), do not constitute evidence of the existance of any imaginary being claimed.

The Bible doesn't count as evidence,regardless of it's being historical accurate.It must be biased.

Your premise is false; the "bible" is not historically accurate.  If you really, truly want to go down that road, no doubt around 33,000 direct references can prove that you're blowing smoke out of your nether regions about this subject. 

Any scientific fact supporting the Bible/Creationism is bias/lies/non-facts.]/quote]


Of course they are since any 'sensible' believer just "knows" that the earth was created in six days, (144 hours, or 1.44 seconds if you go back to the "let there be light" claim).  Additionally, 65 million year old dinosaur bones, (curiously _not_ mentioned in the "bible", despite some laying around in open deserts), are really only six days old somehow.  Sure, the "bible" is just chock-full of fanciful "facts" and isn't religiously biased at all ... oh and that Kansas beachfront property you've been eying is a real bargain too!
 

Faith is intangible and can't be excepted to any extent.

By definition, "faith" is a belief for which there is no evidence - unless you meant to write "accepted", in which case I concur.

That's why it's a waste of time debating with an obscurantist.

Alternatively, it's more likely a greater waste of time attempting to debate with someone who doesn't possess an understanding of what a debate is and instead, uses ad hominem "obscurantist" name-calling in lieu of reasoning.  Sure, it's weak and evasive but, it ain't debate.

[Falconer02]

At the end of the day,it's not difficult to see why these skeptics are unable to comprehend the existence of God,since they've very cleverly designed "qualifiers" that prevent any credit given to the Believer's point of view.

There's one qualifier actually. It's called reality.

The Bible doesn't count as evidence,regardless of it's being historical accurate.It must be biased.
Any scientific fact supporting the Bible/Creationism is bias/lies/non-facts.
Faith is intangible and can't be excepted to any extent.

1.) The bible is not historically accurate.  The stories that parallel historical areas and dates are extremely romanticized at best.
2.) Billions of years plus Natural Selection? Proposterous! 6 days, a dirt man, rib woman, an evil talking snake, and truckloads of incest? Without a doubt!
3.) Everyone has some faith in something. Religious faith just needlessly butts too many heads for no reason, and that's why skeptics easily show it's lack of results and problems.

Miracles can't be scientifically explained,thus they cannot exist.(Despite the fact that the very definition of a Miracle is that it can't be scientifically explained.)

Well that depends on ones definition of a miracle. For instance if one little girl survives terrible odds in the ER, that's great but it's no miracle. It does not explain how the 1000s of other children die terrible deaths each day. It's very ignorant thinking. If you're referring to biblical miracles, they're all bogus because there's no proofs of them ever taking place.

And (the one that tends to baffle me the most,) God can't possibly give us free will,extend punishment to the guilty,or have the Supreme knowledge to run the universe.

If you're stacking the deck like that,it's no wonder you can't believe.

That's why it's a waste of time debating with an obscurantist.It's like two teams meeting in the ball park.One team says to the other "Alright,we'll play.But just so you know,only hits from our bats are going to count."You may get a day's exercise,but the effort was ultimately futile.

It's you who can't deal with the contradictions and therefore just avoid the problems with your beliefs all together. You are pompous and biased in your reasonings, don't show your proof ever, and then just cowardly walk away while telling yourself that you're right. I guess it's true what they say-- debating with creationists is like playing a game of chess with a pigeon. They knock over all of the pieces, crap on the table, fail to understand how to play, and then fly off thinking they won.

[jcribb16]

At the end of the day,it's not difficult to see why these skeptics are unable to comprehend the existence of God,since they've very cleverly designed "qualifiers" that prevent any credit given to the Believer's point of view.

The Bible doesn't count as evidence,regardless of it's being historical accurate.It must be biased.

Any scientific fact supporting the Bible/Creationism is bias/lies/non-facts.

Faith is intangible and can't be excepted to any extent.

Miracles can't be scientifically explained,thus they cannot exist.(Despite the fact that the very definition of a Miracle is that it can't be scientifically explained.)

And (the one that tends to baffle me the most,) God can't possibly give us free will,extend punishment to the guilty,or have the Supreme knowledge to run the universe.

If you're stacking the deck like that,it's no wonder you can't believe.

That's why it's a waste of time debating with an obscurantist.It's like two teams meeting in the ball park.One team says to the other "Alright,we'll play.But just so you know,only hits from our bats are going to count."You may get a day's exercise,but the effort was ultimately futile.

That was a great way to put all of that.  I agree with you.   

[Falconer02]

That was a great way to put all of that.  I agree with you.

WOW. Are you serious? You willingly agree with this insanely uneducated nonsense? Unless you're being sarcastic, that's...exponentially delusional thinking.  

[jcribb16]

That was a great way to put all of that.  I agree with you.

WOW. Are you serious? You willingly agree with this insanely uneducated nonsense? Unless you're being sarcastic, that's...exponentially delusional thinking.  

Well, Jedi was pretty much summing up what different ones in here (nonbelievers or non-christians, or atheists, or what they choose to say they are) have been trying to put to the Christians.  I am not surprised at your question to me!   

[Falconer02]

Well, Jedi was pretty much summing up what different ones in here (nonbelievers or non-christians, or atheists, or what they choose to say they are) have been trying to put to the Christians.

Skeptics: "Let's favor undeniable proofs, reality, logic, deep questions, and rational explanations since they've done nothing but progress our understanding of...well...everything."

Religious: "Let's set those things aside in favor of what one's narrow and overpoweringly problematic emotional speculations say and when people question it, let's just say it's unprovable to win the argument in our heads! SPREAD THE WORD!"