God is a Fake

[queenofnines]

I don't know why a emoticon shows up. I never put a emoticon there; instead, it's an 8.

Because an 8 followed by a parentheses makes this emoticon:

 

If you put a space in between like this: 8 ) you'll avoid that problem.

[falcon9]

I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is

I'm quoting you, "SurveyMack", stating your above belief claiming that "god is real".  Not only did you contradict yourself within the original claim, you go one step further and deny you claimed this.  

[/quote]
No, never did I come on this thread and say GOD IS REAL AND IF YOU DONT THINK SO YOU ARE WRONG! I said, I choose to believe so, and if you do not that is fine. 
[/quote]

That wasn't the assertion made; you asserted your belief and that is an unsubstantiated claim, (not the claim of belief but, that the belief itself is a claim which remains unsubstantiated).

[/quote]
saying that I did anything different than what I just described is ignorant.
[/quote]

Your claim that you've said something other than what is actually quoted is nonsensical.

[/quote]
However, since as an atheist you say your belief is right and mine is wrong you are making the claim, so prove it-  [/quote]

Firstly, I never claimed to be an atheist nor claimed any beliefs as right and yours as wrong so, there have been no such claims asserted by me to prove.  Secondly, you continue to dodge requests that you substantiate your stated initial claims by way of diversionary counter-attacks.  These have proved to be ineffective and strongly suggest that you cannot do so.

[jsuderc]

I don't know why a emoticon shows up. I never put a emoticon there; instead, it's an 8.

Because an 8 followed by a parentheses makes this emoticon:

 

If you put a space in between like this: 8 ) you'll avoid that problem.

Thanks. I just learned something! I see it now...

[SurveyMack10]

I am not claiming God is or is not real, I believe He is

I'm quoting you, "SurveyMack", stating your above belief claiming that "god is real".  Not only did you contradict yourself within the original claim, you go one step further and deny you claimed this.  

No, never did I come on this thread and say GOD IS REAL AND IF YOU DONT THINK SO YOU ARE WRONG! I said, I choose to believe so, and if you do not that is fine. 
[/quote]

That wasn't the assertion made; you asserted your belief and that is an unsubstantiated claim, (not the claim of belief but, that the belief itself is a claim which remains unsubstantiated).

[/quote]
saying that I did anything different than what I just described is ignorant.
[/quote]

Your claim that you've said something other than what is actually quoted is nonsensical.

[/quote]
However, since as an atheist you say your belief is right and mine is wrong you are making the claim, so prove it-  [/quote]

Firstly, I never claimed to be an atheist nor claimed any beliefs as right and yours as wrong so, there have been no such claims asserted by me to prove.  Secondly, you continue to dodge requests that you substantiate your stated initial claims by way of diversionary counter-attacks.  These have proved to be ineffective and strongly suggest that you cannot do so.
[/quote]

I will say this AGAIN. My beliefs aside, I did NOT come onto this thread and say "GOD IS REAL". Saying I believe something is not claiming it as fact. So, if you claim that you did not state "God is not real", this whoever did state that can be the one to prove that claim.

My point is, I am not the one making a claim, those of you stating that God is not real are the ones making the claim. So since when a Christian claims God is real they are told to prove it, then claiming he is not real should warrant the same response- prove it.

So no, these are not diversionary counter-attacks, this is me simply explaining what I have been saying the entire time and you have been ignoring and repeating yourself and putting words in my mouth. I am not denying that I believe in God, I am just saying that I am not claiming that his existence is a fact as you are with his nonexistence. So, prove your "fact."

[falcon9]

I will say this AGAIN. My beliefs aside, I did NOT come onto this thread and say "GOD IS REAL". Saying I believe something is not claiming it as fact.

Are you now directly implying that you believe in something that isn't real?  Further, that stating a belief is not making a claim, (whether or not such a claim is factual or, false)?  That would be astounding, were it not a typical dodge.

So, if you claim that you did not state "God is not real", this whoever did state that can be the one to prove that claim.

Were you to go back through this thread topic, you'd also be able to confirm that I made no such claim.  To reiterate your claim, (and phrasing that claim as a "belief" does not alter the accurate meaning of a 'claim' just because you use a synonym), that was a "belief that god is real".  That claim was made _prior_ to any subsequent claims that god is not real.  Therefore, as the initial claim was yours, (again, the a priori assumption that you were not conversely alluding that your belief was in something that doesn't exist), the burden of substantiating your initial claim falls upon you before any other claims get a turn.

My point is, I am not the one making a claim, those of you stating that God is not real are the ones making the claim. So since when a Christian claims God is real they are told to prove it, then claiming he is not real should warrant the same response- prove it.

Once again, you and others made the initial claim stating your 'beliefs' that god exists.  Obviously, you remain unable to substantiate your claim and continue insisting that others "prove" their derivative claims that god doesn't exist.  It is a logical fallacy to require proof of a negative.

So no, these are not diversionary counter-attacks, this is me simply explaining what I have been saying the entire time and you have been ignoring and repeating yourself and putting words in my mouth. I am not denying that I believe in God, I am just saying that I am not claiming that his existence is a fact as you are with his nonexistence. So, prove your "fact."

In summation then, you are directly implying that your belief is in something which does not exist, since you are not claiming such an existance as "fact"?  These are not 'words put into your mouth', they are the logical conclusions stemming directly from your vague statements.  So, which is it; a statement of belief claiming the existance of god or, a statement of belief in a nonexistent god?

[queenofnines]

Yeah, I think it's pretty funny.  You want me to prove that YOUR god doesn't exist, even though you've failed to prove that he/she/it exists in the first place.  lulz!

[falcon9]

Yeah, I think it's pretty funny.  You want me to prove that YOUR god doesn't exist, even though you've failed to prove that he/she/it exists in the first place.  lulz!

Agreed.  Such a requirement is exactly like requiring proof that the glittery purple unicorns that created all the universe don't exist, (my daughter has a fertile imagination).  Although sometimes it seems it would be easier to explain false attributions to an eight year old than to some 'believers'.

[jcribb16]

Yeah, I think it's pretty funny.  You want me to prove that YOUR god doesn't exist, even though you've failed to prove that he/she/it exists in the first place.  lulz!

Agreed.  Such a requirement is exactly like requiring proof that the glittery purple unicorns that created all the universe don't exist, (my daughter has a fertile imagination).  Although sometimes it seems it would be easier to explain false attributions to an eight year old than to some 'believers'.

And there lies the personal choice!  You choose to not believe He exists - that's your decision.  If you are satisfied with your choice, that's great for you and it's settled.  I'm satisfied with my choice to believe and it's settled for me.  Now neither of us is condemning the other for their choices.  We move on with our lives.

[falcon9]

Yeah, I think it's pretty funny.  You want me to prove that YOUR god doesn't exist, even though you've failed to prove that he/she/it exists in the first place.  lulz!

Agreed.  Such a requirement is exactly like requiring proof that the glittery purple unicorns that created all the universe don't exist, (my daughter has a fertile imagination).  Although sometimes it seems it would be easier to explain false attributions to an eight year old than to some 'believers'.

And there lies the personal choice!  You choose to not believe He exists - that's your decision.  If you are satisfied with your choice, that's great for you and it's settled.  I'm satisfied with my choice to believe and it's settled for me.  Now neither of us is condemning the other for their choices.  We move on with our lives.

Your interpretation is not entirely accurate in that I'm not choosing to 'disbelieve' rather, I am still awaiting substantiation of the claimed belief that what you call "god" exists.  Such a belief constitutes a claim which remains unsubstantiated by anything other than 'faith'.  This means that such claims of faith are tacit admissions of a lack of substantiation and are without basis.  Characterizing a refusal to believe as merely a 'choice' trivializes the concept of choice itself - unless you're implying that one can choose to be irrational or rational if either choice suits the arguement?

[jcribb16]

Yeah, I think it's pretty funny.  You want me to prove that YOUR god doesn't exist, even though you've failed to prove that he/she/it exists in the first place.  lulz!

Agreed.  Such a requirement is exactly like requiring proof that the glittery purple unicorns that created all the universe don't exist, (my daughter has a fertile imagination).  Although sometimes it seems it would be easier to explain false attributions to an eight year old than to some 'believers'.

And there lies the personal choice!  You choose to not believe He exists - that's your decision.  If you are satisfied with your choice, that's great for you and it's settled.  I'm satisfied with my choice to believe and it's settled for me.  Now neither of us is condemning the other for their choices.  We move on with our lives.

Your interpretation is not entirely accurate in that I'm not choosing to 'disbelieve' rather, I am still awaiting substantiation of the claimed belief that what you call "god" exists.  Such a belief constitutes a claim which remains unsubstantiated by anything other than 'faith'.  This means that such claims of faith are tacit admissions of a lack of substantiation and are without basis.  Characterizing a refusal to believe as merely a 'choice' trivializes the concept of choice itself - unless you're implying that one can choose to be irrational or rational if either choice suits the arguement?

God's Word (the Bible) is one piece of evidence filled with Bible history and the life of Christ.  However, sadly, there are many who refuse to accept His Word as truth because people say it was written by man, and that they are fictional stories.  How in the world else could it have been written?  God had those writers record the events of things that happened and also tells of future events.

In the meantime, I hope you find what you are looking for as far as substantiation.  Unfortunately, having faith is the major obstacle people have when it comes to making any kind of decision for or against Christ.  For me, that is not an obstacle like it was at one time. 

As far as your comment of choosing to be rational or irrational?  Those are your words.  I had not given any thought to anything like that - I am not calling anyone rational or irrational, who is doing what he/she feels is the best thing to do when it comes to making any decision about the validity of Christ/God. 

[falcon9]

God's Word (the Bible) is one piece of evidence filled with Bible history and the life of Christ.  However, sadly, there are many who refuse to accept His Word as truth because people say it was written by man, and that they are fictional stories.  How in the world else could it have been written?  God had those writers record the events of things that happened and also tells of future events.

The reason that the "bible" does not constitute evidence is because it does constitute circular reasoning.  That is, an assertion that the presentation of an unsubstantiated bit of "evidence" supports further unsubstantiated claims based upon that "evidence" is equivalent to stating 'because I said so' and remains dubious.  As to how else such an abridged and jumbled body of writings could have been written; there are several less esoteric explanations which do not require Occam to nick himself shaving.

As far as your comment of choosing to be rational or irrational?  Those are your words.  I had not given any thought to anything like that - I am not calling anyone rational or irrational, who is doing what he/she feels is the best thing to do when it comes to making any decision about the validity of Christ/God. 

Actually, my words were "Such a belief constitutes a claim which remains unsubstantiated by anything other than 'faith'.  This means that such claims of faith are tacit admissions of a lack of substantiation and are without basis.  Characterizing a refusal to believe as merely a 'choice' trivializes the concept of choice itself - unless you're implying that one can choose to be irrational or rational if either choice suits the arguement?"

The not-so-rhetorical question at the end, rather than calling anyone rational or irrational, (i.e.; the question was asked to obtain an answer to an inquiry about whether or not "faith" is rational or, irrational), remains mysteriously unanswered.

[Abrupt]

Actually, my words were "Such a belief constitutes a claim which remains unsubstantiated by anything other than 'faith'.  This means that such claims of faith are tacit admissions of a lack of substantiation and are without basis.  Characterizing a refusal to believe as merely a 'choice' trivializes the concept of choice itself - unless you're implying that one can choose to be irrational or rational if either choice suits the arguement?"

It would depend upon what you mean by "a refusal to believe".  That is inclusive of atheism (and any belief (religious or secular) that takes a position contrary to the proposed belief), agnosticism, or any that have never considered the question.  While the later two would qualify for your characterization of 'choice', the first would not -- or at least not in any way more or less than the choice to believe.

[queenofnines]

God's Word (the Bible) is one piece of evidence filled with Bible history and the life of Christ.  However, sadly, there are many who refuse to accept His Word as truth because people say it was written by man, and that they are fictional stories.  How in the world else could it have been written?

Um...I can think of quite a few ways the "ALL POWERFUL" Creator of the universe could have done a much better job communicating his points.  Like appear in the sky to everyone in the world at the same time, visually and audibly.  Or code "Copyright [your year of birth] by God" into our individual DNA.

This "relying on prophets" business is no different than any other mythological holy book throughout time.

Video that illustrates my point wonderfully: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FhTzHVZ0h0

[Abrupt]

Um...I can think of quite a few ways the "ALL POWERFUL" Creator of the universe could have done a much better job communicating his points.  Like appear in the sky to everyone in the world at the same time, visually and audibly.  Or code "Copyright [your year of birth] by God" into our individual DNA.

The first case you give is exactly something that would be the wrong thing to do if one's goal is as God's in the bible.  The second example you give is more interesting but is something I think people would easily dismiss as a coincidental genetic trait.  It isn't 'knowing' God wants, it is 'faith' and they do not co-exist (well unless the second precedes the first I suppose).  According to the bible, knowing cannot save you but faith can.  While that has no value to someone who doesn't believe it is comforting to those that do.

[queenofnines]

It isn't 'knowing' God wants, it is 'faith' and they do not co-exist (well unless the second precedes the first I suppose).  According to the bible, knowing cannot save you but faith can.  While that has no value to someone who doesn't believe it is comforting to those that do.

Faith...ugh.  That's a dirty word.  You don't rely on "faith" for ANYTHING of importance in your real life...and yet you allow this compartmentalized area for irrationality when it comes to dealing with your mortality.