Leap of Faith (1 Viewer)

[AnarchyintheUS]

In The Concept of Anxiety Soren Kierkegaard lays out the basis for his idea of the "leap of faith." He basically states that true faith, something that transcends rational thought, cannot exist legitimately without doubt. To use Kierkegaard's example, to have faith in God one must also believe that there is a chance they could be wrong, hence the doubt. By this same rationale, which I do not believe he addresses, an atheist must also be making a leap of faith in believing that God does not exist, because there is obviously no way to prove it. (given that atheism is the choice to not believe in a God and that there are no consequences to doing so.)

I was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the subject.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

There is no faith involved in the disbelief of an unproven claim made by others.

 

[Apostle13]

There is no faith involved in the disbelief of an unproven claim made by others.

The "faith" is in the "disbelief".

 

[Spartacus FPV]

So then I have just as much faith in Leprechauns and Unicorns. Does that elevate them to the level of gods, or debase god to the level of mysticism (Oh wait, the beleif in the supernatural is mysticism) You're wrong man, faith is about trust.

 

[Apostle13]

So then I have just as much faith in Leprechauns and Unicorns.)

Do you now?

Does that elevate them to the level of gods, or debase god to the level of mysticism (Oh wait, the belief in the supernatural is mysticism)

If God is a mystery... And He is in various degrees, from the least, even to the utmost faithful. Then depending on what an individual chooses to believe, or not, I suppose He is either debased or exalted. In either case faith is the lead factor. I see otherwise no cause for to debase in mysticism, only challenge to establish a more resolute view of whatever mystic subject is at hand. My resolution is my own and shared by many... Yes God. As is yours... No God (assuming). Its a freewill free for all.

You're wrong man, faith is about trust.

You "trust" in what you don't believe... As I will "trust" in what I do.


Damn heathens.
Yaw mule!

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Do you now?

No, my point is that I have no faith at all.

If God is a mystery... And He is in various degrees, from the least, even to the utmost faithful.

False premise.

Then depending on what an individual chooses to believe, or not, I suppose He is either debased or exalted. In either case faith is the lead factor. I see otherwise no cause for to debase in mysticism, only challenge to establish a more resolute view of whatever mystic subject is at hand. My resolution is my own and shared by many... Yes God. As is yours... No God (assuming). Its a freewill free for all.

What utter tripe, not a single objective logical arguement in that whole mess. You're trying to argue that everyone has faith, even those who dont. You're also pre-supposing that god exists whether or not you believe in him.

You "trust" in what you don't believe... As I will "trust" in what I do.

I do not, and you're making a very big assumption there. I do not trust that unicorns dont exist, there is no trust at all. I dont want anything to do with your faith. You are NOT talking to a man of faith. I have nothing but contempt for it. I live by reason and unless you present any, this debate is over.

 

[Apostle13]

You are NOT talking to a man of faith.

You are utterly and conveniently missing/ignoring my point... My faith/trust is in that I do believe in God. Whereas your faith/trust is in that you don't. Like it or no, you are a religious man. You are your own god. Setting forth your own moral standards as what seems right to you. Redefining them as you go... All the while popping soul suppressants ("There is no God. There is no God!") each and every time it cries out, "Fool! We are going to hell!"
Dead in spirit you are.
There's a cure for that. http://bible.cc/john/3-6.htm

 

[Spartacus FPV]

You are utterly and conveniently missing/ignoring my point...

So it is a fact that I do not get it, and thus impossible that I do in fact get it, and just completely disagree due to its logical foundations (reason)?

My faith/trust is in that I do believe in God. Whereas your faith/trust is in that you don't.

I dont trust that I dont believe in god, I know that I dont believe in god. You have failed to establish "trust."

Like it or no, you are a religious man.

I am NOT a religious man, you just need me to be. You have to believe that everyone needs religion and faith. Well your premise is flawed and I am the proof. I despise religion and have nothing but contempt for faith.

You are your own god. Setting forth your own moral standards as what seems right to you. Redefining them as you go...

So now the definition of a god is one who lives by his own moral standards? Way to play the re-define game. I do not consider myself a god. I dont redefine them as I go, I can articulate them better and change them as I GROW.

Main Entry: god (Merriam Webster's Dictionary)
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

I am not a supreme ruler, nor am I perfect in any capacity. I have been the object of worship for very brief moments and I have no power that you do not. I am a man who does not need your false sense of morality, that does not make me a god.

All the while popping soul suppressants ("There is no God. There is no God!") each and every time it cries out, "Fool! We are going to hell!"
Dead in spirit you are.
There's a cure for that. http://bible.cc/john/3-6.htm

Oooh spirits, ghosts, and leprechauns, you must be a huge fan of Santa! By the way the prospect of hell is soooo scary, not the biblical hell. They barely talk about it, but Dante's Inferno... man... almost scared me into believing.

Do you have any way to qualify that dead in the spirit tripe? People like you think you have the cure for certain forms of death now? The "wisdom warrior" truely is in outer darkness, but at least he is spiritually cured :roll:

 

[Spartacus FPV]

By the way does the origional poster have anything to say about my arguements?

I feel like im talking to Miss Cleo over here with this guy...

 

[kal-el]

The "faith" is in the "disbelief".

Hey Apostle13, how's it goin man? Long time, huh?:2wave: You probably already know I will challenge this. I don't believe there should even be a word "atheist", as not-believing is the default position. If I told you I was abducted by aliens and taken to their planet, does it really require faith to disbelieve that claim?

 

[Apostle13]

Hey Apostle13, how's it goin man? Long time, huh?:2wave:

Hey Man... How's life?

You probably already know I will challenge this.

Ha! Can't believe you took the bait. At least your arguments are coherent... Uh, somewhat.:2razz:

I don't believe there should even be a word "atheist", as not-believing is the default position.

Default would be an agnostic position, as clearly that would be centerline.

If I told you I was abducted by aliens and taken to their planet, does it really require faith to disbelieve that claim?

No. It would require you share your acid... Where we goin'? Krypton.

 

[kal-el]

Hey Man... How's life? Ha! Can't believe you took the bait. At least your arguments are coherent... Uh, somewhat.:2razz:

Uh, not too bad man. Still alive. Thanks, somewhat.:lol:

Default would be an agnostic position, as clearly that would be centerline.

Not really. Look at this little scenario. Ok, I do not believe in mermaids. This does not mean that I believe that mermaids don't exist; it means that I do not accept the claim that they do exist. I don't accept this claim because I have never seen one, because I am aware of no acclaimed person who has seen one, and because there isn't any evidence whatsoever to suggest that mermaids exist. I am an atheist for the same reasons with one small difference. The difference is that I have actively sought evidence of God where I have not done so with mermaids. An agnostic position basically says that one cannot prove whether God exists or not, and it's basically irrelevant. Atheism is simply a lack of belief, which bears no burden of proof, for atheists aren't making any claims, except strong atheists, which they have exactly the same burden as theists.

No. It would require you share your acid... Where we goin'? Krypton.

Haha:lol: I don't share, more for me that way. A, and Krypton. Been there done that.:lol:

 

[Apostle13]

So it is a fact that I do not get it, and thus impossible that I do in fact get it, and just completely disagree due to its logical foundations (reason)?

The fact is in your factoring, or the lack thereof... If one cannot factor spiritually, as pertaining to all elementals, to sum. The answer escapes them... A flaw to conclusion.
You logic sir is not my own... Neither be countless others (aka) Believers.

I dont trust that I dont believe in god, I know that I dont believe in god. You have failed to establish "trust."

I do trust that I do believe in God, I know that I do believe in God. You have failed to establish any real point of my failing.

I am NOT a religious man, you just need me to be. You have to believe that everyone needs religion and faith. Well your premise is flawed and I am the proof.

Your observation here is not my premise.

I despise religion and have nothing but contempt for faith.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your contempt for the people of faith rather than just faith alone..? You are coming across quite angrily on this subject matter.

So now the definition of a god is one who lives by his own moral standards? Way to play the re-define game. I do not consider myself a god. I dont redefine them as I go, I can articulate them better and change them as I GROW.

Main Entry: god (Merriam Webster's Dictionary)
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
I am not a supreme ruler, nor am I perfect in any capacity. I have been the object of worship for very brief moments and I have no power that you do not. I am a man who does not need your false sense of morality, that does not make me a god.

Let us take #3... Are you not a person? Of no value to yourself?? Be it supreme???
And what of #4..? You are not the all powerful ruler of self? Is it not true that you are staking eternal destiny (yours) on a whelm of foolish conglomerated theories comprised of what, mere men under the guise of science..?

Oooh spirits, ghosts, and leprechauns, you must be a huge fan of Santa! By the way the prospect of hell is soooo scary, not the biblical hell. They barely talk about it, but Dante's Inferno... man... almost scared me into believing.

What is it with you and leprechauns? Hey did kal-el turn you on (acid)?:2razz:
I never saw the movie but I keep hearing about it. In my experiences with God I can assure you hell is a real place in its most literate form as described in the bible, and then some.
But I know you know that you don't believe that... Still that won't make it any less hotter for you when you get there.

Do you have any way to qualify that dead in the spirit tripe?

He is a personal God... Your as much as mine... Ask of him... Speak from the heart.

The "wisdom warrior" truely is in outer darkness

... Ha! I came here on a mission... Whats your reason for being?

 

[Apostle13]

Uh, not too bad man. Still alive. Thanks, somewhat.:lol:



Not really. Look at this little scenario. Ok, I do not believe in mermaids. This does not mean that I believe that mermaids don't exist; it means that I do not accept the claim that they do exist. I don't accept this claim because I have never seen one, because I am aware of no acclaimed person who has seen one, and because there isn't any evidence whatsoever to suggest that mermaids exist. I am an atheist for the same reasons with one small difference. The difference is that I have actively sought evidence of God where I have not done so with mermaids. An agnostic position basically says that one cannot prove whether God exists or not, and it's basically irrelevant. Atheism is simply a lack of belief, which bears no burden of proof, for atheists aren't making any claims, except strong atheists, which they have exactly the same burden as theists.




Haha:lol: I don't share, more for me that way. A, and Krypton. Been there done that.:lol:

I don't know... Seems we have hashed this'n out before here... Still I am not convinced... Besides me being a surfer and all... Well I think I thought I saw one (mermaid) once, twice maybe.
An atheist strong or no has made a conclusional stance as to what he/she believes in as far as their not believing. Whereas the agnostic is yet still void of conclusion in broader sense.
Either or it is only after the fact the truth envelopes them... Sadly by then it is too late.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

The fact is in your factoring, or the lack thereof... If one cannot factor spiritually, as pertaining to all elementals, to sum. The answer escapes them... A flaw to conclusion.
You logic sir is not my own... Neither be countless others (aka)

What?

Believers. I do trust that I do believe in God, I know that I do believe in God. You have failed to establish any real point of my failing.Your observation here is not my premise.

Have you forgotten so quickly your claim that I have faith/trust in my disbelief?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your contempt for the people of faith rather than just faith alone..? You are coming across quite angrily on this subject matter.

Not at all, I harbor no such emotion for people of faith. My issue is with faith alone.

Let us take #3... Are you not a person? Of no value to yourself?? Be it supreme???

I am a person, and I do value myself, but not to the requirements of a god.

And what of #4..? You are not the all powerful ruler of self? Is it not true that you are staking eternal destiny (yours) on a whelm of foolish conglomerated theories comprised of what, mere men under the guise of science..?

4. Said a powerful ruler, you're blurring definitions again. Everyone is the ruler of themself. What "whelm of foolish conglomerated theories" do you speak of?

What is it with you and leprechauns? Hey did kal-el turn you on (acid)?:2razz:
I never saw the movie but I keep hearing about it. In my experiences with God I can assure you hell is a real place in its most literate form as described in the bible, and then some.

I guess I'll have to take your word for it :roll:

But I know you know that you don't believe that... Still that won't make it any less hotter for you when you get there.

He is a personal God... Your as much as mine... Ask of him... Speak from the heart.

Nothing has been spoken that is of any use to me, or the debate.

... Ha! I came here on a mission... Whats your reason for being?

My reason for being is myself, and my right to live for my own sake. What your mission?

And more importantly, back to your point: "you are a religious man. You are your own god. Setting forth your own moral standards as what seems right to you."

How does living by my own judgement make me an object of self-worship? Your insistance that I must be religious is without premise.

 

[kal-el]

I don't know... Seems we have hashed this'n out before here... Still I am not convinced... Besides me being a surfer and all... Well I think I thought I saw one (mermaid) once, twice maybe.

I'm sure we have, maybe 2 or 3 times before.

An atheist strong or no has made a conclusional stance as to what he/she believes in as far as their not believing. Whereas the agnostic is yet still void of conclusion in broader sense.
Either or it is only after the fact the truth envelopes them... Sadly by then it is too late.

We are born atheists. We may not be aware of the label or identify with the label. But it is certainly accurate to call them an atheist. Not until they are brainwashed or indoctrinated into a "God" belief do they become theists.
There are many atheists that have never been introduced to certain god concepts , yet they don't believe in them. You don't have to be introduced to a theist position to hold the opposite stance.

 

[Apostle13]

What?

Oh sorry... I thought I was debating a misguided intellectual. Guess I was only half right... Your being the former.:2razz:
Its mathematical. Equating only the seen based on logic and reason. As opposed to an inclusion of the unseen, spiritual forces/higher power. The sum of one is not the other. A key factor is missing. Perhaps Einstein explained somewhat it here;
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So Einstein once wrote to explain his personal creed: "A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation."

Have you forgotten so quickly your claim that I have faith/trust in my disbelief?

Not my "claim" alone, but rather an ever-increasing realization that atheism is and of itself a religious following. Obviously you have enough faith/trust to risk all of eternity by motive and means of your unbelief. You cannot prove yourself right. Neither prove me wrong. Still... I can prove me right even in my recognizing of how wrong you are.

Not at all, I harbor no such emotion for people of faith. My issue is with faith alone.

Glad to know... Thanks!

I am a person, and I do value myself, but not to the requirements of a god.
4. Said a powerful ruler, you're blurring definitions again. Everyone is the ruler of themself.?

...And the power is theirs alone. To believe, not believe. Though it likely seemed, however vague, insulting in earlier context ("you are your own god") it is true of all of us. Definitions 3&4 certainly apply and yet it only needs be one to validate word, case and point.

What "whelm of foolish conglomerated theories" do you speak of

Evolutionary science.

Nothing has been spoken that is of any use to me, or the debate.

Because you say?

My reason for being is myself, and my right to live for my own sake

. And it is your power alone to do so... Case and point.

What your mission?

The Great Commission.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Oh sorry... I thought I was debating a misguided intellectual. Guess I was only half right... Your being the former.:2razz:

Your Ad Hominem personal attacks have been noted. By the way, it really doesnt come off well when you make a typo while asserting that someone is not an intellectual. It also comes off bad when every single one of your arguements is fallacious, and your premises based on faith and not fact. But it looks like you're not interested in things like that...

Its mathematical. Equating only the seen based on logic and reason. As opposed to an inclusion of the unseen, spiritual forces/higher power. The sum of one is not the other. A key factor is missing.

What you just said was devoid of math, logic and reason. Here is some math for you, A = A. That means things are as they are irregardless of your capacity to percieve them.

Perhaps Einstein explained somewhat it here;
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So Einstein once wrote to explain his personal creed: "A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation."

I would rather be lame than blind. Besides, science is not dependant on the personal creeds of Einstein.

Not my "claim" alone, but rather an ever-increasing realization that atheism is and of itself a religious following.

Well you realization rests of false premises, how about you go take a read on the "Atheism is a religion" thread and see where that has gone, Stinger just made a very insightful post.

Obviously you have enough faith/trust to risk all of eternity by motive and means of your unbelief.

False dilemma, I recognise no risk of all eternity. I have no reason to believe in such a dilemma, only a bunch of contradictory superstitious tripe.

You cannot prove yourself right. Neither prove me wrong. Still... I can prove me right even in my recognizing of how wrong you are.

Oh my god, you call that logic? What utter tripe. You must first prove that I am wrong to even make the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance. Just because an argument hasnt been proven false does not make it true.

The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim that god exists, no one can prove my position, for it is impossible to prove a universal negative.

Thanks! ...And the power is theirs alone. To believe, not believe. Though it likely seemed, however vague, insulting in earlier context ("you are your own god") it is true of all of us. Definitions 3&4 certainly apply and yet it only needs be one to validate word, case and point.

4 Does not apply because I am not a powerful ruler, and you have not qualified the requisite of "supreme value." Has anyone ever taught you how to read definitions?

Evolutionary science.

If they are so foolish and you know better, why dont you correct the world scientific community? You should be rich! :roll:

Because you say?

Yes, I am perfectly capable of explaining to you what is and isnt of any value to me. Who are you to say otherwise?

How about you make a single argument that isnt bullet ridden with logical fallacies.

The Great Commission.

We'll, i've read his word, i've been baptised, still not sold. Now what? Whats your next move theocrat?

 

[Apostle13]

I'm sure we have, maybe 2 or 3 times before.





We are born atheists. We may not be aware of the label or identify with the label. But it is certainly accurate to call them an atheist. Not until they are brainwashed or indoctrinated into a "God" belief do they become theists.
There are many atheists that have never been introduced to certain god concepts , yet they don't believe in them. You don't have to be introduced to a theist position to hold the opposite stance.

I reject for the most your concept to analogy... Clearly I do see your point. In recognition of premium default (ignorant agnostic) we are born neither believing or not believing as we are yet still unawares/lacking rash maturity.

 

[Apostle13]

Your Ad Hominem personal attacks have been noted. By the way, it really doesnt come off well when you make a typo while asserting that someone is not an intellectual.

You want rather I should just call you stupid..? Well sorry to disappoint you but the rules up in here don't allow for it.
Besides... Surely you get enough of that from whatever friends, and family.
BTW, I see no typo...???

It also comes off bad when every single one of your arguements is fallacious, and your premises based on faith and not fact. But it looks like you're not interested in things like that...

My "premise" is based on faith as being a part of what is fact... The faith factors in the equation. Why do you keep missing this in my posts?

What you just said was devoid of math, logic and reason. Here is some math for you, A = A. That means things are as they are irregardless of your capacity to percieve them.
I would rather be lame than blind. Besides, science is not dependant on the personal creeds of Einstein.

I was trying to help you in your understanding of my and countless others method to reason. Whether you accept fully the equation or not is your prerogative. This my friend is the ultimate gesture that epitomizes the free will concept.
But surely you know this..? Afterall... What does E = mc2 have on your "A = A".
Man you are so Romper Room.

Well you realization rests of false premises,

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

how about you go take a read on the "Atheism is a religion" thread and see where that has gone, Stinger just made a very insightful post.

I follow all such threads and shrill at the lack of spiritual knowledge/belief of some here.

False dilemma, I recognise no risk of all eternity. I have no reason to believe in such a dilemma, only a bunch of contradictory superstitious tripe.

In which case you should go on with your bad self for you have nothing either to prove or disprove.
But know this... There are no unbelievers in hell.

Oh my god, you call that logic? What utter tripe. You must first prove that I am wrong to even make the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance. Just because an argument hasnt been proven false does not make it true.

Likewise I'm sure.

The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim that god exists, no one can prove my position, for it is impossible to prove a universal negative.

I carry no such burden, for God Himself has proven Himself to myself.

4 Does not apply because I am not a powerful ruler, and you have not qualified the requisite of "supreme value." Has anyone ever taught you how to read definitions?

You are a powerful ruler of you... What is that you're smokin' thats got you all dummied up.
"Supreme value" is most valued/above all.

If they are so foolish and you know better, why dont you correct the world scientific community? You should be rich! :roll:

Surely you are not trying to assert here that scientists/science is in full or even a majority agreement on your grandma was a gorrilla..?

Yes, I am perfectly capable of explaining to you what is and isnt of any value to me. Who are you to say otherwise?

Originally Posted by Lachean
Nothing has been spoken that is of any use to me, or the debate

I spake of the latter part. You speak for the masses? Egotistically I should think they find this read quite entertaining.

How about you make a single argument that isnt bullet ridden with logical fallacies.

"False premise, fallacies, subtle and not so subtle implications"... How about you just call me liar and I'll call you ignorant.

We'll, i've read his word, i've been baptised, still not sold. Now what?

Obvious then to me you've missed the mark.

Whats your next move theocrat?

Bishop to queen's knight four... Checkmate hedonist.

 

[tecoyah]

My "premise" is based on faith as being a part of what is fact... The faith factors in the equation. Why do you keep missing this in my posts?

Question....Are those with "Faith" in a Non-Christian God....Misguided?

 

[Apostle13]

Question....Are those with "Faith" in a Non-Christian God....Misguided?

Answer... A pig's ear is pork.

 

[kal-el]

In recognition of premium default (ignorant agnostic) we are born neither believing or not believing as we are yet still unawares/lacking rash maturity.

I seemed to have missed this post earlier Apostle. Let me hammer home my point a little more clearly. The burden of proof falls squarely on the shoulders of those who make the claim. In essence, it is the Christians who have to put forth proof or evidence of their God. Since Christians have failed miserably to do so, doubters are perfectly within their respective rights to reject any Christian claims, no use taking on the "wait and see agnostic position". Now listen closely, in order for a Christian to prove God exists, you would only have to demonstrate a single example of him, but in order to disprove God, one must look everywhere in the universe and find no trace of him. We definetly don't see a trace of God, and we don't have the technology available that would enable us to look everywhere in the galaxy, so that in itself is an impossible feat. (ie proving a negative). An atheist simply has no belief in God/gods because of the lack of evidence. No faith needed. Faith requires belief in some way, shape, or form. Apostle13, what exactly do you think an atheist has faith in? How can you get a belief from a lack of a belief?

 

[tecoyah]

Answer... A pig's ear is pork.

And in that reply....can be found all that is behind the meaning of the term "Faith".

You have faith that they are wrong....they have faith that you are wrong....I have faith in you both being wrong in thinking each other wrong. This is why so many rely instead on science, and deny the God thingy. Think about it....if this Guy in the cloudsspreads thismuch confusion and death everywhere its name is spoken, Why the He!! would a thinking mind want to have anything to do with it?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

You want rather I should just call you stupid..? Well sorry to disappoint you but the rules up in here don't allow for it.
Besides... Surely you get enough of that from whatever friends, and family.
BTW, I see no typo...???

Boy are you ever dense, of course you didnt see the typo...

My "premise" is based on faith as being a part of what is fact... The faith factors in the equation. Why do you keep missing this in my posts?

What equation? You have not EVER cited an equation. What is it? I must have missed it:roll:

I was trying to help you in your understanding of my and countless others method to reason. Whether you accept fully the equation or not is your prerogative. This my friend is the ultimate gesture that epitomizes the free will concept.
But surely you know this..? Afterall... What does E = mc2 have on your "A = A".
Man you are so Romper Room.

First of all its E = mc^2, and secondly A = A is one of the underlying premises of the theory of relativity, it does not contradict it. You have not presented an equation for me to accept, and did you just try to take credit for Einstein's theories?

One man's trash is another man's treasure.I follow all such threads and shrill at the lack of spiritual knowledge/belief of some here.In which case you should go on with your bad self for you have nothing either to prove or disprove.

You sanctimonious bigot, there is no need to prove or disprove the claim of someone else who wont even bother to support his own claim.

But know this... There are no unbelievers in hell.

Considering that hell does not exist, you are right.

Likewise I'm sure.
I carry no such burden, for God Himself has proven Himself to myself.

And he called me last night :roll:, is this an argument?

You are a powerful ruler of you... What is that you're smokin' thats got you all dummied up.
"Supreme value" is most valued/above all.

"A powerful ruler of you" presupposes that there are other "powerful" rulers of me. There are none.

You're trying to bend the definition to include everyone who exists? So everyone who exists is a god? Well by that defintion sure I believe in a god. But if you want to go with something I dunno, involving a diety, or something intangible... nope...

Surely you are not trying to assert here that scientists/science is in full or even a majority agreement on your grandma was a gorrilla..?

I dont believe anyone things that my grandmother is a gorilla, where did I ever imply this?

I spake of the latter part. You speak for the masses? Egotistically I should think they find this read quite entertaining.
"False premise, fallacies, subtle and not so subtle implications"... How about you just call me liar and I'll call you ignorant.

I have called you a liar everytime you put words in my mouth. You may call me ignorant, but have failed to point out a single contradiction in my reason or logical fallacy. Call me what you like, ill be impressed when you've got something real.

Obvious then to me you've missed the mark.

Bishop to queen's knight four... Checkmate hedonist.

Claiming victory? Wow...I was being generous with "sanctimonious." And how am I a hedonist? Not all egoists are hedonists, and if you dont understand the difference then dont use words you dont understand. Call me selfish, godless, or an egoist, and you'd be right.

What were your points again? Do you even remember? Can you articulate them in a sentence and provide proof or at least sound reasoning for them? Here are mine:
1. To disbelieve your baseless claim that god exists, is not faith that he does not exist.
2. I am not a religious man, and I do not accept the claim that all people must be religious.
3. I am not a god, nor would I ever consider myself to be. I reject the claim that to base morality on my own judgement, logic and reasoning is to elevate myself to a god.
4. To have contempt for faith-based action, and organized religion does not require one to harbor hatred for the faithful or religious. One can consider another misguided, even foolish without hating them, or blaming them for the mistakes of their ancestors.
5. In DEBATE the burden of proof is on the one who makes or defends a claim. Unsupported claims, especially those that have been found logically fallacious and containing contradictory reasoning, cannot be used as the premise for further arguements. Also Ad-Hominem personal attacks make the one slinging them look weak, however said person's poor arguments make for greater weakness.

Now please articulate the logical fallacy, contradiction in reason, or oversimplification in ANY of those.