See, I am an offline person. So when I write, I can’t search and paste link to the relevant articles, but you can surely search for such articles. These are very easily available in internet.
Since when have you been interested in getting as close to “what is true” as humanly possible via observation? AND I refer to science of observation. Your perception is bias and faulty.
I already told in this forum in the thread named “Identification preference”, that because there is no third category other than atheist and agnostic and other. At the time of signing up, I thought I may not be allowed in this site I am neither an atheist nor agnostic, so I simply choose agnostic.
I discussed all the reasons for choosing agnostic in that thread.
AND theist. There are members identified as theists. YOU are a theist. Through and through.
This is from your first ever post…
I’m finding it harder and harder to believe you sorry.
- a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
You’re claims simply don’t add up, and a cursory look at a dictionary unravels the claim you’re not a theist. As does that last quote from you of course.
100%, and his excuses strike me as simple sophistry. Look here from his very first post…
That’s a theist by definition.
He can’t even come to grips with his “own truth” let alone expose his “insights” of “truth” to others. Whatta joke!
Whenever people start by contradicting the dictionary, it is always a bad sign.
If someone believes in creator deity that intervenes in the universe, they are by definition a theist.
Similarly when someone repeatedly claims to have evidence for a belief, then never ever gives it, there aren’t too many conclusions that can be inferred.
We’ll try one more time then.
At the very least I’d expect that question to prompt the very best, most compelling piece of evidence @Phoenix101 thinks he has. Yet after a total of 40 posts from him he has offered precisely nothing by way of objective evidence.
How long before he tells us he’s given it, and we missed it.
You know @Sheldon, you sound like as if you think of objective evidence as something like burger or pizza or whatever your country’s popular snack is. Just eat it and BOOM!! This is the proof that God exists.
But unfortunately FYI, objective evidence doesn’t mean something like object, it is in understanding, explaining, observing, formulating, and if possible demonstrating. And these things take time, and lot of time, even if it is written as a book. And I am trying to express my views through a debate, and not a book, which is a very hard task.
So, don’t think of objective evidence as some object. Or tell me how objective evidence look a like, and what type of objective evidence you expect in case of existence of God.
Yes. But before that I will explain, and this is a normal process.
Yes, I have seen “don’t” in there, and I answered accordingly, but what can I do if you can’t understand it.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.;
** not dependent on the mind for existence; actual. “a matter of objective fact”**
… which btw the or are more reality based fact then your deity.
…cause I wouldn’t want reality to enter the mind-Candy festival and ruin the party
Liar…41 posts now, and still not one shred of objective evidence. Do you really think anyone here will be fooled by your evasion and bluster?
I ask again…
FYI, I hate being lied to almost as much as I hate being preached at…
I did say it was only a matter of time before he blames us. Always the same, I think since I’ve been here I remember just 2 theists who had at least the integrity to admit they couldn’t demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity.
Why do they think they can lie? Why do they think they can bluff, evade, and insult our intelligence with endless and irrational attempts to reverse the burden of proof?
It’s your belief not mine, if you had anything at all one has to assume you’d have offered it by now.
Instead you tell a bare faced lie that you can demonstrate objective evidence, then laughably say you first have to explain it, but of course don’t, then equally laughably you ask me what it should be.
He’s gone very quiet, but no evidence, and no explanation either?
Evil does not exist. Evil is not a “thing”. It is an abstract concept invented by theists to attribute bad human behavior to a deity.
For your “evil” to exist, it must have a deity. Thus, in order for “evil” to exist, you must first prove a god.
If you can prove a god, then I will accept that there may be this thing called “evil”.
But first, you must prove a god.
I know what influences and drives our decisions and actions, I already described them. They are our genetic imprinting, and learned behavior.
You are engaging with a person who is married to a woman who has a PhD in abnormal psychology and two Masters in associated fields of psychology.
I state with certainty that after living and learning from her over thirty seven years, I know a heck of a lot about behaviors.
You inventing crap, you are trying to blow smoke up my ass. I am leaning on known science and the discipline of psychology.
First, define your god, then we can work out a method in discovering if it exists. For example, the christian god is described as being able to answer prayers. But even a casual study of prayers heavily indicates that if they are answered, it is completely random and very infrequent.
So please begin by offering your definition of a god.
Without a god, there can not be “evil”.
It looks like @Phoenix101 has done a runner again.
This lie will certainly be waiting for him if he comes back…
It seems you’re demanding that others demonstrate your claims. You sound like a crackpot.
A very lame and pathetic attempt at evasion.
Our friend continually states it has proof. But when requested to provide such proof, all of a sudden it isn’t there, or we have to find it, or the dog ate it …