Search results

You're asserting that the roads lead to the same destination. Yet, none of the world religions state that they do given their dissimilar descriptions of their destinations.

When a jury decides a case in which the defendant lacks supporting evidence for his or her contention to the contrary, are they coming to a conclusion or an assertion?

A relative measure. It's called "perfect" because Pi = circumference/diameter. An arbitrary designation that's relative to a circle whose circumference when divided by its diameter is not 3.14159. Perfection is therefore some arbitrary and subjective line drawn in the sand that is always...

Define perfection. Bear in mind that perfection is always a relative term.

It's pretty good. No arguments. But it's best not to stick to dictionary definitions too rigidly but to examine what atheism really is. There are also different types of atheists just like there's different types of theists. A case, albeit a difficult one, is that we all start off as...

Here's the problem: You believe in some sort of undefined higher power. Sort of useless in the context of any argument. Without a definition of its attributes, abilities or historical documentation, even you wouldn't recognize it with any certainty let alone be able to test for...

[/b] I rest my case. You're a convoluted ass. That's exactly what an atheist asks for - evidence of the existence of any asserted god. Without it, they conclude that each of the asserted gods do not exist. You concluded in the same manner as an atheist that the other gods do not exist but...

Well, let's start with proving some of the things in religious texts. That would be enough evidence to suggest that this or that God is real. As to the seemingly deranged person, like the poster "I AM," all we would have to do is to ask them to show us a bit of magic. ;)

Problem with what you are thinking is that hell is not a punishment. Punishment implies the possibility of rehabilitation, i.e. something to be learned. Jesus said it best. Hell is torment. What's more, hell isn't forever. Inhabitants are said to get a reprieve for judgment day then are...

A couple of things... 1. A scientific theory is not a theory in the common sense use of the word or hunch. Think of gravity (general theory of relativity). Don't know exactly what it is but it's existence (effect) is undeniable and predictable. Well same goes with the theory of evolution. Not...

[/b] Good point. Though each religion defines their gods in so much as they can distinguish them from another god. They apply attributes to them such that they "know" their god. However, more to your point, the things they use to describe their god are sometimes inexplicable. For...

You missed a critical point. In order for the comparitive example to be valid, SOMEONE ELSE must assert the existence of the invisible unicorn. You can't assert something you know to be false and then attempt to test for it. In reality, someone else asserted that the Judeo-Christian God...

Who the f*ck are you kidding? You're an arrogant prick who thinks he knows it all based on uncommunicable evidence. Evidence no one but yourself can feel, touch, taste, smell, hear. I have no problem following conversation. I know exactly what you're saying in not so many words. In your POV...

Bingo! Now hopefully you see why atheists CONCLUDE there is no god. A theist says, "God X,Y and Z exists." OK. Atheist says, "Really? Are you sure?" Thesis says, "yep." Atheist says, "can you show me?" Thesis says in not so many words, "nope." Ok so then gods x, y and z...

LOL. Uh huh. Look at that definition again. Geez man. I mean really now. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a diety or divine beings. I'm not being clever. You're being evasive. If you don't believe in Vishnu, what are you? You think you're being clever by labeling yourself...

Hey, believe it or not, after having read the bible the only rational conclusion one can draw is that one does not choose God. There can be no choice if an omniscient god exists. The bible routinely makes that reference itself. Albeit with with enough references to what appears as choice. I can...

Seems contradictory, no? The people who are being denied access to the kingdom of God in Matt 7:21-23 clearly confessed Jesus before men. It's evident from the fact that they said that they did all those things in "his" name. So what gives? Just got trickier, hasn't it?

All good questions. And there were a few poignant rebuttles to your post. But the fact that science doesn't yet provide the full and unequivocal answers to these questions doesn't mean we should insert "god" into those gaps of knowledge. The question remains; If we assert god(s), which god(s) do...

That's pretty funny. You're gonna love this joke: Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name...

If you could, clean up the quoting of your post. But it appears you agree with what much of what I say, yet have the gall to call it vacuous. Knee-jerk much? But, I like how you completely skipped over the part that puts you squarely in the atheist camp. If you deny it, then you must also...