[QUOTE="Postal_Guy"]

I believe in the sun... because I can see it and it brings life to earth.

tocool340

Not that I do, or endorse anyone to do so, but the Sun is a lot more deserving of worship than this Yahweh character. At least Sol can actually be observably responsible for the necessities of life. Just sayin'

[QUOTE="KeitekeTokage"]

[QUOTE="kev_stevens67"]

That's the problem, he/she can't provide any.

kev_stevens67

Not until you prove Invisible Blue Pandas don't exist! See the problem there? You don't prove that something doesn't exist. The person making the claim proves it true with evidence. We'd all believe an unbelievable amount of stupid things if it were the other way around.

The claim was made back on page '1'.

The poster specifically stated "and atheists know they are right with evidence". This is the claim and what I was referring to.

You see, I never stated I can prove anything so mind if I ask you why I need to prove anything to you.

Didn't see it. The poster is wrong in that case then, first of all Atheists aren't presenting any evidence, just observing a lack thereof, and no ahteist can be aboslutely certain God doesn't exist. Although, as an Atheist, my personal opinion is that it's pretty God Damn unlikely. I'd sooner believe Wizards such as Harry Potter exist before accepting the God claim.

You have nothing to prove to me, my mistake.

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="TaoJeetKuneDo"]

Here goes nothing !

Abuhdalaba duh majeroi maza va !

BAM , GOD EXISTS

kev_stevens67

That's the problem, he/she can't provide any.

Not until you prove Invisible Blue Pandas don't exist! See the problem there? You don't prove that something doesn't exist. The person making the claim proves it true with evidence. We'd all believe an unbelievable amount of stupid things if it were the other way around.

[QUOTE="KeitekeTokage"]Sigh, the theory of gravity precedes the law. The law describes the implications of the theory. It is a theory.-Tish-

[QUOTE="KeitekeTokage"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] how does one argue a definition without a definition? any argument about a word and its use will be a semantic one as semantics is the study of meaning. wait... youre getting on me for defending my self in an argument that was semantic in nature and now you are trying to start another argument in the same standing?surrealnumber5

Grind my gears?.. wait what?Bloodseeker23

Let's hear it, what really grinds you gears?

"Threads like this really grind my gears!"

There, I did it for you, trolls, now continue.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] i was attacked on the grounds of semantics and that is what i argued on, i do not care how you or anyone else wants to define your faith, but once you laugh and tell someone they are wrong about what a words defined meaning is you better know. surrealnumber5

But your argument is semantical in nature as evidenced by your insistence on a dictionary defintion w/context. You're trying to simplify the definition when it is not as simple as saing that God doesn't exist.

Words are not what is being defined here, but rather the nature of atheism in its proper context.

And athiesm is not a faith. For it to be a faith, there would have to be some kind of evidence for a deity's existence.

I believe in G-d because:

1. The universe could not have been created from absolutely nothing.
2. Nor could some non-devine entity have created the universe without itself requiring a creator.
3. Nor could've the universe have existed without being created i.e. existed for eternity since then we would've not experience this moment right now because there would be an infinite amount of time preceding this moment.
4. Thus the universe must've been created by something that isn't restricted by time or space for that matter which pretty much is my definition of G-d.

charlesdarwin55