Identifying false religions.

I don't see how it can be an "opinion." Opinions are valid subjectively, and differ from individual to individual. But taking a position about the existence of gods can't be an opinion - God either exists or doesn't. He can't exist for you and not exist for me; one of us must be wrong.That's not an opinion; that's a position. You take one that is contradicted by the available evidence. That's rarely rational.

I would correct you and say that my position is that gods don't exist, and your position is that one does. Opinions are subjective, but if God exists he must do so objectively. If God is an actually real thing he's objectively, not subjectively real. For instance, the existence of evil contradicts the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent God. This would seem to be an unassailable basis from which to assert any old nonsense: "the sky is blue." "That's your opinion; mine is that it's green." "Evolution is substantiated by the evidence." "That's your opinion; mine is that creationism is true."If you can't draw a distinction between opinions and positions, if everything is an opinion, then we're in a situation where none of your positions are falsifiable - because you can simply be of the opinion that they haven't been falsified, regardless of what evidence you're shown. That wouldn't be on topic in this thread and I've laid out the evidentiary case against God many times in the past.

I'm sorry, believes in what?

"God" as an utterance doesn't communicate much meaning to me. I'm prepared to debate the existence of whatever you refer to when you say "God" but you need to tell me what that is, first.It's like saying "let's debate the existence of vampires." Ok, but which vampires? Buffy-style, who crumble when staked or burned by the sun and cast no reflection? Blade-style, who transmit vampirism virally and are destroyed by silver? Twilight-style sparkly pheremone vampires? The naked space vampire chick from "Lifeforce"? One-legged hopping Chinese vampires? (For serious, Chinese vampires hop.) You'd have to be more specific.I'm not trying to play games with you, I was asking you to unpack the word "God" for me.

Sure, but then I'm going to define the most testable, most contradictable form of God, and be accused of grappling with a stawman "God" that "moderate" religionists reject in favor of "more sophisticated theology." In those threads I believe I made cases against definitions of "God" provided by others. I think it's fairest if proponents of the "God" position are the ones who determine the characteristics of their object of belief, just like how it works better when evolutionists, not creationists, define evolution. I may have cases against all those vampires, which would require you to be more specific if I'm to present one of those cases. And I'd like to deny you the ability to respond to a case against Buffy-style vamps by saying "ah, but I was talking about Twilight-style vamps all along!" That's a common evasion technique by the religious, to claim that the atheist who has made a case against God has made a case against the wrong God.I'm asking you to tell me what "God" means, so I can present the accurate case. I don't think that's too much to ask, considering you're the one who asked me to present a case.

No, again - an opinion is something reasonable people can reasonably disagree on.When people adopt mutually inconsistent positions, those can't be described as matters of opinion. You can play all the dictionary games you like, but that doesn't prove that God can exist for you and not exist for me.One of us has to be wrong. That's why it can't simply be a matter of opinion.The only magic I believe in is the magic of language, where words have meaning. You're the one who believes in actual magic. Maintaining that the sky is green can't be an opinion; it's an issue of fact. Words mean things.Thinking chocolate is the best ice cream flavor is an opinion, because I can think vanilla is the best flavor instead, and there's nothing inconsistent about our positions. But God can't exist for you and not exist for me. One of us has to be wrong (and according to the weight of the evidence, it's you.) That's how we know they're not opinions. Your opinion of ice cream, after all, can change or be changed; when you decide that strawberry is the best flavor, does that mean you were wrong when you thought it was chocolate? No, of course not. You were right then and you're right now, because they're matters of opinion - not matters of fact.They taught this stuff in first grade, RAZD. Were you out that day or something? Of course this is just the dishonest theist game of retreat; where God is constantly redefined to lack whatever previously-essential characteristic was just disproven by the atheist. Ultimately you'll reach the point where "God" is just an empty word, a cypher devoid of all intelligible meaning - yet, somehow still maintained by you to exist.I'm not at all interested in playing that game. I'm happy to debate whatever conception of God you want to define, but you have to pick one and stick with it. Sure. Just as anyone of the position that God exists would have to be in denial of the massive objective empirical evidence that there's absolutely no such thing; that it's an invention of the human imagination not an actual being of magical power.And in your world where everything's just an opinion, who can say they're wrong to be in denial? Who's to tell them that their opinion that all that evidence can just be discarded is wrong? Not you, certainly; you've made it clear that you draw no distinction at all between matters of fact and matters of opinion. Everything's just an opinion, there's no true or false to it. There's not even provisional truth - just personal opinion. Maybe they're just of the opinion that it hasn't been falsified at all. Who's to say they're wrong? Certainly not you. You've made that abundantly clear.And, funny you should use that word "delusional":

I think I've shown how it's not. I do know which one, actually. Correct. But that doesn't make it a matter of opinion. It's still a position to (eventually) be settled by evidence. Hrm, my memory is that I've long demonstrated it. Perhaps you'd like to open a thread on this subject, I'd hate to be a part of us continuing off-topic. Anyway others are certainly giving you a run for your money on the "existence of God" issue; it seems to be you who's having trouble finding evidence for your position. Since that expectation would be met if God existed, the unmet expectation is evidence for the non-existence of God. Incorrect. I have no particular opinion on what "God would be like", but the proponents of the God-exists position have defined the character and properties of God. Under almost all of those definitions its trivial to demonstrate the contradiction with reality. And, of course, for the dishonest theists such as yourself who insist on defending God-as-cypher, it's sufficient to note that there's nothing to refute - your position that "God exists" is a meaningless utterance if you refuse to be tied down to any definition of the word "God." No, I'm just curious how it is you come to be so completely unaware that there's a difference between matters of fact and matters of opinion. That's true - you don't know. Unless it's a weighted coin. When the likelihood of heads is, say, 90%, suddenly it becomes much more reasonable to say "Heads is the likely outcome." Not, "I know it will be heads", but to arrive at the provisional, if non-conclusive, position that heads will be the result of the coin toss. You'll be right 90% of the time, after all, and that's pretty good.The evidence between the existence of God and the non-existence of God is not equally weighted. The preponderance falls on the side of non-existence. That's what makes provisional acceptance of the Strong Atheist position so logical and reasonable.Those who assert the existence of a teapot in orbit of Alpha Cenauri do not have the same amount of evidence on their side as those who assert the nonexistence of such a teapot, despite there being no evidence for either proposition. Those propositions are not equally likely despite the absence of evidence for both, hence it's reasonable to come to the provisional conclusion that such a teapot is not present. And continuing to assert that I'm wrong, or that I've attacked you personally, or that an absence of evidence supports existence or non-existence equally, simply doesn't make it so. Abundantly you do, and have, when you assert that what is properly considered a matter of fact is an "opinion." Why wouldn't I be? Not in the slightest. I'm merely suggesting that someone who holds delusions should be careful about calling skepticism of those delusions a "delusion."