Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

Gosh I thought I had. I am agnostic about reincarnation, fascinating idea. Of course the idea includes reincarnation as any possible life-form based on karma ...Can you show that reincarnation does not occur? (that would be evidence)Can you show that this was made up by an author you can name? (that would be evidence)Now you can answer mine: While also remaining skeptical of it. Again you fail to understand the agnostic position, and instead of providing evidence you use another logical fallacy: the argument from incredulity and the appeal to ridicule. You'll excuse me if I find these arguments specious and content barren diatribes that tell me more about your state of mind than any content of scientific or rational value.And meanwhile you still have not supported your claim with actual evidence of an objective empirical nature (as you claim to have).Perhaps you need to go back and read this part of my last post again: If you can explain to me how saying "don't know" on a coin toss is making a claim while saying "not heads" is NOT making a claim, then I might be more interested in your arguments. Going through history and actually showing that something was actually made up by an actual author would be objective empirical evidence.Going through history and just claiming that something was made up is not evidence, but just your opinion. How Faithlike. Curiously I was giving you a heads-up on what I found inconclusive before.You really need to follow the argument, and not try to misrepresent things. What I said was that your purported falsification test was not robust enough to consider all possible supernatural aspects (it is rather simplistic at best). It certainly fails as a compelling argument imho.This had nothing to do with your continued failure to present objective empirical evidence of authorship, and you pretending it did means you are not paying attention. So you admit that you are unable to show that they are in fact fictional by naming an author or providing actual objective empirical evidence that they are in fact fictional -- all you can do is run a Gish-Gallop on them claiming that they are fictional.Can you understand why this is not compelling argument?The argument that humans are capable of imagination so therefore anything they think of is fictional based on imagination is rather logically sloppy, incomplete and inconclusive, imho, and it certainly is not a compelling argument when based on nothing but opinion.There are tons of detective stories, fictions about murder and mayhem, with authors. Does the existence of those stories based on imagination mean that detectives do not exist? Is that really your argument? Nor can you convince a skeptical person without actual objective empirical evidence that what you claim is in fact based on objective empirical evidence rather than an opinion based on incredulity and ridicule.You really want me to just accept your opinion, because: opinion? How Faithlike. And still no actual objective empirical evidence, just opinion and an appeal to the opinions of others. Your "evidence" is made up "testimony" in a hypothetical court.Fascinating. Just fascinating.Curiously Grand Juries do not result in convictions (just the prosecutor presents evidence and testimony of subjective and anecdotal evidence), but whether or not a case goes to trial -- where the objective empirical evidence is presented and opinions are cross-examined to ascertain their validity. There is a well known statement that "Grand Juries can indict a ham sandwich" ... but that doesn't mean the ham sandwich is guilty.And now you are adding the logical fallacy of the appeal to popularity ... ... you essentially are admitting that you do not have a basis for a scientific conclusion.So, now that you have actually demonstrated a lack of sufficient objective empirical evidence that demonstrates conclusively that god/s exist nor that they do not exist ... you have now eliminated the (A) position in the flow chart, and we can get back to your real position: So, more song and dance or honest answers?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

and so we have more song and dance ...Basically your argument is that because you are convinced (have convinced yourself) that I should be. This is also what Faith says. And if it goes to trial then you get testimony for the other side, you get the testimony of the Pope and other believers. Can they show that god/s exist? No, but they can cast doubt on your claim. While ignoring evidence of religious people believing they have religious experiences. Cherry picking your evidence to fit your belief is not a scientific process.So I do not find that your dog and pony "preponderance of evidence" show is any more convincing than the "preponderance of evidence" that believers claim to have. The question comes down to why you feel you need to reach a conclusion ... Is something forcing you to make a decision (path (B))? What would that be? Or can we eliminate path (B) in the flow chart? But you do not show that imagination was involved. All you have is wishful thinking, you don't even have hearsay or anecdotal evidence.... and yet you still don't answer the questions where you could demonstrate how this system of yours works for you: If you have a consistent methodology then show me how you apply it to these questions. And yet I am not talking about imagination -- that is your albatross -- I am talking about anecdotal evidence, a level of evidence that doesn't rise to a scientific level, but which has been used in courts of law to both convict and acquit people (with reasonable doubt criteria).Curiously I find that consistently taking path (C) provides a rational, logical position based on the level of available evidence for each of these questions. Is that what drives you to jump to conclusions?Enjoy