Identifying false religions.

And still you do not understand, Phage0070, No, the agnostic position requires it be phrased that way. It is necessarily impartial. Once again, I don't disbelieve that bigfoot exists: the agnostic position is not to take sides without evidence that substantiates it.You cannot force agnosticism into your (atheistic) position no matter how hard you try. No, it means that you decided to disbelieve, that you have made a choice based on insufficient evidence, the kind of choice that you previously labeled "insane" ... The agnostic position does not decide to believe it is true OR false. It doesn't believe, it doesn't disbelieve, it is undecided.Your position is not agnostic because you have chosen to disbelieve. Curiously, using ad hominem and emotive labels like this does not advance your argument, nor does it address the issue/s.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Sheesh. Sure. I also said that I irrationally believe that GOD conclusively exists. Perhaps either I or you misunderstand RAZD. If he tells me I misunderstand him I'll have to re-evaluate what I believe he is saying.I believe he is saying that it is irrational to reach a conclusion simply based on probability. HUH? One is a personal preference, the other is not. Really that seems pretty clear. Personal belief. I honestly thought I told you that it was based on my personal belief that they are different.I don't much care if you find them synonymous, I certainly don't find anything distasteful about the issue, it's simply a really minor point.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

On jar's advice I am going to ask you two direct questions: 1) Is your belief in your god irrational?2) Is atheism towards your god irrational?NOTE: By atheism I don't mean absolute denial of existence. I mean the conclusion that the actual existence of this creator of "all that is seen and unseen" is highly improbable.

And (just to be clear here) I am relatively uninterested in what you irrationally believe. That is your business. What I do want to know is what you consider it rational to believe. And why. Yet you agree that it is rational to conclude that the actual existence of any empirically unevidenced entity is highly improbable. Huh? From where is it even possible to derive an unevidenced belief other than by means of personal preference?

Would you agree that saying you don't believe gods exist is technically true considering your agnosticism, but that it does not fully state your position? Disbelief is not the same thing as lacking belief. There are in general three answers to the question of belief in Bigfoot's existence:1) I believe Bigfoot exists.
2) I don't know/care/etc.
3) I believe Bigfoot does not exist.Completely impartial agnosticism, your position, is number 2. Number 1 is belief in Bigfoot. "Not believing" in Bigfoot encompasses everything that isn't number 1; that means 2 and 3, and any additional options we happen to dream up later.Therefore, you don't believe Bigfoot exists. If you also take a completely impartial, agnostic view toward the existence of gods you are also not taking position number 1. Therefore, you lack belief in the existence of gods.Your religious agnosticism is an atheistic position. Atheism is not the claim that gods don't exist, it is simply the lack of belief that gods exist. It is literally "not Theism", which understandably covers a wide range of beliefs, including completely impartial agnosticism. How do you know the decision is based on insufficient evidence? The lack of evidence to support the claim is, when considering the claim, sufficient evidence to dismiss the claim as unreliably representing the truth.Disbelief of a claim that lacks evidence to back it up is not a decision made lacking evidence. Exactly, it doesn't believe.Are you a Theist RAZD? I don't see how you could be if you are completely impartial to the existence of gods.If not, you lack theism. You are an atheist. I have chosen to disbelieve a claim, not the subject of the claim. As an atheist I am perfectly open to the possibility that gods exist, but I don't consider that the standard of evidence required to validate such a claim has been met.Surely you are not suggesting I have absolutely no evidence regarding the claim itself?

Well, beyond what I have already posted I'm not sure there is much more I can help you with. If there is some evidence then that evidence can be used to make a rational decision. Yes. Huh?I'm not sure I even understand the question. If one of my beliefs is not what I would prefer to believe I'm not sure how it can come from personal preference.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

You don't see how holding irrational, illogical, unreasonable beliefs which affect your behavior and presumably distribution of your wealth would have a down side? ... Really?Would you be interested in buying a bridge? If you think that you may get a conclusive answer after you die, why do you have a compelling reason to keep it?For instance, lets assume you go to church for 2 hours every week for 50 years because of your belief. Thats about 217 days of your life gone; a life that only *may* continue later. If its all the same, that seems a fairly compelling reason to get rid of the belief.

You're new here aren't you.I see no downside related to my belief in GOD or my belief in the Christian God. Well, your time estimates are way down. I would say a more reasonable figure might be many hours a day spent discussing, practicing and living my religion.I get the feeling that you think I adopted or continue my religion in some hope that there is an afterlife. That's not correct. I do hope there is an afterlife but I would continue my life just as it is even if there was no such hope.The continuation part is not even very important. As I said, I certainly can't have much of a clue about that while I'm still alive and only maybe, after I'm dead will I know if there is an afterlife.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

That the existence of god(s) should be rationally considered improbable is the conclusion of every atheist taking part in this thread. A conclusion that you seem to wholly agree with. But a conclusion that RAZD has spent many threads and a monumental amount of time and effort in vehemently disputing.Yet you and RAZD claim to agree with each other. So something obviously doesn't add up here. Someone may prefer not to find certain people sexually attractive but the fact that they do remains a personal preference does it not?I am still struggling to find any difference between unevidenced belief and personal preference.

Okay. Well, it appears I am unable to help you understand. Sorry.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

So you continue to insist that you are in agreement with RAZD?And that it is simply I who is incapable of seeing this agreement?

Until RAZD can tell me I misunderstand his position, I guess the answer is "Kinda". I'm not sure you are the only one.I understand that I have failed to explain my position to your satisfaction, but don't see much that I could add that will help.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I understand that:You consider the rational position regarding the actual existence of any empirically un-evidenced entity to be that it is improbable.You do not consider any GOD/God/gods to be evidenced.

No.I consider all Gods and gods to be evidenced. The evidence is the stories themselves. Based on that evidence someone can make a rational decision about whether such a critter is likely, unlikely, very likely, very unlikely. One can also make rational decisions about how they should react if it turns out such a critter did exist, no matter how improbable such existence might be.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

How can any stories about any empirically imperceptible being(s) be anything but made-up? (Blind random chance aside.) Are there any Gods/gods which you consider to be sufficiently evidenced to be anything other than "very unlikely". We could spend an eternity working what we would do if all sorts of improbable occurrances were to take place.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.