Do you believe in God? Why/Why not?

[Peh]

JWeinCom said:

Pemalite said:

So Basically... What you are saying is because Science doesn't exclude God, that God exists?
Do you see the problem with that kind of thinking?

Why can't I make assumptions if they are true? Fact is, there is zero evidence for any God, unless you disagree with that? ...Then I ask you to present empirical evidence, it's not a difficult concept, I am not asking for much.

Who your God/Religion is... Is irrelevant.
The point you are missing is that zero God/Religion has justified it's claims with Evidence, that's a fact.

Good one.
As for Science itself... We can go back as far as the Big Bang, that is what the evidence has brought us towards.

Just because you ask a question doesn't mean:
1) I will answer it.
2) You will get the answer you desire.

Correct, provided you are staying within the boundaries of the argument, which you have not.

Oh for christ sake. I have not.
I am not going to repeat everything I have stated again, I have dumbed it down enough as it is in plain black and white. - This is endless circular rhetoric, go back and re-read everything, the answers have already been provided. Skedaddle.

False. A good definition is one that is logical.
Because there are many definitions in Physics that the average person isn't going to care for.

1.  Why not?  I'm asking questions to clarify your position.  That's how conversation works. They're really straight forward, and you're just ignoring them. I obviously can't force you to answer them, but I think it is in rather poor form not to and shows you're not interested in an actual conversation.

2. I still don't see how I have.  Can you back up this assertion?

3. Yes. You absolutely have. And, when I make an accusation, I can actually demonstrate it.

Here's you claiming a pig is an atheist.

"So yes, I would also class a pig as an Atheist."  Look back at page 57, because quoting posts within a post is a pain in the ass on my computer.

For bonus points, here is you claiming that you consider animals as atheists "That I would consider an animal to be an Atheist as it lacks belief in the theistic position."

So that's twice, you're saying animals, particularly pigs, are atheists...  And I must say I'm quite amused that I'm considered absurd for pushing back on this point. And once you say animals are atheists, I think questioning whether an ant is is a very reasonable follow up.  

"Anyone who doesn't hold Theistic convictions is an Atheist, it's as simple as that."

Now, here you are defining atheist as anyone who doesn't hold theistic convictions.  Anyone is a term that applies to humans.  From Oxford English Dictionary: "Any person or people." Dictionaries of course aren't official, but I've never heard anyone use the term anyone to apply to animals.  

As I said, you claimed pigs should be counted as atheist, and then provided a definition that excludes animals.  And I just demonstrated that you've done exactly that.  So, I trust you'll acknowledge your mistake. As you have provided contradictory statements, it's entirely reasonable for me to press for clarification.

So, please explain to me how my statement was wrong.  Unless you're in the business of baseless assertions.  

4. Uhhhhh... what?  Saying that it's false that a definition has to be specific because it needs to be logical is just ummmm... wrong.  Because logical and specific are not mutually exclusive.  And they are not even contradictory in the least.  That's like saying "the ball isn't round because it's red". 

Why don't we ask a reputable physicist if a good definition has to be specific?  I'm willing to bet 1,000 dollars that he'll agree.  I'm not even being facetious, that's a bet I am 100% willing to make.

 

So, it's quite simple.  It's just like the god question.  You're saying something (a definition of atheist you've provided that includes pigs, babies, and humans while excluding ants, cacti and sandwiches)  exists.  I'm saying this thing does not exists.  I honestly searched for it, and could find no evidence.

As you have the positive claim, you have the burden of proof.  Which should be quite easy for you to meet if your claim is true. Can you meet your burden of proof?  Because otherwise my position is justified and yours is not.

Did you just messed up the quote? Are you answering for Zoombael?