Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
By your definition I am also an atheist, however I don't identify as one due to it's pointlessness of saying you lack belief in what any religious person believes to be true.
|
You lack belief in a god? Sure. If you claim that, then yeah you would be.
I'm still not convinced that's true about you, though. I think you profess it but don't believe it.
Quote:
|
selliedjoup wrote
Anyway, to answer your question I would need some indisputable proof of a cause for existence which doesn't depend on conjecture, or filling in some gaps which just happens to meet the same conclusion as you assumed to be true. E.g. Dawkins/Hitchens/Krauss vs. Lennox/McGrath/Craig.
Both use the same failed method to meet their desired conclusion, neither know anything.
|
I didn't ask you what you would be convinced by, I asked you what you would consider evidence. Evidence isn't "Only the things that get me to
x conclusion". Evidence is everything that points to A conclusion, regardless of where it takes you.
See, that's the problem with your worldview. You look at the conclusion you want and say "what do I need to get to this conclusion", so you ignore everything that doesn't get you there as invalid.
What you should be doing is looking at EVERYTHING and asking "what conclusion does all this get me to"
I never said "what do I need to present to you to say 'this all points to the specified conclusion'?".
I asked you what you would consider evidence. Because if you discard everything that doesn't get you to your conclusion as "not evidence", then you're missing out on the rest of the picture.
I knew you'd get it backwards, that's the problem with everything about you.