You're not going to fall for this, are you?

[West491]

Egor wrote

It’s not. You asked for proof, a photo or a video. I told you to point your camera in any direction and start shooting. You said you weren’t satisfied with that. That’s your problem.


Because when I gave you what you asked for, you turned it away while still squawking for proof..

Since your proof fails to convince just one of us, can we agree that the proof you offer is pretty sucky? If yes, then can you offer some more convincing evidence?

Egor wrote

As soon as you see God in such a way that you cannot doubt, all spiritual growth stops.

So you do admit that you have some doubt that a god exists? If so, then why is it so seemingly difficult for you to comprehend where we're coming from? We doubt just like you do when it comes to the existence of a god, just (typically) to a much higher degree.

[Egor]

Stargazer wrote

Are you saying that I deserved to be insulted because I did not accept your "proof?"

If you can’t take the heat…
Besides, it wasn’t my proof; it was the proof you asked for. You’ve simply changed your mind once presented with it.

Irreligious wrote

No, that's not me in my avatar. It's just a young, black man wearing a "do-rag," so called because it protects his "hair-do." And, yes, in the photo, he is carrying a basketball, because he had just finished playing a game of one-on-one with a friend (who happened to be my nephew) before the photograph was taken. Those are not the projects in the background, but a privately-owned apartment complex where I grew up.

Irreligious wrote

Do you see something in the photograph worthy of mocking?

No. I don’t see anything worth commenting on at all.

[Stargazer]

Egor wrote

If you can’t take the heat…

In my experience, theists always resort to personal insults when they have no actual proof.

Egor wrote

Besides, it wasn’t my proof; it was the proof you asked for. You’ve simply changed your mind once presented with it

Your "proof" wasn't proof. Looking around me at dogs and books does not prove God.

[Stargazer]

Egor wrote

No. I don’t see anything worth commenting on at all.

Then why did you?

[Irreligious]

Egor wrote

No. I don’t see anything worth commenting on at all.

Good. Now what's a god?

[Egor]

West491 wrote

Since your proof fails to convince just one of us, can we agree that the proof you offer is pretty sucky? If yes, then can you offer some more convincing evidence?

What’s sucky about it? You are looking for God, aren’t you? Or are you looking for something else? Perhaps an ever-shifting concept of God?

So you do admit that you have some doubt that a god exists? If so, then why is it so seemingly difficult for you to comprehend where we're coming from? We doubt just like you do when it comes to the existence of a god, just (typically) to a much higher degree.

I don’t know God exists; I believe God exists. But my belief has become so solidified over the years that my spiritual growth is coming to an end in this life. In other words, I don’t think I can approach God much more from this physical dimension.
That’s why now I’m doing the work I was designed to do. For me, it’s not so much about growth as it is about productivity.

[Stargazer]

Egor wrote

I don’t know God exists; I believe God exists.

[Irreligious]

Egor wrote

What’s sucky about it? You are looking for God, aren’t you? Or are you looking for something else? Perhaps an ever-shifting concept of God?

I don’t know God exists; I believe God exists. But my belief has become so solidified over the years that my spiritual growth is coming to an end in this life. In other words, I don’t think I can approach God much more from this physical dimension.
That’s why now I’m doing the work I was designed to do. For me, it’s not so much about growth as it is about productivity.

What's a god?

[Smellyoldgit]

Egor wrote

I believe God exists. But my belief has become so solidified over the years

E-Bore's boner for jeebus!

[Egor]

Stargazer wrote

In my experience, theists always resort to personal insults when they have no actual proof.

If you feel insulted, what am I supposed to do about that? Do you want me to say I'm sorry? I'm sorry. I shouldn't have implied that you were insane. I shouldn't have implied that you were a stereotype.

Your "proof" wasn't proof. Looking around me at dogs and books does not prove God.

Sure it does. Just think about it. Of course, you're going to have to assume the existence of God for the sake of argument. If you assume God exists for the sake of argument, then what must God be like? If you really start to think about things, you will find that you can posit the existence of God is such a way that He becomes the necessary inference to the best explanation for things--all things.

I do wonder what makes you think you’re going to understand God or come to believe in His existence without getting a little mystical. You have to be able to be a little bit mystical.

[orangeitis]

Egor wrote

Because when I gave you what you asked for, you turned it away while still squawking for proof.

You have given nothing that can be called proof by a reasonable, skeptical person, Egor. And even if you did, you're not even bothering to explain your proof.

You're not thinking. You think that whatever is in front of anyone is "proof of God" when it in itself actually is not. There is no evidence that a divine entity made anything merely because of the existence of whatever it is.

You're asserting claims, then asserting that everything is proof of these claims, and you have zero rhyme or reason for any of this. And to make it worse, you're still making claims that you're not providing evidence for.

Again, you want to prove a point to us, you're doing a terrible job. Try to do better. We aren't at fault for not understanding you, because you're making unintelligible statements. It is on you to provide better evidence of your claims. And if you're truly wanting to get through to us, rather than make enemies and throw insults at us, you will make more of an effort for your case.

We can not make ourselves any clearer.

Edit: No one must assume anything exists for another to prove something. That's not how the universe works. You've convinced yourself to pre-assume things, and that's find for you, but if you wish to make a point to anyone else, you must prove your points through demonstrable means.

[Brick]

For believers, the world is full of magical mysteries.

[Stargazer]

Egor wrote

If you feel insulted, what am I supposed to do about that? Do you want me to say I'm sorry? I'm sorry. I shouldn't have implied that you were insane. I shouldn't have implied that you were a stereotype.

Egor, rest assured it wasn't crushed feelings that made me point that out. It's because those who use this technique in an argument are, 99% of the time, trying to direct attention away from some other point.

Egor wrote

Sure it does. Just think about it. Of course, you're going to have to assume the existence of God for the sake of argument. If you assume God exists for the sake of argument, then what must God be like? If you really start to think about things, you will find that you can posit the existence of God is such a way that He becomes the necessary inference to the best explanation for things--all things.[/font][/size]

I do wonder what makes you think you’re going to understand God or come to believe in His existence without getting a little mystical. You have to be able to be a little bit mystical.

I seems circular to have to assume that God exists in order for the "proof" that God exists to work.

[Smellyoldgit]

The Fuckwit wrote

Sure it does. Just think about it. Of course, you're going to have to assume the existence of God for the sake of argument. If you assume God exists for the sake of argument, then what must God be like? If you really start to think about things, you will find that you can posit the existence of God is such a way that He becomes the necessary inference to the best explanation for things--all things.
I do wonder what makes you think you’re going to understand God or come to believe in His existence without getting a little mystical. You have to be able to be a little bit mystical.

That must be the most brilliant explanation that any wanker dingbat has spewed to date Assume god exists, make up whatever shit you need to explain anything you want and you need to be a fucking flute-headed, delusional jerk to make it happen!
This cunt goes from strength to strength on the ridiculous scale!

[orangeitis]

Stargazer wrote

I seems circular to have to assume that God exists in order for the "proof" that God exists to work.

It is circular reasoning he is using. He's also using a lot of other logical fallacies theists commonly argue with.