A challenge to theists. Can you be honest.

Now why don't you show from the bible where the lord god tells us he wants to "save us from death" and where he tells us he loves us?

Why? What makes you think I owe you? You never show anything, so why do you think you can ask me to show you anything?

If you make a claim you owe anyone reading here an explanation when your stupid childish claims are challenged.

...you start an argument with me personally , and  on someone else's thread rather than attempting supporting your own claims.

But, just as I thought, once challenged to support your  stupid claims and backward childish statements, you fail miserably and fall at the first fence. 

...start answering some questions concerning your own pathetic claims 

Now why don't you show from the bible where the lord god tells us he wants to "save us from death" and where he tells us he loves us?

Hypocrite much?

The irony,Of course, Is that nobody hates religion more than those who are religious.

Atheists cannot prove that a God does not exist, just as theists cannot prove that a God does exist.

The above statement is an unequivocal truism....So who amongst our Dart theists is prepared to agree?

I still believe in God. Millions of others still do too. 

There are still millions who do, and it seems like its the ones who do that bother you.

That's pretty stupid, but you are free to believe any stupid thing you want. And if the "canceled each other out" why are you here droning about the ones who do believe?

So what? You don't see me droning on atheist websites that they cannot disprove God. Numbers game are just that, games.

By whom? And what would that mean?

Unfortunately for you. Christians outnumber atheists, and theists outnumber atheists. Yet here you are, on a religious board, still in a lather about people you claim should be canceled out.

I tagged Willows because he's also a troubled man, I thought you two might hit it off.

Yes, that's exactly the numbers game you started. Who should be canceled out?

I tagged Willows because he's also a troubled man, I thought you two might hit it off.

Is that some friend of yours you'd like me to meet?

I would suggest that the internal dilemmas of some theists, often manifests as bitterness and antagonism.

If they bothered me, I would have said so, but I didn't.

Putting words in my mouth is not an intelligent response.

Saying something is stupid without explaining why is also not an intelligent response.

If I were droning, that would mean you could hear me, how is this miracle accomplished?

Then why would you invoke a numbers game? Who is trying to disprove God? You?

It means one group is smaller than another. That was your argument, wasn't it?

The numbers game you started?

Who should be canceled out?

Is that some friend of yours you'd like me to meet

It's me actually and since this is the only way for me to post my name will vary each time my account as cancelled.

Ethong is a very old arch-rival of mine and in fact an arch-rival of just about everybody.

He uses intimidating and insulting language as his only form of argument against the reality that normal, sane people like you and I confront him with.

Oh, and he has an unprecedented reputation for posting tonnes of the most vile racist bigotry ever written on another forum

Just hang in there and you will see that truth and reason will always triumph over the sort of nonsense that Ethong continually spurts out.

The atheist has no seeds of doubt in this particular respect, as there is nothing to doubt.

I would suggest that the internal dilemmas of some theists, often manifests as bitterness and antagonism.

...you can see a pattern of behavior

You would lie. Your actions on the site prove it bothers you. No one breaks into the site over and over to post repeat stupidity unless they are bothered. Or in your case, troubled.

But seeing actions in your behavior is. You have a problem "troubled man", deal with it.

You know its stupid. It doesn't need to be explained to you.

Writing is a representation of spoken language homer. Please, leave the intellectuality to people with IQ's to match.

I did not invoke numbers homer. You did.

 I said millions of people find God. You say there is absolutely no evidence of God yet millions become convinced of God ever year. 

 Is it not amazing to you that so many millions find enough evidence of God if there exists no evidence at all?

Believers and nonbelievers do not "cancel" each other out homer. That is just stupidity you spouted.

He would not call me a friend

I would suggest that the internal dilemmas of some theists, often manifests as bitterness and antagonism.

Yes, that sounds reasonable.

I would add that for an atheist to make a claim of God's nonexistence, they'd be hard pressed to prove a negative, so it would be folly to do so.

On the other hand, if a theist made the claim that God existed, they would have to provide proof in the form of some hard evidence

but I don't think that's ever been accomplished or else we'd all know it by now.

Nothing "sounds" reasonable; it either is or isn't. In this case, it's not; it's entirely premised on its author's proclivity for a logical incoherence.

So then, that would undermine the atheist's position since they've made a claim they cannot prove.

I've already proven it twice. How one's perspective is influenced by this hard evidence is at one's discretion.

You're appealing to your own incredulity, and you're not in a position to assess that which "we'd all know by now."

...perhaps the friend you referred to earlier?

I see you might have me confused for someone else,...

I was under the impression that's how things worked on an open forum, a person opines on a subject while another explains why they disagree. You haven't accomplished that as yet. Can we expect some sort of explanation?

In fact, you haven't offered up any explanations so far.

First of all, my name is not homer.

Calling me that is not intelligent response. 

Yes, you did invoke numbers when you said: "I still believe in God. Millions of others still do too."

That's a common fallacy; Argumentum ad Populum, concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it.

Yes, that is the fallacy you invoked; Argumentum ad Populum. Unfortunately, fallacies aren't intelligent responses.

Once again, invoking the fallacy; Argumentum ad Populum is not an intelligent response.

People believe in all kinds of things that have no hard evidence, that doesn't make any of it true.

If a person believes something and another person doesn't believe it and neither are able to prove themselves, then their opinions cancel each other out, it becomes a null argument.

That's unfortunate.

Would you call him a friend...

...or do you call him homer as well?

You either don't listen well or don't read well. I will repost my answer. Read it more slowly this time.

You know its stupid. It doesn't need to be explained to you.

You will learn that Ethan doesn't entertain stupidity.

What is your name homer?

"....is not an intelligent response" seems to be your new drone. But only intelligent comments deserve intelligent responses.

Invoking numbers is not necessarily ad popullum Abdul. 

Only I did not say it was true. I said many did believe.

Ideas with no evidence do not convince millions of people from all walks of life, over centuries.

Christianity was true because many believed it. I said nothing about its truth

You said it had no evidence, but the behavior of millions of people for hundreds of years has contradicted you. Evidence convinces people. You are wrong.

Lol. You don't even know what the fallacy is.

I said many people found it had enough evidence to convince them. Millions.

Sorry, that is stupidity. Or else stupid people would have been able to cancel all progress made by great men and women over the ages.

We do have some obtuse idiots on the site who think that insisting they are not convinced means they secure a draw. It doesn't work that way, smart people do not need your agreement to eviscerate your argument.

Did you explain that logical incoherence? I may have missed that and would be happy if you pointed it out.

When my brain inputs visual data I assume with a level of certainty that what I see is what there is. Similarly, if I transcribe information to an external medium, the process is wholly reliant on internal data processing, so I can still only assume with a level of certainty that what I am doing is actually having an external influence.

I can never be 100% certain of the existence or nature of an external environment.

Where, between 1 and 100 my level of certainty sits, I cannot say.

What do you think?

Remember, a percentage is a ratio. In order for you to relate levels of certainty, you'd have to be able to perceive each part of your scale (from one to 100.) If you don't know what 100 percent is, then how can you characterize anything you presume to know as a level of certainty? And this is quite analogous to my argument. If "actual existence" as it's been argued is something independent of perception, then why would one relate what one does perceive to that which they can't perceive? It's not really on a scale from one to 100; it's a scale from one to x, where x is unknowable.

Why would it then be at all significant that the "God concept," as you put it, has an "external reality" when your experience of an external reality is based on an assumption? And the level of certainty you pointed out back then isn't really a level of certainty in that context because as you admitted you don't proffer outside of an assumption that what you're doing is actually having an external influence. And as I argued then, if you didn't have any grasp of 100 percent, then how could you relate any "level" of certainty when certainty is an unknown.

The problem is with your posit of an "external" reality, zedvictor. In order for you to contain an external reality within epistemological parameters, you must control for the experience of existence independent of one's mind. Such a feat would be paradoxical and logically incoherent. You are not trivializing or even qualifying the existence of God(s) by claiming he/it is real inside one's head. The "truth" is, everything we know exists, exists "inside our heads." Even your physical senses must conform to the express function of your mind's faculties.

So then if "external reality" is an epistemological insignificance, what weight does it bear in any argument over the existence of God? None.

Because it's not a truism. Your argument essentially reduces to this: atheists can no more disprove the subjectivity of God(s) than a theist can prove the objectivity of God(s.) But objectivity is logically incoherent because it necessitates that one rejects one's own being the subject of one's experience. Proof is irrelevant to that which is logically incoherent. In other words, the theist bears no obligation whatsoever to substantiate their God objectively, or as you put it, manifest in an external reality (a logical incoherence.) You yourself admitted that you can never be certain that what you do has an external influence, so why are setting standards of proof and quality based on that which you concede is an assumption?

Yes, I mentioned that it would be folly for an atheist, or anyone to try and prove a negative. It can only remain that atheists, or anyone would keep their minds open to any hard evidence that would be revealed.

Twice?

And I, a theist, have proven God exists using two logically sound arguments:

1.

All which is perceived must exist.

God is perceived.

Therefore, God exists.

The major premise is irrefutable. The minor premise can be subject to parameters, but those very parameters will subject the metrics of counterarguments.

2.

All material or spiritual beings exist.

God is a spiritual being.

Therefore, God exists.

The major premise is tautological; the minor premise is tautological.

Does the world know of this hard evidence?

I'm sure it would make you famous but I've not read any headlines as yet of that discovery.

Wouldn't the worlds population make that assessment if hard evidence were made available?