What would convince you?

[(Q)]

no

but a person who seeks knowledge resigns themselves to a good deal of theory and practice before they arrive at direct perception

That is entirely incorrect. High school students begin experiments in the same year they begin studying the sciences.

They directly perceive the results of the theory being taught.

 

[shaman_]

I'm not being dishonest at all, the majority of all the replies were just atheists promoting the same type of atheistic propaganda...

It does not matter what the majority were. You ignored the responses and pretended that no one was answering. You clearly started this thread with no intention of real debate. You just wanted to rant.

I didn't really ignore them, but none of it is actually evidence of God, just evidence of miracles, prayer, etc...

But in the bible god performs miracles and answers prayers! You wont accept this as an answer?

You asked a question, people answered, you pretended that they didn't and then you refused to accept their answers. It certainly appears that you are not really after any discussion at all VitalOne.

No, UNLIKE the foolish atheist (who for some reason thinks themselves to be smart), if something is unverifiable (meaning there is no way to know if it's true or false), I would just say it's unknown if it's true or false...the atheist on the other hand says "Oh no, it just can't be true, everyone else is just another delusional fool, except for me"

That is pure drivel. Atheism has nothing to do with insulting people. Shall I assume that religion is all about being rude and insulting just because you are? Show some maturity and stop with the pathetic generalisations.

***edit. I checked your profile. You are 18?


Just as you refuse to believe there are two headed elves sitting on your shoulders, atheists refuse to believe there are gods - due to the lack of evidence. You will do everything you can to avoid understanding this point, even though it is very simple.

You answered No to my question. You are behaving like an atheist then.

No they don't, if they really think that it should be possible that god/gods exist, then they could easily give innumerable examples of evidence of God, but they can't,

You were given examples but you wouldn't accept them!

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, this is something hard to atheists to understand...

Interesting. So you admit that there is no evidence for god? Otherwise, what could you possibly mean here?

There are many things which people believe in that lack evidence - the easter bunny, elves, thetans. Should we just assume that they are all true?.. or should we believe in the ideas that actually have some evidence to support them. Which one?

How do you choose what to believe in?

Yeah, I can give examples of evidence, but first I would have look up the attributes of Ra, Quetzalcoatl, etc...

I'm waiting...

Also, if I couldn't give examples of evidence, I would then they say that it's unverifiable, and if it's unverifiable (like the many-worlds interpretation), I would just say it's unknown whether Ra or Thor actually exist...you atheists on the other hand (being fools) jump to conclusion of unverifiability = false, being lovers of irrationality, abandoning reason and logic...

You have yet to even begin to show how it is abandoning logic to refuse to believe in something that has no evidence to support its existence.

Don't take my example of elves as facetious. They are still taken seriously in some parts of the world. Do you believe that elves exist VitalOne?

No, I never said that...but most of them are real similar, the things Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, and Lao Tzu say are very very similar...

You do realise there are a few more religions that those right?

So you think that Ra and Quetzalcoatl existed. What about Thor, do you think that he existed? I noticed you didn't include him. How many of these religions do you believe in VitalOne?

The creation myths are actually very similar...

They certainly have one thing in common. I'll let you figure out what that is...

There are creation myths that are vastly different. No doubt you will ignore this fact as you ignore all the things you don't want to see.

You believe that Ra and God exist. The egyptian and biblical creation myths are not the same, in fact they are not even close. You don't have a problem with this?

 

[Tnerb]

Not reading any of this,

Possibly, if they would recognize their own logical biases, and recognize that the truth of "God" is something greater than their current conceptions. Possibly, it is possible to have a thing as "God." But they don't care to explore thoughts which give examples of god, or even refute Berkley.... Shame in their reasoning?

 

[VitalOne]

It does not matter what the majority were. You ignored the responses and pretended that no one was answering. You clearly started this thread with no intention of real debate. You just wanted to rant.

No I didn't, stop lying to yourself (though lying and living in delusion is all atheists do), all I said was "All this talk and these atheists still don't give me examples" because the majority of posts was just atheists ranting.....go look back and read for yourself...if most posts actually gave examples then I wouldn't have said that..

But in the bible god performs miracles and answers prayers! You wont accept this as an answer?

I would accept it...but will you, truly and honestly accept it as evidence (if it really happened)...would it fully convince you?

You asked a question, people answered, you pretended that they didn't and then you refused to accept their answers. It certainly appears that you are not really after any discussion at all VitalOne.

No I didn't, let me suggest something that may help you http://www.hookedonphonics.com

That is pure drivel. Atheism has nothing to do with insulting people. Shall I assume that religion is all about being rude and insulting just because you are? Show some maturity and stop with the pathetic generalisations.

All atheists do is insult theists, "anyone who believes in God is delusional", "why don't you believe in the tooth fairy", "you're just living in an imaginary fantasy", etc...

***edit. I checked your profile. You are 18?

Yes...

Just as you refuse to believe there are two headed elves sitting on your shoulders, atheists refuse to believe there are gods - due to the lack of evidence. You will do everything you can to avoid understanding this point, even though it is very simple.

You answered No to my question. You are behaving like an atheist then.

I don't refuse to believe there are two-headed elves sitting on my shoulders..the sad thing is the foolish atheist really thinks that the concept of God is the same as two-headed elves...I'm not behaving like an atheist...if something is unverifiable then I say that it's unknown, the atheist (being a fool) says it's definitely false using personal incredulity, ignorance, and irrationality...

You were given examples but you wouldn't accept them!

I didn't refuse them, rather I accepted many of them, such as prayer, the poison, etc....I just stated that I don't think most atheists will be fully convinced if these things really happened....

Interesting. So you admit that there is no evidence for god? Otherwise, what could you possibly mean here?

No there is evidence, but it is not considered evidence, it is considered a "god-did-it" explanation...

What I mean is that evidence doesn't something to become true, though you (and other atheists, also known as fools) for some reason that evidence does cause something to become true...

In logic and reasoning (something atheists have abandoned), "an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"

There are many things which people believe in that lack evidence - the easter bunny, elves, thetans. Should we just assume that they are all true?.. or should we believe in the ideas that actually have some evidence to support them. Which one?

Neither, where did you get that notion from?

Let me repeat what I said previously, if something is unverifiable, it means there is no way to know if it's true or false, so you neither believe NOR disbelieve it, it's just unknown whether it's true or false, so you say it's unknown whether it's true or false...ofcourse you only do this if you use rationality and logic, otherwise you're just using blind faith (which is what atheism is entirely based off)

You have yet to even begin to show how it is abandoning logic to refuse to believe in something that has no evidence to support its existence.

Yes I have, but then again it probably hasn't registered through your brain yet,

Saying something isn't true because of a lack of evidence is an argument from ignorance (a logical fallacy), that's why it's abandoning logic...the logical conclusion would be to say it's unknown whether it's true or false...for instance using the atheists logic (the fool's logic), we should all conclude that the Sun revolved around the Earth until the evidence showed otherwise...while using my logic you would say that it's unknown until it becomes verifiable....

Don't take my example of elves as facetious. They are still taken seriously in some parts of the world. Do you believe that elves exist VitalOne?

Yes, I believe DEFINITELY elf-like beings exist with 100% certainty...

You do realise there are a few more religions that those right?

Yeah...what's your point, there's many different religions, so what?

So you think that Ra and Quetzalcoatl existed. What about Thor, do you think that he existed? I noticed you didn't include him. How many of these religions do you believe in VitalOne?

I'm not sure about Thor, so I say it's unknown...

There are creation myths that are vastly different. No doubt you will ignore this fact as you ignore all the things you don't want to see.

You believe that Ra and God exist. The egyptian and biblical creation myths are not the same, in fact they are not even close. You don't have a problem with this?

The Creation myths aren't really that different, just as Jesus says the light came into being by itself...

 

[VitalOne]

You cannot say what an atheist would say, you cannot say what anybody other than you would say. You can assume yes, however assumption is not proof. In this your assumption is based upon past evidence, however, not to my knowlege has anyone said what would convert them and, after having been shown said evidence rejected it. Thus your comparison is not valid. An atheist has stated what would convert him, could he be lying? Possibly, but the only way to proove that would be to give them the proof they ask for. Thus you assume they would reject it because you say they have blind faith and reject all arguments (which is the argument you are trying to prove, ie circular reasoning.)

Yes I can, I can predict what atheists would say based upon what they've said in the past...why can't I?

I can indeed:

------------

I never said it didn't convince him, I said if it really happened it probably wouldn't convince him...

While I will say I worded that last part poorly, allow me to expand:
We cannot proove the easter bunny does not exist, but since there is no other evidence for it to exist, it would be ad ignorantiam to assume that it therefore did. (hence why I refered to beleif in the easter bunny as ad ignorantiam)

Hmm...you don't understand the argument from ignorance...saying the Easter Bunny doesn't exist because of a lack of evidence IS an argument from ignorance...saying the Easter Bunny does exist because there is no evidence that the Easter doesn't exist is an argument from ignorance...

Therefore the issue then comes down to burden of proof, and logicaly, who has the burden of proof? It's the person who claims something exists, because it is possible to proove existance, but impossible to proof inexistance. Otherwise one could claim anything existed and have an argument, eg: "evil flying monkeys from venus are building a blooperglap ray which will wipe out all life on earth and thus we must invest all our money into the military and space programs to destroy them before this is accomplished."
(in other words, a reductio ad absurdem shows why the burden falls on the one who claims something exists.)

But in this case there is direct evidence of absence for evil flying monkeys on Venus, so your argument fails in every imaginable way

Thus, by default the easter bunny (or anything) does not exist untill you proove it to exist.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

This is what an argument from ignorance is "something is false until proven true"

Using this foolish logic (your logic), you should conclude that the 100,000+ volcanos didn't exist years ago, only when people discovered they exist...when you atheists realize that evidence doesn't cause something to become true"

And that is why an atheist is not 'blind faith' but rather a logical conclusion based on their ways of knowing.

No, the conclusion is illogical....it's exactly what an argument from ignorance is...

EDIT: Perhaps a better way of putting the above is: An argument that something exists is not falsifiable, while an argument that something does not exist is falsifiable, thus the unfalsifiable argument has the burden of proof.

Falsification is the difference between 'blind faith' and a reasoned conclusion.

-Andrew

No, both are falsifiable, but you can't prove a negative...only prove that something else is true which makes a negative true...

 

[andbna]

Yes I can, I can predict what atheists would say based upon what they've said in the past...why can't I?

Because what they responded too was not that which they stated would convert them. Apples and oranges.

I never said it didn't convince him, I said if it really happened it probably wouldn't convince him...

So you then admit you dont actualy know weather what you are arguing is correct or not.

Hmm...you don't understand the argument from ignorance...saying the Easter Bunny doesn't exist because of a lack of evidence IS an argument from ignorance...saying the Easter Bunny does exist because there is no evidence that the Easter doesn't exist is an argument from ignorance...

I understand it perfectly, more than you infact You see there is one exception in which lack of proof is not actualy a logical fallacy. Lets say we have hypothosis x and y, and the law of excluded middle applies (it is either x or y and nothing else)
The exception is when hypothosis x is impossible to prove due to the nature of it, ie:
x can be falsified
y cannot be falsified
lack of evidance from y prove x without it being an argument from ignorance (or rather, without it being a logical fallacy)

But in this case there is direct evidence of absence for evil flying monkeys on Venus, so your argument fails in every imaginable way

Really? Care to show this absense?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

This is what an argument from ignorance is "something is false until proven true"

Using this foolish logic (your logic), you should conclude that the 100,000+ volcanos didn't exist years ago, only when people discovered they exist...when you atheists realize that evidence doesn't cause something to become true"

IF you had put the previouse 2 quotes together you would have understood why it wasn't... *sigh*

No, both are falsifiable, but you can't prove a negative...only prove that something else is true which makes a negative true...

Care to demonstrate how saying that something exists is falsifiable?

-Andrew

 

[VitalOne]

andbna, go look up the argument from ignorance, I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, it must not have gotten through to your thick atheistic skull, saying the Easter Bunny or ANYTHING doesn't exist or is false UNTIL proven true is a logical fallacy...things are true with or without evidence...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

[andbna]

Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the case—it is simply lack of evidence, and nothing more. This is not the same as arguing against something that can, by its nature, never be proven

From the wiki.

So unless you can show how something existing is a falsifiable hypothosis (that is, demonstrate how you would disprove it) it is not a logical fallacy.

EDIT: You can repeat yourself ad nauseam, but that wont make you right, time to back up your claim.

EDIT2: how about another site:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a saying that's often used. It is true in some circumstances (in the possibility of there being alien life, for example) but not all. It is not true when there's an absence of evidence and we should expect to find that evidence. For example, stating that the Loch Ness Monster could exist because no-one's proved it doesn't is clearly an Argument to Ignorance; however, stating that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist because no-one has proved that it does is not making an Argument to Ignorance. This is because a breeding population of Plesiosaurs (or whatever) would be expected to leave evidence of their existence.

- http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=argumentum_ad_ignorantiam.php

-Andrew

 

[VitalOne]

From the wiki.

So unless you can show how something existing is a falsifiable hypothosis (that is, demonstrate how you would disprove it) it is not a logical fallacy.

EDIT: You can repeat yourself ad nauseam, but that wont make you right, time to back up your claim.

EDIT2: how about another site:

- http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=argumentum_ad_ignorantiam.php

-Andrew

Right...so you're agreeing with me...? I never said a lack of evidence makes something true...what can't you understand about this?

You on the otherhand insists that something is false until proven true...an argument from ignorance...

 

[andbna]

Nice to see you didnt back up your claim, but merely restated your point.
No im not agreeing with you, the burden of proof, by default, rests on the claimant. It is the one who has the burden of proof who makes the fallacious argument, not the other.

-Andrew

 

[VitalOne]

Nice to see you didnt back up your claim, but merely restated your point.
No im not agreeing with you, the burden of proof, by default, rests on the claimant. It is the one who has the burden of proof who makes the fallacious argument, not the other.

-Andrew

What's wrong with you? You said the easter bunny doesn't exist UNTIL proven which is EXACTLY what an argument from ignorance is....

 

[andbna]

What's wrong with you? You said the easter bunny doesn't exist UNTIL proven which is EXACTLY what an argument from ignorance is....

...
Did you not read the above? How would question of the existance of an entity come into debate? Because somebody claims it exists. The burden of proof then rests on that claiment to show evidence of the entities existance. Untill then it is not a logical fallacy to say this entity does not exist.

Perhaps I should requote the above:

stating that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist because no-one has proved that it does is not making an Argument to Ignorance.

Dont bother posting again untill you provide some support for your claim (perhaps some expert opinion for instance.)

-Andrew

 

[VitalOne]

...
Did you not read the above? How would question of the existance of an entity come into debate? Because somebody claims it exists. The burden of proof then rests on that claiment to show evidence of the entities existance. Untill then it is not a logical fallacy to say this entity does not exist.

Yes it IS an argument from ignorance..."something is false until proven true"

Perhaps I should requote the above:

Dont bother posting again untill you provide some support for your claim (perhaps some expert opinion for instance.)

-Andrew

Right, but this only applies if there SHOULD be evidence, but there isn't evidence, something you conviently missed out....

So if there should be evidence of the Loch Ness Monster in the lake but there isn't then saying it doesn't exist isn't an argument from ignorance, however if you say God or aliens, etc..doesn't exist because there is no evidence but can't point out where should there be evidence then it IS an argument from ignorance...

It doesn't at all support your position that "by default something doesn't exist", it only supports the position that "if there should be evidence but when verfied there isn't, then something doesn't exist"...

 

[andbna]

Likewise, there should be evidence of the easter buny: comming around every easter delivering eggs. But the only people shown to be delivering these eggs are Nestle and a whack of parents.

And, with anything in existance, there should be evidance of it: if it doesnt effect our universe in any way (anything that effects our universe would supply evidence) than logicaly it can be said to not exist.

-Andrew

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Atheists often say that they would believe in God if there was evidence, so what's an example of evidence that would fully convince you that God or anything supernatural exists?

Nasor answered this quite well on the first page (07-19-07, 01:43 PM #19 ) and I am in agreement with him as I am sure many (if not all) of the atheists whom have responded to you. Those of course are things that cannot be provided.. because they DO NOT EXIST. Let me explain what exactly what 'God' is. It begins with harmless and natural anthropmorphization.

Put human attributes on a rabbit and you have bugs bunny, put them on a car and you have herbie, put them on nature and you have mother nature, put them on time and you have father time, put them on reality and you have 'God'.

Now we move onto psychological needs. Humans typically need authority figures to advice them, grant them permission, purpose them, and protect them. The less prone an authority figure is to making mistakes, the more that authority figure can be trusted and respected. Reality certainly does not make any mistakes... it is infallible to our knowledge... and of course since it has been anthropomorphized, 'God' is now an infallible authority figure.

Now we move onto identity needs. Humans need a firm sense of self... to know exactly who they are. 'God' becomes a proxy between the consious and subconsious and believers will focus their relationship efforts on that proxy. The most successful at this have a firm sense of identity that can often lead to euphoric experience. They attribute this to their relationship with 'God' (the proxy) without realizing that they have really achived a very deep relationship with themselves.

In other words, 'God' is anthropomorphic delusion that is the easiest known way to meet human psychological / identity needs.

 

[shaman_]

.. (though lying and living in delusion is all atheists do), all I said was "

Absurd generalization.

I would accept it...but will you, truly and honestly accept it as evidence (if it really happened)...would it fully convince you?

Yes.

All atheists do is insult theists, "anyone who believes in God is delusional", "why don't you believe in the tooth fairy", "you're just living in an imaginary fantasy", etc...

Atheism is a personal stance that has nothing to do with opinions on other people. That is like me saying that all theists think that atheists are fools for not believing. I’m sure not all of them think that.

I don't refuse to believe there are two-headed elves sitting on my shoulders..the sad thing is the foolish atheist really thinks that the concept of God is the same as two-headed elves...I'm not behaving like an atheist...if something is unverifiable then I say that it's unknown, the atheist (being a fool) says it's definitely false using personal incredulity, ignorance, and irrationality...

Ah but atheists don’t say that it is definitely false. This has been explained to you dozens of times but you refuse to comprehend this.

I didn't refuse them, rather I accepted many of them, such as prayer, the poison, etc....I just stated that I don't think most atheists will be fully convinced if these things really happened....

Actually you said “then they could easily give innumerable examples of evidence of God, but they can't,”. Not the same thing VitalOne.

I find it amusing that you refuse to accept people’s answers and you are telling them what they really believe.

No there is evidence, but it is not considered evidence, it is considered a "god-did-it" explanation...

What I mean is that evidence doesn't something to become true, though you (and other atheists, also known as fools) for some reason that evidence does cause something to become true...

No. There are an infinite number of things that could possibly be true. It is only through the evidence that we are able to make judgment on what is and isn’t likely to exist. I have seen this explained to you numerous times and I have also seen you refuse to understand this every time.

In logic and reasoning (something atheists have abandoned), "an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"

Atheists don’t claim to have evidence of absence. That is the point. They don’t believe in these gods and elves until there is evidence. Then they will believe. This thread has only confirmed that but you refuse to accept it.

Neither, where did you get that notion from?

Let me repeat what I said previously, if something is unverifiable, it means there is no way to know if it's true or false, so you neither believe NOR disbelieve it, it's just unknown whether it's true or false, so you say it's unknown whether it's true or false...ofcourse you only do this if you use rationality and logic, otherwise you're just using blind faith (which is what atheism is entirely based off)

Wrong. Faith is a belief in something when there is no evidence. You are accusing atheists of refusing to believe in something where then is no evidence for its non existence. That is illogical. Once again VitalOne, read up on proving a negative and don't reply until you have.

Yes I have, but then again it probably hasn't registered through your brain yet,

Saying something isn't true because of a lack of evidence is an argument from ignorance (a logical fallacy), that's why it's abandoning logic...the logical conclusion would be to say it's unknown whether it's true or false...for instance using the atheists logic (the fool's logic), we should all conclude that the Sun revolved around the Earth until the evidence showed otherwise...while using my logic you would say that it's unknown until it becomes verifiable....

Actually argument from ignorance is “is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proved false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proved true.” This is something you are certainly guilty of.

Atheists can’t prove that god doesn’t exist so you claim that they are using faith!

Yes, I believe DEFINITELY elf-like beings exist with 100% certainty...

What evidence convinced you of this? Do you think it is illogical to disbelieve the existence of elves?

Yeah...what's your point, there's many different religions, so what?

You have chosen some religious figures who were peaceful people and said some very nice things and concluded that most religions are similar. There are many other religions that have very little in common with those. What about the Australian aboriginals, the Norse, voodoo, Egyptian ect? Religious figures saying the same things? No.

I'm not sure about Thor, so I say it's unknown...

But you are more certain that Ra existed. Why?

The Creation myths aren't really that different, just as Jesus says the light came into being by itself...

They are similar in that they describe the creation of this planet and that is about it. The Egyptian creation myth starts - “.In the beginning there was only water, a chaos of churning, bubbling water, this the Egyptians called Nu or Nun. It was out of Nu that everything began. As with the Nile, each year the inundation no doubt caused chaos to all creatures living on the land, so this represents Nu. eventually the floods would recede and out of the chaos of water would emerge a hill of dry land, one at first, then more. On this first dry hilltop, on the first day came the first sunrise. So that is how the Egyptians explain the beginning of all things.
. . . . .Not surprisingly, the sun was also among the most important elements in the Egyptians lives and therefore had an important role as a creator god. His names and attributes varied greatly. As the rising sun his name was Khepri, the great scarab beetle, or Ra-Harakhte who was seen as a winged solar-disk or as the youthful sun of the eastern horizon. As the sun climbed toward mid-day it was called Ra, great and strong. When the sun set in the west it was known as Atum the old man, or Horus on the horizon. As a solar-disk he was known as Aten. The sun was also said to be an egg laid daily by Geb, the 'Great Cackler' when he took the form of a goose.”

Very different to genesis. So I will ask again. Do you see no problem believing in Ra and God and the different creation myths?

 

[Enmos]

Saying GOD does exist because there is no evidence that GOD doesn't exist is an argument from ignorance.

This is effectively your stance VitalOne. See below:

Hmm...you don't understand the argument from ignorance...saying the Easter Bunny doesn't exist because of a lack of evidence IS an argument from ignorance...saying the Easter Bunny does exist because there is no evidence that the Easter doesn't exist is an argument from ignorance...

 

[VitalOne]

Yes.

Really? So all I need to do is get to show the effectiveness of prayer and that's it? Seems pretty easy to me...all I need to do is train 100 people or so to be good at prayer...most people pray incorrectly and get no results...I'll easily get results this way...

Atheism is a personal stance that has nothing to do with opinions on other people. That is like me saying that all theists think that atheists are fools for not believing. I’m sure not all of them think that.

Well that's how it seems...in general atheists consider theists to be inferior and lower...

Ah but atheists don’t say that it is definitely false. This has been explained to you dozens of times but you refuse to comprehend this.

Strong atheists do, and if you don't say it's definitely false then why are you an atheist, why not agnostic?

Actually you said “then they could easily give innumerable examples of evidence of God, but they can't,”. Not the same thing VitalOne.

Yeah, it's basically the same...why did most atheists instead of giving examples just give the typical atheistic propaganda?

I find it amusing that you refuse to accept people’s answers and you are telling them what they really believe.

I accept it, me accepting it is not the problem, them accepting it is...

No. There are an infinite number of things that could possibly be true. It is only through the evidence that we are able to make judgment on what is and isn’t likely to exist. I have seen this explained to you numerous times and I have also seen you refuse to understand this every time.

You can only say something is likely or unlikely to be true if there is some type of medium to work with, otherwise you can't, for instance the many-worlds interpretation is unverifiable, you can't say it's unlikely nor likely...

Atheists don’t claim to have evidence of absence. That is the point. They don’t believe in these gods and elves until there is evidence. Then they will believe. This thread has only confirmed that but you refuse to accept it.

So then they are using an argument from ignorance, the sad thing is you atheists really think "evidence causes something to become true", which is why you believe something is false until proven true...the only way to logically say that something doesn't exist is to have evidence of absence, but then again atheists have abandoned logic, reasoning, and rationality...

Wrong. Faith is a belief in something when there is no evidence. You are accusing atheists of refusing to believe in something where then is no evidence for its non existence. That is illogical. Once again VitalOne, read up on proving a negative and don't reply until you have.

Exactly...atheists have faith or belief without evidence of absence that there is no God...for instance the reason scientists don't think the ether exists isn't because "oh I just don't the ether exists, do you believe in the tooth fairy or a Flying Spaghetti Monster?" it's because of evidence of absence...

I'm accusing atheists of being irrational, illogical, and abandoning reasoning, which they do...

Actually argument from ignorance is “is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proved false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proved true.” This is something you are certainly guilty of.

No I'm not, in fact you are, you said you REFUSE to believe something exists until it is proven, therefore you saying something is false until proven true...an argument from ignorance...instead of saying it is unknown until it becomes verifiable (the rational conclusion)...

I'm not guilty of using the argument from ignorance, my reasons for God existing isn't because there is no evidence

Atheists can’t prove that god doesn’t exist so you claim that they are using faith!

You don't need to prove that God doesn't exist, you just need evidence of absence...

What evidence convinced you of this? Do you think it is illogical to disbelieve the existence of elves?

I don't think it's illogical...the evidence is my personal experiences...

You have chosen some religious figures who were peaceful people and said some very nice things and concluded that most religions are similar. There are many other religions that have very little in common with those. What about the Australian aboriginals, the Norse, voodoo, Egyptian ect? Religious figures saying the same things? No.

A lot of religious figures weren't like Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, or Lao Tzu because they didn't possess full knowledge of the truth like Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, and Lao Tzu...these advanced beings had full knowledge of the truth and tried to explain the truth to mankind...the things they say aren't vaguely similar like morals, but similar in how they explain reality...

But you are more certain that Ra existed. Why?

Well I don't really have enough knowledge of who Thor is...I know more about Egyptian mythology....

They are similar in that they describe the creation of this planet and that is about it. The Egyptian creation myth starts - “.In the beginning there was only water, a chaos of churning, bubbling water, this the Egyptians called Nu or Nun. It was out of Nu that everything began.

"Now the earth was formless and empty, and there was darkness above primeval ocean, and God's wind was blowing above the water"

There are differences in creation myths, but most have the same essential truth

 

[VitalOne]

Saying GOD does exist because there is no evidence that GOD doesn't exist is an argument from ignorance.

This is effectively your stance VitalOne. See below:

Yeah that's right, but I never said God exists because there is no evidence that God doesn't exist...I said the existence of God is unknown since it's unverifiable...

 

[Enmos]

Yeah that's right, but I never said God exists because there is no evidence that God doesn't exist...I said the existence of God is unknown since it's unverifiable...

So what do you say to support the existance of God ?
Or are you not sure if God exists ? This means you are agnostic.