I Know That God Does Not Exist

I have argued against the OP in this thread. Go ahead and read my posts. There are only 570 of them and most of them are mercifully short.Frankly (and I seldom admit this), I think i lost the argument. It was always a stretch. I think Style's claim that he knows God does not exist is much stronger than anybody else's claim that they know God does exist.It was a worthwhile exercise. I like to skate on thin ice once in a while. I'm Canadian, so thin ice is my natural habitat.

That isn't "going far" at all. It's practically a given. You demonstrate that every time you throw the Jesus of the Bible away and replace it with your own "communed" version. In the individual version that you have made up. But so many non-Judeo-Christians say the same thing about their individual gods.And let's drop the Judeo part. Don't forget that the Jews also deny your version. You really can't. You might as well post a page from the phone book and call that an argument.

People often claim something is "axiomatic" when they can't back it up.

Again, it isn't about proof. This thread is about weight of evidence. Stile's argument is that zero evidence is enough to decide he "knows". My attempted argument was that he doesn't "know" until he's finished looking.ABE: Nobody is going to argue that. Science doesn't deal in proof. Evidence is infinitely more valuable than "proof".Remember the goober who "proved" that bumblebees can't fly? And yet, we have evidence that they can.

Old joke: "He doesn't know the meaning of the word 'quit'. He doesn't know the meaning of the word 'fail'. He doesn't know the meaning of a lot of words."

That's nonsense. Belief is the opposite of knowledge. You can't know until you stop believing nonsense.

You think appreciating high standards is ironic?

Little children don't worry about their retirement. That's a very anti-science thing to say.

Putin is a follower of the Orthodox Church.

You shouldn't let dust accumulate on either your dictionary or your Bible. Ignorance and belief are in the same category. Innocent ignorance is okay but wilfull ignorance is not and aggressive ignorance, like Dredge's, is worse. It's one thing to be ignorant of science and another thing to wilfully turn your back on the evidence. Worst of all is when you let belief get in the way of evidence (or lack of evidence). No it isn't. And they are, by definition, nonsense. Non = not. Or how you, if you actually followed Christianity, would do what Christ said. But you prefer your nonsensical, self-serving religion. You mean the "doubting Thomas" story? I have tried to clear up your misunderstanding before.John 20:1-2 Mary Magdalane tells Peter that Jesus' body is missing from the tomb.
John 20: 8 Peter goes to the tomb, sees and believes.
John 20:19-20 The disciples see Jesus and He shows them His wounds. But Thomas is not there.
John 20:25 The disciples tell Thomas what they saw but he wants to see the evidence for himself.
John 20:26-27 Eight days later, Jesus appears to the disciples again and shows Thomas His wounds.
john 20:29 And only then, after voluntarily showing the evidence, He says that it is also okay to believe without seeing.It's a pretty long stretch to pretend that believing without seeing is better than believing when you see the evidence. You say that as if being Elmer Gantry is a bad thing. No. You have finished looking when you stop looking. That has nothing to do with any conclusions about belief and knowledge. In your case, your obvious mistrust is a symptom of your empty belief. They are not opposites. That's like going "all-in" trusting a bridge. We trust it because it's our only choice. It isn't "somehow feeling". It's a logical conclusion. You can believe until the cows come home that you can jump the river like them Duke boys. But you have to discard that belief if you want to survive.

I have a table like that. I can look for something twenty times and it isn't there - and then it is there.

I didn't think Stile was saying that - but he did say "I" know. Maybe "I" can know something that "you" don't. Objective and absolute are not the same thing.

You don't need to "perhaps" it. I have told you explicitly many times why I don't have to "give it all up". I have told you so many times that I'm not even going to tell you again. I will add that I also feel I don't have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca or refrain from eating shellfish. There are a lot of religious beliefs that I don't feel I have to follow. Can't you figure out why? Well, of course it is. Go ahead and list some other choices. Unless you're planning on walking across with your car under your arm, that's not a viable choice.

Don't evade the question. Why do you think I don't feeel obligated to make a pilgrimage to Mecca? Answer the question.Do YOU feel obligated to make a pilgrimage to Mecca? Why not? Same river. Same way of getting across. So Jesus isn't "the only way" after all.

Does it? We've been through the claim before that Jesus was around since the beginning. It doesn't hold any water. You're still evading the question: Why would I not feel obligated to go on a pilgramage to Mecca? Why do YOU not feel obligated to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. Just answer the question. Don't try to be clever. Like Trump tells YOU what you wamt to hear? Most of the countries on earth have already done that Nonsense. This leader will profess Christianity, like Trump and Hitler and Napoleon. Nobody can be an antiChrist without being a fake Christian. No. This leader will be a hatefilled asshole like Trump and all of the hatefilled assholes, like you, will support him. And you call yourself a "moderate", yet you set the religious authoritarians up on a pedestal. You really don't know the first thing about your own antiChrist, do you?