"If I am right, I go to heaven, if you are right, you die anyway."

Better sounding but ultimately empty calories...

In the Big Rock Candy Mountains there's a land that's fair and bright
Where the handouts grow on bushes and you sleep out every night
Where the boxcars are all empty and the sun shines every day
On the birds and the bees and the cigarette trees
Where the lemonade springs where the bluebird sings
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So once again we are back with your adamant insistence that empiricism has a monopoly on all issues of evidence ....
:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because you aren't feeding him the right things. Literally.

Food = empirical evidence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Empiricism is the use of reliable evidence to defend a claim. What else is there?

 

What other kind of evidence is there? Logical deduction? Logical proofs for God all fail in one way or another. God=wishful thinking, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

 

So there are no Taoists that have misconceptions about God?
There are no Hinduists that think cloudy Heaven and firey Hell are what the bible purports?
No Christians that (like atheists) think it makes sense that the world was created more than 6000 years ago?

 

If we take the problem of directly perceiving the president, there are clearly other factors that come to the fore.

IOW in cases where the subject is immensely greater than the applicant, the reliability (or even applicability) of empiricism is ineffective.

 

which in this scenario = starve ... since empiricism is akin to a seasonal food

 

sure
they tend to go by the title of taoist

sure
they tend to go by the name of neo-hindus

sure
they tend to go by the name of creationists

:shrug:

 

But if you haven't perceived it directly or indirectly, how do you know it exists? And even if you guess it exists, how do you verify it?

 

thats why I propose the example of the president since it answers all these questions

 

OK, so you agree - ideas, misconceptions and theories are not the exclusive domain of atheism. And no, atheism doesn't "own" them. And you retract these statements:

Because otherwise you've contradicted yourself.

 

sure its only the atheist ones that they own ...
:shrug:

 

It is a hasty generalization to correlate an assertion of Biblical inspiration as indiscriminately literal-minded. Being the "authoritative Word of God" does not preclude literary devices in the least.

The provenance of scripture seems to be a non sequitur or red herring here.

How would seeking coherence be more subjective than someone with an admitted cognitive bias appealing to ridicule? Histories are well known to contain subjective embellishments of the chronicler, especially when literacy was rare.

Perhaps you honestly missed this: "What you find compelling is subjective opinion, short of conclusive evidence."

stance
2 b : intellectual or emotional attitude
attitude
4 a : a mental position with regard to a fact or state
b : a feeling or emotion toward a fact or state
position
2: a point of view adopted and held to
opinion
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
-merriam-webster​

Have I made my point? Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'm assuming I don't really have to spell it out further.

 

I can see a consistent image of the president, I can hear him talk, and know that there is most likely a real person behind this image. If I wanted to, I could go to a rally and see him in person. This image is independent of my belief system and can be corroborated by anyone. You cannot say the same thing about God or any supernatural concepts.

 

So IOW direct perception of the president (that goes beyond accepting the hearsay of persons in authority positions) requires that you meet him in accordance with a framework dictated by the president

 

Until I meet him, I don't know if the president really exists. I think it's more likely than not, based on the evidence I have seen, which is mostly audio and video. Do you have audio or video of God?

My second question would be, how would you personally verify the existence of the president?

 

So, still some vague "various evidences"? What we've previously discussed has been shown to be very far removed from the criteria of evidence, or even valid logic.

So your "Mets fandom" is just as likely to warrant you attacking another's worldview? :bugeye: Fandom opposes competing fandom, not a worldview beyond its own scope.

Without empirical evidence it does. Claims have no prima facie factual value of their own without objective verification.

Then what is it you meant to say with regard to atheism not being an opinion?

You seem to have completely dodged any justification of these being "logical". Is subjective value your criteria for logic?

Look up why they are all called Abrahamic.

Perhaps you should look up deity while you're at it. Ever done any serious comparative religious studies? Might want to take a look at that as well.

 

No, you haven't. Cherry picking definitional phrases doesn't mean that you have exhaustively defined the only ways the word stance can be used correctly.

Atheism, at its essence, isn't an opinion; it is a structure of logic - that until something is demonstrated compellingly, it is not granted.

 

For the third time now, what you find compelling is subject to opinion. You seem to assume that what people find compelling about theism is not demonstrable to them.

The truly compelling is beyond refute. A lack of evidence cannot constitute being beyond refute unless it is ultimately exhaustive.