Religion ... (definition for almost 2000 years) helping widows and orphans in need and avoiding worldly corruption.

What is your definition of religion and why do you define your religion in the way you do?

Sometimes the facts are unavailable.

@skado Not as respects religion

@Alienbeing

ooookay

I am not a big fan for using the word faith but what it appears to be to be defined as is knowledge and confidence from biblicalsource. Although, I hear a lot of atheist define faith and it always sounds nonsensical the way they define it. So, sure you could define faith in anyway so that it would appear to be misused.

Any line of reasoning, no matter how logical, stemming from an untestable assertion is inaccurate by definition.

Can you show me the testing for this assertion?

@TheMiddleWay Which makes it inaccurate, at least provisionally. Are you going to make important decisions based in no knowledge at all?

@Word No more than you can provide testing for yours.

You sound like a nincompoop.

Logic comes from logos. Logos in Greek is thought, word, speech and reasoning.

John 1:1 in the beginning was the logos, the logos was with deity and was deity. ... the logos become flesh. John 1:14

You tell me if the historosity of Jesus shows he was in the flesh.

@Word Do you have any evidence that any god is real? The bible is the claim, not the evidence.

@xenoview no, the biblical text is a documentation for meme organism. Richard Dawkins makes the claim or coins the word meme. The theme of biblical text is that a meme organism became a person. What was called "God-logos" is now called meme organism.

A meme organism or God-logos by any other name is still a meme organism or God-logos.

Renaming God-logos to meme organism and then saying God-logos does not exist is like renaming humans to homo sapian and saying humans do not exist.

mental masturbation @Word

@Word

There is not enough ranch dressing in the world to coat that rancid word-salad. Word-salad is the refuge of people who know they don't have a cogent argument but attempt to trick others into believing otherwise.

It is the recourse of stupid people who want to give the impression they're smart.

And what does the origin of the word "logic" have to do with anything? That doesn't further your assertion, either.

Neither does quoting Scripture, since it is based in the same untenable claim.

Your assertion is still based on a premise that you take as a given even though it's not one.

If you take it as a given, why are you here? Aren't there millions of platforms where you can engage with others who do?

Your assertion is the same as the one proffered by the likes of William Lane Craig, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, etc, and the more it's made doesn't make it any less disingenuous.

@Word No one has been able to provide any evidence that any god exist. There is nothing logical about any god.

@xenoview you are a style of god, you have your own evidence for that style. Your definition of god, non-existent flying spaghetti monster sky God, may truly be non-existent and thus no evidence would be found.

@Word That's what we've been saying. You're making your point for us.

I bet you fall down a lot.

@Word

Also, speak English. Your gobbledygook makes no sense.

I can't determine if it's because the argument is shit, because you're addlepated, or because you're trying to make a case for something even you don't understand.

I'm thinking it might be a sublime combination of all three.

@Toonman, @xenoview, @Leetx

I am only making statements of information that can be observed by anyone with out me making the statement. Calling me nincompoop with your mental masterbation sin of ad hominem attack fallacy does nothing to discredit or falsify the information. E b.f en killing me would not change the fact that the information can be observed with out me pointing the information out.

The word salad you eat, is actually you eating your own words. The information stands no matter how much you want to hate on me.

@Word

It's interesting how you're just taking terminology used by other people here and trying to use it reflexively.

All this shows is that, like most Evangelicals, you lack the brains to think for yourself.

Ad hominem attacks do not invalidate my argument because they don't magically turn your stupid ideas into good ones.

None of what you state is self-evident. You said so yourself when you pointed out that my argument was also untestable.

The difference between your argument and mine is that I'm not making an argument that mine is testable or self-evident. I'm simply saying yours isn't.

And who said anything about killing you?

What the fuck is your problem?

You write like a toddler.

Those who can't write well can't think well. Those who can't think well are more than happy to let other do the thinking for them.

@xenoview

Does Objective Evidence for God Exist?

@skado Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods"’? John 10:34

There could be evidence for other styles of god. But, for the basic premise of atheism, it is not required to prove more than one style.

"Gods" has had name changes. Now, nature/universe is what God is called. Old testiment God(nature) created "people", people are products of God-nature, sons of God. People created other styles of gods, Jesus, people created Jesus by speaking him into existence. People are creators. People are from Nature-God. God of Spinoza.

@Toonman are you implying I am an evangelical? If so you should correct you error in thinking.

@Word

No. YOU are suggesting you're an Evangelical. You make the same bad, bad-faith arguments. You use the same logical fallacies. You use words you don't understand in order to give yourself the unearned air of erudition. You try to distract from your lousy reasoning with needless, sometimes wrong, definitions. You cite Scripture, which only serves to undermine your assertions because Scripture does not hold any authority. It offers no compelling argument for your claim because it's just another way of making your assertion, instead of proving it.

You write badly and organize your thoughts haphazardly.

You may not be an Evangelical in name, but you are in essence.

Whether you are or aren't, you do the same thing. It's easy to make the mistake.

@Toonman You write badly and organize your thoughts haphazardly.

Yes, I have vision problems and very little patience at times to try and fix all grammar and spelling errors on this platform caused in large part from my large finger typing on a cell phone key board.

Most all your statements are erroneous and are not stated in a logical manner for logical discussion.

Logical discussion would be you making comments addressing the information not the person writing the information. If you have an issue with incorrect information or mistyped information, you don't logically slap a person with an ad hominem attacks fallacy. You restate information for clarity and stay on topic of information and not attack someone. Where as, your attacks has been a red herring issue causing distractions from the topic information. You give very good examples of illogical comments.

If you cannot correctly address information and make logical correction to information you think is wrong, it's best to not carry on discussion if you cannot do it logically.

seriously... Word... are you attempting to have a "circle jerk" all by yourself ? kinda seems like it....@Word

@skado Is the evidence outside of the mind? If not it is subjective and from the mind.

Sounds reasonable....

I like your reasoning.

Like those Q-Twits in Dallas thinking John Kennedy Jr is not only still alive, but he is coming to meet them where his father's head was blown apart. And not only that, but the man who was very liberal Democrat is coming back to be a running mate of the man who tried to install himself as dictator.