Atheism

Well-obviously ed. It is always boring and futile discussing any subject when closed off minds are involved.

I thought you liked the lame arguments. They are easier to kick surely.

Fully functioning arguments are on Ignore in my experience.

There's nothing more boring and futile than declaring their is no God and then living as if there is. Which science proves that America exists?

Answering that question is not boring nor futile.

I've just realised there's a bunch of videos all on the same line about 'the question that atheists fear' Giggle. I guess if I was asked the question I'd ask the theist to prove to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't responsible for everything he/she credits their god for.

LOL as not one can prove a negative that is silly however you can state that the likelihood of a Christian or Christian god existing is so damn small as to be not worth considering and on the same order as the Great Pumpkin being real.

The Great Pumpkin gets my vote.

Which science proves that America exists?

Are we not supposed to notice when you all creep away silently from an enquiry made of your intellectual capacities?

It doesn't require science to prove America exists. It's called "geography."

From a dictionary:

No it isn't. Geography texts are political in this context.

It's physical; "political" is a secondary concept which changes with the times.

Which makes it a pile of dirt above various sea levels.

And if you ever get a chance to study the globe we call earth, you'll see names for almost all of it. Maps has to be revised, because there's a huge difference between geographical (the physical) and political boundaries. During the past century, political boundaries have changed frequently even though the geographical has changed very little. A little knowledge of your back yard would do wonders for your geographical and political understanding of this planet.

Geographical are natural borders. Some geographical features that often constitute natural borders are:
Oceans: oceans create very costly natural borders. Very few nation states span more than one continent. Only very large and resource-rich states are able to sustain the costs of governance across oceans for longer periods of time.
Rivers: some political borders have been formalized along natural borders formed by rivers. Some examples are; the Rio Grande border (Mexico-USA), the Rhine border (France-Germany), and the Mekong border (Thailand-Laos)
Lakes: larger lakes create natural borders. One example is the natural border created by Lake Tanganyika (Congo-Burundi-Tanzania-Zambia)
Forests: denser jungles or forests can create strong natural borders. One example of a natural forest border is the Amazon rain forest (Colombia-Venezuela-Guyana-Brazil-Bolivia-Peru)
Mountain ranges:

Rubbish. What science proves America exists. Answer correctly--psychology--. Then God exists by the same argument.

You have no sense of logic. Trying to prove god vs America belongs on the idiot thread - or your local pub.

It sad indeed that you need to reach for such nonsense to get emotional support for a concept your intellect know is as silly as the great pumpkin existing.

The universe is wonderful as it is without a silly and human center god existing.

I'd never thought before how antitheist Charles M. Schulz was...

What a woeful and wimpy sentimental indulgence that is. The universe is absolutely horrible and ghastly in every last regard. There's not a hot sudsy bath or a box of chocolates for so far off as to be meaningless. How far away is the nearest pint of foaming beer? Or garter belts attached with little bows to black net stockings?

You're talking about photographs Bill with whooshy music overdubbed. And some computer generated fantasies. In slow-mo.

That's is not an answer to the question of what science proves America exists outside of psychology? Scientific principles are for all time.

Actually, I agree with spendius for once. God and America both exist as psychological phenomena.

Everything we know of, every experience, every sensation comes through the senses. The various parts of the brain filter and assemble the input into a workable interpretation. We can't know for sure what's on the other side of the epistemological veil; we can only make inferences in a hit-and-miss manner and accumulate the results into common sense. When you start stretching way out there and propose a metaphysics/cosmology that has no sensory input to support it, then one story is just as good as another. Yahweh, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, FSM, Santa Claus. Take your pick, if you need something to believe in. They all have equal empirical support: none.

Well stated; so simple, most who read it should be able to understand it.

Problem is that so many reach a preferred, feel-good conclusion first, then work backwards and try to cobble together justification for it. The mortar they use is logical fallacies, like equivocations, straw man arguments, cherry-picking, appeals to authority/tradition/emotions, etc.

If they'd take the data at face value, without imposing their preferences upon it, and follow only where necessary inference leads, they'd see how ridiculous Bronze Age supernatural claims are from the get-go.

That said, it is pretty difficult to separate one's desires from one's reasoning, and there are a lot of people out there who are very quick to prey on those who can't do it.