Atheism

1: Well, I'm just saying that, no matter what you conclude, I can just say "Well, God is omnipotent, so he can control logic and therefore your argument is wrong."

2: "The bible is written by fallible humans."
I agree. IMO, there's a lot of things in genesis and the other first few books in the bible that make one question it's authenticity as being divinely inspired.

Im totally gobsmaked..the obvious question can be avoided excused ignored...then we have theists coming back excused of their responses to answer the most crucial question with the certainty of the crusaders as they marched for jesus..

Actually, it isn't ignored, because you don't ignore that we cannot provide proof. When we proseletyze you shouldn't ignore that we cannot provide proof. When we discuss that branch of philosophy called theology, however, (and yes, I know there's a fine line, but some do manage to walk it,) then a little suspension of disbelief is required of the atheist who wants to participate in a meaningful way and not have the conversation degrade to just an outright argument about whether or not God exists.

avatar-

Assuming God exists, nothing can validate God's existence, because that is the way God wants it.

xris-

What are you gobsmacked about?

Waffle as much as you like but the question still remains and until that is answered everything else is futile debate..academic chit chat..

This is a Philosphy Forum, it's all about futile debate and academic chit chat. That's the point.

Sorry if I missed something that you said, cause I did actually read your post. Now I'm confused about what it is that I'm missing...:perplexed:

If my contribution here has served nothing more than to incur your sarcasm then I will gracefully withdraw from the conversation.

Withdraw by all means but you instigated the sarcasm by questioning my intentions..

Sorry if I missed something that you said, cause I did actually read your post. Now I'm confused about what it is that I'm missing...:perplexed:

Actually, it isn't ignored, because you don't ignore that we cannot provide proof. When we proseletyze you shouldn't ignore that we cannot provide proof. When we discuss that branch of philosophy called theology, however, (and yes, I know there's a fine line, but some do manage to walk it,) then a little suspension of disbelief is required of the atheist who wants to participate in a meaningful way and not have the conversation degrade to just an outright argument about whether or not God exists.

you said you had been ignored. solace(as you can see above) wanted to know what he had missed so he could actually answer you. then you get rude. Charming.
Look forget the whole victimisation buissness and actually tell us what you want us to respon to and we will do so.

You cheeky wotsit you are really telling me you dont know what the question was???