"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

[Lovely Charm]

---

Let me rephrase my answer, I reject the idea of god existing because there is no evidence to support god's existence.
And to believe something just because the opposite has not been proven is unreasonable.
To not believe in something because there is no evidence for it is reasonable.
That is my criteria for something to be acceptable. Reasonableness and evidence.

I don't know is an acceptable answer to the question "do trolls exist?"
But what is your answer to "do you believe that trolls exist?"
Would you answer, "I don't know if I believe or not"? If so, have you considered agnosticism?

"I dont know" is an initial response (at least for me), now let us say w/ regards to the popular concept of god coming from the holy books, & if that(BIBLE for example) is the CRITERIA of believing gods existence, im one w/ you in saying "i reject the existence of god", for the same reasons that its ridiculous,illogical,irrational, & does not fit the resume on an almighty supreme being, but i dont reject "GOd" PER SE, why? because on my end its impossible TO KNOW & gather empirical evidence to disprove gods exitence.
So i reject the opinions about god,but not god per se,

again this is your reason of your rejection of god's existence-
"Because there is no evidence to support god's existence", w/c is reasonable enaf, im not questioning that anymore cause your answer is so clear, my question is different, or shall i rephrase it differently,
do you reject god per se?
because if you do, kindly tell me if its because of emperical evidence showing that there is no god, & pls dont give me that statement again that the burden of evidence is coming from those who claim of gods existence because your on the same criteria-claiming something;

Agnostics dont reject (correct me if im wrong), atheist do
Are you an agnostic or atheist? or mestiso?

[tripwire]

I think the reason why they reject god (per se) is due to a total lack of evidence.

In my opinion, rejection implies there is a god to reject... this is true for agnostic but not atheists.

[tokidoki]

Well if you bring up an idea you are leaving it for acceptance/rejection. The existence of the topic only proves that you have an idea but it doesn't prove that your idea is true or false; or correct and incorrect.

Asking if there is a god doesn't prove he exists. You're merely asking. Mao na sabot nako sa imo gisulti.

So if nobody asks if it's raining nobody would tell you NO.

Don't ask, don't tell

[schmuck]

"I dont know" is an initial response (at least for me), now let us say w/ regards to the popular concept of god coming from the holy books, & if that(BIBLE for example) is the CRITERIA of believing gods existence, im one w/ you in saying "i reject the existence of god", for the same reasons that its ridiculous,illogical,irrational, & does not fit the resume on an almighty supreme being, but i dont reject "GOd" PER SE, why? because on my end its impossible TO KNOW & gather empirical evidence to disprove gods exitence.
So i reject the opinions about god,but not god per se,

again this is your reason of your rejection of god's existence-
"Because there is no evidence to support god's existence", w/c is reasonable enaf, im not questioning that anymore cause your answer is so clear, my question is different, or shall i rephrase it differently,
do you reject god per se?
because if you do, kindly tell me if its because of emperical evidence showing that there is no god, & pls dont give me that statement again that the burden of evidence is coming from those who claim of gods existence because your on the same criteria-claiming something;

Agnostics dont reject (correct me if im wrong), atheist do
Are you an agnostic or atheist? or mestiso?

Rejecting god... I think that doesn't make sense. How do you reject something you think isn't there?
So you are right. I don't reject god per se. Rather, I reject the idea of god. Rejecting the existence of said god follows thereafter.

I think the reason why they reject god (per se) is due to a total lack of evidence.

In my opinion, rejection implies there is a god to reject... this is true for agnostic but not atheists.

Like rejecting dracula implies that there is a dracula to reject.
See my reply to Charm.

[Hellblazer 2.1]

ms.charm's argument does have valid points. if the burden of proof falls on the theists, then the burden of disproof may also fall on the atheists. it does work both ways.

[handsoff241]

I may not be a psychologist but when someone gives me more than a YES OR NO from a topic a that only wishes for a YES OR NO answer it usually a sign that my words somehow made sense to you and it struck a dent in your belief causing some amount of hesitation and doubt.

So what you're basically saying, whichever way the rest see it, your way will still be right (predictably. although i sense some apprehension in your response). *wink* *wink*

Or here's another clarification to what you just said. "Maskin walay ginoo. Naa ra gihapon." Because you said so. Correct?

The rest of the people here bai just presented their arguments that there may be a god or there may be not.

Your argument is there is a god. and the possibility that if there is none there still is. Mura ba'g if naai possbility na mapildi ka sa lalis nila diri you're still hoping (faith) makadaug ka. If you're confident with your argument bai don't raise your faith flag up. Mura man ka nag black jack na nagandam ug insurance. Idol schmuck can easily smell that fear bai.

mao na akong sabot sa imo gisulti.

Here's a little quote for you bai. It's not about knowing your enemy (the non-believers). It's knowing yourself. What you're doing is knowing yourself and ATTEMPTING to know your enemy, which amusingly is something know nothing of.

besides, you're veering from the topic. We're talking on the existence of a god and the grounds, logic and evidence of his existence/non-existence. Faith is beyond that scope.

For the record, I AM JUST CHECKING, a side beat, not planning to join mannyamador and the others(including you). This topic was already discussed many times and the only consolation each side gets is a full-bellied ego.
And the way you took everything is too far from what I gave.

So what you're basically saying, whichever way the rest see it, your way will still be right

My argument rested on the idea's of our religion which I already mentioned with regards and within that certain topic I have quoted. The correlation of this bad a$$ world to the existence of our God.
I'm not asserting any beliefs, although it may look like it, but boy I feel the same, I assure you that I am not and will not for I have done that already and it was a wrong approach.

[handsoff241]

@hellblazer.. cge ug pa-langis ni charm hehehe

[Hellblazer 2.1]

@hellblazer.. cge ug pa-langis ni charm hehehe

then you should've "hands-on" yourself at the opportunity. hahaha!

[Lovely Charm]

@ Schumck,
Your statement: "how can you reject sometinhg w/c isnt there",,
Now as to the words "isnt there" is this a statement in contrast w/ people who claim "its there"?
Or also a statement coming from your sound observation & resonableness?
I mean one day after thorough investigation, exhausting all possible means you finally realized it "isnt there" can this be part of your "isnt there" statement? or purely a statement in contrast w/ the theist lang?
now we are clear that you are not rejecting god per se but the notions/concepts about god.
So what are you,,,? Agnostic, Atheist, or simply a rebel to unreasonable claims?

[Ramini]

In my opinion, rejection implies there is a god to reject... this is true for agnostic but not atheists.

ang uban kai mamitik man..abi kay ang usa ka atheist dli mutuo ug ginoo..sabton dayon nga naai laing ginoo ang atheist or sya mismo ang ginoo..wla gani sya ni believe sa concept sa god as a divine creator or whatever.