[Optimism]

Okay, so I touch the apple, taste the apple, smell the apple, and see the apple.

I have now used 4 deferent senses to see whether or not the apple is real or not.

I would rather take my chances of this apple being real, than you telling me that there is a unicorn in a box that I cannot hear/smell/taste/see/touch.



If I am wrong, then according to your beliefs, I will die and suffer for being free.

Worshiping religion is nothing more than an egotistical dictatorship.

Well that put things in perspective .

At least you experienced it one time instead of never...



<3 Kelvin. Have fun at work bro.

Allie. I would, but I don't understand where you are going with that in the slightest >.>.

[zepher2211]

I know the apple's not holographic because no ones invented the tech to make an image in thin air, we need a surface to project it onto, that's why we have projectors. Seriously though Christians are usually just really stubborn people that never look for the proof behind why something happened, or how it happens. I don't believe in what I can't prove but I'm not an atheist, I happen to believe that what ever makes everything in this universe work is beyond human comprehension, that we can show how some things work but we can't prove everything, and logic does not belong everywhere. I'm Agnostic ^^. The "Theory of Everything" that Steven Hawkings made gives me as much as I'm interested in knowing. :|

[Xrow]

I'll be out with friends until tomorrow, I'll refute you later.

The simple answer:

1. Definition of Belief:
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

2. Everything you do requires belief, otherwise you would not have done it.
Consider this: You don't truly know that you will wake up tomorrow morning, or that you will even fall asleep. You must believe that you will not experience a fatal heart attack before going to bed or before waking up. Why do you believe this? Because of cognitive certainty. You cannot know something before it happens, you must believe it.
If you believe that belief is not necessary, then you have settled with believing in lack of belief.

lol? Firstly, I've never thought about having a heart attack before going to sleep, nor do I need any consoling factors to continue living.
Then you believe that you don't need consoling factors. You believe you will continue living as well.

...

For the sake of argument, then lets divide belief into two sub-categories -- that which is required of religious followers and that which is required for daily life. The stark difference remains. I have the capacity to worry if I will wake or not wake tomorrow morning based on my experiences (I'm alive -- I can experience emotion [i.e., fear]). Moreover, this fear is only substantiated through countless previous nights of myself waking up, repetitively. Religious belief is exempt of the aforesaid, i.e., god doesn't present itself in a way that can be experienced by any human being.
Kind of a pathetic rouse to disregard belief, don't you think? I mean, for one thing, you obviously believe the statement that you just proposed - even though you have no "tangible, reproducible" evidence that any of it is true. Hell, you can't even prove that you have woken up countless times, can you?

Because you have taken this from a religious standpoint, I will counter it. Consider every factor of your belief (?[ ]) in atheism. How much of it requires some belief? Remember, belief is essentially cognitive certainty. It is not in any way philosophical certainty, nor will it ever be.
Just a few aspects of atheism that require belief:
1. Darwin's claims were based on that which is observable in nature (and not a crazy man's insane ramblings).
2. That the universe did indeed have a beginning at the big bang.
3. That the big bang actually occurred.
4. That the so-called "evidence" of the big bang is not a fabrication.
5. That God absolutely cannot exist.

[Xrow]

/5000 character limit

Yet you have no tangible, reproducible evidence of any of this.
And you cannot know it for certain (philosophical certitude), because if you did, everyone would, and we would not be having this debate.

...

That being said, I expect to wake the next morning without suffering a heart attack because of how I've lived my life (food choices, exercise, etc.) Again, reasonable expectation. Notice, the word reason within that statement. God nor religion is reason, nor logic, as it requires faith. A belief founded WITHOUT evidence of any form.

"I expect to wake the next morning [...]" LOL, thanks for proving my point.

"God nor religion is reason, nor logic, as it requires faith. A belief founded WITHOUT evidence of any form."
Let me throw a curve ball here. Lets say that I don't have faith, I have expectation. I expect that everything in the Bible is true, based on logic and reasoning - outside sources, including anti-Christian sources validating it; the logic and unfailing noncontradiction that it brings to the table, and so on.

My own assertion: Atheism is neither logic, nor reason, as it requires faith.
...

Lastly, again, for the sake of argument, I believe things everyday. This doesn't change the fact that your god is devoid of empirical evidence (religion). My nighttime fears of midnight death are at the very least, founded on events that occur within this reality -- death.
Everything you think you know is based on belief, Opti.
The past could very well be a fabrication - revisionist history - and therefore cannot be proven. It must be believed.
The future has not happened, and therefore cannot be proven - it must be believed.

The point? Your "tangible, reproducible evidence" is no more than belief.

Pillars of stone (night time fears) vs. Pillars of sand (religion). The pillars being the foundation for belief. Your belief crumbles under scrutiny. Understand? Good.

If they crumbled under scrutiny, then the majority of the world would not be Christian, and we would not be here right now. You may believe that my beliefs crumble under scrutiny, but the majority of the world currently believes otherwise. And hey, your beliefs have never been the foundational beliefs of any society -- ever. Unlike mine.

You can stop using that "tangible, reproducible 'evidence' " bull now.
Understand? Good.

[Xrow]

Thousands of possibilities are available to validate somethings existence without using the 5 senses.

What are they

[Allie]

1. Telepathic powers.
2. Being me cause I know everything.
3. Variations of 1+2 with maybe some spare shit Opti makes up on the spot.

[Optimism]

Thousands of possibilities are available to validate somethings existence without using the 5 senses.

What are they

Find out for yourself (aka, self-research -- this is why you fail to progress).

"I expect to wake the next morning [...]" LOL, thanks for proving my point.

"God nor religion is reason, nor logic, as it requires faith. A belief founded WITHOUT evidence of any form."
Let me throw a curve ball here. Lets say that I don't have faith, I have expectation. I expect that everything in the Bible is true, based on logic and reasoning - outside sources, including anti-Christian sources validating it; the logic and unfailing noncontradiction that it brings to the table, and so on.

My own assertion: Atheism is neither logic, nor reason, as it requires faith.

As for your rebuttal, you obviously didn't grasp the concept I was attempting to convey because your response was literally, a repeat of what you stated before my post. While attempting to validate your own points, you completely over-looked my own via your initial response in the above quote. You seriously lack the capacity to take in information, think about it, and then give a reasoned response to that information. Nor do you know what actually constitutes dependable evidence...rofl.

Again, for the sake of argument, lets say that there were actually reputable witnesses with regard to the biblical text. This holds a ZERO correlation to Jehova's existence. Why is this? Just about every other religion in existance today makes the same claim, that I have sources stating that X and Z occurred; therefore, A must be true (religion is ambiguous -- one can't validate one over the other because each lack EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE). Maybe you didn't watch the video. Here, go back to the front page and start at 6:48 and watch for about 30 seconds. This will explain quite a bit to yourself and what you refer to as "qualifying evidence".

Because I know you probably won't watch the video, or, when you do, you will have no clue what anecdotal evidence is, read the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Moreover, if you want to take the bible as evidence for god, then kindly read the following:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm

As for testing with empirical evidence, here is a start:

Protection from harm?

According to Jesus, if you believe in him and if you drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt you.
    

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them...

-Mark 16:17-18

Now this allows an excellent and clear way to test the power of Christian belief. If you really, really believe in Jesus and you want to prove to anyone the power of belief, you only need to drink a deadly poison and, according to Jesus, it will not harm you.

If you describe yourself as a believing Christian, I suggest that you drink a vial of cyanide or arsenic and prove to yourself (or any atheist) the power of your deity. If you do not feel willing to take this simple test, then what does that say about your religious claims? Do you feel up for the challenge?

Cool "prince of peace" bro:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jesus.htm

That being said, I expect to wake the next morning without suffering a heart attack because of how I've lived my life (food choices, exercise, etc.) Again, reasonable expectation. Notice, the word reason within that statement. God nor religion is reason, nor logic, as it requires faith. A belief founded WITHOUT evidence of any form.

[Xrow]

"Find out for yourself (aka, self-research -- this is why you fail to progress)."

Slow down with the sassyness there kiddo. Did your 12 year old daughter write that or something? Keep the maturity up now, college man.
I asked you for a reason. I don't care if 6 billion people on the internet can collectively answer my question, I want to know if you can support your own absurd claim. Got it? Good  



To address your little "drink a deadly poison" argument:
1. The Bible also teaches that if you have enough faith, you can move mountains. The same applies to all other miracles. You conveniently forgot that bit, I see.
2. If I did drink a deadly poison, I would go to Heaven. Ooh, ouch.



Anecdotal evidence:
1. non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts (dictionary.com).
2. An informal form of hearsay obtained from random sources and having no legal basis (wikitionary.org).

So its word-of-mouth. Doesn't seem worth knowing.
Look up cognitive certainty and learn something.



Your pathetically close-minded stubbornness does not equate to any lack of progression on my part.
Your lack of understanding on this subject is just about as embarrassing as your lack of understanding on the subject of absolute truth.

Oh well, some people never learn.

I guess thats why your atheist.

[Shadow]

Sigh....back to this whole religious fighting thing again ? lol  How about everyone believes what they want and in the end of time we shall see who is right and who is wrong ?

[Optimism]

Sigh....back to this whole religious fighting thing again ? lol  How about everyone believes what they want and in the end of time we shall see who is right and who is wrong ?

Because religion affects other's way-of-life.

lol, King. I expected nothing more -- purely ad-hominid. When one can't contribute to debate, I suppose its best to resort to that (If you're King).

Lets try this one more time...

Anecdotal evidence:

(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity; the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy.

(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

In your case, the conclusion being that Jehovah exists (LOL). As I said previously -- zero correlative value.

And now...

Back to our initial dispute: expectation vs belief. Expectation is founded on evidence, while belief is founded on faith (your claim that Jehovah exists).

...

[Xrow]

What are your sources for your definitions of anecdotal evidence?
I read a few independent definitions - all basically defined it as hearsay.



Ad-hominid? LOL. Your response was absurd. Why even consider addressing it?



I expected a response such as this - teeming with red herring.

Thousands of possibilities are available to validate somethings existence without using the 5 senses.

Now answer my question.



to address your "Expectation is founded on evidence, while belief is founded on faith (your claim that Jehovah exists)." comment..
The use of "expectation" is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to avoid using the word belief. They are one in the same.

I believe that the apple is corporeal and edible based on cognitive certainty - Not only can I see and smell the apple, I have eaten uncounted apples in the past, all of which were corporeal and edible.
My belief is founded on evidence.

Nice try 

[Optimism]

What are your sources for your definitions of anecdotal evidence?
I read a few independent definitions - all basically defined it as hearsay.



Ad-hominid? LOL. Your response was absurd. Why even consider addressing it?

Yet you want answers from me? Absurd logic -- nothing unexpected.



I expected a response such as this - teeming with red herring.

Thousands of possibilities are available to validate somethings existence without using the 5 senses.

Now answer my question.



to address your "Expectation is founded on evidence, while belief is founded on faith (your claim that Jehovah exists)." comment..
The use of "expectation" is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to avoid using the word belief. They are one in the same.

Of course it isn't. Expectation may be used given that there is some evidence based on what you consider "belief". If you insist on calling expectation belief, then by all means, there are two very different forms of belief, which I've elaborated plenty upon previously.

Before I answer your question, how about you address my own before pulling my comment and turning it into a question for myself, of which I already know the answer to.

lol...

Drink that arsenic .

[Xrow]

I believe that the apple is corporeal and edible based on cognitive certainty - not only can I see and smell the apple, but I have eaten uncounted apples in the past, all of which were corporeal and edible.
My belief is founded on evidence.

Nice try  



I asked you first.
Go ahead bucko.

[Optimism]

I believe that the apple is corporeal and edible based on cognitive certainty - not only can I see and smell the apple, but I have eaten uncounted apples in the past, all of which were corporeal and edible.
My belief is founded on evidence.

Yes, this is an expectation. Now, can you do the same for Jehovah? No.

Two different "belief" categories. However, the category of which you've spoken, I consider expectation.

Nice try  



I asked you first.
Go ahead bucko.

[Xrow]

Actually it is belief. I don't believe expectation exists. =)

And yes, I can do the same for Jehova. I have in the past, you conveniently forget.