Look. I am not posting with the idea that I am out to defame you in any way. And I suspect that you are not out to do such to me.
The things that I explain in my posts, mostly are the simple explanations. You don't have to believe me, obviously. But if you are interested in some of it, there are libraries full of books and an Internet that has almost as much. In addition, there are my previous posts, many of which have links in them, or instructions about what to search on to see why I say what I do.
This posting is fun. And it is instructional for all who want to take part. But I am not doing it with the idea of writing a book to explain answers to your questions.
The problem
is not that I"don't believe" you. It's true that I don't accept statements that I can show to be either invalid or unproveable.
The problem
is that while you
think that what you're posting is a simple explanation, I have been showing you that your underlying assumptions appear invalid and warrant further discussion.
Since I haven't seen you showing me anything via your posting, and since I haven't been posting any underlying assumptions that I have, your statements here are irrelevant for me, at least regarding the things I have posted.
That's the point - you don't even know what your underlying assumptions are, and I'm trying to find out if they are valid or not. If not valid, your entire argument disappears in a puff of logic.
Now, that's quite presumptuous of you, suggesting that I don't know what my underlying assumptions are.
No, again that's the point. In all of the discussions we had, there were questions you were unable to answer, and to which you were either unable or unwilling to say "I don't know". This being the case, it's fair to conclude that you either don't know or don't want to admit your underlying assumptions.
It seems that you can barely stay on point. Are you a mind reader that you know my underlying assumptions enough so that you can examine them? If you happen to know my underlying assumptions, are you so foolish that you think that you can judge their validity fairly?
Once again, I don't know what your underlying assumptions are because you either don't know or won't admit them. Also, the ability to read minds is fiction, not reality.
If your point is that I am wrong, perhaps I am.
My point is that neither of us knows if you are wrong because once challenged you just change the subject and insult whoever is the target du jour.
Actually, it is your challenge that changes the subject.
No, i was responding to you. No change in subject.
The on-topic part that I was doing was to show why atheists hate religion. You and your challenges without doing your research, shows how you would rather change the subject so that we move away from the proof that God exists, and away from showing atheists why they hate religion... which is... because religion is right, and not even atheists like being proven wrong.
Those statements are all completely unsupported. There is no proof -- certainly none posted by you, that atheists hate religions -- just more of the same unsubstantiated and unsupportable arguments that you consistently make.
If I'm wrong, please prove that as a class atheists hate all religions. No one has yet proved that. Religious people hate other religious people, that is clear.
