Also Wilber so you were a member of a Church and didn't believe in God let alone Jesus Christ and they were ok with that?>

Fine, you are convinced by the evidence. I'm not trying to persuade you otherwise. However, I am not.

Sorry, I misread your last sentence.

Going to church here (UK) is not like <membership> as the US, I don't think. I was accepted as an individual and as an adult had many chats with ministers and other attendees about my beliefs. They weren't judgemental and were generally a nice bunch.

No not what I stated you can remove the rib in total NOT the sheath. Remove the rib cage or head for that matter and it doesn't work.

Part of the liver MUST remain. I cut my finger nails they regrow too, people without fingers don't need nail clippers.

I know that part of the liver must remain - I never said otherwise.

"Some say the sky is blue and others say it's not. I don't know, but then again, I don't open my eyes so..."

What we see here is not just ignorance, but willful ignorance. I'm okay with that. I'm very okay with that.

Now that that's out of the way, I want to know the answer to the two questions I've asked you, which are related to your agnosticism:

What arguments for the truth of atheism have you heard or read?

You have expanded the discussion into areas I'm not particularly interested in.>

If I'm responding to the points in your posts, then how is that expanding it?

In fact, I've trimmed it down back to the <central point> after you expanded it.

The initial point was that atheists have moved to agnosticism and no longer want to defend atheism.

You expanded on that by attempting to equivocate on the word "ignorance", citing historical law practice, and by attempting to subtly show that the burden of proof is only on the theist.

I put that red herring to rest and returned us back to the <central point>. That is, I trimmed off the irrelevant point you brought up, which expanded the discussion.

Anyhow, we are now at this point where you are clearly claiming willful ignorance.

That's fine by me. I'm glad that I know how you operate and why you are the way you are.

To all agnostic Lurking Readers:

I pose the same questions to you.

1. What arguments for the proposition, "God does not exist" have you read or heard?

The initial point was that atheists have moved to agnosticism and no longer want to defend atheism.>

Fair enough, <Willber G>.

<I'll try to read back and catch up tomorrow>

Okay, again fair enough.

I'm glad that you, as an agnostic, have stepped forward, since agnosticism is what's on the table for discussion right now.

I look forward to your responses to the two questions I asked you.

For what it's worth, my position on agnostics right now is that they are people who <want> to be atheists (that is, they reject God because they simply want to and it has nothing to do with evidence, reasons, logic, truth or any of that) but realize they can't defend the proposition "God does not exist" so they claim agnosticism.

Consequently, I think agnostics are unable to give an intelligent, well-rounded, thoughtful response to the questions I posed to you. That is, my hunch is that you won't be able to elaborate strongly, intellectually, soundly and insightfully with your responses. I hope that I'm wrong in your specific case. I hope you can give a strong, comprehensive, intellectual response. I am looking forward to that.

We will see.

Oh, and I hope you don't deviate from the questions I asked you, so that you can go on at length about something else and make like you've answered my questions with long responses. That will not do.

No it is the sheath, the rib is the bone that grows inside of it. I'm guessing that the sheath was left intact wouldn't you think?

Yes you implied that part of the liver must remain I was simply making the distinction that in contrast the entire rib can be removed.

However after months of protracted debate and me getting the better of doctors, lawyers, scientists, professors and a self proclaimed genius or two the forum was shut down, literally removed because a lowly ignorant Postal worker couldn't be answered?>

Did you leave out part of the story? What is it that they couldn't answer?

Heh.

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5834) :

<I asked you to provide links and quotes to support this argument:

<<<Big Pawn:<tga> thinks that Catholics can invent more scripture and that it's binding and authoritative. >>>

You never did.>

I was wondering if you saw the video about genetic entropy, which I linked to in this post:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5936)

<Willber> can just do the same as you did. Namely, he can say "that's my general impression of your position" and then demand that you clarify.>

No, it's different for a few reasons.

You were debating <ohio> and I gave you my impression of your position. You said my impression was not correct but <refused> to restate it in order to clarify it, leaving in a huff. I didn't make a big point about my impression being correct. When you objected, I said, oh okay, well then restate your position - waiting to be corrected, but you refused to restate your position.

Compare:

I was having a discussion with <Willbur> (not a debate) and <Troller> gave me his impression of my position. Instead of telling him he's wrong and leaving in a huff, I restated my position to clarify it for him.

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5943)

That's the first way that it is dissimilar.

The second way is that I made no <demands> on <Willbur> because I'm treating it like an open ended discussion.

<Therefore it's entirely appropriate to put this proposition forth and see what the atheists think about it - to test my theory. >

Just seeing what they think.

Finally, if <Willbur> chooses not to answer my two questions, I'm okay with that and <won't be leaving in a big huff>, because it will only go to make my point which I clearly stated, that atheists have fled atheism to agnosticism, but because they're not really agnostics they haven't given this position a lot of thought, so they <won't be able to answer fully and completely>.

I don't think I have ever seen arguments for this explicitly. Do you have anything in mind, some examples?

<2. Why did you find them unconvincing?>

https://youtu.be/9BlbdNq1UCE

I don't think I have ever seen arguments for this explicitly. Do you have anything in mind, some examples?>

No, that's fine. In fact, it's exactly as I expected.

You've made your position of willful ignorance quite clear. I find it refreshing, actually. Most of the time atheists pretend that they are atheists because they are men of <reason>, <science> and <logic>, but in fact, they are atheists just because they want to be.

And atheists hiding out in agnosticism usually say the same things, pretending it's some sort of respectable intellectual position that they've come to, when in fact, it's a purely emotional decision, devoid of any reason, logic, arguments, or evidence of any kind.

I very much appreciate your willingness to put the baloney aside and come right out and admit you are willfully ignorant. No, this is not a backhanded compliment. I really respect that and find it refreshing.

And yes, I do know of arguments for "God does not exist" but why should I ruin your splendid ignorance?

Rest assured, you have not wasted your time in hearing those arguments, as they are not persuasive at all and, in fact, are all easily refuted.

I can say that <all> of the evidence in the theism-atheism debate lies on the side of theism.

I answered your first question and asked if you could provide some examples of arguments in favour of the proposition "God does not exist". You didn't (or couldn't) do so. Without something to go on I can't address your second question.

Also, you have asserted that 15 years ago atheists were prepared to argue the above proposition but are no longer willing or able to do so. Please can you provide examples of those who did promote it but who now argue along different lines.

As far as my curiosity is concerned, you've answered my questions to my satisfaction. I am now moving on to try to find other agnostics to step up to the plate.

<Also, you have asserted that 15 years ago atheists were prepared to argue the above proposition but are no longer willing or able to do so. Please can you provide examples of those who did promote it but who now argue along different lines.>

I won't take the time, but you can if you're interested. Funny how all of a sudden you're interested in arguments for the truth of atheism. How did that happen? First time in your life?

I will note it wasn't just professional philosophers who were eager and willing to take those arguments even as recently as 15 years ago, but almost all of the atheists I encountered online or elsewhere. I have my own vast experience to draw on as well. I have been engaged in these arguments for decades, so I can see in my own experience certain patters developing.

<BTW, I would appreciate it if you would spell my name correctly. Not that I'm offended but it doesn't show you in a good light.>

<Big Pawn: Sorry, I have nothing.>

<Willber G: Also, you have asserted that 15 years ago atheists were prepared to argue the above proposition but are no longer willing or able to do so. Please can you provide examples of those who did promote it but who now argue along different lines.>

<Big Pawn: Sorry, I have nothing.>

I didn't say that. Those are your words, not mine.

I said this, <Big Pawn: yes, I do know of arguments for "God does not exist" ...>

And once again, <Big Pawn> catches a lib in a lie.

I said this, <Big Pawn: yes, I do know of arguments for "God does not exist" ...>>

... and yet you won't (or can't) state them.