Let the Lurking Reader read the discussion first and then ask himself why <willber> would deliberately misquote me. Let's gather some <insight> into what makes the Libs tick. What motivates <Willber> to deliberately misquote me (some would call it a lie)?

Just consider: he could have sat there and <not> have expended the energy and effort to make that post. He could gave gone on his merry way and moved on. It would have been easier. But no, he couldn't do that.

It was not easy for him to leave it alone and move on.

Why?

And instead of arguing honestly from his position, why would he choose to misquote me?

I know the reason!

But I won't spoil it for the Lurking Reader. I believe the Lurking Reader needs to figure it out for himself so he can <own> this bit of insight because if he just reads my explanation, he won't retain it in his knowledge.

To all agnostic Lurking Readers:

I pose two questions to you.

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

I might be getting into semantics here, but can one not say that a theist <believes> there is a God, an atheist <believes> there is not a God?

I do not see a burden of proof for a <belief>. If you see it otherwise, feel free to call me an agnostic - however, would such a view not oblige you to <prove> the existence of a God or else renounce your belief?

My 2 cents on religion:
Some people may become believers or non-believers after reviewing and weighing different arguments. But I think the majority do not "choose" how to stand in the matter as such, they know within themselves what to believe. For all arguments I might put forth to you, you would not be convinced that God might not exist. You know he does. And vice versa, although I cannot discount the possibility of a God, I would be tricking myself if I tried to create a certain belief that he exists - deep within me, I know it is very unlikely.

I do not see a burden of proof for a <belief>.>

Yep, that's just semantics.

It's clear, and I've explained this to you already.

A positive claim to knowledge carries a burden of proof. The following claims to knowledge are propositions, meaning they are either true or false.

1. God exists.
2. God does not exist.

Belief doesn't directly come into it, and it doesn't need to. You can lie about something, know it's not true, and still give an account of your lie to make the other person think it's true, because your truth claim has a burden of truth. This is why liars are always explaining themselves.

The only real proofs lie in the field of mathematics. Instead, I argue a much more modest line of reasoning.

I argue that it is merely more <rational> to think that theism is true and atheism is false. I think that arguments for theism <justify> rational belief that theism is true.

These are arguments from natural theology that I'm talking about. There are other arguments, like Plantinga's argument that belief in God is <Properly Basic>, or that one can have a personal experience of God that makes God's existence 100% certain to him, but I'm sticking with the simple arguments from natural theology, which is to look at the world around us and see if the evidence points to theism or not, and I think it does.

I think there are very good arguments for God's existence and they've never been refuted, which is why atheists are fleeing atheism and hiding out now in agnosticism. Just compare the discourse, attitudes, debates, and academic environment in the time of, say, Russell, with 2021, and it's night and day.

<Troller>, giving my position that I think theism is the more rational worldview, I think people choose to be atheists or agnostics because they don't <want> there to be a god. They don't <want> to believe in God.

That's a grave error, but aside from the eternal consequences (is there really anything else that matters?), I think if atheists and agnostics reject the ultimate reality, the foundation of all reality, then they can never have true insight into the world, and can never have true knowledge, because they lack the foundation necessary to make sense of everything in the big (biggest) picture.

This means is leaves the atheist or agnostic with an incomplete worldview, indeed, a worldview riddled with absurdities, which most atheists aren't aware of until their worldviews are held up to the light of scrutiny in a debate.

If you reject the ultimate reality, which is God, then you really have no answers to the big questions in life. When Nietzsche realized this in the Gay Science, he despaired at the implications and consequences of Nihilism. Generations of philosophers after him grappled with the absurdity of life if Nihilism is true, so we have philosophers like, say, Camus and Satre trying to salvage meaning in life from the clutches of a godless reality.

This is obviously an existential view of the role of religion and it may reflect my background from the country of Kierkegaard.>

Thank you for this thoughtful commentary.

You might have to be the first liberal Elite Poster.

I will make it official later.

I think the vast majority on both sides don't.

<But I think the majority do not "choose" how to stand in the matter as such, they know within themselves what to believe.>

I think the vast majority do choose. It is my view that the default position for all human beings is to believe, and it takes a willful suppression of that to not believe. I hold that to so strongly that I am very unsympathetic to the unbeliever position. I don't think a case of unbelief "just happened". I think it was "just decided".

<For all arguments I might put forth to you, you would not be convinced that God might not exist.>

If they were rational arguments, one should be convinced to that side.

< You know he does.>

If <BP> knows God exists based on rational arguments, he should be convinced God exists.

<And vice versa, although I cannot discount the possibility of a God, I would be tricking myself if I tried to create a certain belief that he exists - deep within me, I know it is very unlikely.>

Right up there with:

Thinkers for Nancy Pelosi, and
Jews for Ilhan Omar.

<:“We feel used and betrayed.”>

Enjoy, as a dummycrat it's all you have.

<Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden urged him to “honor his commitment” >

Let us know how far "honor" gets you with the Nazicrats.

<more than 5,000 “pro-life evangelicals” endorsed him for the presidency in October 2020. The coalition noted that “we disagree with Vice President Biden and the Democratic platform on the issue of abortion” but still claimed “Joe Biden’s policies are more consistent with the biblically shaped ethic of life than those of Donald Trump.”>

No, I didn't leave in a huff. That's you projecting.

Also, your current argument is just a lame attempt at obfuscation. You started a <separate> discussion in which you made a truth claim. When challenged to offer supporting evidence, you failed to do so.

It's a simple as that. Your reply is simple misdirection to avoid the fact that you did not back up your truth claim with any evidence.

Not to mention the glaring lack in logical flow. To wit, if indeed that was your impression, that implies that you read some of my posts and supposedly formed your "impression" based on them (though you, me and <Ohio> all know that is face-saving baloney).

If your actually did form your "impression" based on my actual posts, then you should easily be able to produce snippets from that posts to back up your "impression".

Disagree. I commented on how I saw your position. The truth claim is that this is my impression, and that is true, because it is indeed the impression I got.

However, I didn't make a big deal about it and throw down the gauntlet as I do in my debates. I said, "I may be wrong" and was willing to be corrected. No big deal.

<If I am wrong, then state clearly what your position is, because I'm obviously lost in the quagmire of posts between you and <ocf>. I may be wrong, but I'm not lying.>

Your debate with <ohio> was hard to follow and even the both of you couldn't agree on exactly what it was that you were debating. That is evidence that it was hard to follow, so it's up to you to clarify your position, so that it's no longer hard for me, <you> or <ohio> to follow.

You refused to do that.

Growing up, I never met a single Catholic that wasn't a Democrat. I'd go over my friend's houses, or to family.

For all arguments I might put forth to you, you would not be convinced that God might not exist. You know he does. And vice versa, although I cannot discount the possibility of a God, I would be tricking myself if I tried to create a certain belief that he exists - deep within me, I know it is very unlikely.>

Philosophical arguments about the existence of God (or not) do have some utility, IMO. But not a lot.

On a far higher level of usefulness is the fact that God will reveal Himself to those who diligently seek Him.

As recorded in the Gospel according to Luke, Jesus explained this concept very clearly:

<Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, an you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.> -Luke 11:9-10

These action verbs, "ask", "seek", "knock", imply an ongoing, continuing action: <keep> asking, <keep> seeking, <keep> knocking.

Disagree.>

It is a point of fact you made a truth claim, and a point of fact you didn't support it. It's not a matter of opinion.

<I commented on how I saw your position. The truth claim is that this is my impression, and that is true, because it is indeed the impression I got.>

Fair enough. It is also fair to ask, from which of my posts did you get this impression? What specific statements prompted your assessment? Still waiting for an answer to that.

<However, I didn't make a big deal about it and throw down the gauntlet as I do in my debates. I said, "I may be wrong" and was willing to be corrected. No big deal.>

I take no issue with this. What I take issue with is, after having spent a month and a half putting serious thought and effort into composing numerous posts that very clearly elucidated my position, you presented me with an absurd assertion with regards to it.

Not only is that essentially a snub to all the time, thought and effort I put in, but to give in to your demand to summarize would be to let you off the hook with your bald (and unsubstantiated) assertion.

If you want to debate mediocre IQs who fall for your misdirection and avoidance of your very own rules for debate, I suggest you look to the Rogoff forum for such cannon fodder. But I am not going to let you off the hook so easily.

Not only that, if you truly honestly did form your impression based on something I actually posted (although I find that idea preposterous, I will entertain it for the sake of discussion), then I will need you to point out where, exactly, I gave that impression to you. Otherwise, I have no idea what to restate in order to help you come to a clear understanding.

<Your debate with <ohio> was hard to follow and even the both of you couldn't agree on exactly what it was that you were debating.>

If your position was clear, then <you>, <me> and <ohio> would not have had trouble following the debate. You two couldn't even agree on exactly what you were supposed to be debating about.

<Not only is that essentially a snub to all the time, thought and effort I put in, but to give in to your demand to summarize would be to let you off the hook with your bald (and unsubstantiated) assertion.>

It's your responsibility to communicate clearly. You failed to do that. You failed to correct it too. I'm not on any hook for that.

What hook? I said, if I'm wrong, <and I may be>, the restate to clarify.

There it was: a picture of JFK on the mantle next to the Pope.>

The irony, as <diceman> points out, is that JFK was basically Reagan with a (D) after his name.

As late as the late 1980s, the big issues with the Dem politicians were identical to the big issues for organized labor. So Christ's compassion for the poor, which resonates so strongly with RCs, drew them to the Dems.

But, just as moral conservatives get the bait and switch from GOP politicians, the Dem voters got the bait and switch from the Dem politicians.

That's the impression I got from your debate with <ohio>. If you don't want me to have that impression, then correct it.

If you don't care then I'm fine with that too.

Allow me to compare this with my exchange with <Troller>.

He had the wrong impression of my position regarding my discussion with <Willber>. I didn't want him to have that wrong impression, so I took the time to restate my position for his benefit.

If your position was clear, then <you>, <me> and <ohio> would not have had trouble following the debate. You two couldn't even agree on exactly what you were supposed to be debating about.>

The topic was clear.

My first post was a link to a video about sola scriptura. Ohio's reply to my first post was about sola scriptura, and my reply to his first post was about sola scriptura. To this day I don't understand how either of you ever got the idea it was about anything <other> than sola scriptura.

<It's your responsibility to communicate clearly. You failed to do that. You failed to correct it too. I'm not on any hook for that. >

No, actually I communicated very clearly. The proof? You can't find even one snippet to copy and paste to justify your "impression" of my position. You keep saying over and over, "unclear! unclear!" yet without being able to cite one example!

That was fine last time you said that and it's fine for me now, as I was never in a debate about this with you in the first place. I simply stated the impression I got from your debate.

I'm satisfied with that.

<in accordance with your own rule that truth claims must be supported by evidence.>

Once again, there is no debate. Stating my impression is not a debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py7...

Liberals fully approve as they show by ignoring such crimes and pretending they're not happening.

Liberals approve of such crimes 100% as they prove by pretending they're not happening.

<gezafan:
White people are being attacked all over.>

The natural progression of liberal fascism.

<“The white man who begins by cheating a Negro usually ends by cheating a white man. The white man who begins to break the law by lynching a Negro soon yields to the temptation to lynch a white man.”