Vlad,
I have not experienced the physical markers given in the description and seen no physical record or report of them. That is the reason I do not believe in them. I would act as if they did not exist even if they did exist.
The “physical” is redundant – you don’t believe in them because you’ve seen neither compelling reasons nor evidence of any sort for them. Good. Nor have I. Nor though have I seen compelling reasons nor evidence for you assertion “God”. Thus I act as if your god doesn’t exist, even if “He” does.
Is this sinking in now?
That is different from atheism…
No it isn’t – it’s exactly analogous.
… which rejects the markers........
No, it says that what you call “markers” is logically false reasoning for reasons you understand already because you’d identify them as fallacious too if I tried
the same arguments to justify the claim “leprechauns”.
…and why do I not reject the markers for God? Because I am not a fucking empiricist.
No, it’s because you are a fucking faithhead. Trouble is though, that’s
all you have – faith.
I agree God does not exist is not the same as I believe God does not exist.
That’s not what I said. Try reading it for comprehension this time.
However there are ''no good reasons'' for belief IS in the same category. In other words you are trying to disguise a positive assertion
You’ve tried this nonsense before, so you’ll get the same answer. Our species has developed something called logic. Part of logic is rhetorics – ie, argument. Over the centuries various arguments have been identified and codified as wrong. We call these arguments “fallacies”. The only arguments of which I am aware for gods are constructed as one or more of these fallacies. Thus I conclude that – so far at least – I have no sound reason to accept your unqualified assertion “god”.
Got it now? Good.
It gets worse. You know this already though because at some level of awareness at least you too can identify fallacious arguments. Thus if I were to argue for leprechauns as a fact but used exactly the same arguments to justify the claim that people here make for their gods, you’d quickly and correctly say something like, “that’s a bad argument for leprechauns because it’s a (name of fallacy), so I shall continue to proceed as if leprechauns are not real".
You could of course fix this (at least in principle) by finally posting an argument for “God” that isn’t constructed as a logical fallacy, but for some reason you’ve never shown any inclination to do so.
Why is that?
