Originally posted by @fmf
There is no water where you want to lead me. I've been there. And we are both being completely subjective about that water. No amount of sincerity on your part can turn your subjectivity into objectivity.

It's just an idiom.

You're making this personal and subjective. I'm not. You're doing your best, it seems, to inject into the discussion a subjective course of reasoning, which will only derail objective discourse.

Originally posted by @secondson
It's just an idiom.

Regardless, it doesn't work.

Originally posted by @secondson
You're making this personal and subjective. I'm not. You're doing your best, it seems, to inject into the discussion a subjective course of reasoning, which will only derail objective discourse.

You referring constantly to your personal subjective and superstitious belief system as "objective" and "rational" doesn't do anything for me, sorry. Try that vocabulary-driven hard-sell on a different agnostic atheist.

Originally posted by @secondson
Atheism is a choice.

You may as well call atheism God's failure. Blithering babbler.

Actually the Church has failed to demonstrate the existence of God, and that is quite likely because God is not with the present Church.

Churches of today are rife with the most evil aspects of humanity
greed
materialism
corruption and bribery
child abuse
sexual immorality
worldilness

Churches of the middle ages were even worse and were the persecutors of the innocent, and mass murders killing many millions of innocent people.

Any decent man with an ounce of integrity would stay from these churches. Many live for God and follow Christ and never see the inside of these corrupt organisations.

Even in the time of Christ, the warning was to stay away from these groups and ensure that your righteousness exceed that of these people. Some when seeing these corrupt organisations preach about God they just laugh and move away from them .. even becoming atheists.

Originally posted by @fmf
"Lie"? Oh dear. OK, then. Tell me what's on your mind.

What's on my mind? Haven't you been reading my posts?

If you really want to know I'm considering going to my exercise room and getting on the treadmill, or maybe I should tackle that load of paperwork on my desk.

Objectively speaking, again, one bases belief on truth. That is rational thinking. To hold a position of belief based on the lack of what one knows is true is essentially akin to believing a lie.

If one doesn't know they have sufficient evidence for belief, and they believe anyway, then one hasn't thought the matter through, even if he thinks he has.

Originally posted by @secondson
What's on my mind? Haven't you been reading my posts?

If you really want to know I'm considering going to my exercise room and getting on the treadmill, or maybe I should tackle that load of paperwork on my desk.

Objectively speaking, again, one bases belief on truth. That is rational thinking. To hold a position of belief based on the lack of what ...[text shortened]... , and they believe anyway, then one hasn't thought the matter through, even if he thinks he has.

All religious belief is based on a lack of verifiable evidence and is therefore blind.

Originally posted by @secondson
What's on my mind? Haven't you been reading my posts?

Yes. I have been reading your posts and suddenly you introduced the word "lie" into the conversation with regard to our differing beliefs. "Lie". Ah ha. Is there something you want to get off your chest?

Originally posted by @fmf
To me, the "lack of evidence" difficulty falls on your side; insisting that you have enough to satisfy you and therefore everyone who isn't satisfied by it is not being "objective" and "rational" is mere message board bluster.

Frankly, it's you that's blustering.

I haven't "insisted" anything about having any evidence. You're projecting a bias into the discussion.

What I said was that basing belief on the lack of evidence as evidence is irrational. Belief isn't supported by a negative.

Originally posted by @secondson
Frankly, it's you that's blustering.

I haven't "insisted" anything about having any evidence. You're projecting a bias into the discussion.

What I said was that basing belief on the lack of evidence as evidence is irrational. Belief isn't supported by a negative.

If you're not offering any evidence to this particular agnostic atheist then why are you talking to me? There must be something more to it than you simply typing out assertions about your beliefs with the words "objective" and "irrational" sprinkled on them over and over again.

Originally posted by @secondson
What's on my mind? Haven't you been reading my posts?

If you really want to know I'm considering going to my exercise room and getting on the treadmill, or maybe I should tackle that load of paperwork on my desk.

Objectively speaking, again, one bases belief on truth. That is rational thinking. To hold a position of belief based on the lack of what ...[text shortened]... , and they believe anyway, then one hasn't thought the matter through, even if he thinks he has.

Objectively speaking again, one bases belief on truth. That is rational thinking. To hold a position of belief based on the lack of what one knows is true is essentially akin to believing a lie.

While I understand what you're trying to do, this line of thought is nonsensical. You don't seem to have thought this through.

Let's take someone who doesn't believe that space aliens are currently living on Earth. This belief is due to a lack of evidence that space aliens are living on Earth.This belief is based on the truth that there is a lack of evidence. Do you conclude that this belief "is essentially akin to believing a lie"?

Originally posted by @fmf
You referring constantly to your personal subjective and superstitious belief system as "objective" and "rational" doesn't do anything for me, sorry. Try that vocabulary-driven hard-sell on a different agnostic atheist.

I haven't said a word about my "belief system".

Why are you derailing the discussion? Is it because you can't form an objective and rational argument within the perimeters of the topic? Is it because you got caught flat footed and now feel the need to accuse and ridicule for the sake of your arrogant pride?

Originally posted by @secondson
I haven't said a word about my "belief system".

I was referring to your Christian beliefs based on earlier conversations, even if the term "belief system" is not one that you accept.

Originally posted by @secondson
Why are you derailing the discussion? Is it because you can't form an objective and rational argument within the perimeters of the topic? Is it because you got caught flat footed and now feel the need to accuse and ridicule for the sake of your arrogant pride?

I don't perceive any problem with how I have described my beliefs or, indeed, with my demeanour. It takes all sorts. I note that you, and not me, have now introduced the words "accuse" and "ridicule" and "arrogant pride" into the conversation. What was the "lie" you were on about?

Originally posted by @fmf
I was referring to your Christian beliefs based on earlier conversations, even if the term "belief system" is not one that you accept.

The topic of this thread is about agnostic atheism, not my beliefs.

You keep introducing discussions that are off topic. It started with your first post.

Originally posted by @secondson
The topic of this thread is about agnostic atheism, not my beliefs.

You have been going on and on and on and on about how your beliefs are "objective" and "rational" [compared to mine]. Was that stuff not about your beliefs?