Atheism is a delusion.

No actually you started with a strawman.
Once again you fail to understand what a strawman is.
I said "Belief based simply on believing for no reason?" Do you see that symbol near the end? That is a question mark.
It indicates a question. You stated the your belief was based upon belief itself. That seems circular. I was asking you to clarify I was not making a declaration.

Strawman. But my argument isn't based on beliefs in reality aka justified true beliefs and not "false beliefs". Can you see the colored purple bolded words? And these things you are referring to above bolded in the purple, they are "false beliefs" and not beliefs in reality aka justified true beliefs.
Again not a strawman. I was not misrepresenting your argument, I was stating how things are in the real world not how you believe they are.

Illogical nonsense. But a "lack of evidence is" "evidence of a lack" of evidence silly. And you admitting that you don't know certainly isn't proof that you are talking about the truth and reality here.
You mean you don't understand what I'm saying. I can't help you with your ignorance.
"lack of evidence is" "evidence of a lack" of evidence. Yes. That is what I said. And it has no bearing upon the truth or fallacy of the claim.
Evidence is what shows the truth or fallacy of the claim and you have yet to provide any.

Actually in reality a "Lack of evidence that something is false" may in fact mean "it is true".
May mean it is true. It doesn't mean that it is.
Only evidence that something actually "is true" counts.
As in the example of the invisible dragon. Not being able to prove that it doesn't exist, is not evidence of it's existence.

Strawman. Using hypotheticals that don't exist or hasn't occurred in reality isn't evidence that you know how the truth and reality is known to you, it just shows that you don't know how the truth and reality works and isn't known to you.
Hypothetical don't have to exist. That's what makes them hypothetical. If they existed they would be actuals.
What it shows is that you don't understand or accept the logic behind it.

But your strawman isn't what I am claiming at all.

My claim is that the truth and reality necessarily existed always and because the truth and reality always necessarily, then there must be some evidence of it always necessarily always existing. So, if the truth and reality necessarily always existed, because to suggest otherwise is self-refuting, then this inability to suggest otherwise and still be telling the truth must be evidence of the truth and reality's necessary existence.
And if the ONLY way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist and occur is in and with a Believing Mind, then the evidence of the truth and reality's necessary existence must be known in and with a Believing Mind.
Not a strawman.
Your claim is rambling nonsense.
How is suggesting that truth and reality haven't necessarily always existed self-refuting? Truth and reality may have only existed since last week. Can you prove otherwise?
The only way we can "know" truth and reality to exist and occur is in and with our Believing Minds.
That does not mean reality cannot exist and occur independently of our knowing.
 
Once again you fail to understand what a strawman is.
I said "Belief based simply on believing for no reason?" Do you see that symbol near the end? That is a question mark.

Irrelevant. You still said it knowing fully that belief still must occur in reality before the truth is known to you. When the reason being for belief is belief is necessary before the truth will be known to us. Then, in reality there is no such thing as "believing for no reason".
So, why did you say that "Belief based simply on believing for no reason?"
See these marks "", that means you said it when you had no reason to say it other than to pretend (the Strawman) that "believing" is "for no reason". You just put it is the form of a question in order to hide the fact that this is your own position in reality and that you are trying desperately to project onto me. But I am having no part of your strawmanning and projecting of your insidious unbelief (atheism).

It indicates a question. You stated the your belief was based upon belief itself. That seems circular. I was asking you to clarify I was not making a declaration.

Actually your strawman is "circular". But if you want to deal the truth and how it is known, then in reality YOU MUST look for reasons to believe, rather than unbelief, because in reality unbelief is incapable of making the truth and reality known to us. Understand?

Again not a strawman. I was not misrepresenting your argument, I was stating how things are in the real world not how you believe they are.

Actually what you are doing is misrepresenting how and why the truth is known to us; IOW YOU are misrepresenting reality. When in reality we can see that the truth isn't knowable to you in your ignorance of how and why reality is known to us.

You mean you don't understand what I'm saying. I can't help you with your ignorance.
"lack of evidence is" "evidence of a lack" of evidence. Yes. That is what I said. And it has no bearing upon the truth or fallacy of the claim.
Evidence is what shows the truth or fallacy of the claim and you have yet to provide any.

My evidence is that the truth and reality always existed and it was and is only knowable in and with a Believing Mind. And to suggest otherwise is to deny and reject the existence and means that is available to you that is capable of making the truth known to you in reality. Evidence = beliefs in reality.

May mean it is true. It doesn't mean that it is.

Again, in reality a "Lack of evidence" just means a lack of belief in reality.

Only evidence that something actually "is true" counts.
As in the example of the invisible dragon. Not being able to prove that it doesn't exist, is not evidence of it's existence.

Strawman. But my argument is based on a belief in reality and not your delusion of a "invisible dragon" that doesn't exist in reality to begin with. Get a grip.

Hypothetical don't have to exist. That's what makes them hypothetical. If they existed they would be actuals.

Hypothetical don't represent anything in reality, so how can they denote the truth and reality silly?

What it shows is that you don't understand or accept the logic behind it.

Strawman. No, what it shows is that my belief is based the logical truth and not your bastardize version of logic and reality.

Not a strawman.
Your claim is rambling nonsense.

No, rather it is rabbling strawman that is nonsense.

How is suggesting that truth and reality haven't necessarily always existed self-refuting? Truth and reality may have only existed since last week. Can you prove otherwise?

Suggesting that the truth and reality doesn't or didn't always exist is an admission that you don't know what the truth means in reality. As if you say or suggest that the "truth and reality haven't necessarily always existed" means is for your statement to be true that the "truth and reality haven't necessarily always existed" means the truth and reality isn't known to exist and is not occurring in you, because you can't pretend it doesn't exist and the truth be known and occur in you at the same time. It is in fact a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction. Understand?

The only way we can "know" truth and reality to exist and occur is in and with our Believing Minds.
That does not mean reality cannot exist and occur independently of our knowing.

Strawman. Actually it means that reality cannot be known exist or occur without or outside of a Believing Mind. Understand?
 
Irrelevant. You still said it knowing fully that belief still must occur in reality before the truth is known to you. When the reason being for belief is belief is necessary before the truth will be known to us. Then, in reality there is no such thing as "believing for no reason".
So, why did you say that "Belief based simply on believing for no reason?"
See these marks "", that means you said it when you had no reason to say it other than to pretend (the Strawman) that "believing" is "for no reason". You just put it is the form of a question in order to hide the fact that this is your own position in reality and that you are trying desperately to project onto me. But I am having no part of your strawmanning and projecting of your insidious unbelief (atheism).
Relevant. I was asking you if your belief was based upon believing for no reason. I was seeking clarification of your previous response.
I'm sorry if that wasn't obvious to you.

Actually your strawman is "circular". But if you want to deal the truth and how it is known, then in reality YOU MUST look for reasons to believe, rather than unbelief, because in reality unbelief is incapable of making the truth and reality known to us. Understand?
I did looked for reasons to believe and found none.

Actually what you are doing is misrepresenting how and why the truth is known to us; IOW YOU are misrepresenting reality. When in reality we can see that the truth isn't knowable to you in your ignorance of how and why reality is known to us.
No, I am disagreeing with your claims about reality. You have provided nothing that would led me to accept that your claims are correct.

My evidence is that the truth and reality always existed and it was and is only knowable in and with a Believing Mind. And to suggest otherwise is to deny and reject the existence and means that is available to you that is capable of making the truth known to you in reality. Evidence = beliefs in reality.
Actually you haven't presented any evidence, only unsupported claims.

Again, in reality a "Lack of evidence" just means a lack of belief in reality.
No, "Lack of evidence" means you don't have sufficient evidence.

Strawman. But my argument is based on a belief in reality and not your delusion of a "invisible dragon" that doesn't exist in reality to begin with. Get a grip.
And you have yet to show your argument to be coherent and warranting belief.

Hypothetical don't represent anything in reality, so how can they denote the truth and reality silly?
Do you have no understanding of how hypotheticals work?

Strawman. No, what it shows is that my belief is based the logical truth and not your bastardize version of logic and reality.
Yes, your belief is based upon unsound logic. Otherwise it would hold true in any hypothetical example.

No, rather it is rabbling strawman that is nonsense.
Ok, your rabbling (sic) strawman is nonsense.

Suggesting that the truth and reality doesn't or didn't always exist is an admission that you don't know what the truth means in reality. As if you say or suggest that the "truth and reality haven't necessarily always existed" means is for your statement to be true that the "truth and reality haven't necessarily always existed" means the truth and reality isn't known to exist and is not occurring in you, because you can't pretend it doesn't exist and the truth be known and occur in you at the same time. It is in fact a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction. Understand?
Again, more rambling nonsense. "Understand?" No. Simply repeating the words truth and reality doesn't tell me anything and certainly doesn't show that you know what the truth means in reality.
Explain your understanding of truth and reality? Try doing it without using the words "truth" and "reality"?

Strawman. Actually it means that reality cannot be known exist or occur without or outside of a Believing Mind. Understand?
Yes. Knowledge is the product of a believing mind. Does the physical universe need to be known in order to exist?
 
Relevant. I was asking you if your belief was based upon believing for no reason. I was seeking clarification of your previous response.
I'm sorry if that wasn't obvious to you.

Projection. I don't believe "for no reason". So you will have to explain to me how you do that silly.

I did looked for reasons to believe and found none.

If you can't find any "reasons to believe" and belief is still necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to you; then the only reason you need to believe is the truth of belief's necessity before the truth can be known to you in reality.

No, I am disagreeing with your claims about reality. You have provided nothing that would led me to accept that your claims are correct.

The truth isn't enough for you to believe? You would think that your inability to refute my claims should be a sign of your ignorance of the truth and reality, but for unbelievers it isn't.

Actually you haven't presented any evidence, only unsupported claims.
No, "Lack of evidence" means you don't have sufficient evidence.
And you have yet to show your argument to be coherent and warranting belief.

Your inability to refute my claims should be evidence of your own position's depravity.

Do you have no understanding of how hypotheticals work?

Yes. Enough to know that hypotheticals don't represent how and why the truth and reality is known to us. Why don't you try using a belief in reality, rather than something that that doesn't refer to or denote reality.

Yes, your belief is based upon unsound logic. Otherwise it would hold true in any hypothetical example.

Actually what isn't logical or sound is believing that any hypothetical holds a place in reality silly.

Ok, your rabbling (sic) strawman is nonsense.

Sorry typo, it should be 'your rambling strawman'

Again, more rambling nonsense. "Understand?" No. Simply repeating the words truth and reality doesn't tell me anything and certainly doesn't show that you know what the truth means in reality.

Strawman. Actually the other words before and after the "the words truth and reality" make up my argument as well. So, you will have to deal with those too.

Explain your understanding of truth and reality? Try doing it without using the words "truth" and "reality"?

Are you suggesting that the "truth and reality" doesn't exist? You need to refute what as been said to you rather scoffing at the words 'truth and reality'. See above.

Yes. Knowledge is the product of a believing mind. Does the physical universe need to be known in order to exist?

Strawman. Actually if "knowledge is the product of a believing mind" and belief is necessary for "knowledge", then "the physical universe need to be" believed to exist before it is known to exist in reality. Understand?
 
Projection. I don't believe "for no reason". So you will have to explain to me how you do that silly.
Your comprehension skills are sadly lacking. I'm afraid that I cannot explain in terms simple enough for you to grasp.

If you can't find any "reasons to believe" and belief is still necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to you; then the only reason you need to believe is the truth of belief's necessity before the truth can be known to you in reality.
If I can't find any "reasons to believe" it is likely not demonstrably true.

The truth isn't enough for you to believe? You would think that your inability to refute my claims should be a sign of your ignorance of the truth and reality, but for unbelievers it isn't.
You haven't presented any verifiable truth. My inability to refute your claims is the result of them having no sound logical or evidentiary basis.

Your inability to refute my claims should be evidence of your own position's depravity.
My inability to refute your claim is evidence of it's inanity.

Yes. Enough to know that hypotheticals don't represent how and why the truth and reality is known to us. Why don't you try using a belief in reality, rather than something that that doesn't refer to or denote reality.
So you don't understand hypotheticals? My Hypothetical is a fictional scenario but the logic behind it is the same as in reality. If you can't address the logic in a hypothetical then you can't address it in reality.

Actually what isn't logical or sound is believing that any hypothetical holds a place in reality silly.
Actually what isn't logical or sound is your claim to have studied logic.

Are you suggesting that the "truth and reality" doesn't exist? You need to refute what as been said to you rather scoffing at the words 'truth and reality'. See above.
I'm asking you to clarify your use of the terms "truth" and "reality" as you have a tendency to define words to suit your argument?

Strawman. Actually if "knowledge is the product of a believing mind" and belief is necessary for "knowledge", then "the physical universe need to be" believed to exist before it is known to exist in reality. Understand?
Not a strawman. And you haven't answered the question. Does the physical universe need to be known in order to exist?
You don't seem to be able to differentiate between existence and knowledge of that existence.
 
Back
Top