Lol...what the hell is all this? None of this is evidence.

Personal experiences are not evidence. Arguments without fact are not evidence. Best explanations and your so called "conclusions" are not evidence. What empirical evidence?

Perhaps your and Beau's interpretation of the material (or evidence as you call it) at hand, is to be blamed?

Some other evidence that may be compelling to those that are not anti-Semitic:

The Jewish people and the nation of Israel. Ever wonder how Jews diffused through the last Diaspora emerged as a nation in a day? Or that a disproportionate number of Jews are Nobel laureates or bona fide academic geniuses?

It is through the sons of Avraham, especially "Jacob" = Israel, that the entire world is blessed.

Wut?

The best you could come up with is a misspelled what?

You've asked what "evidence" we have rejected. I've provided you with examples of "evidence" I find uncompelling. Your response has been to declare that I must be crazy to consider it "evidence". You are a new account who has decided to start his posting career in RGT, therefore history suggests you are likely a troll. And given the nonsensical posts and accusatory tone, a troll with a high probability of being "Mr Muck McFold".

Are you going to get to your point anytime soon?

Much more than you realise.

Please tell me I wasn't like this guy when I started posting here....

My point has already been stated to you. What you find uncompelling is not evidence at all. It is a misinterpretation of allegorical stories symbolizing love and good nature in human beings. Your lack of understanding of the topic at hand and you pointing to things like someone's personal experiences as giving you reason to rationalize the existence of God is not good enough for me. Being a theist or an atheist, hearing someone say "The Grand Canyon" is proof of God and Noah's Ark, is just plain stupid. So you being the excellent empirical scientist that you are have actually made a hypothesis on the matter based on such "evidence"? You should be ashamed of yourself if you consider yourself a thinking person.

And if you are going to judge my knowledge on the subject by my new 2+2 account, i suggest you don't since this is the first time back for me in 2 years under a different account. I used to roam these boards before 2011, zumby. It always the same old story...a bunch of know it all 22 year old male poker scientists attack and mock the beliefs of others.

Nah, you were wrong a lot, but you were coherent.

I like this approach. I'm going to keep this in mind in case I decide to engage in any arguments with zumby in the future

Dodge...duck...dodge...evade...attack...dodge...cl assic stuff on two plus two.

nah I'm a theist dawg. I'm having trouble following you though, it read like zumby mentioned a few kinds of arguments that theists made and said he rejected them and then you berated him for considering those things "evidence". Which seems like a non-sequitur since in rejecting those arguments, he seems to have rejected them as "evidence" in the sense you are using the word

My best guess as to where you are going with this is some kind of argument against strong atheism on the grounds that there is not enough actual evidence to reach a conclusion about the existence of god(s) either way.

I follow theism more along the lines of Christian existentialism. God in my eyes is a metaphor for good will and it is a moral guide created by man long ago to help us deal with our morality. Existence precedes essence in my book. The bible and other holy books are powerful pieces of SYMBOLIC/Non-Literal literature, which have stood the test of time in teaching their moral lessons. Unfortunately these books were written during different social times in human history which are no longer acceptable today, therefore having many moral/social discrepancies. I do not believe any form of scientific evidence exists on either side. It is a senseless and pointless argument between differently wired people used to fill the "unknown" void that is in our heads. When an intelligent human being, whom i presume zumby is, takes a stance on one side because he indicates his rationale sides with the "evidence"...it irritates me.

You seem to be letting your previous experiences or emotions or whatever cloud your judgement and color your experience to a point that's unhealthy though. Zumby's a very thoughtful and reasonable person to converse with, even when you disagree with him.

And at least in terms of atheism, you are closer to zumby's position than you are to mine, perhaps, if you think God is a metaphor or otherwise a creation of humans. Typically, arguments about the existence of God are about the actual metaphysical existence of God, not about whether or not religious concepts or the idea of God exists in some form. Zumby is an atheist not based on some evidence that convinces him that God does not exist, but because he thinks there is a lack of evidence to suggest that God does exist, or otherwise a lack of reason to think so (he can correct me where I'm wrong but I think that's close enough). You don't seem to disagree with him on this point.

So I would suggest you are using your own fairly idiosyncratic definitions of things while venting a lot of unrelated hostility and it makes things pretty confusing since the conversation you think you were having is not the one everyone else thought they were having

Love is metaphysical. It is the force that we refer to as God. This is why i suggested to Zumby that it is perhaps his interpretation of the so called "evidence" that causes him to take the stance he does. Perhaps zumby needs to take a trip somewhere and open his mind up about life.

PS Sorry if i hurt your feelings, zumby with my abrasive personality.

What "interpretation" of the "evidence"? FWIW, I was a theist for 30 years.

Not at all.

Oh, in that case I believe in God.

Welcome back to the fold brother. I'll be quoting that out of context here and there

Congratulations, you are arguing semantics. I said "they have rejected whatever evidence / reasons have been proposed". Clearly atheists do not accept such evidence as being supportive of the position, but it is presented as evidence. I'm not going to type all that out every time I use the word "evidence", particularly when it is quite clear what I am saying.

As for you beliefs, how did you get to your particular conclusion?

Perhaps you would be so kind as to divulge your previous sn? I would also suggest your demographic is off by a decade or two.

God is electrical signals in our brain? I sort of agree with this definition.

You are way too irritable. Zumby, like most self-described atheists, lacks a belief in a personal god as worshipped in traditional forms of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. You have evidently accepted an understanding of "God" developed by modern theologians and philosophers partially as a result of also rejecting that personal god. That is fine--Christian existentialism is interesting and worth discussing. But getting irritated at zumby for rejecting that traditional understanding of god when you (evidently) do the same seems perverse.

What is really going on here, at least in my opinion, is that you want to preserve a religious tradition, although in a new, reinterpreted way, and you recognize that people like zumby are more likely to convince people to just ignore that tradition. Zumby hasn't really expressed a view (at least not in this thread) about whether god understood as a metaphor for "good will and [as] a moral guide created by man long ago" or as "love as a metaphysical force" exists. But by focusing on the silliness or inaccuracy of the older religious tradition, rather than on its possibilities for reinterpretation, he is taken as signalling a lack of interest in the parts of religion that you find interesting.

What you're telling me is that the cynicism and mockery that takes place on this board, more often than not, and primarily acted out by atheists, is due to an interest in something you find silly and inaccurate? Is the adult manner not to disregard silly inaccuracies? To me it seems like more of an acute culture of cynicism exists, than intelligent debate about the meaning and cause of religious traditions.

I tried to understand each side's position and formed a strong opinion on the matter.

Can i ask how much you have read the forum? This place is like a love-in compared to YouTube or something. All things considered and the nature of the discussion its pretty civil in RGT.

Yeah, a son-of-a-motherless-goat-whore like you would think that. What a bunch of godless communists!