Quote Originally Posted by denuseri View Post
Which is in and of itself a "presumption" of something's non-existance.
All right, then, maybe you can explain it to me. Just how is NOT presuming the existence of something the same as presuming its non-existence? I honestly cannot understand how the two are the same.

You are still making a presumtion/ assumption/ corolation/ guestimation etc etc etc eaither way regardless of what word you wish to use, becuase you cannot "KNOW" for sure with any real certitude any more than anyone else can one way or the other.
I have already admitted that I cannot know for certain that there are no gods. All I can know is that there is no viable evidence FOR gods, and therefore there is no rational reason for ME to assume that there are. I don't claim they do not exist, I don't presume they do not exist, I simply do not assume or presume that they do. You rationalize your beliefs with faith. That's fine. I choose not to rely on faith, but on evidence. Why is that so bad?

And Ive come to realize that no amount of logic will work with you on this topic becuase you choose to not let logic apply to your own arguments, you just keep on trying to mince words just so you can maintain your dogmatic agenda you are being an outright sophist and insist anyway that only your way is the right one, which my dear Thorne makes you no different than those very secular fundamentalists that you blame for all wrongs on the earth.
Again, I have never claimed that my way is the right one. I leave those claims to religion. All I claim is that my way is right for ME.

Do I ridicule religious dogma? Absolutely, when it makes ridiculous claims without evidence! Do I call people stupid? No, not usually. When they blindly accept the teachings of a religion without really understanding it then yes, I believe they are acting stupidly. Do I attack people because they have faith? No! I disagree with them.

The OP in this thread posted a little story from the Quran dealing with the mother of Jesus. Did I launch an attack against him? No, I derided the story! I did not compare him to evil Muslims, past or present. I did not ridicule his faith. I pointed out what I perceived to be fallacies in the story! If this had been a modern book and I had made these kinds of claims to the author no one would have cared. But because some people seem to think that this particular collection of stories is somehow holy, then I am not permitted to point out where I think they are wrong? Sorry, but I don't play by those rules. Everything is fair game.