capnkirk

Au contraire. While I cannot in a classic sense "prove" my existence to my self, the evidence of it is another thing. Existence is just a de facto label for the phenomena of perception, consciousness, or whatever 'label' you choose.. There is some state of matter/energy that allows that which we label existence. That which we label 'existence' has the property of exclusivity...that is, there is no alternative explanation (regardless of whether you consider reality wholly external or wholly internal). If, reality exists, then our ability to perceive it is compelling evidence that we exist. Unless of course, you want to argue that something that does not exist can perceive something that does!

It is the property of exclusivity that makes this old philosophical saw not germaine to the religious faith argument. In the case of the latter, there IS at least one alternative explanation, and one that is far more parsiminous than any religious postulation of a supernatural, interventionist god.
Anyone who does not dispassionately evaluate evidence both in support and counter to his held beliefs makes himself vulnerable to delusion. I seek to purge all delusion from my understanding of reality, therefore "I" exclude no belief or conviction from that standard, not even those for which I already have extensive evidence. What is the justification? Growth by definition requires change. Change in this context means the replacement of existing concepts with new ones, and/or the addition of new material altogether. If one wishes to grow, then some mechanism for processing and integrating the data that comprises the elements of such change, must be applied. MY standard for that is essentially the scientific one. Beginning with the premise "I don't know", I proceed to collect evidence. When a sufficient body of evidence has been amassed, I as dispassionately as I can evaluate it and reach whatever conclusions are warranted. In some cases, there is insufficient evidence, whereby I file the data away and reserve conclusion until such time as other evidence presents itself. By so comparing and evaluating, I have reached a point where there are very few conflicts among my set of conclusions. That is not to say it is complete by any means, only to say that it is quite integrated...and the process will continue 'til death.

So, it depends on how comfortable you are with carrying beliefs for which you have no evidence. Your only protection from delusion is reason (and because it is imperfect protection, it must be constantly reviewed in the light of experience and new data). To the extent that one tolerates (in himself) concepts and understandings that are irrational, one makes himself vulnerable to delusion. THAT is my justification for my standard for belief. What is yours?

Biff the unclean

It's actually quite germane to what I said. Admittedly my grammar is the Irish version of English and not the American, but it is as "plain English" as one could hope for. You seem to have trouble with plain English. Oh well, let me tone it down a bit for you. The Superman comics and the Bible are both works of fiction. DC Comics are honest and admit they are selling fiction, the Bible is not honest as it falsely claims to be non-fiction.

Non-biased doesn't mean being an idiot. If I see a story about a talking frog who turns into a human prince at the kiss of a beautiful princess I know it isn't true. If I see a story about a flood covering the world and a guy hundreds of years old on a boat with all the cuddly little animals I know it's a fairy tale too. Brier Rabbit, Mamma, Poppa & Baby Bear, talking Snake, talking Tortoise racing talking Hare --- any anthropomorphised animal as a character spells F I C T I O N.

Again with your secret real bible. This bible that says whatever you want it to say. Funny you speak ancient Hebrew but are so piss poor at understanding English.

Atheist is spelled with a capital "A." We don't own any secret translations. For that matter we have yet to come across two Christians in a row who claim the Bible says the same thing.

The style is called "a Fable." This same story…with a different god, Marduk not Yahweh…comes from the Babylonian myth Enuma elish but I don't suppose you knew that.

Oh, then the several times you said that one species didn't evolve into another species and claimed no one had observed them evolving you really mean genus. I take it that you kept saying species because you don't know what you are talking about. Too bad you skipped biology 101.

Off the top of my head there's the Dimetrodon which no one is sure if it was a reptile like mammal or a mammal like reptile--it was half way in between.

Wrong. It is all the genetic material changing. It is all evolution. This is high school level science, you really should know these things already.

What line? Species, sub-species, genus, breed…what?

Where does Paul mention it? And why should it be any less funny if Paul waffles over million year long days than if you do?
I suppose that if you can't tell the difference between a day and a zillion years we shouldn't be too surprised that you don't know a species from a genus.

Oh I'm listening. And I'm trying not to laugh because I know it's not PC to laugh at the pathetic. But the contortions and fabrications you must to put yourself through to support a primitive superstition make it difficult for me to contain myself.

Garbles18

I think that most of them just don't see the difference and they certainly won't try to see it when they think they got the big, bad atheist cornered with a really great point. It's just too bad for them that some atheists are willing to take time out of their day to explain it to them.

VonEvilstein

Actually, do. I could use a laugh!

Philosoft

Is that pronounced "von evilsteen" or "von evilstine"