Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[BADecker]

There doesn't have to be a god, there's no use for a god. We could all be in a multiverse, in a dimension that might not stay stable for all of time. But if your idea of god is the result of an earlier civilization that learned much more than us at this point, why would you feel the need to worship their figurehead? You can clearly see there's no works of any god in this world. No real magic can be seen. So why are people so stupid to need to latch on to a religion? Hate the stupid people that have blind faith, because that's all it can ever be. At least until the aliens come and say they are our god.

Yeah, I understand that common things around us don't look quite like magic, but have you ever wondered that the very existence of the world around us (and ourselves) is magic in itself? And I don't necessarily mean divine inception or anything of the kind...

This is exactly IT! You hit the proverbial nail right on the head.

There is nothing that explains the existence of the universe and all the marvels that are in it. We have observation of it, but no explanation for it or how it came into being.

Science is dribbles of knowledge combined with a whole lot of science fiction. Religion points at Something that might have created the world, but still has no understandable way that it could have been done.

Since we don't know how or where it all came from, and since we don't have a clue really how to make any of it ourselves, everything is a miracle. It all exists, but other than the fact that we have become used to and comfortable with its existence, the whole universe is a complete miracle.

[tsoPANos]

I talked with many Atheists, from many countries, with different Official Religions.
In contrast of this, I realized that many(not all) atheists try to undermine religion.
In my opinion this is a way to weaken their doubts:
"Maybe I am wrong and God really exists? What if I die and Allah or God will punish me? "

Sadly, these kind of people are everywhere, independent of their country of origin.

[the joint]

@deisik

None of the atheists has any logic that the things written here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 are false. All they can do is SAY that these things are false and make fun

You forget awfully quickly.  I referenced the exact logical fallacy(ies) you committed with regards to every single point on there.  The fact that I'm a theist and not an atheist should be especially troubling for you, then.

Not a single thing there provides a shred of evidence for God.  Zip, zero, nada.  If you forgot, I can do it all again.  

Edit:  To clarify, it's actually not so much that every point you mention is provably wrong, but rather it is impossible to prove them correct in terms of being proof of God.  You just think it's proof for God, because you say to yourself, "Oh, this looks like it makes sense!"  

It only makes sense to you because you lack the awareness to know that you are unsoundly filling in gaps which cannot be filled by the merit of the arguments you provided.  Logic doesn't work by saying, "I guess this looks good enough."  A sound argument is one that cannot possibly be overturned by any other theoretical or real consideration.  Every point you mention begs that alternative considerations be examined, and unfortunately none of these other considerations are disproved by the arguments you present.

As I have said, proof of anything exists for sure only in the presence of great joy or great pain. Anybody can take any evidence and convince himself that it isn't evidence and that it doesn't prove anything... except in the presence of great joy or great pain.

The point? In a balanced world where one looks at the evidence against God and compares it with the evidence for God, the evidence for God almost entirely outweighs the evidence against God.

I respect your freedom to believe for yourself anything that you can hold your faith in.

1)  Proof exists in the presence of joy or pain?  Well, there you go, that's your problem.  You rationalize by emotion, not reason.

2)  I believe in God for logical reasons, so there is no possible benefit to me to ignore any evidence for God.  If the things you mentioned actually are proof of God, I would be among the first to embrace it and share it with others.  I have no motive to denounce what you claim is proof.  But, it simply isn't proof.  Accordingly, it's not about convincing myself that it isn't proof.  It's about you convincing yourself that it is proof (and simultaneously convincing yourself that logical fallacies don't apply to you simply because you don't want them to don't understand them).

Not possible for there to be physical evidence of God.  Period.

3) I respect your right to be intentionally ignorant, and am absolutely floored by your ability to do so.

[elusive1]

As Carl Sagan said ” Extraordinary claims take extraordinary proof.

[BADecker]

@deisik

None of the atheists has any logic that the things written here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 are false. All they can do is SAY that these things are false and make fun

You forget awfully quickly.  I referenced the exact logical fallacy(ies) you committed with regards to every single point on there.  The fact that I'm a theist and not an atheist should be especially troubling for you, then.

Not a single thing there provides a shred of evidence for God.  Zip, zero, nada.  If you forgot, I can do it all again.  

Edit:  To clarify, it's actually not so much that every point you mention is provably wrong, but rather it is impossible to prove them correct in terms of being proof of God.  You just think it's proof for God, because you say to yourself, "Oh, this looks like it makes sense!"  

It only makes sense to you because you lack the awareness to know that you are unsoundly filling in gaps which cannot be filled by the merit of the arguments you provided.  Logic doesn't work by saying, "I guess this looks good enough."  A sound argument is one that cannot possibly be overturned by any other theoretical or real consideration.  Every point you mention begs that alternative considerations be examined, and unfortunately none of these other considerations are disproved by the arguments you present.

As I have said, proof of anything exists for sure only in the presence of great joy or great pain. Anybody can take any evidence and convince himself that it isn't evidence and that it doesn't prove anything... except in the presence of great joy or great pain.

The point? In a balanced world where one looks at the evidence against God and compares it with the evidence for God, the evidence for God almost entirely outweighs the evidence against God.

I respect your freedom to believe for yourself anything that you can hold your faith in.

1)  Proof exists in the presence of joy or pain?  Well, there you go, that's your problem.  You rationalize by emotion, not reason.

It is true that this is a problem. But it isn't my problem alone. It is your problem as well. You are using it as am I.

Neither of us is in great joy or great pain regarding the things that we produce as evidence or proof. Thus, we are able to accept and reject anything that we want. If we couldn't do such, this discussion would have been over long ago.

In the event that emotions become strong in one way or another, we focus on our emotions, and our strength of will is taken away so that we accept things as evidence or proof much easier.

2)  I believe in God for logical reasons, so there is no possible benefit to me to ignore any evidence for God.  If the things you mentioned actually are proof of God, I would be among the first to embrace it and share it with others.  I have no motive to denounce what you claim is proof.  But, it simply isn't proof.  Accordingly, it's not about convincing myself that it isn't proof.  It's about you convincing yourself that it is proof (and simultaneously convincing yourself that logical fallacies don't apply to you simply because you don't want them to don't understand them).

Thank you. As I said above, you have strength to keep from accepting evidence as evidence and proof as proof if you so desire. As it is for me, so it is for you. Thank you, again.

Not possible for there to be physical evidence of God.  Period.

Everything physical is physical evidence of God.

3) I respect your right to be intentionally ignorant, and am absolutely floored by your ability to do so.

I respect your ability to resist the evidence and proof that I show you. I accept that you have the ability, at least at this stage of the game, to demean my character by directly calling me ignorant.

[the joint]

@deisik

None of the atheists has any logic that the things written here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 are false. All they can do is SAY that these things are false and make fun

You forget awfully quickly.  I referenced the exact logical fallacy(ies) you committed with regards to every single point on there.  The fact that I'm a theist and not an atheist should be especially troubling for you, then.

Not a single thing there provides a shred of evidence for God.  Zip, zero, nada.  If you forgot, I can do it all again.  

Edit:  To clarify, it's actually not so much that every point you mention is provably wrong, but rather it is impossible to prove them correct in terms of being proof of God.  You just think it's proof for God, because you say to yourself, "Oh, this looks like it makes sense!"  

It only makes sense to you because you lack the awareness to know that you are unsoundly filling in gaps which cannot be filled by the merit of the arguments you provided.  Logic doesn't work by saying, "I guess this looks good enough."  A sound argument is one that cannot possibly be overturned by any other theoretical or real consideration.  Every point you mention begs that alternative considerations be examined, and unfortunately none of these other considerations are disproved by the arguments you present.

As I have said, proof of anything exists for sure only in the presence of great joy or great pain. Anybody can take any evidence and convince himself that it isn't evidence and that it doesn't prove anything... except in the presence of great joy or great pain.

The point? In a balanced world where one looks at the evidence against God and compares it with the evidence for God, the evidence for God almost entirely outweighs the evidence against God.

I respect your freedom to believe for yourself anything that you can hold your faith in.

1)  Proof exists in the presence of joy or pain?  Well, there you go, that's your problem.  You rationalize by emotion, not reason.

It is true that this is a problem. But it isn't my problem alone. It is your problem as well. You are using it as am I.

Neither of us is in great joy or great pain regarding the things that we produce as evidence or proof. Thus, we are able to accept and reject anything that we want. If we couldn't do such, this discussion would have been over long ago.

In the event that emotions become strong in one way or another, we focus on our emotions, and our strength of will is taken away so that we accept things as evidence or proof much easier.

2)  I believe in God for logical reasons, so there is no possible benefit to me to ignore any evidence for God.  If the things you mentioned actually are proof of God, I would be among the first to embrace it and share it with others.  I have no motive to denounce what you claim is proof.  But, it simply isn't proof.  Accordingly, it's not about convincing myself that it isn't proof.  It's about you convincing yourself that it is proof (and simultaneously convincing yourself that logical fallacies don't apply to you simply because you don't want them to don't understand them).

Thank you. As I said above, you have strength to keep from accepting evidence as evidence and proof as proof if you so desire. As it is for me, so it is for you. Thank you, again.

Not possible for there to be physical evidence of God.  Period.

Everything physical is physical evidence of God.

3) I respect your right to be intentionally ignorant, and am absolutely floored by your ability to do so.

I respect your ability to resist the evidence and proof that I show you. I accept that you have the ability, at least at this stage of the game, to demean my character by directly calling me ignorant.

Responding in order:

1)  Regardless of how you feel, something that is logically true or false remains logically true or false.  There's an entire logical fallacy specifically set aside for what you are describing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

So much for that argument of yours.

2)  See #1.  It's actually the opposite.  I have the strength to maintain logical reasoning without letting emotions influence my judgment.

3)   No, nothing physical is evidence of God because the defining characteristic that distinguishes God from all possible forms he could take (or make) is a non-physical characteristic (i.e omnipotence, or a total lack of constraint).  

Again, the limitations of inductive reasoning strictly prohibit the possibility of physical evidence for God.  This is not up for debate.  It's black-and-white, and all I can tell you is that you need to learn more about inductive reasoning.

This can be soundly deduced as follows:

Premise 1: Empiricism (i.e. gaining knowledge through experience of physical phenomena) cannot explore or conclude upon that which is not physical.  This is axiomatic (i.e. this premise is true).

Premise 2: By definition, the defining characteristic of God is non-physical.  This is axiomatic (i.e. this premise is true).

Therefore: Empiricism cannot explore or conclude upon God. This is a sound deduction (the conclusion follows from true premises).

That is the crux of my point, and you must refute that exact point to stand a chance at being correct.  I'll give you the rest of your natural life to do so, and give you $1 million if successful.

4)  Again, I have no reason to resist any evidence for God if I believe in God (and I do).  I would *love* to see evidence for God, but unfortunately it's a logical impossibility.

I'm directly calling you ignorant because, well...can you think of a better word for someone who willfully dismisses absolute proof of their own logical fallacies?

 

[deisik]

Premise 1: Empiricism (i.e. gaining knowledge through experience of physical phenomena) cannot explore or conclude upon that which is not physical.  This is axiomatic (i.e. this premise is true).

Premise 2: By definition, the defining characteristic of God is non-physical.  This is axiomatic (i.e. this premise is true).

Therefore: Empiricism cannot explore or conclude upon God. This is a sound deduction (the conclusion follows from true premises).

That is the crux of my point, and you must refute that exact point to stand a chance at being correct.  I'll give you the rest of your natural life to do so, and give you $1 million if successful.

Okay, do you have $1 million and are you ready to give it to anyone who would refute that point (in case you have that much in the first place, of course)?

[BADecker]

@deisik

None of the atheists has any logic that the things written here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 are false. All they can do is SAY that these things are false and make fun

You forget awfully quickly.  I referenced the exact logical fallacy(ies) you committed with regards to every single point on there.  The fact that I'm a theist and not an atheist should be especially troubling for you, then.

Not a single thing there provides a shred of evidence for God.  Zip, zero, nada.  If you forgot, I can do it all again.  

Edit:  To clarify, it's actually not so much that every point you mention is provably wrong, but rather it is impossible to prove them correct in terms of being proof of God.  You just think it's proof for God, because you say to yourself, "Oh, this looks like it makes sense!"  

It only makes sense to you because you lack the awareness to know that you are unsoundly filling in gaps which cannot be filled by the merit of the arguments you provided.  Logic doesn't work by saying, "I guess this looks good enough."  A sound argument is one that cannot possibly be overturned by any other theoretical or real consideration.  Every point you mention begs that alternative considerations be examined, and unfortunately none of these other considerations are disproved by the arguments you present.

As I have said, proof of anything exists for sure only in the presence of great joy or great pain. Anybody can take any evidence and convince himself that it isn't evidence and that it doesn't prove anything... except in the presence of great joy or great pain.

The point? In a balanced world where one looks at the evidence against God and compares it with the evidence for God, the evidence for God almost entirely outweighs the evidence against God.

I respect your freedom to believe for yourself anything that you can hold your faith in.

1)  Proof exists in the presence of joy or pain?  Well, there you go, that's your problem.  You rationalize by emotion, not reason.

It is true that this is a problem. But it isn't my problem alone. It is your problem as well. You are using it as am I.

Neither of us is in great joy or great pain regarding the things that we produce as evidence or proof. Thus, we are able to accept and reject anything that we want. If we couldn't do such, this discussion would have been over long ago.

In the event that emotions become strong in one way or another, we focus on our emotions, and our strength of will is taken away so that we accept things as evidence or proof much easier.

2)  I believe in God for logical reasons, so there is no possible benefit to me to ignore any evidence for God.  If the things you mentioned actually are proof of God, I would be among the first to embrace it and share it with others.  I have no motive to denounce what you claim is proof.  But, it simply isn't proof.  Accordingly, it's not about convincing myself that it isn't proof.  It's about you convincing yourself that it is proof (and simultaneously convincing yourself that logical fallacies don't apply to you simply because you don't want them to don't understand them).

Thank you. As I said above, you have strength to keep from accepting evidence as evidence and proof as proof if you so desire. As it is for me, so it is for you. Thank you, again.

Not possible for there to be physical evidence of God.  Period.

Everything physical is physical evidence of God.

3) I respect your right to be intentionally ignorant, and am absolutely floored by your ability to do so.

I respect your ability to resist the evidence and proof that I show you. I accept that you have the ability, at least at this stage of the game, to demean my character by directly calling me ignorant.

Responding in order:

1)  Regardless of how you feel, something that is logically true or false remains logically true or false.  There's an entire logical fallacy specifically set aside for what you are describing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

So much for that argument of yours.

Exactly! That's what I have been trying to tell you. Of course, with different words.

2)  See #1.  It's actually the opposite.  I have the strength to maintain logical reasoning without letting emotions influence my judgment.

Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps you are so strong that "they" could tie you down and gradually slice off your flesh, one square centimeter at a time. Perhaps the Chinese water torture wouldn't bother you at all. Possibly you like waterboarding.

You just might be a very strong person. However, could you overcome the evidence of God, Himself? Could be. You are attempting to do it in these discussions with me.

3)   No, nothing physical is evidence of God because the defining characteristic that distinguishes God from all possible forms he could take (or make) is a non-physical characteristic (i.e omnipotence, or a total lack of constraint).  

Again, the limitations of inductive reasoning strictly prohibit the possibility of physical evidence for God.  This is not up for debate.  It's black-and-white, and all I can tell you is that you need to learn more about inductive reasoning.

This can be soundly deduced as follows:

Premise 1: Empiricism (i.e. gaining knowledge through experience of physical phenomena) cannot explore or conclude upon that which is not physical.  This is axiomatic (i.e. this premise is true).

Premise 2: By definition, the defining characteristic of God is non-physical.  This is axiomatic (i.e. this premise is true).

Therefore: Empiricism cannot explore or conclude upon God. This is a sound deduction (the conclusion follows from true premises).

That is the crux of my point, and you must refute that exact point to stand a chance at being correct.  I'll give you the rest of your natural life to do so, and give you $1 million if successful.

You are limiting yourself and the universe by claiming this.

4)  Again, I have no reason to resist any evidence for God if I believe in God (and I do).  I would *love* to see evidence for God, but unfortunately it's a logical impossibility.

I'm directly calling you ignorant because, well...can you think of a better word for someone who willfully dismisses absolute proof of their own logical fallacies?

 

You see? This is where we differ. You hold your evidence and proof as absolute, while I hold that it is NOT absolute. You hold my evidence as inadequate, while I hold it as basic and fundamental. However, I recognize that you have the ability to disregard my evidence and proof, while you don't recognize that I can do the same with yours.

Perhaps I am not as able as you to stand up to great joy or great pain. So, you just might be right.

[the joint]

Premise 1: Empiricism (i.e. gaining knowledge through experience of physical phenomena) cannot explore or conclude upon that which is not physical.  This is axiomatic (i.e. this premise is true).

Premise 2: By definition, the defining characteristic of God is non-physical.  This is axiomatic (i.e. this premise is true).

Therefore: Empiricism cannot explore or conclude upon God. This is a sound deduction (the conclusion follows from true premises).

That is the crux of my point, and you must refute that exact point to stand a chance at being correct.  I'll give you the rest of your natural life to do so, and give you $1 million if successful.

Okay, do you have $1 million and are you ready to give it to anyone who would refute that point (in case you have that much in the first place, of course)?

Lol Nice.

I don't disclose my wealth, so take that as you wish.

I would gladly enter into this agreement, but I would clarify some things before actually doing so (e.g. the definition of God used in premise 2 is that of an "omnipotent creator of reality," which needn't actually be proven true or false for the argument to work, but rather is assumed to be true because it is a commonly-accepted conceptualization of what a monotheistic god is).  Other clarifications are also necessary, e.g. that empiricism cannot *soundly* conclude about God (saying something like "Empiricism can soundly conclude that it can't conclude about God," or something similar, doesn't count).  There would be a few others.

But on the whole, yes.

[deisik]

Premise 1: Empiricism (i.e. gaining knowledge through experience of physical phenomena) cannot explore or conclude upon that which is not physical.  This is axiomatic (i.e. this premise is true).

Premise 2: By definition, the defining characteristic of God is non-physical.  This is axiomatic (i.e. this premise is true).

Therefore: Empiricism cannot explore or conclude upon God. This is a sound deduction (the conclusion follows from true premises).

That is the crux of my point, and you must refute that exact point to stand a chance at being correct.  I'll give you the rest of your natural life to do so, and give you $1 million if successful.

Okay, do you have $1 million and are you ready to give it to anyone who would refute that point (in case you have that much in the first place, of course)?

Lol Nice.

I don't disclose my wealth, so take that as you wish.

I would gladly enter into this agreement, but I would clarify some things before actually doing so (e.g. the definition of God used in premise 2 is that of an "omnipotent creator of reality," which needn't actually be proven true or false for the argument to work, but rather is assumed to be true because it is a commonly-accepted conceptualization of what a monotheistic god is).  Other clarifications are also necessary, e.g. that empiricism cannot *soundly* conclude about God (saying something like "Empiricism can soundly conclude that it can't conclude about God," or something similar, doesn't count).  There would be a few others.

But on the whole, yes.

I didn't ask about your wealth, I asked whether you have 1 million dollars, since it was you who said that you would give that amount (not me asking in the first place). Do you follow me?

[the joint]

Premise 1: Empiricism (i.e. gaining knowledge through experience of physical phenomena) cannot explore or conclude upon that which is not physical.  This is axiomatic (i.e. this premise is true).

Premise 2: By definition, the defining characteristic of God is non-physical.  This is axiomatic (i.e. this premise is true).

Therefore: Empiricism cannot explore or conclude upon God. This is a sound deduction (the conclusion follows from true premises).

That is the crux of my point, and you must refute that exact point to stand a chance at being correct.  I'll give you the rest of your natural life to do so, and give you $1 million if successful.

Okay, do you have $1 million and are you ready to give it to anyone who would refute that point (in case you have that much in the first place, of course)?

Lol Nice.

I don't disclose my wealth, so take that as you wish.

I would gladly enter into this agreement, but I would clarify some things before actually doing so (e.g. the definition of God used in premise 2 is that of an "omnipotent creator of reality," which needn't actually be proven true or false for the argument to work, but rather is assumed to be true because it is a commonly-accepted conceptualization of what a monotheistic god is).  Other clarifications are also necessary, e.g. that empiricism cannot *soundly* conclude about God (saying something like "Empiricism can soundly conclude that it can't conclude about God," or something similar, doesn't count).  There would be a few others.

But on the whole, yes.

I didn't ask about your wealth, I asked whether you have 1 million dollars, since it was you who said that you would give that amount (not me asking in the first place). Do you follow me?

Asking if I have $1 million dollars is asking me about my wealth.  Or at least it's asking about it enough to the point where an honest answer could jeopardize my safety.

Let's put it this way -- I may or may not have $1 million, and if I do, I'll gladly enter into such an agreement.

[deisik]

Premise 1: Empiricism (i.e. gaining knowledge through experience of physical phenomena) cannot explore or conclude upon that which is not physical.  This is axiomatic (i.e. this premise is true).

Premise 2: By definition, the defining characteristic of God is non-physical.  This is axiomatic (i.e. this premise is true).

Therefore: Empiricism cannot explore or conclude upon God. This is a sound deduction (the conclusion follows from true premises).

That is the crux of my point, and you must refute that exact point to stand a chance at being correct.  I'll give you the rest of your natural life to do so, and give you $1 million if successful.

Okay, do you have $1 million and are you ready to give it to anyone who would refute that point (in case you have that much in the first place, of course)?

Lol Nice.

I don't disclose my wealth, so take that as you wish.

I would gladly enter into this agreement, but I would clarify some things before actually doing so (e.g. the definition of God used in premise 2 is that of an "omnipotent creator of reality," which needn't actually be proven true or false for the argument to work, but rather is assumed to be true because it is a commonly-accepted conceptualization of what a monotheistic god is).  Other clarifications are also necessary, e.g. that empiricism cannot *soundly* conclude about God (saying something like "Empiricism can soundly conclude that it can't conclude about God," or something similar, doesn't count).  There would be a few others.

But on the whole, yes.

I didn't ask about your wealth, I asked whether you have 1 million dollars, since it was you who said that you would give that amount (not me asking in the first place). Do you follow me?

Asking if I have $1 million dollars is asking me about my wealth.  Or at least it's asking about it enough to the point where an honest answer could jeopardize my safety.

Let's put it this way -- I may or may not have $1 million, and if I do, I'll gladly enter into such an agreement.

You yourself said that you have 1 million dollars, by implication ("I'll... give you $1 million"). But since now you are essentially denying what you said previously ("I may or may not have $1 million"), it makes no sense to enter into any agreement with you, sorry...

Nothing personal

[the joint]

Premise 1: Empiricism (i.e. gaining knowledge through experience of physical phenomena) cannot explore or conclude upon that which is not physical.  This is axiomatic (i.e. this premise is true).

Premise 2: By definition, the defining characteristic of God is non-physical.  This is axiomatic (i.e. this premise is true).

Therefore: Empiricism cannot explore or conclude upon God. This is a sound deduction (the conclusion follows from true premises).

That is the crux of my point, and you must refute that exact point to stand a chance at being correct.  I'll give you the rest of your natural life to do so, and give you $1 million if successful.

Okay, do you have $1 million and are you ready to give it to anyone who would refute that point (in case you have that much in the first place, of course)?

Lol Nice.

I don't disclose my wealth, so take that as you wish.

I would gladly enter into this agreement, but I would clarify some things before actually doing so (e.g. the definition of God used in premise 2 is that of an "omnipotent creator of reality," which needn't actually be proven true or false for the argument to work, but rather is assumed to be true because it is a commonly-accepted conceptualization of what a monotheistic god is).  Other clarifications are also necessary, e.g. that empiricism cannot *soundly* conclude about God (saying something like "Empiricism can soundly conclude that it can't conclude about God," or something similar, doesn't count).  There would be a few others.

But on the whole, yes.

I didn't ask about your wealth, I asked whether you have 1 million dollars, since it was you who said that you would give that amount (not me asking in the first place). Do you follow me?

Asking if I have $1 million dollars is asking me about my wealth.  Or at least it's asking about it enough to the point where an honest answer could jeopardize my safety.

Let's put it this way -- I may or may not have $1 million, and if I do, I'll gladly enter into such an agreement.

You yourself said that you have 1 million dollars, by implication ("I'll... give you $1 million"). But since now you are essentially denying what you said previously ("I may or may not have $1 million"), it makes no sense to enter into any agreement with you, sorry...

Nothing personal

It's a moot point, anyway.  The reason I said what I said was to emphasize my confidence.  I thought this was obvious.  Really, I don't need to worry about some negative feedback along the lines, "User offers $1 million dollar bet without proof he has it.  Scammer!" do I?

[deisik]

You yourself said that you have 1 million dollars, by implication ("I'll... give you $1 million"). But since now you are essentially denying what you said previously ("I may or may not have $1 million"), it makes no sense to enter into any agreement with you, sorry...

Nothing personal

It's a moot point, anyway.  The reason I said what I said was to emphasize my confidence.  I thought this was obvious.  Really, I don't need to worry about some negative feedback along the lines, "User offers $1 million dollar bet without proof he has it.  Scammer!" do I?

I'm not going to say that this is not how agreements are made (that was your idea, after all), since even if you had a million dollars (which you obviously don't), you wouldn't give them in any case. In fact, your failure is more serious than that. You tried to emphasize your confidence where you actually should have questioned it...

[the joint]

You yourself said that you have 1 million dollars, by implication ("I'll... give you $1 million"). But since now you are essentially denying what you said previously ("I may or may not have $1 million"), it makes no sense to enter into any agreement with you, sorry...

Nothing personal

It's a moot point, anyway.  The reason I said what I said was to emphasize my confidence.  I thought this was obvious.  Really, I don't need to worry about some negative feedback along the lines, "User offers $1 million dollar bet without proof he has it.  Scammer!" do I?

I'm not going to say that this is not how agreements are made (that was your idea, after all), since even if you had a million dollars (which you obviously don't), you wouldn't give them in any case. In fact, your failure is more serious than that. You tried to emphasize your confidence where you actually should have questioned it...

Yeah...I think you read into this way, way too much.  You didn't prove the deduction wrong, you'll never prove it wrong, and nobody else will ever prove it wrong, because it is correct.

[deisik]

You yourself said that you have 1 million dollars, by implication ("I'll... give you $1 million"). But since now you are essentially denying what you said previously ("I may or may not have $1 million"), it makes no sense to enter into any agreement with you, sorry...

Nothing personal

It's a moot point, anyway.  The reason I said what I said was to emphasize my confidence.  I thought this was obvious.  Really, I don't need to worry about some negative feedback along the lines, "User offers $1 million dollar bet without proof he has it.  Scammer!" do I?

I'm not going to say that this is not how agreements are made (that was your idea, after all), since even if you had a million dollars (which you obviously don't), you wouldn't give them in any case. In fact, your failure is more serious than that. You tried to emphasize your confidence where you actually should have questioned it...

Yeah...I think you read into this way, way too much.  You didn't prove the deduction wrong, you'll never prove it wrong, and nobody else will ever prove it wrong, because it is correct.

How much are you really going to stake?

[Buffer Overflow]

You yourself said that you have 1 million dollars, by implication ("I'll... give you $1 million"). But since now you are essentially denying what you said previously ("I may or may not have $1 million"), it makes no sense to enter into any agreement with you, sorry...

Nothing personal

It's a moot point, anyway.  The reason I said what I said was to emphasize my confidence.  I thought this was obvious.  Really, I don't need to worry about some negative feedback along the lines, "User offers $1 million dollar bet without proof he has it.  Scammer!" do I?

I'm not going to say that this is not how agreements are made (that was your idea, after all), since even if you had a million dollars (which you obviously don't), you wouldn't give them in any case. In fact, your failure is more serious than that. You tried to emphasize your confidence where you actually should have questioned it...

The million dollar thing was a figure of speech.
We all have to realise we are all from different geographic locations (thousands of miles apart maybe) with different ways of saying things.

[deisik]

You yourself said that you have 1 million dollars, by implication ("I'll... give you $1 million"). But since now you are essentially denying what you said previously ("I may or may not have $1 million"), it makes no sense to enter into any agreement with you, sorry...

Nothing personal

It's a moot point, anyway.  The reason I said what I said was to emphasize my confidence.  I thought this was obvious.  Really, I don't need to worry about some negative feedback along the lines, "User offers $1 million dollar bet without proof he has it.  Scammer!" do I?

I'm not going to say that this is not how agreements are made (that was your idea, after all), since even if you had a million dollars (which you obviously don't), you wouldn't give them in any case. In fact, your failure is more serious than that. You tried to emphasize your confidence where you actually should have questioned it...

The million dollar thing was a figure of speech.
We all have to realise we are all from different geographic locations (thousands of miles apart maybe) with different ways of saying things.

So when someone asks you to do something and says that he will pay you a tidy sum of money for doing that, this is not what he actually means or is going to pay?

Oh, well, I'm only curious whether all atheists are like that or it's just you

[the joint]

You yourself said that you have 1 million dollars, by implication ("I'll... give you $1 million"). But since now you are essentially denying what you said previously ("I may or may not have $1 million"), it makes no sense to enter into any agreement with you, sorry...

Nothing personal

It's a moot point, anyway.  The reason I said what I said was to emphasize my confidence.  I thought this was obvious.  Really, I don't need to worry about some negative feedback along the lines, "User offers $1 million dollar bet without proof he has it.  Scammer!" do I?

I'm not going to say that this is not how agreements are made (that was your idea, after all), since even if you had a million dollars (which you obviously don't), you wouldn't give them in any case. In fact, your failure is more serious than that. You tried to emphasize your confidence where you actually should have questioned it...

The million dollar thing was a figure of speech.
We all have to realise we are all from different geographic locations (thousands of miles apart maybe) with different ways of saying things.

So when someone asks you to do something and says that he will pay you a tidy sum of money for doing that, this is not what he actually means or is going to pay?

Oh, well, I'm only curious whether all atheists are like that or it's just you

Just google "I bet a million dollars that..."

I haven't done this, but it's a common expression. 

I'm curious whether you realize that I'm a theist. I have absolutely no idea why you think that matters, anyway.

[deisik]

It's a moot point, anyway.  The reason I said what I said was to emphasize my confidence.  I thought this was obvious.  Really, I don't need to worry about some negative feedback along the lines, "User offers $1 million dollar bet without proof he has it.  Scammer!" do I?

I'm not going to say that this is not how agreements are made (that was your idea, after all), since even if you had a million dollars (which you obviously don't), you wouldn't give them in any case. In fact, your failure is more serious than that. You tried to emphasize your confidence where you actually should have questioned it...

The million dollar thing was a figure of speech.
We all have to realise we are all from different geographic locations (thousands of miles apart maybe) with different ways of saying things.

So when someone asks you to do something and says that he will pay you a tidy sum of money for doing that, this is not what he actually means or is going to pay?

Oh, well, I'm only curious whether all atheists are like that or it's just you

Just google "I bet a million dollars that..."

I haven't done this, but it's a common expression. 

I'm curious whether you realize that I'm a theist. I have absolutely no idea why you think that matters, anyway.

You know, for a million dollars I can prove anything. And for another disprove what I proved earlier! But you don't have a million dollars, so it doesn't matter anyway...