3RU7AL

If the goal is for the group to win, then of course Sun Tzu would ask for volunteers to pick up the sword.

reducing risk is critical to long-term survival

Sometimes, yes, for an individual.

Its kinda like this: those who dont take risks will never achieve any greatness.

P1: It is reasonable/rational to withhold belief in an unfalsifiable entity.

P2: God is an unfalsifiable entity.

P3: Atheists withhold belief in God.

C: It is reasonable/rational to be atheist.

I agree completely. 

read the posts numbered 19, 23, 24, 30 and 36

36

I am not using them interchangably.

Life: self-Movement of some sort.

Soul: Principle of that movement. Or if you want: the thing that causes the movement.

I agree. But the point is that they are not physical which is how you have said we are parts of god

And if someone asks me what it was,I answer "A chair"

Not "a thing functioning as a platform for your butt."

You can't prove me wrong,

Quoting out of context destroying the analogy's intent and purpose, along with this last banal response.

Clearly you lack the same temperament 

You haven't made a claim for me to accept, reject, or distort except for your mischaracterization of what atheism is, which is why I'm correcting it (or trying to anyway). We can certainly get into the many claims theists have presented throughout the ages but that would seem to be a deflection from the topic.

Okay. Can science falsify the Biblical God hypothesis by evidence?  If so, how, if not why? 

I agree completely. 

Now what about the gods. Atheism is defined as disbelief in the existence of God or gods. We've covered and agree upon God, now what about gods. Obviously gods in general? None specified. 

You say, for example, that some atheists wouldn't have a problem with the big bang as a god, but if that's true it's only because the term doesn't mean anything to them. It isn't dependent upon ignorance beyond the surface because if you educated them, they either wouldn't accept it or it wouldn't be meaningless to them.

because you conflate, as I've said repeatedly, God and gods.

So, Jehovah isn't, according to the Bible, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, or omnibenovolent in the way theology tends to present him.

I'll ask you again to define the theistic God. Not that I disagree, just for the sake of argument. 

Theism is not logically coercive, it’s a matter of faith,

No, it would be like saying a doctor has to be defined by some arbitrary adherence

LOL, another idiot that came to a debate site looking for an echo chamber.

That's nothing short of an ignoratio elenchi circular argument that is tantamount to an appeal to mockery. 

You clearly lack the temperament required of mature civil discourse. Why are you even here, other than the obvious (trolling)!?!

That's like saying just leave the house invader alone and let them take what they want and let them leave.

I'm also not going to go on a forum and argue Democrat / Republican or Labor / Conservative or whatever you happen to argue about in politics. I consider that stupid.

You're wasting your time if you think you can prove or disprove anything to someone with a contrary ideology. First of all, who cares?  

I always thought the cry of "burden of proof" was a fake cop out myself.

It isn't the responsiblitity to prove to someone you saw a ghost if they refuse to believe ghosts exist.

Is it your contention that Theism is not a reasonable or rational position to take?

Invalid question with invalid, unproven, unexplained points.

If the same government says I have to go to war and kill others for any reason or abort my firstborn child I say, no.

e because they removed the ap

Well you wouldn't believe it if you are a theist because  you are of the misguided believe that to take this stance allows you relieve yourself of the burden of proof. Well it doesn't! And it is not nonsense at all.

It is the theist that makes the claim for the existence of a all singing all dancing god, as he also claims the bible is the true and faultless word of the god he believes in.

It is reasonable/rational to be theist.

Anybody want to debate this?

Nope, and I don't believe this nonsense that the Theist has a "burden of proof" that somehow requires them to EXPLAIN WHY they do believe.

That's not a thing.

So we are all "physically part of god"

What about virtue which is not physical? Or numbers? Or purpose?

Unless you want to say those do not exist.

I could use a nail gun. does not mean it is a hammer.

Care to give a demonstration as to why functionality is the same whatness? 

You see my point?

This thread reminds me of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU8IJE7Vthk

And what do you mean by "part of" there are different ways to be a part of something.

the claims and definitions of YHWH are falsifiable with LOGIC

Demonstrate, please? In another thread if you wish or this one. 

The year is 3500.

Humanity is dead.

Eventually, aliens find our planet. . .

What could they learn about our species?

What will remain of it?

what is the point of distinguishing TERMINOLOGY if the two are functionally identical ?

Because a thing is not what it does.

Unless you care to prove to me that a thing is what it does, This principle stands.

energy cannot be created or destroyed

it is a fundamental principle known as the law of conservation of energy

Ok. Explain what you mean here.

Because you still ultimately have not answered the contradiction that a thing as a whole is causing itself, which is impossible.

WANTED . 

I buy , sell and trade Souls . 

Will Pay cash $$$$$$$$$$$$.  

Any condition.   

PM me. 

I am not the sum total of my influences.

P1: It is reasonable/rational to withhold belief in an unfalsifiable entity.

P2: God is an unfalsifiable entity.

P3: Atheists withhold belief in God.

C: It is reasonable/rational to be atheist.

2. Atheism, at least militant, is a form of theism. A position of a theological nature, antithesis of theism, but theological nonetheless.

think of it this way

do you believe NANABOZHO is the one true creator of all things ?

why not ?

are you perhaps UNconvinced ?

or are you just an evil mean spiteful person who hates NANABOZHO ?

have you spent your entire life thinking about how NANABOZHO can not possibly exist ?

or do you rather simply not care if NANABOZHO is real or not ?

furthermore,

if someone told you that all morality and goodness can only come from NANABOZHO and without NANABOZHO the world would be pure chaos

would you think that person is probably insane ?

That is quite the non-sequitur, what is the point of this mess, and what does it have to do with the subject of Burden of Proof.

Address these: If your only response is it's irrelevant, that's okay, but give me something. 

1. A god can be anything or anyone.

2. God is a term for a specific deity in occidental culture. Jehovah. Atheism rejects that specific God's existence. A completely rational position.  

3. Atheism in general, also rejects the literal existence of all other gods. If a god can be extant how can an atheist reject its existence?