Ok breh, you science-based atheists lookin' real funny in the light
EDIT: I take it back, I don't want to stoop to your level of ad hominem attacks. Let it suffice to say I am amazed at the inability of the atheists in this thread to see obvious logical contradiction in being an agnostic atheist. Truly amazed, stupefied might be more accurate
The point is that if you don't believe any of the god stories, and you are not willing to claim your belief is true, then logically speaking, in reality, you do believe in at least some of the god stories. What IMHO you don't realize as a self-aware creature, is that the absence of something is something. In mathematical terms, 0 is a number. The absence of a claim is a claim, the claim being that you claim nothingYou believe that you have a choice, but you don't, anymore than a bee has a choice to pollinate, anymore than a dog has a choice to bark, you don't have a choice to believe, if you don't believe in nothing, that's a belief.
Who said anything about intelligence, I talked about self-awareness and a set of existential belief systems. You think dogs gather together and discuss who formed the sun and the moon, and why the leaves change colors?
1) Ad hominem
2) Appeal to authority
Any more fallacies you wish to spew?Again, let's the debate the science of my logic, or let's agree to disagree, I could call you a dumbazz pseudo intellectual who doesn't understand basic modular logic, which is fundamental to all arithmetic, but there's no need to go there. If we can't participate in an intelligent discussion no need to have one breh
2) Now, if you REALLY want to take it there, I can start another thread on Intelligent Design, present my theories/proofs, and allow you the chance to disprove it.
I don't know man, but with all due respect, you need to get a little more educated on logic and atheism to continue this debate, you are arguing something without fully understanding what it is you are actually arguing about, because if you did, you wouldn't need me to tell you what is obvious to any "logist", no offense. Anyway, I am going to try to put it as simple as possible: I can't make it any simpler than that, because you aren't making a simple statement, but I hope the way I have clearly broken down your statement shows you the error in your logic. Of course, you are free to correct me and state, "well actually, my claim is....", but frankly, forget the scientific method, the set of real elements including 0, Boolean logic, and the law of double negation, I don't think you fully understand atheism my friend. I think you need to do a little bit deeper research. To the contrary, atheism stems from logic, from the basic statement "Prove to me God exists, until you do, then I must assume I am right in the fact that He doesn't really exist". So the fact that you're an atheist and lack so much fundamental knowledge of logic is 
, what is an atheist if not a logician (and yes, it's logician, not logicist , but then again, I refrain from immaterial facts to an argument). You're welcome
Is this the best you've got?We don't know Jesus existed breh? Really? REAALLLLY?
you don't know what science "is"The atheists in this thread have rejected science as well breh, see post #318, it got nikkaz all kinds of heated because they don't understand the very thing they place their faith in#dualities
'Lack of belief'..................
NONE of this defends your beliefs besides you debating the rules of the debate.You want simple answers to complex statements that YOU are making, not me
1) "I don't believe any of the god stories" is a statement, not a claim, that's the first problem in answering your question. Some SIMPLE examples of claims are "The sky is green, distance = velocity*time, water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen", etc. You made a self-referential statement, which is equivalent to a belief.
2) Now, what I did is assume you are not claiming anything, because in reality you didn't. Of course, you are FREE to make a claim to correct my assumption, but since your sentence includes no claim, I am assuming you are claiming nothing at this point and time.
3) Now with the assumption that you have claimed nothing, that's your claim breh. Your claim is "I claim nothing", or, in reference to your statement, "I don't make any claims" in regards to the statement "I don't believe any of the god stories", or, more directly (in logic/math there is no sitting on the fence), "I don't claim anything in my statement is true", which I already proved in post #318, that making a negative statement without claiming it is true is logically equivalent to the opposite of what you are stating.
The crux of the issue is that you want to negate an argument without claiming that is true, logically that's impossible. Have you ever seen a theory stating "There is no sun" or "Objects don't fall at the same rate of acceleration regardless of size", you never will, because you can't negate something without proof. Thus proof by deduction, and consequently, proof by induction. So essentially by violating the double negation law, you are going against Boolean logic, and methods of proof used since the days of the Egyptians
EDIT: I should have said, "you made a self-referencial ideological statement, which is equivalent to a belief", not all self-referential statements are beliefs
