You are failing to represent your side.<quoted text>
There is a presumption of innocence(nothing happened) the default position, which can be rebutted with adequate evidence of the correct type. Effective rebuttal attracts a verdict of guilty(there is a demonstrable result of the act(or ommission)).
Can you provide evidence that supports your position?
Or are you going to just quote people?
So. We aren't talkign about verdicts, so please try to stay focussed.<quoted text>
There is no verdict of innocent; there is a verdict of not guilty if the rebuttal of the default negative position was unsuccessful.
We are talking about a spiritual phenomenon that many people believe to exist.
"are not represented anywhere in reality"<quoted text>
Am I agnostic? No I'm an atheist, we may not know everything about reality but we know enough to say that a god/gods/supernature are not represented anywhere in reality which would by default make them unreal and highly unlikely to the degree that they can be disregarded.
- Odd that you would conclude this, when there has been many references throughout history by many people.
But just because you say it is false, it must be. And to promote this, you expect others to show you otherwise. Odd.
Odd, in that you cannot even support your own position, but expect others to do theirs.
Thanks for the explanation.<quoted text>
Atheism isn’t a worldview btw, atheism is a single position on a single issue. Atheism requires no faith, belief, worship, ritual or veneration.
Then you are not Atheist, as you believe that the supernatural world does not exist.
You are jsut a human, huh? With no beliefs in anything.
I believe, because I believe I have had a first-hand experience.<quoted text>
You do not honestly believe that you have no proof of anything if you haven’t experienced it first hand. That is a juvenile tactic which looks juvenile. If that’s the case then the Napoleonic Wars never happened.
Since it appears that you have not, I can truly understand your position. It isn't juvenile either.
What is juvenile is you have already made a conclusion upon someone you have never met, know nothing about, and all because you believe differently.
That is juvenile and very immature.
"My belief in nothing is better than your belief in something."
That is how you are sounding.
You just presented evidence that shows otherwise - you posted freely using your own thoughts. This is Self.<quoted text>
There is nothing of your mental 'self' which projects beyond your 'self',(rather like god/gods/the faerie folk) or has any affect beyond what goes on in your ‘self’.
What you're describing is wilful subscription to comfortable and cosy thoughts, not reality.
You posted and that was a moment in reality.
My view is that you haven't studied the Self.