On the former, that depends on what the assertion is! On the latter, we often believe things socially about people that we can't absolutely prove. Sometimes we use deductive reasoning to make probability judgements, and sometimes we simply get a certain impression from someone and make judgements about that person that we can't really explain to others. Nothing wrong with that, up to a point.
That's just the problem with theists, 'Boat. They will not accept ANYTHING as "evidence to the contrary".
when we are talking about the existance of god, surely you would think that we are well and truly beyond that "point" at which we can just use our "impressions".
I wouldn't simply use my "impressions," but if it is one component of what someone else uses for their view, I wouldn't dictate to said person what he or she shouldn't believe spiritually. Questioning or challenging a person is one thing, but telling someone that they don't have an "excuse" to believe in something is overboard in my view.
technically nobody "experienced" it. To experience something, you have to be alive. But everyone gets your point obviously.
There have been absolutely NO skeletal remains found that indicate one species evolves into another. Give up, you have no proof. God made us, and not we ourselves.
I wouldn't simply use my "impressions," but if it is one component of what someone else uses for their view, I wouldn't dictate to said person what he or she shouldn't believe spiritually. Strawman fallacy. We are NOT debating what people should or should not believe spiritually. This is not a touchy feel good discussion on what people should believe spirtually. We are debating the existence of god here. A binary thing. There is no room for "impressions" in a debate. "Impressions" carry no weight. Proving to someone they have no rational reason to believe in a myth is core to this debate. It is not overboard. What is this? PC-ism on crack or something? You have theists making outrageous claims. The atheists are doing a great job of destroying all their old and weak arugments. The atheists still believe they have a right to their bogus beliefs. However, if they catch the theists trying to offer their faith based beliefs as fact, they are going to get shot down. Again and again and again... peace axeman
Buddy, ever heard of the skeleton "Lucy", or, in scientific terms, Australopithecus afarensis? If you don't accept THAT as transitional evidence, then WHAT WOULD you accept? Anyway, there is no point bringing up evolution. Whether or not you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory has nothing to do with whether or not man should accept christianity, and very little do with whether man should believe in a generic "god" (since a definition, even a loose one, of this "god" seems unable to be produced.)
Thunderbolt, You dont understand the simplest logic. Lets say evolution is complete bullshit ok? Lets get evolution out of the picture completely. There *STILL* would be NO rational reason to belive in god. Evolution is not relevant. You have failed to prove the existence of your god. You have been shot down in a million ways. You have put forth NO rational argument. When you ARE shot down, you ignore the post and never attempt to reply to it. Because you cant. Any unbiased third party person would review this thread and agree that you have no ground to stand on. Until you prove the existence of your god, he, she, it, is simply a MYTH. As for creationism and evolution. Creationism provides us with ZERO evidence. Evolution provides us with a ton of evidence. ANY theory which provides us with ANY evidence at all is better than a theory which is nothing more than a story with NO evidence. You STILL have failed to solve the puzzle of who created your complex creator! You are lost in this debate. peace axeman