May,

You made the assertion so it's up to you to offer some proof.

The ball, as they say, is in your court.

Is Mise, I see you didn't actually read my reply to you, or chose to 'pretend' that you didn't comprehend it. Try reading a science book or two, it may assist you. Believe it or not, science is actually good for you.

May,

Of course I read your reply but as you made the assertion it is up to you to prove it, not for me to disprove.

Go fer it!

Try reading my reply again Is Mise, as it answers your question. Why are you 'pretending' that you don't comprehend my reply?

Ok is Mise, in an attempt to stop your game playing, I'll explain it even more fully.

I originally said, "no gods exist". You replied, "proof?". I replied,"It's an impossibility to empirically prove any negative. For example, it impossible for science to empirically prove that a two headed, undetectable, invisible, supernatural, floating Pink Fairy doesn't live in my garden".Is Mise, you're now pretending that you don't comprehend my reply. So I'll expand yet simplify, so now you'll have no excuse to pretend you don't understand.

Here goes Is Mise: There is NO proof. Here's why: It's because science can't prove that any non existing entity doesn't exist, regardless of what the perception of that entity is or isn't. For example, Science can't prove that the god Zeus doesn't exist, that flying unicorns don't exist, that Allah doesn't exist, that two headed Pink Fairies don't exist, that the Holy Ghost thingy doesn't exist, that undetectable invisible green dragons don't exist on Pluto, that demons don't exist .... the list is near endless.

When an entity doesn't exist science can't prove it doesn't exist. THAT'S why the various religions, and over 40,000 mythical gods invented (including the god thingy that YOU worship), are on VERY safe ground. It's impossible to empirically "prove" that any of these 40,000 gods don't exist.

There ya go Is Mise. Explained to you in full. I bet you're still going to "pretend" you don't understand. I bet your next post will be, "ok, but where's the proof?". Ha ha ha.

Thanks Yuyustu,

<<I take back the "dishonest" part: you are not acting dishonestly since you simply follow the herd... and the herd is blind.>>

But you have still given me no reason to accept that your understanding of what constitutes religion is the right one.

<But [it] wasn't my intention [to provide you with any reason for anyone to take what I say seriously]: why would I enter a full-on theological discussion in a session devoted to Islam, Koran, ISIS, etc.? This is hardly the time and place…>>

Okay, that’s fine. But if that’s the case, then you need to qualify what you say with phrases such as , “In my opinion…”, “If you ask me, “The way I see it…”. Without such qualifiers, you bear a burden of proof; especially if you convey your claims in such a matter-of-factly way. Surely you don’t expect that we just take your word for it?

<<A lot of people may believe they’ve been abducted by aliens, but while they may be mistaken, they are not branded as "terrorists", "woman-haters", "money-grabbers" or "child-molesters" as a result. The way the word 'religion' is abused by those who do not believe in religion, has turned derogatory.>>

Well, they are branded “crazy”. That’s pretty bad too. Nevertheless, this is beside the point. My point was that there is no reason why I should take the claims of religious people more seriously than those who claim to have been abducted by aliens. The fact that the religious may be berated more than alien abductees is not a reason for me, or anyone else, to take your particular claims seriously without any rational justification for them.

<<Universally? No, religious people do not use it that way.>>

What do you mean by “that way”? Do you mean, “In a castigating way”? If so, then I’d agree, but we both know that’s not what I meant. I was referring to the common understanding of what constitutes a religion; which *is* universally accepted.

Continued…