[tad10]

Originally Posted by Tirinal

Athiesm isn't a position that requires proof, it's a tabula rasa deduced from sensory input.

So atheism doesn't require proof to be true but faith does. Mmm'kay.

The point is that the core precepts of faith can't evolve due to sensory input because it puts certain facts above others.

This doesn't make any sense--last time I checked cave-men had faith, Egyptians had faith, ancient druids had faith, Vikings had faith, blind people have faith, crippled people have faith, 80% of the US has faith. Feel free to elaborate in another post.

But because you arrived initially at that state of belief through a moral process of deciding whether or not to accept developed religion in totality at face value despite your personal imperfection, you forfeit the right to then defend your position on the grounds of logic. While you can logically use the position that some facts are inherently "purer" than others, you can't logically arrive at that position. That's faith.

So if I understand this correctly -- you as an atheist get to use logic, I as a Christian have "forfeit[ed] the right to...defend [my] position on the grounds of logic." Another Mmmm'kay.

You prove my point -- you can't disprove my argument so now you're telling me I don't get to try and prove my point and you don't have to prove your point. Cheating is the only way you can win ;-)

But of course you can not prove anything that you've written. You can say them -- you can even shout them -- but you can't prove them.

Edited to be slightly less snarky:

You can believe what you want -- free will, free country and etc. -- and you may have found the right answer for you-- but don't delude yourself into thinking you've got the right answer for everybody.