waitasec
Veteran Member
i think it poses a big problem....no one wants to acknowledge the pink elephant in the room. it's these same people who claim the bible is harmonious with out irreconcilable differences...
go figure.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do Christians really think...
- Thread starter Blackdog22
- Start date
i think it poses a big problem....no one wants to acknowledge the pink elephant in the room. it's these same people who claim the bible is harmonious with out irreconcilable differences...
go figure.
Blackdog22
Well-Known Member
Well that's better! lol
Now what happened was, you asked me why muslims were any different then Christians and my answer turned into the whole "I've been a Christian for 15 years" debacle.
Which ended with you being proven wrong.
So we went onto the leprechaun debacle because muslims obviously don't think the same way as Christians.
And some where in there I got called a hypocrite because people who believe in leprechauns should be just as respected for their belief in leprechauns as I should for God.
Which I threw back at you because you couldn't understand why muslims don't think like Christians.
So now you're a hypocrite, live with it or give a proper answer.
Wow, that Dude. Let me clear a few things up. First, you claimed that Muslims weren't changed in the same way Christians were changed. It never started with my accusations, but yours. Secondly, you asked me if I had ever been around Christians, because you had just made a claim about muslims without ever having been around a muslim and I called you out for it. Since I had been around Christians for 15+ years and had in fact been a Christian for most of those years you had nothing left to say except to cry foul at an offense that, really, shouldn't of been offensive.
I was proven wrong for what? Did you prove that I wasn't a Christian for 15 years or something? Do you even know what your claiming you proved me wrong in?
No, we went to the point of leprechauns to explain exactly why us, as atheists, reject God. It is the same reason you reject leprechauns. This had nothing to do with whether Muslims think like Christians at all.
When you call foul or feel insulted because someone believes in an imaginary being(leprechauns) and then say that your belief in an imaginary being(God) is acceptable you are, in fact, being a hypocrite. It is just the definition of what you are being, just like if I beat up young kids I would be called a bully. It is what it is.
The problem was never with Muslim thinking. Have you already forgotten your own argument? You claimed that Christians were changed instantly, whereas Muslims were not. You never explained why you think that and you never proved that. You'd have to remember your own argument before you threw it back at me.:thud:
You don't really understand the definition of a hypocrite do you? I also have no answers for you. You came in here and made a claim, you have yet to back up this claim. So please, pause, reflect on why you came in here in the first place, and back up your claim.
Actually, I said two things you never replied to.
First was, I have never heard of a muslim changing "instantly"
Second was, I haven't read any where, where muslims describe meeting God before they die.
I was under the assumption that you, so wittingly brought up the same old tired argument about a leprechaun because I didn't understand that muslims and Christians are all the same to you.... My bad.
That would be a fail on your part.
Here's what you said from Posts: 106, Pg 6
Here's my reply.
So actually, for someone who supposedly been a Christian for 15 years, you don't know squat.
Your statement was, "he "claims" I make about Christianity are backed up by the Bible."I was proven wrong for what? Did you prove that I wasn't a Christian for 15 years or something? Do you even know what your claiming you proved me wrong in?
I asked you to show me where, because as far as I can see, they're not. Your claims are those of someone who seems confused as to what the bible says.
I'm beginning to think one of the other posters was right. You do post as if you're a spoiled adolescent.
It was explained. You didn't respond to it.
My claim was that atheist get emotional and aren't controlled simply by what is staring them in the face. That they're influenced through human interaction and not only by evidence or proof. As it's safe to say, you're a human being then the "only" reasonable answer would be to agree with me.
If not then prove to me your actions are governed by evidence and proof alone.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Well, you can caricaturize anything and find reason to ridicule it. That's what you're doing here. Taking a caricature of faith that some misguided people believe and make it sound as if that's the mainstream of Xian theological thought. No better than taking stuff that bin Laden does and make it sound as if it's the mainstream Muslim ideal...
Blackdog22
Well-Known Member
Don't you think that maybe, just maybe the reason that youve never heard of this is because, by your own statement, you have never been around a Muslim long enough to know whether they have or not?
Either way, yes Muslims have claimed to of been changed, instantly, by Allah. Also their are Christians who have not been changed, instantly. What does this have to do with God existing?
The second part is unprovable. I can in no way prove a Muslim meeting God before death than you can prove meeting God before death.
So God remains visible and faith isn't a characteristic of the Bible? Jesus never said, "blessed are those who believe without seeing?" Your right I don't know the Bible I guess, so please show me visible God. If you can't show him to me then guess what that makes him....
Lowering yourself to insults when things don't go your way? That seems to be a characteristic of most of my Christian experiences(Not all). You sure are showing me how Jesus " changed " your life.
You made a claim, Muslims don't change instantly and Christians do. You would have to prove such a claim. The fact is the claim is unprovable since it deals with internal change that can't be proved. The "proof" you provide is useless.
I'm not claiming anything though Thatdude. If you make a claim it is your responsibility to back up that claim, not mine. I can't walk in here and say Santa Exists! Now show me your evidence for my statement! Its not even remotely reasonable.
So again, you made a claim. A bad claim, but you still made it. Now please back it up.
Blackdog22
Well-Known Member
Only with imaginary beings.
Their are thousands of denominations of Christianity. In most of those belief systems their is the ideal that faith is needed and God isn't visible. If God is visible and my statement was wrong then please provide visible God.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Not really, I had everything on the table in front of me and chose nothing instead of a path to something.
One of the main reasons I don't believe in God is the kind of fundamentalists the major religions create. That and how easily a person can be ostracised from a church if the church does not agree with their actions.
No its not. If you didn't, you wouldn't have bothered in this thread.
Could be, but instead of giving any evidence to the contrary, you type stuff like this.
You witness this event?
You mean, Christians like the kind you were?
You don't have to "prove" that they've met God. Just have to show where they've said it.
That doesn't say, that he "doesn't" give you proof of his existence. Which is what you're suggesting.
There are plenty of other passages that say he does give proof.
Glad you can admit it.
Like your friends and family? Or are they (Not All) and just wimps in their beliefs.
Dont you mean leprechaun?
I get the feeling if I kissed your butt like you apparently want me to, you would be stepping all over me and what I stand for. Not like you haven't tried.
No, I made the claim that I haven't heard or read of any muslims saying they have.
You're the one that's saying what muslims do and dont think as if it were concrete.
What you need to do is tell a muslim muhammad is no more special then a leprechaun. See if they show you the love of muhammad.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you back up the claim you made above that muslims do indeed change in an instant?
Being that you appear to be a die hard atheist, I doubt you were speaking from first hand experience. Unless you were a muslim for 15 years as well?
You are "constantly" misquoting me. Why do atheist do that? Is it that they see things in a certain way? And are incapable of seeing what it is a type.
While I did say, you can see a Christian change in an instant, I also said. "God offers proof he exist and you only need to be sincere to get it"
Which wasn't an attempt to argue the validity of God. But to argue the reasons you have for not wanting to believe in God in the first place.
Yup, a claim that HAS NOT CHANGED. Which is, you are INFLUENCED by your emotions to FEEL the way you do about your belief that there is no God.
I wouldn't say it was bad. You are human and you do have emotions and you are influenced by those emotions.
O.K.!!!
Here Goes!!!
Are you human?
Last edited:
Show me where in this statement that says, you were not influenced by other people?
Like I said you were.
This again, is another assumption to what my motives are.
nevaya
Member
I read the bible daily and I have a tendency to study religious history, mostly Christianity. How religions formed is a part of history, as far as what they think today, as fractured as it may be I think Christianity has come a long way. Some Christians,a very select few may even have a chance to get to heaven.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I've just read through this entire thread. God help me, I don't know why I did!
The OP is patently mistaken. Once again, Blackdog has succeeded in posing a strawman for us (that foul was finally called in post #71). I pointed out in post #104 why it's a strawman: It presents a caricature of the belief system by taking textual statements out of context, blowing them out of proportion, and then presenting them as the main tenets of Xian belief.
Then, B.D. goes further in post #33 by comparing belief in God to a belief in leprechauns, which is clearly intended as an insult to the faith-process of those who believe in an "invisible" God.
Then B.D. puts up a smokescreen (something he likes to do in other threads, too) pleading his innocence. As an aside, one should think that if statements made over the spectrum of threads are received in the same manner as provocative and insulting, that one might tumble to the fact that they just might, in fact, be provocative and insulting, and thus change one's tone.
B.D. then says in post #43: "Assuming things is not something I would bother with when making an argument." But he did that very thing in the OP by taking things out of context, making assumptions about them, and posting them as the basis of a truth about Xy, when, clearly, that simply is not the case.
In post #54, B.D. digs a deeper hole for himself by making the claim that his opinions are "backed up by the Bible." Let's be completely honest here, B.D.: Your claims are backed up by cobbling together passages from the Bible taken out of context, and a misappropriation of the theological meaning of the texts: First of all, God is invisible to the eye, but God is visible through God's actions in humanity. (First assumption shot down). Second, "believing hard enough" is not congruent with the understanding of the authors. (Second assumption shot down). Third, "somehow we end up 'their' (misspelled) [hell] without [God's] permission" is also incongruent with the authors' understanding of God. (Three strikes, you're out, Bud!)
In one instance and one instance only is the OP correct: Yes, it is "rather silly" to believe that -- that's why we don't believe it -- even though you insist that we do, and seem to imply that, if we're going to be Christians, we must believe it.
That's why the argument is a strawman. It builds up a false premise and then knocks it down.
Let's move along, shall we? In post #54 again, B.D. claims: "I haven't claimed anything about a religion I know nothing about." One of two things must be the case here: Either 1) he truly doesn't know anything about Xy, based upon his "understanding" put forth in the OP (in which case his claim is false), or 2) he does know, but is purposefully misrepresenting the faith. In the case of the first, he is arguing from a weak base and need not be taken seriously. In the case of the second, he is trolling. Either way, we need pay no attention to his "argument." It is false, it is based upon a misrepresentation of the texts he claims are the basis for his argument, and it is argumentative.
Now that that's settled, let's take a closer look at post #65, ImmortalFlame says: "I see no difference between a strong and profound belief in God and a strong and profound belief in leprechauns. The fact that you find this insulting only indicates to me that you are willing to be selective in what beliefs you consider genuine and what beliefs you consider ridiculous, while refusing to acknowledge that belief in God and belief in leprechauns are largely indistinguishable."
On the surface, it's possible for one thing to look like another. It's shameful to blithely "put two and two together" without fully investigating the two things being compared. It's like the distasteful epithet often said derisively and dismissively to people who are of a different ethnic background than one's own: "You know y'all look alike to us!"
The leprechaun comparison was an attempt to dismiss deeply-held and sincere religious belief. It's clear to any person with a brain stem that a belief in leprechauns is wholly different from a belief in God. Belief in leprechauns is based almost wholly in legend. Most people understand leprechauns as some metaphor for humanity. Belief in God comes to us from mythic thought, but is treated much differently. God is much more than metaphor. God is a way of understanding life, the universe, humanity, our place in the world, and those parts of us -- and our experiences of them -- that remain largely "below the surface" of our cognition. Leprechauns "exist" wholly outside of human experience and may be apprehended by humans only from outside observance of them. God exists within humanity and through humanity, and is apprehended mostly from within our experience. Our apprehension of God is subjective. Habeas corpus is necessary when dealing with leprechauns. Habeas corpus has already been achieved when dealing with God in the person of Jesus. Further, habeas corpus is satisfied by seeing each other.
Belief in leprechauns is not "strong and profound" in the same way that belief in God is "strong and profound." It's misleading to make the claim otherwise.
In post #77, B.D. asks: "So how was what I said wrong again?" Then he answers his own question: "God remains invisible to us, because he requires faith, and then when you actually see God it is considered too late ,and now that you can make an informed decision about his existence, you are sent to hell."
I don't know what he's on about, but he indulges the same issue in the "Thomas" thread. B.D. demands habeas corpus, but refuses to to see it when it's right in front of him. Consequently, his entire concept of grace is wholly skewed. Perhaps he's not as versed in Xy as he claims in post #54?
In post # 89 we are provided with a delightful example of his taking things out of context to "prove" his point: "The Bible clearly says all have sinned and fall short of Gods glory, so where exactly is this claim that some sin is okay, while others aren't, coming from?" What he fails to note is that the Bible also clearly states that "If any one sin, we have an Advocate with the Father -- Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the perfect offering for our sin -- and not for ours only, but for the sin of the whole world. (I John 2:1-2)
Then he states: "I also still don't understand why Moses didn't go straight to hell for having proof of God, while someone like me would." I'd like to know what proof Moses had that B.D. doesn't have? Tablets of stone? Please!
When I attempted to clear up the leprechaun comparison by stating in post #104 that "Well, you can caricaturize anything and find reason to ridicule it," his answer in #106 was, "Only with imaginary beings." Hmmm... clearly he knows nothing about the patent villification of political candidates, who clearly are not "imaginary beings."
B.D.: Your OP stinks. Come up with something new.
The OP is patently mistaken. Once again, Blackdog has succeeded in posing a strawman for us (that foul was finally called in post #71). I pointed out in post #104 why it's a strawman: It presents a caricature of the belief system by taking textual statements out of context, blowing them out of proportion, and then presenting them as the main tenets of Xian belief.
Then, B.D. goes further in post #33 by comparing belief in God to a belief in leprechauns, which is clearly intended as an insult to the faith-process of those who believe in an "invisible" God.
Then B.D. puts up a smokescreen (something he likes to do in other threads, too) pleading his innocence. As an aside, one should think that if statements made over the spectrum of threads are received in the same manner as provocative and insulting, that one might tumble to the fact that they just might, in fact, be provocative and insulting, and thus change one's tone.
B.D. then says in post #43: "Assuming things is not something I would bother with when making an argument." But he did that very thing in the OP by taking things out of context, making assumptions about them, and posting them as the basis of a truth about Xy, when, clearly, that simply is not the case.
In post #54, B.D. digs a deeper hole for himself by making the claim that his opinions are "backed up by the Bible." Let's be completely honest here, B.D.: Your claims are backed up by cobbling together passages from the Bible taken out of context, and a misappropriation of the theological meaning of the texts: First of all, God is invisible to the eye, but God is visible through God's actions in humanity. (First assumption shot down). Second, "believing hard enough" is not congruent with the understanding of the authors. (Second assumption shot down). Third, "somehow we end up 'their' (misspelled) [hell] without [God's] permission" is also incongruent with the authors' understanding of God. (Three strikes, you're out, Bud!)
In one instance and one instance only is the OP correct: Yes, it is "rather silly" to believe that -- that's why we don't believe it -- even though you insist that we do, and seem to imply that, if we're going to be Christians, we must believe it.
That's why the argument is a strawman. It builds up a false premise and then knocks it down.
Let's move along, shall we? In post #54 again, B.D. claims: "I haven't claimed anything about a religion I know nothing about." One of two things must be the case here: Either 1) he truly doesn't know anything about Xy, based upon his "understanding" put forth in the OP (in which case his claim is false), or 2) he does know, but is purposefully misrepresenting the faith. In the case of the first, he is arguing from a weak base and need not be taken seriously. In the case of the second, he is trolling. Either way, we need pay no attention to his "argument." It is false, it is based upon a misrepresentation of the texts he claims are the basis for his argument, and it is argumentative.
Now that that's settled, let's take a closer look at post #65, ImmortalFlame says: "I see no difference between a strong and profound belief in God and a strong and profound belief in leprechauns. The fact that you find this insulting only indicates to me that you are willing to be selective in what beliefs you consider genuine and what beliefs you consider ridiculous, while refusing to acknowledge that belief in God and belief in leprechauns are largely indistinguishable."
On the surface, it's possible for one thing to look like another. It's shameful to blithely "put two and two together" without fully investigating the two things being compared. It's like the distasteful epithet often said derisively and dismissively to people who are of a different ethnic background than one's own: "You know y'all look alike to us!"
The leprechaun comparison was an attempt to dismiss deeply-held and sincere religious belief. It's clear to any person with a brain stem that a belief in leprechauns is wholly different from a belief in God. Belief in leprechauns is based almost wholly in legend. Most people understand leprechauns as some metaphor for humanity. Belief in God comes to us from mythic thought, but is treated much differently. God is much more than metaphor. God is a way of understanding life, the universe, humanity, our place in the world, and those parts of us -- and our experiences of them -- that remain largely "below the surface" of our cognition. Leprechauns "exist" wholly outside of human experience and may be apprehended by humans only from outside observance of them. God exists within humanity and through humanity, and is apprehended mostly from within our experience. Our apprehension of God is subjective. Habeas corpus is necessary when dealing with leprechauns. Habeas corpus has already been achieved when dealing with God in the person of Jesus. Further, habeas corpus is satisfied by seeing each other.
Belief in leprechauns is not "strong and profound" in the same way that belief in God is "strong and profound." It's misleading to make the claim otherwise.
In post #77, B.D. asks: "So how was what I said wrong again?" Then he answers his own question: "God remains invisible to us, because he requires faith, and then when you actually see God it is considered too late ,and now that you can make an informed decision about his existence, you are sent to hell."
I don't know what he's on about, but he indulges the same issue in the "Thomas" thread. B.D. demands habeas corpus, but refuses to to see it when it's right in front of him. Consequently, his entire concept of grace is wholly skewed. Perhaps he's not as versed in Xy as he claims in post #54?
In post # 89 we are provided with a delightful example of his taking things out of context to "prove" his point: "The Bible clearly says all have sinned and fall short of Gods glory, so where exactly is this claim that some sin is okay, while others aren't, coming from?" What he fails to note is that the Bible also clearly states that "If any one sin, we have an Advocate with the Father -- Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the perfect offering for our sin -- and not for ours only, but for the sin of the whole world. (I John 2:1-2)
Then he states: "I also still don't understand why Moses didn't go straight to hell for having proof of God, while someone like me would." I'd like to know what proof Moses had that B.D. doesn't have? Tablets of stone? Please!
When I attempted to clear up the leprechaun comparison by stating in post #104 that "Well, you can caricaturize anything and find reason to ridicule it," his answer in #106 was, "Only with imaginary beings." Hmmm... clearly he knows nothing about the patent villification of political candidates, who clearly are not "imaginary beings."
B.D.: Your OP stinks. Come up with something new.
waitasec
Veteran Member
i don't see how the leprechaun tactic was an insult...
do you believe in zeus, thor or isis? if you were to equate them with the existence of leprechauns, would you see it as an insult or what you actually think of them- none existent ?
in other words, how can you insult something that doesn't exist?
do you believe in zeus, thor or isis? if you were to equate them with the existence of leprechauns, would you see it as an insult or what you actually think of them- none existent ?
in other words, how can you insult something that doesn't exist?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Which is why I repeatedly ask for believers to explain to me just what the difference is. Why should I take one belief seriously and the other less so? Why is one belief ridiculous and the other perfectly reasonable?
Like it or not, unless you can give any sufficient reason other than "belief" in terms of justification for you position, then your position is no different to that of any hypothetical belief in leprechauns. And unjustified belief based purely on faith and subjective personal experience is precisely equal to any other belief based purely on faith and subjective personal experience. There's no difference whatsoever, and if you think there is then please explain it.
You've presented nothing more than a circular argument here. "It's different because we believe it very seriously". That's not the point.
The truth value of a belief in leprechauns is entirely the same as the truth value for a belief in a God. It's completely irrelevant whether or not you believe God exists "within" you - the point is that there is no more a reason to believe any kind of God exists than there is to believe leprechauns exist, unless you can present some kind of evidence otherwise. Your logic also makes the assmption that Jesus was God.
Unless you can demonstrate that there is any truth value to the claim "God exists" beyond subjective, personal experience and blind faith, the claim is precisely equal in it's truth value to the claim "leprechauns exist".
Why not? For all you know there could be entire underground movements of leprechaun believers who take their beliefs far more seriously than you take yours. What reason do you have to dismiss their beliefs?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
It's an insult because the type of "belief" that people have in leprechauns is wholly different from the type of "belief" that people ascribe to God. For Pete's sake, didn't you read the post???
waitasec
Veteran Member
but who is being insulted, you or your god?
this has nothing to do with you or your faith it has to do with the existence of said god...
this makes just as much sense as muslims getting irate over cartoon images of mohammed or the burning of the koran
Interesting thread.
Authentic Christians do not think, they intuit. They discern their knowledge and guidance intuitively and directly from Spirit of Truth from within their own individual hearts or spirits. Then they do not alter these by intellectualizing or thinking. They simply obey these unconditionally.
The very great majority of those who are called Christian today are not authentic, they will not be chosen. Indeed many are called to Christianity but few are chosen, i.e. few make it. The very great majority err because they do not know or get Truth. That is, only a few know that Jesus is the way only through His Spirit which God sent into our hearts. That is, only a few take up the offer of Jesus' Spirit which God sent into their heart so that they might become adopted children of God. Our Lord in this Spirit, yet the very great majority in traditional Christianity are under the letter and the law. They stumble at this stumbling block and err and are not chosen.
Authentic Christians do not think, they intuit. They discern their knowledge and guidance intuitively and directly from Spirit of Truth from within their own individual hearts or spirits. Then they do not alter these by intellectualizing or thinking. They simply obey these unconditionally.
The very great majority of those who are called Christian today are not authentic, they will not be chosen. Indeed many are called to Christianity but few are chosen, i.e. few make it. The very great majority err because they do not know or get Truth. That is, only a few know that Jesus is the way only through His Spirit which God sent into our hearts. That is, only a few take up the offer of Jesus' Spirit which God sent into their heart so that they might become adopted children of God. Our Lord in this Spirit, yet the very great majority in traditional Christianity are under the letter and the law. They stumble at this stumbling block and err and are not chosen.
Last edited:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Grief, people! Read the post! One belief is completely based in something that is unseen and unexperienced. The other is a method of understanding ourselves -- where our identity lies. One is objective, and is based on nothing empirical. The other is subjective and based upon experience and how we make sense of that experience. They are not the same thing!
Second verse: Same as the first. Experiential and subjective is not at all the same thing as objective and having a lack of evidence.
If you're going to debate, at least do so seriously, instead of twisting context. I didn't say "it's different because we believe it very seriously," and you know it.
The fact value may be the same, but the truth value is not at all the same. That's where you're completely misunderstanding what constitutes faith in God, and that's why you're dismissing it as wholesale bunk and ticking everybody off. A belief in leprechauns is dismissed as not based in evidence. But a belief in God cannot be so dismissed, because evidence isn't the basis for belief. That's no better than B.D. making the (unsubstantiable) claim that Thomas was "special" because he got empirical evidence of Christ.
The "truth" of leprechauns is unfounded because that truth must have evidence -- habeas corpus, as I said. Show us a body. the truth of God is founded within the collective experience of humanity. There is a depth to human experience that we cannot explain, other than to say, "It's bigger than our capacity to grasp." The meaning of our being is greater than we can comprehend. The concept of that greatness is framed in a theological construct, whose truth is not derived from "seeing a body."
Third verse: See above. Why do we need to "go beyond" collective human experience? Can not an apprehension of "that which is greater than we" suffice? I suppose you'll tell me next that subatomic articles don't exist, because we can't see them, and most people don't understand how they work.
If that's their belief, then that's how they construct God. "A rose by any other name..." However, differing constructs for the Divine is a wholesale different matter from believing that little green men exist that have nothing to do with a construct of God.
You need a better argument here.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The human sense of intuition is insulted, because it's being relegated to the strata of heresay, rather than the strata of perceived experience.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Nope. It's a lot more communally-involved than that. And the intuition is intellectualized (Psssst: That's called "theology.")
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Except belief in God is a specific belief in a specific being - whatever you choose to associate with such a belief is irrelevant to whether or not there actually is a God. You don't seem to understand that the analogy is not comparing religious belief in general to belief in leprechauns, but belief in God. You can try to convolute the argument all you want. If you believe in the existence of a being or entity known as God, it is the same as a belief in a being or entity known as a leprechaun - unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
Explain what you mean by "experimental".
Also, I'm fully aware that subjective and objective aren't the same thing.
It's what your argument basically amounted to.
So, it's okay to dismiss belief in leprechauns because it's not based on evidence, but it's not okay to dismiss belief in God even though it's not based on evidence? You just gave an excellent example of the kind of ideological hypocrisy that I was speaking of earlier.
Lephrechauns are mythical, supernatural beings, so you can no more demonstrate the existence of leprechauns than you can demonstrate or justify your belief in God. And yet you are willing to assert that belief in leprechauns requires evidence, and yet belief in God does not. You are applying a standard of evidence for one claim that you are not applying to another, identical claim that you so happen to already believe is true. You are a hypocrite.
This is a strawman. I never said we had to directly observe it - just provide evidence of something before believing it. We can demonstrate that subatomic particles exist. What can you do to demonstrate that God exists?
Yes they do. They're both supernatural beings with no real world evidence of their existence. The only difference between them is that one is commonly believed to exist in spite of a lack of evidence, and the other isn't commonly believed to exist because of a lack of evidence.
You need better refutations.