>>21886304>That's your axiom in your religious beliefsYou are totally an atheist, this was the biggest hint that you're implying your presuppositional beliefs are reactionary. Religion is not in particular what Christianity is espousing, the gospel is anti-thetical to an atheists description of religion, because the Hebrew faith that is displayed in the bible is actually antithetical to what religion is by definition.
Religion is not the worldview that there is a God necessarily, Buddhism doesn't have a God, yet its a considered a religion because it doesn't hinge off of mere philosophy. this ignorance to even be taken as a non deliberate attempt to masquerade as impartial or non belligerent is simply asinine. Agnosticism can't even have an opinion of the matter because its introduction is literally a rejection of even presupposing anything of the sort exists using metaphysical faculties that require a long string of presuppositions to "work".
Rationalism is a meme, Athiest is epistemologically unsound, and therefore a claim of ignorance on the matter is irrelevant of the fact that the question of God regardless does have an objective answer, and while you cannot ascertain this with limited time/resources given the spans of this question imply that its existence is baked into every facet of existence itself. This is not an excuse to hinge off of ignorance and then pretend to engage in discussion on the matter as if you actually are open to it, whilst repeating the same mantra's ad nauseum.
This is why i didn't reply to you before, and this is the only reply for me you will get. You are not impartial, and this in of itself is not an arguement to dismiss the conversation or the mere existence of God in of itself.
As i said before, Atheism requires that you presuppose God doesn't exist before you even debate, because one has to assume evidence of him even exists before you can consider it.
You are not a machine, the truth is not going to force itself on you.
