I have only one question:
Q. - Do the Jehovah's Witnesses identify themselves as Christians?
If the answer to that question is yes (and it appears that they do), then as far as I'm concerned ... they're Christians. If not, then I'm satisfied that they're not Christians.
Easy peasy.
...
Which explains why no Christian has ever killed another human being in an armed conflict, right?
I dunno. It could also be that Christianity dates from a time when women were the property of men and didn't have any say whatsoever about what the tribe did with their bodies.
See...
And yet there is so much evidence that supports their existence. Is it because there aren't enough transitional forms to suit you?
That must explain (at least in part) why capitalists who openly proclaimed that they didn't believe communism was a workable system have spent almost zero time...
I'm not entirely sure, but I'm guessing that it has something to do with how ornate the restroom fixtures are.
A Cult.
An Organized Religion.
"For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." ~ Matthew 18:20
So this hypothetical Invisible Four-Armed Man is in fact at least partially substantiated by evidence, then? Or at least we can say that it isn't entirely out of the question that he might possibly have four arms ... because the evidence leads us in the general direction of that conclusion...
That isn't what the people who've watched me talk in my sleep have to say. Are they mere figments of my imagination?
Isn't it possible that the "world" of my dreams exists within my brain ... which exists within the world which is around my sleeping body?
Because my existence is...
Q. - Do we have any evidence whatsoever of invisible people?
Q. - Do we have any evidence whatsoever of people with more than two arms?
If the answer to either of the above questions is within screaming distance of "NO," it seems to me that we're already halfway to demonstrating that (at...
Perhaps it depends upon what we're trying to know and to what extent we're satisfied with incomplete knowledge? Perhaps some truths are knowable?
Are you convinced that that's true? You certainly sound convinced.
Really? Because it seems to me that the arguments that lend the most weight to atheism are the ones made by theists.
Meanwhile, doesn't it seem that what one wants or needs tends to have absolutely zero impact on the truth?
Isn't that a bit like saying "Let's not equate food with meals?"...
What a presumptuous statement! How do you know what billions and billions of other people find fulfilling?
That's a mighty bizarre and capricious assumption on your part, don't you think?
One might also describe the scenario you're painting as "flim-flammery." Or "outright falsehood?"...
Correct. We don't know that. Additionally, we don't know that Keira Knightley writes my name in her diary and draws little smiley hearts next to it.
No. I'm sorry. Your point was already captured perfectly. We don't know that the world has ended may times. Thanks for pointing that out.
Atheism is certainly a declarative position regarding a single proposition (read: "At least one divine being exists"). That declarative position probably runs something like "I'm not convinced."
That's it. It's no more complicated than refusing to buy whatever garbage the snake oil salesman...