Creationism, Intelligent Design & Evolutionism
-
Originally posted by Hardcore Atheist:
///But wait, as an admitted hardcore atheist, do you sincerely and honestly believe that there can be evidence for the existence of God? If so, what form or kinds of evidence is deem reasonable and acceptable?
After you have thought through it, if you still want the evidences, see www.creation.com
Then you must laugh at your fellow atheists who define atheism as "lack of belief" to avoid the burden of proof. If you say you cannot prove the non-existence of God, then atheists should not make bold claims that God does not exist. Just say that you BELIEVE there is no God. Atheists have faith too, but of course they would deny it with all their might.
Theists are not saying God exists because atheists failed to prove their atheism (though that's true also), but have offered many lines of evidences to show that the most reasonable conclusion is that God exists. I'm sure you must have read some of these.
If an eyewitness has been shown to be reliable, can you say we cannot admit his testimony as evidence? Good news for you, the Bible has been shown to be reliable in many aspects.
Lastly, atheism IS a religion. http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion This has even gone up to the courts in the States and the court has ruled that it is a religion. As a worldview atheism is not just about what is being denied, but also what is being believed in terms of other areas as well.
Your various analogies FAIL for obvious reasons which maybe you failed to see. Not collecting stamps is not the same as saying stamps do not exist or that hobbies do not exist. Your hobby could be different. The atheist may not believe that God exists, but the atheist believes that nature is all there is, which is a metaphyiscal claim about reality. Carl Sagan had a religious saying that goes like "The cosmos is all there is, and all that ever was" Does the atheist have proof that matter is all there is? Saying no scientific evidence means no God is just like saying what your net don't catch ain't fish. ///
The Bible is real because the Bible said so, therefore the Bible is real <-- circular reasoning.
Again, you provide no empirical proof, whether it be archaeological or not. Simply by using a Bible, you are not convincing me. I can easily use the Torah, the Quran, or any Buddhist mantras, not to mention a book that says it real because it said so. This is your logic, which is a flaw. We already have dinosaur fossils, and lots of geological and archaeological of the Earth being far much older than just 6000 years. There are also stars that we see from the naked eyes that requires lightyears for the light to reflect back, thus seeing it. The lightyears are a lot lot longer than just 6000 years. We have -
Potassium-Argon Dating
Argon-Argon Dating
Rubidum-Strontium Dating
Samarium-Neodymium Dating
Lutetium-Hafnium Dating
Rhenium-Osmium Dating
Carbon-14 Dating
Dendrochronology
Ice Cores
Varves (Fresh Sediment layers)
Coral Layers
Thermo-luminescenceAnd you believe all these to be false? No offence, but so far you have not found any evidence to disprove these datings, except quoting from a 'holy book'.
Also, do you actually realise you get your sources from biased pages? Creation.com? Really? You are using a website that supports a being that has not been existing yet.
I have also never said that God does not exist, I merely do not believe in God. Sure, I can't 100% bet that a creator does not exist, but by definition, which god? Allah? Zeus? Thor? Yahweh? Quetzacoatl? Izanagi?
I am an agnostic atheist, and I consider myself hardcore since I do not consider the existence of a god (much less the one you worship), plausible.
You said that just because something has no proof to back it up does not mean it does not exist, which is 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' in short. However, this goes two ways - just because something has not been disproved yet does not mean that it is any more credible. Don't be biased. Atheists and theists have so far not been able to provide actual, foolproof that a god exists or don't exist. I am not going to use Pascal's Wager to actually believe in a god just because no evidence has been found for either side. Pascal's Wager is a fallacy - it only applies if there is one religion in the world.
You have also not shown how a book can be reliable. An eyewitness can give false claims. Seriously, do you need me to point out the logical contradictions or the moralistic ones in the Bible?
Last but not least, many of the points you pointed out that atheism was a religion was in fact, incorrect. Atheism has nothing to do with science - even an unscientific person can be an atheist. Also, Confucianism and Taoism is a philosophy, not a religion.
The first part of the page said about narratives. Evolution is not an explanation of how everything came from - by saying that this goes to show how ignorant the person who made the page is. The Theory of Evolution is not a gospel to atheists, its only something we refer to. We don't see it as a holy book where we follow ten commandments.
The second part deals with experiential points. Again, invalid. Meaning is life is subjective - nuff said.
The third part talks about social - again, another fallacy. There is no power structure, no hierachy. Evolution is not a belief - it's already a fact. Also, communism has NOTHING to do with atheism. This site already reeks of bias. Really? Atheists persecute theists? More like the other way round. I suppose you know that Islam punishes apotasy, or that ignorant Christians say inane things like, "You are going to hell?" Do you have proof of hell? Religion is being prosecuted. Right now, Christianity is the largest religion, and that it is being persecuted? Ridiculous. The site claims that evolution is a lie - proof?
The fourth part is self-explanatory. They do not believe and adhere - secular humanism is different from atheism, although it can be considered a branch out. The site also tries to pin blames of communism on religion - which is ironic. Hitler was a Catholic, and here are his exact words,
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the
Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight
against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with
deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact
that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As
a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have
the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is
anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is
the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty
to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and
work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only
for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning
and see these men standing in their queues and look into their
pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very
devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two
thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people
are plundered and exposed.”The fourth part, which talks about ethical signs of atheism being a religion, is again another fallacy. The site states that an atheist squirmed to justify why he agreed that rape is objectively wrong under his philosophy.
Atheism has nothing to do with morals - it comes from oneself. Rape is wrong. Why? Because it goes against the will of the victim. Nuff said.
The firth part is ridiculous also. Firstly, atheists celebrate birthdays, and also Christmas. I say that from personal experience, as well as knowing atheists friends from all over the world celebrate it. They celebrate it because it is a CULTURAL act, and they do not divine meaning from Christmas. To atheists, special occasions are seasons of joy.
Last point is also pure ridiculous. Atheists obviously know that resources have to be conserved, not because of survival of the fittest. By conserving and trying to save the Earth, it is known as adaptibilty or love (or both). The first point shows that this is the true form of survival of the fittest, humans adapted, therefore they could survived. The second point is that, Earth is our planet. Without it, we will die. The second part shown by the site is also riduculous. Nature isn't sacred according to atheists - this is pantheism.
The site you have given me reeks of propaganda, and it gives false information. Nuff said.
I never said the Bible is real because it said it is real. This alleged circular argument seems to be your strawman argument.
Evidences to support the Bible is found in creation.com and many other websites. Note again that I did not merely use the Bible as proof, though I can also argue that what it says is reliable because it has been well supported by other evidences. Again it is like saying I can trust somebody because he has been proven to be a reliable person.
We have fossils and rocks which are INTERPRETED to be more than 6000 years old through the worldview of naturalism that undergirds evolutionary belief. Has the age of the earth been proven to be 4.5 billion years old? You should be aware that the age of the earth was once "proven" to be much lesser than that by science at the beginning of the 20th century. As for starlight, evolutionists have their own starlight-horizon problem in their backyard. Not to mention that they believe that in the early earth inflation was faster than light. BTW, are you aware that creationists have come up with various models to explain starlight in a young earth?
I did not say dating methods are false, I say that they are as flawed as the assumptions built into them.
And if you did not say that God does not exist, then you should not call yourself an atheist, but an agnostic. You may be interested to know that the Bible teaches that even the demons believe THAT God exists, even when they do not believe IN God.
BTW, I have never used Pascal's Wager to prove or argue God's existence, it is more a decision matrix. You have to understand Pascal's Wager in his own context. Using Ockham's Razor there is no need to talk about gods when all you need is really to talk about one God, as far as the atheist is concerned.
You can point out the alleged contradictions or moral problems in the Bible, I assure you that they can be refuted or rebutted, if not by me, then others more capable.
The article that says atheism is a religion is by someone who studies religion. Atheism fits the bill and thus is rightly called a religion. Even the US court has ruled it such. Again atheism is not just about saying there is no God but also involves a lot of metaphysical beliefs about reality.
I know atheism is not science, it is a belief. But somehow atheists have managed to sell the idea to fool the public that somehow science or reason will make one an atheist. Like it or not, Dawkins himself admitted that evolution made it possible to be in intellectually-fulfilled atheist. Like it or not, atheism and evolutionism goes hand in hand.
Is meaning in life subjective? How about saying that it is an objective truth that there is meaning in life, or that life has meaning? You may attached a DIFFERENT meaning to life, but that is not to say that you deny life has any meaning.
I could go on and refute you on each point, but I think for now, nuff said.
-
"Wrong again. Failure to read. I never implied that it was unreasonable to ask for proof. You were the one doing the implying, not me. I asked if he even knew what proofs are required, and whether the proofs demanded were reasonable. I am not saying that it is unreasonable to ask for proofs, but whether the proofs demanded were reasonable. "
You replied "Chances are, you do not even know the kind of proofs there are and whether the proofs demanded are reasonable." when Jack asked for proof. Implying that Jacky's demand for proof is unreasonable or the proof he's demanding is unreasonable. Either way, it was simply implied that Jack was unreasonable to ask for proof. or the proof he's asking for something unreasonable. Which I intervened, stating there's no reason for the one claiming to provide proof.
"You still don't get it? I later then used the "lack of belief" tactic to basically say that if the atheist can get away with giving proofs, so can I."
Tu quoque as proven. Evidently, still no proof was provided.
"And I believe the apology is still pending."
Hypocrites need to queue as well. Basic etiquette. Remember this? "Huh? This is so out of context. Why bring in a post from another thread to make a fuss here? Don't be so defensive lah."
"As to lack of evidences, exactly what evidences do atheists have that point to or conclude the existence of God? They point to nothing and say that there is no evidence for God? Where are they looking and what are they looking at and with what are they looking at?"
I 'm not sure where they'd look but I'm sure they are looking for
ev·i·dence/ˈevÉ™dÉ™ns/
Noun: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. but yet to find one that can convince themselves. -
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Wrong again. Failure to read. I never implied that it was unreasonable to ask for proof. You were the one doing the implying, not me. I asked if he even knew what proofs are required, and whether the proofs demanded were reasonable. I am not saying that it is unreasonable to ask for proofs, but whether the proofs demanded were reasonable. "
You replied "Chances are, you do not even know the kind of proofs there are and whether the proofs demanded are reasonable." when Jack asked for proof. Implying that Jacky's demand for proof is unreasonable or the proof he's demanding is unreasonable. Either way, it was simply implied that Jack was unreasonable to ask for proof. or the proof he's asking for something unreasonable. Which I intervened, stating there's no reason for the one claiming to provide proof.
"You still don't get it? I later then used the "lack of belief" tactic to basically say that if the atheist can get away with giving proofs, so can I."
Tu quoque as proven. Evidently, still no proof was provided.
"And I believe the apology is still pending."
Hypocrites need to queue as well. Basic etiquette. Remember this? "Huh? This is so out of context. Why bring in a post from another thread to make a fuss here? Don't be so defensive lah."
"As to lack of evidences, exactly what evidences do atheists have that point to or conclude the existence of God? They point to nothing and say that there is no evidence for God? Where are they looking and what are they looking at and with what are they looking at?"
I 'm not sure where they'd look but I'm sure they are looking for
ev·i·dence/ˈevÉ™dÉ™ns/
Noun: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.but yet to find one that can convince themselves.You said "Either way, it was simply implied that Jack was unreasonable to ask for proof. " In other words, you are simply qiang ci duo li
I already clarified what I meant, since when is it that the reader can determine what the author meant when the author has already clarified the intention? Duh! Last time saying, unless you wanna play daft, is that I am saying two things (ad nauseum)
1. Jacky does not really know the nature of proofs and the kind of proofs to be talking about with regards to existence of God
2. If atheists can use "lack of belief" to avoid burden of proof, so can I.
It is already proven that you don't even know how to spot a you-too fallacy, since you don't even understand it at all. And worst is that you don't even know what the atheist's lack of evidence refers to but yet you can defend them? Face/palm.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You said "Either way, it was simply implied that Jack was unreasonable to ask for proof. " In other words, you are simply qiang ci duo li
I already clarified what I meant, since when is it that the reader can determine what the author meant when the author has already clarified the intention? Duh! Last time saying, unless you wanna play daft, is that I am saying two things (ad nauseum)
1. Jacky does not really know the nature of proofs and the kind of proofs to be talking about with regards to existence of God
2. If atheists can use "lack of belief" to avoid burden of proof, so can I.
It is already proven that you don't even know how to spot a you-too fallacy, since you don't even understand it at all. And worst is that you don't even know what the atheist's lack of evidence refers to but yet you can defend them? Face/palm.
"You said "Either way, it was simply implied that Jack was unreasonable to ask for proof. " In other words, you are simply qiang ci duo li"
Read on... you are quoting out of context. The full context "Either way, it was simply implied that Jack was unreasonable to ask for proof. or the proof he's asking for something unreasonable." See... the unreasonable part now?
"1. Jacky does not really know the nature of proofs and the kind of proofs to be talking about with regards to existence of God"
Your assumption, your bias, your prejudice. Me blow whistle at fallacies detected.
"2. If atheists can use "lack of belief" to avoid burden of proof, so can I."
Fits tu quoque like a T. No doubt.
- Tu quoque (
/tu�ˈkwoʊkwi� - Tu quoque (
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"You said "Either way, it was simply implied that Jack was unreasonable to ask for proof. " In other words, you are simply qiang ci duo li"
Read on... you are quoting out of context. The full context "Either way, it was simply implied that Jack was unreasonable to ask for proof. or the proof he's asking for something unreasonable." See... the unreasonable part now?
"1. Jacky does not really know the nature of proofs and the kind of proofs to be talking about with regards to existence of God"
Your assumption, your bias, your prejudice. Me blow whistle at fallacies detected.
"2. If atheists can use "lack of belief" to avoid burden of proof, so can I."
Fits tu quoque like a T. No doubt.
The only thing I see as unreasonable is YOU.
And you don't know your fallacies. To accuse Jacky of ignorance about the nature of proofs and evidence is not even an argument, so what fallacy you talking about? Yuo are blowing hot air more than anything.
Again your failure to know what is you-too fallacy is perpetuated.
-
"The only thing I see as unreasonable is YOU."
I'm actually happy for you that I'm the only unreasonable thing you see...
"And you don't know your fallacies."
Tu quoque or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented.
Your opponent: Jacky.
Your opponent's position: Claim maker has the burden of proof.
Your assertion: Jacky failed to act in accordance to his position of burden of proof.
Implication: Jacky's failure to comply burden of proof, due to lack of belief, means anyone can refuse compliance to burden of proof, due to lack of belief. Thus dismissing burden of prove altogether."To accuse Jacky of ignorance about the nature of proofs and evidence is not even an argument..."
I know right? Told you it was your assumption, your bias, your prejudice.
"...., so what fallacy you talking about?"
Tu quoque or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented.
Your opponent: Jacky.
Your opponent's position: Claim maker has the burden of proof.
Your assertion: Jacky failed to act in accordance to his position of burden of proof.
Implication: Jacky's failure to comply burden of proof, due to lack of belief, means anyone can refuse compliance to burden of proof, due to lack of belief. Thus dismissing burden of prove altogether."Yuo are blowing hot air more than anything."
Oh... name calling. Cute.
"Again your failure to know what is you-too fallacy is perpetuated."
Ad naseum, petitio principii , false attribution, fallacy of contribution, ignoratio elenchi, appeal to spite, wishful thinking.
Wow the length of fallacies committed in your above sentence is longer than your above sentence... Great argument skills! -
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"The only thing I see as unreasonable is YOU."
I'm actually happy for you that I'm the only unreasonable thing you see...
"And you don't know your fallacies."
Tu quoque or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented.
Your opponent: Jacky.
Your opponent's position: Claim maker has the burden of proof.
Your assertion: Jacky failed to act in accordance to his position of burden of proof.
Implication: Jacky's failure to comply burden of proof, due to lack of belief, means anyone can refuse compliance to burden of proof, due to lack of belief. Thus dismissing burden of prove altogether."To accuse Jacky of ignorance about the nature of proofs and evidence is not even an argument..."
I know right? Told you it was your assumption, your bias, your prejudice.
"...., so what fallacy you talking about?"
fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented.
Your opponent: Jacky.
Your opponent's position: Claim maker has the burden of proof.
Your assertion: Jacky failed to act in accordance to his position of burden of proof.
Implication: Jacky's failure to comply burden of proof, due to lack of belief, means anyone can refuse compliance to burden of proof, due to lack of belief. Thus dismissing burden of prove altogether."Yuo are blowing hot air more than anything."
Oh... name calling. Cute.
"Again your failure to know what is you-too fallacy is perpetuated."
Ad naseum, petitio principii , false attribution, fallacy of contribution, ignoratio elenchi, appeal to spite, wishful thinking.
Wow the length of fallacies committed in your above sentence is longer than your above sentence... Great argument skills!Utter failure of understanding the fallacy still.
I was NOT accusing Jacky of being inconsistent. In fact, I was ADOPTING his tactic of being CONSISTENT with not having to provide proof simply because of "lack of belief". You still could not catch that even after all the clarification given. You are just stucked with the definitions and could not see the applications. Remember the part about answering the fool and not answering the fool? There you go.
BTW, able to list the different types of fallacies does not prove you actually know anything about them. Proven by the fact that I have called on your fallacies so many times and exposed the sheer utter lack of knowledge of the Bible and Christianity. Sure, you can quote Bible verses, so can the devil.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Utter failure of understanding the fallacy still.
I was NOT accusing Jacky of being inconsistent. In fact, I was ADOPTING his tactic of being CONSISTENT with not having to provide proof simply because of "lack of belief". You still could not catch that even after all the clarification given. You are just stucked with the definitions and could not see the applications. Remember the part about answering the fool and not answering the fool? There you go.
BTW, able to list the different types of fallacies does not prove you actually know anything about them. Proven by the fact that I have called on your fallacies so many times and exposed the sheer utter lack of knowledge of the Bible and Christianity. Sure, you can quote Bible verses, so can the devil.
"Utter failure of understanding the fallacy still."
3monkeys.jpg
"I was NOT accusing Jacky of being inconsistent. In fact, I was ADOPTING his tactic of being CONSISTENT with not having to provide proof simply because of "lack of belief". You still could not catch that even after all the clarification given. You are just stucked with the definitions and could not see the applications. "
Enough of these improper transposition... Nothing with to do with accusing. Is Jacky being consistent in accordance with burden of proof to you? Let your yes be yes, no be no. simple yes nor question.
"Remember the part about answering the fool and not answering the fool? There you go."
English please?
"BTW, able to list the different types of fallacies does not prove you actually know anything about them. Proven by the fact that I have called on your fallacies so many times and exposed the sheer utter lack of knowledge of the Bible and Christianity. Sure, you can quote Bible verses, so can the devil."
Yeah... poisoning the well....
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert EinsteinCome at me when you can present the alledged proven facts logically.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Utter failure of understanding the fallacy still."
3monkeys.jpg
"I was NOT accusing Jacky of being inconsistent. In fact, I was ADOPTING his tactic of being CONSISTENT with not having to provide proof simply because of "lack of belief". You still could not catch that even after all the clarification given. You are just stucked with the definitions and could not see the applications. "
Enough of these improper transposition... Nothing with to do with accusing. Is Jacky being consistent in accordance with burden of proof to you? Let your yes be yes, no be no. simple yes nor question.
"Remember the part about answering the fool and not answering the fool? There you go."
English please?
"BTW, able to list the different types of fallacies does not prove you actually know anything about them. Proven by the fact that I have called on your fallacies so many times and exposed the sheer utter lack of knowledge of the Bible and Christianity. Sure, you can quote Bible verses, so can the devil."
Yeah... poisoning the well....
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert EinsteinCome at me when you can present the alledged proven facts logically.
You still don't get it, do you? If an atheist can disclaim a burden of proof by saying that atheism is a lack of belief, so can I. I can adopt the same tactic of "lack of belief" when the atheist ask me to prove that God exists.
Answer the fool according to his folly. Do not answer the fool according to his folly. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v26/n4/answer
Like I said, when it comes to poisoning the well you are the pro. I'm just calling it as I see it. Your lack of knowledge of the Bible and Christianity has been repeatedly pointed out. Same results leh.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You still don't get it, do you? If an atheist can disclaim a burden of proof by saying that atheism is a lack of belief, so can I. I can adopt the same tactic of "lack of belief" when the atheist ask me to prove that God exists.
Answer the fool according to his folly. Do not answer the fool according to his folly. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v26/n4/answer
Like I said, when it comes to poisoning the well you are the pro. I'm just calling it as I see it. Your lack of knowledge of the Bible and Christianity has been repeatedly pointed out. Same results leh.
"You still don't get it, do you? If an atheist can disclaim a burden of proof by saying that atheism is a lack of belief, so can I. I can adopt the same tactic of "lack of belief" when the atheist ask me to prove that God exists."
That is the fallacity of it, the appeal to hypocricy... Proverbs 26:4~5 applicable... replacing fool with hypocrite... you have just answered according to his folly...
"Like I said, ...... you are the pro"
Thank you once again. Sweet talker you...
"I'm just calling it as I see it. Your lack of knowledge of the Bible and Christianity has been repeatedly pointed out. Same results leh."
I have learnt the art of unlearning. Relearning what would be applicable without shame of ignorance.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"You still don't get it, do you? If an atheist can disclaim a burden of proof by saying that atheism is a lack of belief, so can I. I can adopt the same tactic of "lack of belief" when the atheist ask me to prove that God exists."
That is the fallacity of it, the appeal to hypocricy... Proverbs 26:4~5 applicable... replacing fool with hypocrite... you have just answered according to his folly...
"Like I said, ...... you are the pro"
Thank you once again. Sweet talker you...
"I'm just calling it as I see it. Your lack of knowledge of the Bible and Christianity has been repeatedly pointed out. Same results leh."
I have learnt the art of unlearning. Relearning what would be applicable without shame of ignorance.
You STILL didn't get it after all this while. *shrugs shoulder* -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You STILL didn't get it after all this while. *shrugs shoulder*My point is proven when you dismissed the burden of proof by adopting the position(lack of belief) Jacky took... till now no provision of proof...
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
My point is proven when you dismissed the burden of proof by adopting the position(lack of belief) Jacky took... till now no provision of proof...
My point is proven that you are still incompetent to understand what is going on. If Jacky can disclaim burden of proof, so can I, by simply adopting the atheist's tactic claiming lack of belief.But in case you haven't noticed, or maybe deliberately ignored, the evidence for God has been given many times already. Your denial of it does not invalidate that fact.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
My point is proven that you are still incompetent to understand what is going on. If Jacky can disclaim burden of proof, so can I, by simply adopting the atheist's tactic claiming lack of belief.But in case you haven't noticed, or maybe deliberately ignored, the evidence for God has been given many times already. Your denial of it does not invalidate that fact.
But I do. And you just dismissed burden of prove again.
Strawman = evidence of God has been given. No one was disputing that in this thread. Does not mean you did not commit tu quoque, you too, appeal to hypocrisy. Taking God as a shield... Truth shall shine through.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
But I do. And you just dismissed burden of prove again.
Strawman = evidence of God has been given. No one was disputing that in this thread. Does not mean you did not commit tu quoque, you too, appeal to hypocrisy. Taking God as a shield... Truth shall shine through.
Why can't I adopt the atheist's tact of dismissing a burden of proof? And now you are saying that no one was disputing that evidence for God has been given by me?? Are you playing games here? Or just toying with me? -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Why can't I adopt the atheist's tact of dismissing a burden of proof? And now you are saying that no one was disputing that evidence for God has been given by me?? Are you playing games here? Or just toying with me?"Why can't I adopt the atheist's tact of dismissing a burden of proof?"
You did and no one is stopping you. I just blow whistle...*bee!*
"And now you are saying that no one was disputing that evidence for God has been given by me??"
Ok... Who's disputing about the evidence given?
"Are you playing games here? Or just toying with me?"
I think you are a very confused person....
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Why can't I adopt the atheist's tact of dismissing a burden of proof?"
You did and no one is stopping you. I just blow whistle...*bee!*
"And now you are saying that no one was disputing that evidence for God has been given by me??"
Ok... Who's disputing about the evidence given?
"Are you playing games here? Or just toying with me?"
I think you are a very confused person....
Oh I see. so you were just making noise. Well, you do know what they say about empty vessels ya?Me confused? Only with your recent coming out of the closet claiming to be a Christian and talking about "my Jesus" and how "my God" is all powerful, all knowing etc etc. I think Jacky is confused by you too. Not sure about buddy despondent though.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Oh I see. so you were just making noise. Well, you do know what they say about empty vessels ya?Me confused? Only with your recent coming out of the closet claiming to be a Christian and talking about "my Jesus" and how "my God" is all powerful, all knowing etc etc. I think Jacky is confused by you too. Not sure about buddy despondent though.
"Oh I see. so you were just making noise. Well, you do know what they say about empty vessels ya?"
Ad hominem much? Appeal to ridicule? Red herring?... The question you were trying to evade is, Who's disputing about the evidence given?
"Me confused? Only with your recent coming out of the closet claiming to be a Christian and talking about "my Jesus" and how "my God" is all powerful, all knowing etc etc."
Problem? Did I ever deny Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord? What do you expect a Christian to talk about? Horse carts and chicken eggs?
My God IS all powerful and all knowing. Jesus IS the Lord, saviour of all. And He lives. What problem do you have with anyone saying that?" I think Jacky is confused by you too. Not sure about buddy despondent though."
My argument stands by itself without requiring support from others.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Oh I see. so you were just making noise. Well, you do know what they say about empty vessels ya?"
Ad hominem much? Appeal to ridicule? Red herring?... The question you were trying to evade is, Who's disputing about the evidence given?
"Me confused? Only with your recent coming out of the closet claiming to be a Christian and talking about "my Jesus" and how "my God" is all powerful, all knowing etc etc."
Problem? Did I ever deny Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord? What do you expect a Christian to talk about? Horse carts and chicken eggs?
My God IS all powerful and all knowing. Jesus IS the Lord, saviour of all. And He lives. What problem do you have with anyone saying that?" I think Jacky is confused by you too. Not sure about buddy despondent though."
My argument stands by itself without requiring support from others.
I see how this is going. Give ambiguous answers, play daft, allege fallacies, replay.You know very well that I have no problems with claims that are Biblically sound so don't change the subject.
I wasn't referring to your arguments, which you were hardly making anyway.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I see how this is going. Give ambiguous answers, play daft, allege fallacies, replay.You know very well that I have no problems with claims that are Biblically sound so don't change the subject.
I wasn't referring to your arguments, which you were hardly making anyway.
"I see how this is going. Give ambiguous answers, play daft, allege fallacies, replay."
I still see no answer to : Who's disputing about the evidence given?
"You know very well that I have no problems with claims that are Biblically sound so don't change the subject."
I have addressed your doubts. What is the subject you were refering? Direct question.
"I wasn't referring to your arguments, which you were hardly making anyway."
All along we are exchanging arguments.... Then what are you refering? Direct question.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"I see how this is going. Give ambiguous answers, play daft, allege fallacies, replay."
I still see no answer to : Who's disputing about the evidence given?
"You know very well that I have no problems with claims that are Biblically sound so don't change the subject."
I have addressed your doubts. What is the subject you were refering? Direct question.
"I wasn't referring to your arguments, which you were hardly making anyway."
All along we are exchanging arguments.... Then what are you refering? Direct question.
Failure to comprehend? I was referring to your recent claim to be a believer in God, in Jesus, in the Bible etc etc -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Failure to comprehend? I was referring to your recent claim to be a believer in God, in Jesus, in the Bible etc etcIsn't it an argument since you seems to be are disputing my claim? Oh... are you asking for proof?
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Isn't it an argument since you seems to be are disputing my claim? Oh... are you asking for proof?
There was no argument from me on that, I was just making a statement. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
There was no argument from me on that, I was just making a statement.What is the statement that you was just making??\
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
What is the statement that you was just making??\
7:20pm post, 5 Aug