Why do certain types of religious apologists think they can endlessly and dishonestly distort the truth of even basic word definitions in order to try and reverse the burden of proof. What do they think atheists will make of their beliefs in the light of such duplicity from someone professing to be a theist? We can't help but notice they have gone nowhere near a thread for objective evidence for their beliefs, indeed seem content to only converse in threads they have started, endlessly trying to dictate what people can say, this is trolling pure and simple. Again what can one think if their beliefs in light of such relentless dishonesty?
That troublesome 9th commandment doesn't seem to bother them at all??
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Sheldon, I think I'm a little in love...
Not to mention the Peter principle where they deny their fundamentalist beliefs claiming the "they are nothing to do with the arguments put forward" which is just patent bollocks.
Their 'fundamentalist' tenets are so fragile that any one on this forum could demolish them with little effort. That is why they deny them publicly.
Not every Christian holds to fundamentalist beliefs. In fact, fundamentalism in Christianity started only in the 19th century.
My comment was directed at closet fundies not at you and your ilk JoC. Modern day "fundamentalism" had its roots in Cromwells day and the puritans, and before that Luther and Calvin.
Fundamentalism or the "primitive" church goes way back to the origins of the whole thing.Although the scottish venerated and obeyed the Bishop of Rome their practices of clerical poverty, heriditary priesthood, liturgy and more were much more akin to modern day fundies than they care to admit.
Of course this is true, but they should raise some cognitive dissonance on its own. The fact that the religion fractures so often around subjective interpretation. If this was entirely human in origin this then is precisely what one would expect. Not so if the message were as advertised, from a perfectly benevolent omniscient omnipotent deity.
Put simply this subjective disagreement is not a selling point for religion, quite the opposite in fact.
I have given arguments of what I know is evidence, But you ruled it out my arguments, you stated that it wasn`t being objective. Well how can you expect me to go ahead with my polemic if you won`t let me include any of my reasoning here. You applied Hitchens razor to most of my evidence .Since A belief in GOD requires a subjective amount of facts you really can`t expect to get objective facts here. Just like as you a Atheist can sit there and say positively there is no such thing as a GOD. We just both don`t know. The best anyone could do is give a subjective reasons why they feel there is a God Thats why in the debate at Biola University Christopher Hitchens didn`t push William Lane Craig on this very issue. And by the way most people who were there that night said afterward that Cristopher Hitchens had no valid Arguments and lost the debate badly. Which upon seeing it I attest.
@agnostic believer: Just like as you a Atheist can sit there and say positively there is no such thing as a GOD.
Right. You make it sound like a binary question. Is there a god (1) or no god (0)? But there's also the question of which god? Do you believe in Odin, Zeus, Maui, or Amaterasu? The possibilities are infinite. Which one have you chosen, and why? The diversity of god models makes me doubt them all.
But even if we decide that there is a god, so what? Can you read the mind of god sufficiently to figure out what he wants from us? Does he want songs of praise or barbecued lamb? Does he want us to wear hats or go bareheaded? Should we mumble to the floor, nod at the wall, or shout at the ceiling?
@AB (aka: faith in God, DC, Billy, etc., etc., etc....)
Dear lord, dude! Another wardrobe change? Well, I suppose you need to update your profile pic, too. Hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of finding a couple from which you can choose. Hope they help.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Another suggestion for AB.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
"I have given arguments of what I know is evidence,"
Sigh, no you haven't Billy, and you've shown again you don't know the difference between an argument and objective evidence.
-------------------------------
" Well how can you expect me to go ahead with my polemic if you won`t let me include any of my reasoning here. "
Knock yourself out, but this thread is for OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, not subjective polemic. So as I said at the start Billy, I'll reject or ignore it.
---------------------------------
"You applied Hitchens razor to most of my evidence "
You have offered no evidence, and Hitchens's razor if you understood it would make that clear, I suggest you look it up Billy.
-----------------------------------
".Since A belief in GOD requires a subjective amount of facts"
There is no such thing as a subjective fact, that's an oxymoron.
-------------------------------------
"Just like as you a Atheist can sit there and say positively there is no such thing as a GOD."
I've never said this, and it has no bearing at all on whether anyone can offer objective evidence for the existence of a deity.
---------------------------------
"The best anyone could do is give a subjective reasons why they feel there is a God "
So it seems, quelle surprise.
-----------------------------------
You're worse at trolling than you are at apologetics, and that is some achievement Billy.
Well I read the new testament and by now I know what Jesus expects it is so simple nothing hard about it. Tell me can you prove that Jesus didn`t exist? He was the most influential person to walk the face of the earth .That is the GOD I follow and whom I call LORD.
@AB...or AS = Alphabet Soup...
Just because you change your ID and possibly your medication doesn't mean you can go back to making claims without evidence. We will just dismiss them without evidence.
You are making the claim, you prove the truth of it.
@faith in god....He was the most influential person to walk the face of the earth
Debatable. What about Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha)? He at least appears to have been a real person, and his cultural legacy spans Asia from India to Japan. Confucius is another contender.
And we shouldn't overlook John Lennon's claim to be more popular than Jesus.
@AB (FIG)
Aww... Dang-it. I really was hoping you would pick one of mine. *pouty face* Oh well. By the way, you are henceforth dubbed "FIG".
" I know what Jesus expects it is so simple nothing hard about it."
1 Peter 2:
18 Household slaves, submit by accepting the authority of your masters with all respect. Do this not only to good and kind masters but also to those who are harsh.
Is it slavery? Obedient slaves that's it?
Yep, the ever shifting burden of proof. "Show me atheism is true." 'Atheists believe god does not exist." and my favorite. "Without God, where does consciousness, reason, morality, come from." Anything to get the atheist to justify his or her stance without first validating their own ignorance.
I never for one moment imagined any objective evidence would be forthcoming, but I have to say I expected a bit more bluster, or at least some small pretence they had some. Next time any apologist mentions evidence you have my permission to link the thread for EVIDENCE...