Religion Forum should be renamed "Athiest Forum"

Well, first of all "contradicting theories" present what is otherwise known as an 'argument'. Secondly, if in the conclusion they depend on 'common sense', then there is the implied message that they have abandoned 'scientific reasoning' and have reverted to that which is definitively "common: 6. Unrefined or coarse in manner; vulgar:" sense.

Now you have changed the goal posts within your own writing. Previously you were talking specifically about "common sense", now you simply refer to "the most sense".

Perhaps all those great minds should formulate such a theory or theories. Are they intentionally avoiding the issue?

 

Still waiting for a response Shiva_TD

 

What's more common, more or most? Or less or least?

 

How much relevance does your questions have in regard to the OP?

 

This whole post is a prime example of "fallacy of definition".

Perhaps they would better spend their time formulating theories on whether pixie tears cause morning dew...

 

Do you really think I am concerned with what kind of a fallacy label you place on this post or this thread? If you do, then you are extremely mistaken, because I am not bound by those strictures of logic. Those strictures only apply to people like you who claim that logic (a man-made tool) is the only way to think, and then attempt to force others to abide by that way of thinking. Go find yourself someone who is gullible enough to allow him/her self to be locked in such a box.

Your little quip about 'pixie tears' shows where your confidence is really fixed. Thus locking you into imaginings of such things as 'pixies' who shed their tears to create the morning dew.

 

Right... so your claim is that you do not think logically and can therefore have irrational positions without justification; yet you demand others justify their positions...

Wow. You've clearly illustrated that it's pointless to attempt any form of communication with you.

Actually, it shows that I am confident that 'intelligent design' and 'creation theory' are as valid as a theory about pixies. I'm unsure what you mean by being "locked into imaginings of such things", since I am clearly able to discuss topics other than pixies.

 

Well, it is pretty much common knowledge that on forums such as this one, the non-theists say that theists don't think logically... so why should I argue? Yes! I demand that you (those who choose to follow the pathway of logic remain fixed on that path) and then justify your positions as well as your claims. It is the only logical thing for you to do.

Wrong again. Communication is available so long as you don't attempt to restrict my means of communicating by saying that I have to abide by your means of communicating. That type of agreement that you are seeking is a unilateral contract/agreement and is considered highly fraudulent.

If you are "clearly able to discuss topics other than pixies" then why introduce pixies as a subject matter when pixies were not a part of the discussion? That is an illogical approach on your part at attempting to smooth out communication barriers.

 

What you are communicating is that demand that others justify their positions and their claims, but feel that you are exempt from the same standards... This is hypocrisy at it's finest.
Thanks for going out of your way to prove non-theists correct by demonstrating irrational and hypocritical behavior.

Right, god forbid you actually demonstrate that there is a reason for any belief or behavior that's founded in rational thought.... That's a standard only suited to everyone else.

It's called an analogy. Feel free to broaden your horizons by looking it up.

 

how much relevance about moving goal posts from common to most? If not much, just answer and stop being obtuse. Else stay OT.

 

theist also think, non-theists don't think logically. So I don't see the difference. Logic is starting from different sides of the point. IF a point actually exists, we have to assume, or else why discuss this? If a mid point. common ground isn't the goal, then, why bother being here? Unless, it is to change others viewpoints to your own.

So, when I leave you wide open to communicate, do you and others stop communicating? Where is this open type discussion you and I and others would like to have?????

fair question.

 

Not hypocritical.. just living in the reality that there are no codes, rules, regulations, law, statute, TOS that requires that I abide by such non-sense. Apparently you have a problem with the FACT that such a rule does not exist and that you are not able to obligate me in that manner. Too bad.

Well, the way I see it is like this: To be 'rational' a person must be capable of and willing to 'rationalize'. When a person 'rationalizes' something, that person is making an excuse for his/her behavior.
So why would I want o make excuses for my behavior?

An analogy when you write about creatures of the mind, yet some non-theists want to trample upon analogies that are mentioned in the Bible. How very hypocritical of you if you ever attempt to trample upon one of those analogies found in the Bible. BTW: Explaining what the pixie scenario is, is not the same as explaining 'why' you used such an analogy.

- - - Updated - - -

Then you admit that you started the off-topic discussion. Cool.

 

Well I am here to tell you this: I am a theist and I certainly do believe that non-theists think logically. In fact, I believe they are locked in a giant box labeled 'logic'. That would make your opening statement a false statement.

The object of a debate is to see who can present the more convincing argument.

Right here on this forum... provided you don't attempt to push your methodologies, strategies, fallacies, systems of logic and any other unnecessary inclusions that tend to disrupt civil communication.

Yes! I believe it was a fair question: Yet it is one that you failed or otherwise refused to answer.

 

You claim that your theistic belief is valid or true. Why?
If all you have to say is that your belief is true, you've already stated this...
Why are you still here if you have nothing more to contribute?

You are - once again - cherry picking definitions to create strawman arguments.

If you actually want to communicate with most of the world, it might be worth learning how to speak the same language... In other words, don't demand others meet standards you're unwilling to meet yourself.

Can you give an example of an analogy in the Bible? I believe other theists would disagree that they are analogies, and would insist that these are literal...

As for why I used an analogy: because it's a common tool used by sane people when communicating in order to illustrate a point. Duh.

 

You claim to believe in jesus. You are on a religious forum stating such belief. You represent christians whether you like it or not. And IMO, jesus would want you to represent him in a positive light and not drive people away from jesus' teachings. And I believe Jesus requires that.
http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermon...aul-fritz-sermon-on-jesus-teachings-69924.asp
Sermon:
I John 2:6 - "The one who says he abides in Him ought to walk in a manner in which He Himself once walked."


Quote: "If you really want to know the will of God for your life follow the footsteps of Jesus." (Bingham Hunter, Trinity International University)

Illustration: As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him. --Colossians 2:6

 

Provide irrefutable proof that my beliefs are wrong or are in error.

 

Provide irrefutable proof that my beliefs are wrong or are in error.

 

If you assume that this kind of statement is prescriptive, ie that it means ALL theists think that non-theists are illogical, then your own statement about non-theists thinking theists illogical is equally false.

Hoist by your own hypocritical petard, my friend.

 

where did i claim anything about your beliefs being wrong or error?
Just your way of avoidance.

 

Provide irrefutable proof that my beliefs are wrong or are in error.

- - - Updated - - -

Provide irrefutable proof that my beliefs are wrong or are in error.

 

I'd prefer if you stopped acting like a three year old and engaged in actual debate. Or should daddy send you to bed without supper for misbehaving?

 

I am engaging in actual debate, and I have set before you a challenge.
Provide irrefutable proof that my beliefs are wrong or are in error.

 

Please. I usually enjoy a bit of back and forth with someone who is trolling, but that puerile, infantile bunk is beneath even you. And that is saying something.

 

Actually, it is in front of me... on my computer screen. Beneath me is the chair which I am sitting on.

 

Are you having PEBKAC errors?