'True lies of new Atheism'.

What is there for them to defend????

 

In their defense, the burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim.

If I say Santa Claus exists, he does not exist by default merely because you cant prove that he doesnt.

 

According to the rules written by who?

 

duplicate post.

 

Why do Christians hate other people's beliefs?

 

Their ignorance regarding spiritual matters?????

 

Says the guy who hasn't made a valid point in the entire thread.

 

Explain, specifically, why each of those points that Reva has made are not 'valid'. Do not omit any point, and provide proof of your claim that Reva "has'nt made a valid point in the entire thread." Can you meet that challenge with any effectual degree of validity?

 

Why do you think you can force faith and "spiritual matters" on any one??

Frankly that has NEVER worked.

 

Why do you think that I am trying to "force faith and 'spiritual matters' on anyone"??? Have I shown an outward display of any type of force that can be measured with scientific instrumentation? Have I threatened violence upon anyone? Have I deprived anyone of food, shelter or clothing? On the other side of that coin, I perceive that any and all members and visitors in this forum have arrived here through their own volition, without anyone directing any degree of measurable force against those members and visitors. Please explain this 'force' that you claim I am using and which according to you has been used in the past. Describe it in full detail.

 

Poor choice of words.. but I did notice you baiting and yelling at others.

Literalists tend to drive people away from faith because they demand that you leave your brain at the door.

People are attracted to faith by example not lectures.

 

When have I ever been within earshot of you that would have enabled you to notice that I was "yelling at others" or attempting to give any form of 'bait' to others?

Literalists? What are "Literalists"? I suppose it is possible that such fictitious creatures could conceivably be requiring people to commit either physical or intellectual suicide.

To be attracted to anything would require that such a thing to exist. Such a thing would also be required to have some form of 'force' to enable that thing to have the capability of 'attraction'. Is that 'force' the same 'force' which you have previously indicated that I am attempting to use? If it is, then there exists your inference that 'faith' does have 'force' and any scientist will tell you that 'force' is a potential and a potential is capable of performing 'work' (to a greater or lesser degree).

 

Wow. This is a great example of the sutpidity of literalism.

"You know I got kicked out of the shopping center today but I don't know
why."

"What did you do?"

"Well, you know that sign that says 'Wet floor'?"

"Yeah..."

"Well...so I did..."

 

Well goodness gracious.... are you implying that it is appropriate for people to say and or write things that they do not mean.... or that it is OK for those things to be written without explanation? If you say or write something that you intend to have a meaning other than what you have said or have written, then it could be construed as you making a misrepresentation or even telling a lie. People do need to learn how to clarify things that they speak or write and to place an intended meaning behind what they say or write.

 

Nope, you just need to learn to not be a troll.

 

A meaningless statement of private opinion coming from you. And you should be old enough to have learned or at least heard the expression about 'opinion' and how everyone has an opinion.

 

I knock em down as I see em all through this thread.

Theists can't seem to any ground in this or any other thread concerning their beliefs. They don't understand their faith is where the logic fails. Faith is completely illogical in every sense of the word.

Like I have said over and over, I'm not asking for proof. I'd just like to see any evidence that can stand up to the smallest amount of scrutiny. Without it, the claims of god are meaningless. Religious doctrine and ceremonies are nothing more than a guess born out of ignorance and tradition based on a fairy tale.

Anyone who has honestly studied religion using more than 1 book can very plainly see that.

 

Strange.... I have not seen you "knock" anything "down" in this thread.

Well of course 'faith' is illogical... from the perspective of your philosophy. But who ever claimed that 'faith' was 'logical' from the perspective of your philosophy? From the perspective of the philosophy of religion, you have failed miserably and all of your views are illogical,,, so you have gained nothing in stating those meaningless comments of yours above.

'scrutiny'... you mean scientific analysis? Scrutiny based and founded upon your philosophy? Why do you suppose that these arguments exist? Simply because there are two (or more) philosophies that are at odds with one another. Based upon the logic that you are using, then I will say the following: I'm not asking for proof; I'd just like to see any evidence that God does not exist, or that 'faith' is irrelevant or impotent, that can stand up to the smallest scrutiny.

Without that smallest degree of evidence, the claims that God does not exist is meaningless. Atheistic thoughts and practices are nothing more than a guess born out of ignorance and the tradition of men who believe in other things that they cannot prove to exist (much akin to believing in fairy tales).

Anyone who has judged religion without having experienced the truth of religion are plainly operating in a state of ignorance of the subject matter.

 

I suppose it's hard to see from the floor.

Says the guy who has yet to give a solid logical reason for having faith.

Ok, show me where god is and I'll do some tests to tell you why god doesn't exist.

Or you could just tell me why Zues doesn't exist and then apply that same answer your own question. Either way works.

I'm more so claiming that I don't believe your story. A story that has to be told to me before I can not believe it. Since you made the story up, you need to show some evidence.

Your words are meaningless. You could study The Lord of the Rings all you want, but that still wouldn't make the story true. Aside from that, I have read the entire bible. Many sections more than just a few times. That is what makes me think it's a bunch of bull caca.

I have also read many other religious texts. Of course, I have no way to make you believe me. The only evidence I could give you would be answering questions about said texts. That is a pointless test unless you do it in real time. Otherwise you would have no way to know if I cheated or not.

 

Over the years I have come to understand that a single statement is the only thing necessary to throw the question of religion out the door.

Put up or shut up.

 

Sounds as though you are speaking from experience.

Says the guy (you) who seemingly has a reading comprehension problem. Did I not inform you that we are dealing with two differing forms of philosophy thus two differing forms of logic? DUH. Learn to read before you attempt to deal with either logic or philosophy.

Look real close at the computer screen. Hello,,, God is right there... immediately following the "Hello,,, ".

Did I say that Zeus does not exist? BTW... be sure to check your spelling on proper names.

Am I supposed to be impressed with your non-believing nature?

What, pray tell, are you talking about. What 'story' are you talking about? Now that is what I would call a high pop up to far left field.

Again, What story?

Reading and comprehending are two totally different things, just like the two differing forms of philosophy and two differing forms of logic. So, all of your reading means nothing when you have already shown that you are not comprehending the distinct difference between the two (or more) forms of philosophy and two differing forms of logic.

Now that paragraph immediately above is a good example of 'logic'. You should make it a point to continue thinking so clearly and expressing yourself so clearly as opposed to the other paragraph examples you have already exhibited.

 

So instead of responding to him properly with information that could change his mind (Impossible), you insult him. Though I suppose that's all you can do with a completely unsustainable position.

 

Gee... an intruder... Hello there.

Try going back a few pages and start at this point:
http://www.politicalforum.com/4405657-post358.html

When you can show me where he has answered my questions as laid out in that post, then we might have something to talk about.

Have a nice evening.

By the way: Welcome to that wonderful world of insults due to the position that you occupy... one of being unsustainable.

 

Well, since you skipped right over MINE.

Put up or shut up. If you need that explained I'll be more than happy to go into detail as to why he isn't actually required to prove your reality. That's on you.

 

Skipped over your what? Your post was responded to appropriately. You made a bunch of statements, and I made a statement to you showing you where you should have gotten on board with this conversation. So I have no obligation toward you at all.