• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

T

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
you wrote I had "the inability to debate properly" which was rude.

Thank you for letting it drop now.

Subduction Zone said:
I really did not need to do that since you never substantiated your argument, but as you saw I did do that later.
Click to expand...
I always defended my argument comparing the beauty in nature to a present made by loving people to cheer each other up. see #251, see 267.
So don't tell me now, I didn't substanciate or that I merely used hand waving efforts.


Subduction Zone said:
Yes it was.
Click to expand...
Can we stop it please?
Subduction Zone said:
I explained to you why it was a failed argument.
Click to expand...
no, all you did was resorting to empty claims that it somehow "failed" according to you. The others here in the thread could not defeat the argument, either, in my view.
Only later you added that my argument supports evolution, according to you, see below.

Subduction Zone said:
And seriously? You need that explained to you even further? An ability to recognize environments that one can do well in is a clear survival trait. Walking into a stormy ocean because one cannot see the perils there is not a good method to ensure that passing on of one's genes.
Click to expand...
this isn't about beauty. The mere ability to recognize environments does not imply ascribing beauty to it.
So no, you couldn't substanciate your claim that my argument supports the Theory of Evolution.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
thomas t said:
you wrote I had "the inability to debate properly" which was rude.

Thank you for letting it drop now.


I always defended my argument comparing the beauty in nature to a present made by loving people to cheer each other up. see #251, see 267.
So don't tell me now, I didn't substanciate or that I merely used hand waving efforts.
Click to expand...

You might have the wrong numbers. In post 251 you only demonstrated a lack of education about evolution, logic and evidence. From what I have seen I have only seen handwaving at best.

Can we stop it please?
no, all you did was resorting to empty claims that it somehow "failed" according to you. The others here in the thread could not defeat the argument, either, in my view.
Only later you added that my argument supports evolution, according to you, see below.
Click to expand...

My claims are not empty. I can support them by referring to your failed posts. Once again an inability to understand how you failed does not mean that you did not fail in an epic manner. Your test failed on several levels. It is not even a proper test since you could not clearly explain what you would expect to see if you were wrong and why.
this isn't about beauty. The mere ability to recognize environments does not imply ascribing beauty to it.
So no, you couldn't substanciate your claim that my argument supports the Theory of Evolution.
Click to expand...

Now this is pure hand waving on your part. And an inability to understand an argument does not mean that it was not substantiated. This sort of post is why you get the accusations and speculations that bother you so much to quote you it is rude.
 
T

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Let me bold every single empty claim out of your reply. If I additionally highlight them in red color, this means that I disagree and dismiss it stating the opposite.
If you resort to unsubstanciated claims (the ones bolded and redded by me...) this is how I'd like to answer them in future to save time.
I'll respond giving arguments if its real arguments from your side.
No offence. Just to save time.

If you get insulting in my view, I'll point it out directly even if it's an empty claim.

This may serve to show you how many totally unsubstanciated claims can be found in a post made by you. Such as this one...

Subduction Zone said:
You might have the wrong numbers. In post 251 you only demonstrated a lack of education about evolution, logic and evidence. From what I have seen I have only seen handwaving at best.
Click to expand...
As said above, in #251 I compared the beauty of nature to the beauty of some presents made by people.
This is not handwaving in #251.
Subduction Zone said:
My claims are not empty. I can support them by referring to your failed posts. Once again an inability to understand how you failed does not mean that you did not fail in an epic manner. Your test failed on several levels. It is not even a proper test since you could not clearly explain what you would expect to see if you were wrong and why.
Click to expand...
I think most of your claims are empty. Those I highlighted in red in particular.
"inability to understand how I fail" was also getting personal. Stop it.

I did explain that if my test fails there could be as many people who find a particular landscape ugly as there are people who find it beautiful.
This be applied to various landscapes.
Subduction Zone said:
Now this is pure hand waving on your part. And an inability to understand an argument does not mean that it was not substantiated. This sort of post is why you get the accusations and speculations that bother you so much to quote you it is rude.
Click to expand...
actually it wasn't handwaving. Pointing out that your point failed to address the aspect of beauty is not handwaving. I explained to you that you didn't address the aspect of beauty in your example.

It is not my fault if someone gets aggressive when they read what I write...

Again, claiming that I have the inability to understand an argument is fully rude on your part.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
thomas t said:
Let me bold every single empty claim out of your reply. If I additionally highlight them in red color, this means that I disagree and dismiss it stating the opposite.
If you resort to unsubstanciated claims (the ones bolded and redded by me...) this is how I'd like to answer them in future to save time.
I'll respond giving arguments if its real arguments from your side.
No offence. Just to save time.

If you get insulting in my view, I'll point it out directly even if it's an empty claim.

This may serve to show you how many totally unsubstanciated claims can be found in a post made by you. Such as this one...


As said above, in #251 I compared the beauty of nature to the beauty of some presents made by people.
This is not handwaving in #251.

I think most of your claims are empty. Those I highlighted in red in particular.
"inability to understand how I fail" was also getting personal. Stop it.

I did explain that if my test fails there could be as many people who find a particular landscape ugly as there are people who find it beautiful.
This be applied to various landscapes.

actually it wasn't handwaving. Pointing out that your point failed to address the aspect of beauty is not handwaving. I explained to you that you didn't address the aspect of beauty in your example.

It is not my fault if someone gets aggressive when they read what I write...

Again, claiming that I have the inability to understand an argument is fully rude on your part.
Click to expand...
LOL! Sorry, but you are of course wrong. You demonstrated that in your first red quote. In post 251 you demonstrated a complete lack of education of evolution, evidence, and logic. All you had was denial. Would you like to go over that post.

Perhaps you do not know what an empty claim is. It is not just a.claim that one did not support with evidence. It is one that cannot be supported by evidence. So let's discuss that one post and how badly it failed.
 
M

Moses_UK

Member
Heyo said:
We currently have a thread running about people not answering question. As I stated there, I won't press you on the question and instead accept your resignation of the debate.
Click to expand...

Whatever I say won't make a difference to pagans. As a Pagan, you have your beliefs and will not accept others, so there's no point enlightening you.
 
Q

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
thomas t said:
Didn't I answer? I answered it for you.

I wrote: if this makes sense to you, explore it.

As to how I deal with the pixies you cite? no, I don't rule out that they exist. I'm just not interested.
I don't rule out many things, since I don't care....
Click to expand...

Then you admit that your so-called 'evidence' for god is pretty worthless, since it could JUST AS EASILY be evidence for magical pixies. And you understand perfectly why I lack any belief in any gods.
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
I am not reading another thread. What is your best evidence that God exists? I have found that quite a few people do not understand the concept of reliable evidence.
Click to expand...
The only real evidence that God exists is the Messengers that God sends. Below is the very beginning of that thread.
(I later realized I should have said that my belief is that Messengers of God are the only real evidence that God exists, because it is not a premise, it is a belief.)

My premise is that Messengers of God are the only real evidence that God exists because they are the evidence that God provides and wants us to look at in order to determine that He exists.

Allow me to preface this by saying that nobody can prove that a Messenger received communication from God, since nobody can prove that God exists. As I have been saying in this forum for years, all we have is evidence, and evidence is not the same as proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top