AllenWalker
Strong Truth
Why do they need to be credible?
They can still be true even if not credible, am i correct?
-
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 think/believe that your body was designed/created?
- Thread starter Godobeyer
- Start date
Why do they need to be credible?
They can still be true even if not credible, am i correct?
McBell
Unbound
No True Scotsman.
AllenWalker
Strong Truth
Why do you believe so?
McBell
Unbound
Without evidence it is nothing more than a bold empty claim.
McBell
Unbound
I suspect you do not even know what "No True Scotsman" is.
If you did, you would not have asked.
AllenWalker
Strong Truth
You suspected wrong.
Your claim was wrong. Muslim is a follower of the religion Islam. Islam is a religion in which their is a belief of One Eternal God. God in the Quran states, those are the disbelievers who do not believe in the One Eternal God. Therefore, they are not Muslim. Simple deductive reasoning.
McBell
Unbound
Looks like a series of bold empty claims to me...You suspected wrong.
Your claim was wrong. Muslim is a follower of the religion Islam. Islam is a religion in which their is a belief of One Eternal God. God in the Quran states, those are the disbelievers who do not believe in the One God. Therefore, they are not Muslim. Simple deductive reasoning.
Not to mention the fact that you have not shown yourself to be an authority on Islam.
Rather difficult to take you seriously when I have real life friends who would argue your No True Scotsman.
AllenWalker
Strong Truth
Anything that "can still be true" can equally well "still be false." So, you may make whatever claims you want (a higher power created you or the stork brought you or you were found in the pumpkin patch), but who cares. They're all just claims. Just as potentially true or false as the claim that the gods require virgin sacrifices or Mohammed went to Jerusalem on a flying horse. Or that I've got the biggest d**k in the universe.
(I may have mis-heard on that one -- it could be that my friend said "you are" rather than "you have" the biggest d**k, but I'm sticking to my version.
)
AllenWalker
Strong Truth
Expected from an atheist.
Not showing, does not mean not knowing. [
I have no care over what your real life ''friends'' have to say about me.
What would be the point of posting an empty assertion on a talkboard? You can't discuss something without discussing the evidence for it.
Sure, lots of things are true that we have no evidence of, but so what?
I could state that there is life on Neptune, or three Gods with two heads each, but so what? Why waste the time and energy posting such things on RF if there is no substance to them to discuss?
McBell
Unbound
There is no reason to take bold empty claims seriously
McBell
Unbound
There is no god.
Since we do not have to support any claims, I am just as right as you are.
No idea what you are talking about with the friends comment.
Care to explain, or is it another bold empty claim?
AllenWalker
Strong Truth
Anything that "can still be true" can equally well "still be false." So, you may make whatever claims you want (a higher power created you or the stork brought you or you were found in the pumpkin patch), but who cares. They're all just claims. Just as potentially true or false as the claim that the gods require virgin sacrifices or Mohammed went to Jerusalem on a flying horse. Or that I've got the biggest d**k in the universe.
(I may have mis-heard on that one -- it could be that my friend said "you are" rather than "you have" the biggest d**k, but I'm sticking to my version.
So, then it can equally be false? But why is their, in an atheistic perspective, ''interpreted evidence'', but when it comes to disproving God, there is nothing. Not even interpreted evidence, every argument against God is wrong.
Now lets look into validity. What do you find more valid? Something that claims to be true & has some basis of evidence( SOME BASIS AS IN INTERPRETED EVIDENCE IN YOUR OPINION) or essentially nothing (belief in no God, no evidence, neither interpretated or anything) ?
McBell
Unbound
I do not fit into your false dichotomy.
Care to try again?
AllenWalker
Strong Truth
AllenWalker
Strong Truth
The point of an empty assertion on a chat board is to let others know what i believe to be MY own belief.
I can definitely discuss something without discussing the evidence for it.
Do you believe Dark Energy exists?
McBell
Unbound
ah, so you are merely a troll.I mean whatever you interpret = probably that you have no friends
Thank you for the heads up.
I'm not sure I'm following, AW. You can't prove a negative (Russel's teapot, again), you can't believe everything till each item is disproved evidentially -- that would be absurd.
The only reasonable thing is to believe thing as evidence for them appears.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
AllenWalker
Strong Truth
Troll? Because you asked what i meant by that bold ''claim'', i had an interpretation that you would have probably thought i said that.