Now you just don’t want to talk with me, huh?
What exactly would be the point?
I have not seen anything that tells me you care what anyone has to say that diverts from what you want to believe without evidence. You have vested interest to deny science. You actively engage in the denial of science with no real basis for that denial other than it conflicts with your personal ideology. You promote untestable, unsupported conjecture as evidence to support further claims all to force fit with a literal interpretation of a biblical story. That isn't science. That method doesn't show support of science.
How can there be further meaningful conversation in light of those facts?
You know, you used to be pretty cool.
I still am. Thank you very much.
We’d discuss things decently and amiably.
We talked. I agree, up to a point it was generally amicable. I imagine that you are probably a generally pretty decent person.
But from my Christian perspective, your position demands the denial of facts about the Work of God (the natural world) to sustain a particular personal (group) interpretation of the Bible that has no more universality and permanency to its basis than anyone else's. You picked an interpretation and decided to follow it doggedly. That is evidence, but not against science or the realities discovered in nature. In my experience that makes serious discussion of experience-based reality rather one-sided and empty.
But then I asked you a couple questions for you to explain your faith, but you accused me of attacking you!
Actually, I demonstrated it to be a tactic, as I do again here, and it was another that pressed it far out of proportion.
By asking you questions?!
Asking personal questions and those questions irrelevant to the topic of discussion serves no other purpose than to derail and divert discussion and turn the thread into an attack on that person. I asked questions in that thread and received no demonstrable answers save that some people believe things. Sharing my personal beliefs, even in summary, wouldn't change that and isn't evidence for or against demons and their claimed activities.
It was entirely reasonable of me to point that out and stop it before it went further.
That came across as insecurity, one who’s not sure what they believe about their religious stance.
Now you step down into the mud.
The veiled personal insult to put me in my place and justify your actions.
Does this suddenly cause carcasses coming to exist over a long span of time to now date to the same time? Does this make any conjecture you have presented suddenly become testable fact?
Does this claim support your positions on the biblical flood or evolution?
What I said made too much sense, and it scared you, maybe.
LOL! I still find this notion so very amusing. Is the target the scared one or is it those doing the targeting?
It angered and insulted me to have people use me and focus unwanted and irrelevant attention onto me as a diversion to avoid answering reasonable questions.
On a thread asking for the evidence that demons exist, that their actions can be identified and how they are identified, I asked questions and requested the evidence. The same simple questions and request that were asked in
@danieldemol's OP. I never made any statements of belief regarding demons. The value of my belief in their existence was not and is not germane to addressing a reasonable request for evidence of demons. It is ridiculous to think that what I believe has an impact on the ability of others to provide the evidence for their claims about demons.
Singling me out, demanding I share my beliefs was a means to cover and divert from the fact of the failure of demon-supporters to provide any evidence for their claims about demons. Singling me out and demanding I share irrelevant information had no probative value. A veiled personal attack to stop the questioning and turn the discussion to how sad and misguided I am. I think the implied, unspoken assertion was that I am not a true Christian for failing to glorify the existence of demons with my full and complete agreement that they exist. The unfortunate truth is that the people that would show me the way were the very people that failed to show anyone anything by the way. The irony further enflamed by the lack of any claim I had made that would warrant such discussion even if it were germane.
I've no particular animosity to you, but I do not appreciate such tactics, especially when there was no rational basis for their deployment. It is just more logical fallacy as a tactic to keep doubt and unreasonable denial alive. I certainly do not appreciate being targeted as an object of that tactic. Further, I don't appreciate the implied indignation and victimization projected on me for recognizing the ploy and putting an end to it.
I understand that some people are compelled to a certain dogma by the path they have chosen and that denial of conflicting reality as a means to sustain that path must be employed or else. People can do as they choose. But that doesn't establish a validity for dogmatic personal opinion as a universal "truth".
Because, really, those claims do float! (Pardon the pun.)
No, they do not.
You have never established that your personal incredulity, speculation and science denial has any basis to be considered more than mere strategy to buoy up a personal opinion in regards to these hot topics in science and religion.
You present a lot of conjecture and questionable details like days of the dead, atmospheric oceans of water encasing an ancient earth, mountain heights changing like the wind, and buttercups frozen in the mouths of dead mammoths. One often doesn't have to dig too deeply to see these turn out to be nothing and go nowhere to defeating the evidence that indicates that there was no global flood as described in Genesis.
I aske again, what is the point of further discussion on these subjects? The same questions or claims resurface continually. Often from the same sources that repeat them as if they were never rebutted. I don't need to keep running in circles to know that the only result will be dizziness.
What can I say? You asked for it.
This isn't an offer to open up further debate. I'll correct erroneous claims you and others post, but I've no interest in giving credibility to baseless conjecture through debate. It is certainly not an offer to open up debate about my personal religious views either. Worry about your own and I will mine as well.
