theists attack atheism because they are insecure

[DavidFirth]

Historical fiction takes place in real places. It's revealed in the first classic Planet of the Apes that it takes place in NY, but that doesn't make it real because NY is real, does it?

That's a stupid comparison. The places mentioned in Exodus were destroyed. Finding archaeological evidence that those places existed is far beyond anything from any of your Mother Goose fairy tales.

Your bias doth cloud your thinking, methinks. Yeah.

 

[Kenny]

Historical fiction takes place in real places. It's revealed in the first classic Planet of the Apes that it takes place in NY, but that doesn't make it real because NY is real, does it?

This mantra is so old that it is moldy.

What you just said is that there is no true historical data

We have no extrabiblical sources to say Egypt exists? Huh?

We have no extra biblical sources to say Jews exists? Huh?

 

[1137]

TIL that skepticism towards atheism is evidence that the theistic position is weak.

The logic, it burns. I really don't think atheism deserves some special privilege to not be questioned, sorry!

 

[Jumi]

TIL that skepticism towards atheism is evidence that the theistic position is weak.

Reversal of arguments isn't a good way to get at the truth. I think many theists find it ignorant as well as atheists and people like myself.

The logic, it burns. I really don't think atheism deserves some special privilege to not be questioned, sorry!

I don't think so. Every claim that's part of atheism deserves no more special privilege than any other claim. It's just that generic atheism doesn't have a particular claim. The only general atheist claim is that they don't believe in any god.

The strong atheist position is easier to attack, just like the strong theist.

 

[viole]

No, theists attack atheism because:

1. It blinds men to the truth and leads them to destruction. We care about you therefore we plead with you not to believe all of this atheistic jargon.

2. It is a cleverly devised lie.

Romans 1:20.

What destruction?

I suggest to make a case for our destruction, before making a case for an escape from it. Without begging the question, if possible.

Good luck.

Ciao

- vole

 

[DavidFirth]

What destruction?

I suggest to make a case for our destruction, before making a case for its escape. Without begging the question, if possible.

Good luck.

Ciao

- vole

It is based on God's word. I don't need any good luck for that. If you choose not to believe God that is your problem.

 

[viole]

It is based on God's word. I don't need any good luck for that. If you choose not to believe God that is your problem.

Well, and your evidence is? A book? You are proposing a medicine for an imaginary ailment, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

 

[DavidFirth]

Well, and your evidence is? A book? You are proposing a medicine for an imaginary ailment, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

All the evidence anyone needs is right here:

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.


So if you don't think God exists then you have no excuse. You have only yourself to blame for believing in something other than the obvious.

 

[viole]

All the evidence anyone needs is right here:

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.


So if you don't think God exists then you have no excuse. You have only yourself to blame for believing in something other than the obvious.

What? I could write the same and postulate that all this is evidence of Mickey Mouse having created the Universe, with the sole goal of creating cows and cheese. The universe seems indeed finely tuned for cows.

Would you accept that as evidence? If not, why do you accept what Paul said? And how do you expect us to believe what a first century AD person wrote?

Ciao

- viole

 

[DavidFirth]

What? I could write the same and postulate that all this is evidence of Mickey Mouse having created the Universe, with the sole goal of creating cows and cheese. The universe seems indeed finely tuned for cows.

Would you accept that as evidence? If not, why do you accept what Paul said? And how do you expect us to believe what a first century AD person wrote?

Ciao

- viole

Don't be stupid. If you don't believe the obvious the onus is on you. There is no excuse.

 

[viole]

Don't be stupid. If you don't believe the obvious the onus is on you. There is no excuse.

You mean Mickey Mouse? How can I see the difference in evidence? And since God and MM share the exact same plausibility and evidence, I am not really sure what your point is.

I could say the same:

Viole 23:42 : don't be stupid. It is obvious that MM created the Universe. The onus is on you if you refute that obvious fact.

Now what?

By the way, if it is so obvious who created the Universe, why do you need missionaries?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

It does support the places in the text, though.

You are cherry picking out the parts that you know aren't there. What about what is there? Were it not for the Biblical text those places would have never been identified or even thought to have existed at all.

Homer's Odyssey describes a lot of places that actually exist. Or existed. Does that entail that Zeus and Poseidon exist, too?

King Arthur myths took place in England. Not exactly a mythical place. So, does that Increase the plausibility of the magical powers of Excalibur, or of the existence of Ladies of the Lake, in any way or form?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Notanumber]

Anyone with an open mind should watch this then question what they believe.

 

[Jumi]

Most non theists, atheists, or anti theists arent lying.

Some are. Some are satanists, occultists, and its better to pretense atheism.

How large do you think this group of pretenders are? And how important to you is it?

 

[JustWondering]

Opinions are like butt holes, everybody's got one. I'm not impressed.

She presented several clearly articulated ARGUMENTS, this is a debate, you are the one giving opinions without backing ANY of it up. I don't have many people on my ignore list but you're going to end up their shortly unless you actually start debating. Again, this section of the forums is for debating, not proselyting.

 

[JustWondering]

TIL that skepticism towards atheism is evidence that the theistic position is weak.

The logic, it burns. I really don't think atheism deserves some special privilege to not be questioned, sorry!

Who said atheist arguments can't be questioned?

 

[qaz]

their behaviour when people die is the most revealing clue. come to think of it, i don't understand why theism is always coupled with immortality of the soul.

 

[DavidFirth]

She presented several clearly articulated ARGUMENTS, this is a debate, you are the one giving opinions without backing ANY of it up. I don't have many people on my ignore list but you're going to end up their shortly unless you actually start debating. Again, this section of the forums is for debating, not proselyting.

You're kind of boring. You can put me on Ignore if you wish.

 

[JustWondering]

their behaviour when people die is the most revealing clue. come to think of it, i don't understand why theism is always coupled with immortality of the soul.

Immortality is a big selling point for religion. There are religions that don't claim you'll receive immortality but they are of course less popular than the ones that do promise it. Why would anyone stick with a religion that doesn't offer them anything?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

If it's invisible, it cannot be clearly seen because then it would not be invisible.