Those who believe there is no God live by faith

[3rdAngel]

Take your time. I already know that even if I can conjure up the amount faith that you you have, I won't be seeing your evidence any time soon.

Applies both ways. I guess you have your faith and I have mine and we will have to agree to disagree

 

[3rdAngel]

Ah, so your flat denial of making a mistake, regardless of how many times it is pointed out and explained to you, is your dishonest way of thinking you have skirted the Ninth Commandment. Wonder if your God will be so easily fooled...

I am sorry I do not believe the same way you do. Something you have to deal with I guess. If you disagree with what I have posted in regards to the 9th commandment than prove why you disagree and show why by addressing the scriptures in detail showing the Hebrew meaning and word application used in post # 583 linked that shows that bearing false witness is intention to deceive. If you cannot it seems you are simply not interested in a discussion but seek to disagree simply for the sake of disagreeing. At least I have provided evience to prove why your friends claims in regard to the 9th commandment are in error.

 

[3rdAngel]

Now you are bearing false witness.
And I am using your presented explanation of the term. Though you did say you were like stage 6 or 7.
So that explains quite a bit. Still does not make you any more correct.

I am sorry did you say something? Please address post # 583 linked if you disagree what was posted earlier. Jumping up and down and making noise really does not say anything to me to be honest. Prove your claims if you disagree with anything I have posted so far you haven't. Anyhow linked post is provided above. If you cannot prove your claims then you are entitled to your opinion I guess. I wish you well and we will agree to disagree

 

[3rdAngel]

It seems to me that at this point he is trying real hard to convince someone he is right. I suspect it is himself.

No need. I am comfortable in what I believe and have peace in it. Do you have peace in what you believe when you have no evidence that there is no God and God does not exist and does it not worry you knowing that you could be wrong? If you are wrong it should worry you according to the scriptures. You are free to believe what you wish. I guess you have your faith and I have mine. Although I am at peace in what I believe. I see you have no peace in yours.

 

[Ayjaydee]

Indeed Ayjay you are yet to make one.

If I do, I'll choose someone more interesting with whom to have it

 

[3rdAngel]

Wrong again. I never claimed that you said that. But..... you can always present the evidence of making the claim that I said that's what you said. But I did say that you contradicted yourself. I'll gladly present the evidence.

Nonsense. I quoted your own words in the previous post did you actually read the post and then posted what I said next to them....

night912 said: ↑ Nope. Wrong again because you've just contradicted yourself. According to you, not believing in anything is believing in anything.

Where did I post in what you are quoting from as you say "not believing in anything is believing in anything" when I posted "Not believing in anything is simply not believing in anything" Are you telling the truth.

3rdAngel said: ↑ Yep. Not believing in God or the existence of God is still a belief no matter how you want to spin it.

Your response...

So, is not believing still a belief? Or is not believing simply not believing?

Not believing in God is a belief of not believing in God.

You can always can always go with, "Not believing is simply not believing. But wait. That means that you were wrong this whole time about "Not believing that a god exist is still a belief that a god exist." It also means that you are wrong about atheism being a belief. That would make all those people in here that said you were wrong about atheism, all correct. You know what else? Do you recall that time you posted a bunch words believing that all those definitions actually said what you imagined they said. How that time you suggested that I should take it up with those academics if I don't agree with It? It's not too late for you to do that if you still have a problem with their definitions. Of course you could go the other route and keep on arguing with yourself that, "Not believing is still a belief." As for me, a dilemma has come up. I'm not sure which is more amusing, you proving that you were wrong this whole time or you eagerly wanted to show me evidence to prove that I was correct about you when I was implying that you do believe that "Not believing (in anything) is beleiving (in anything). Or maybe it was for showing that contradicted yourself. And unbeknownst to you, making you being the one to tear apart your own argument. I'm still waiting for you to show the evidence that I don't believe that I do not believe that a god exist.

Perhaps you are tired and need more time to think your post through before posting. If someone I believe pigs cannot fly, I believe pigs cannot fly that is a belief that pigs cannot fly, the same way as if someone does not believe there is a God or does not believe God exists which is also a belief that there is no God and that God does not exist.

Lesson to be learned here. Whenever you put a spin on something too many times, your brain might end spinning as well, resulting in you contradicting yourself or end up being the one who tear your own argument apart. Get some rest, you deserved it.

Then try not doing it

 

[3rdAngel]

The point of the OP appears to be to say that atheists' beliefs are faith-based.

Congratualations you worked it out

3rdAngel said: ↑ perhaps you can prove why you think I do not understand it and why you think not believing in God or the existance of God or lack of belief is not a belief?

Your response...

Not to you. It cannot be demonstrated to you that which you don't understand the middle ground between belief and disbelief, by which I mean belief that something is untrue, also a belief. You have been unable to grasp the idea of this middle place between belief and disbelief, which is neither.

Perhaps you do not understand what your own beleifs are or that not believing in something is not believing. Seems like a hard concept for many from what I can see here.

Because they don't believe in gods. That's what an atheist is. Every once in a while, it seems that you might be able to understand what agnostic atheism is, but then, alas, no. Right back to binary.

Sounds like a confused athiest that does not know if he is athiest or agnostic
Here are some deinitions if your confused from different sources...

1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
2. Encyclopedia Britannica
3. Merriam Webster dictionary
4. Encyclopedia of Philisophy
5. International Stantard Bible Encyclopedia
6. Cambridge Dictionary
7. Your Dictionary
8. Dictionary.com
9. Wiki

3rdAngel said: ↑ can you prove there is no God

Your resoponse...

No need. Nothing need be disproved to not be believed. You were given the gumball analogy. I need not prove that there are an odd number of gumballs to not believe that there is an even number.

Ok so you cannot prove there is no God so you like to talk about gumballs instead.

Consider the words proven and disproven, They have the same relationship as belief and disbelief as I have defined disbelief above. They are both proof and disproof are both proof - proof that a statement is true or proof that it is false. I use the words belief, unbelief, and disbelief analogously. Unbelief requires no faith, nor proof or disproof.

Disbelief - inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. So if you refuse to accept God is real or true is not that your belief that you do not accept God is true or real? If the above is a belief and you cannot prove it then your belief is based on faith.

But there is a middle ground there as well - unproven, by which I mean neither proven nor disproven. The issue is unsettled, and may eventually turn out to be proven true or disproved (proven false), but for now, we don't know, and neither believe nor disbelieve, an idea that continually eludes you.

Not at all. What you are describing is the view of someone that is agnostic not someone that is athiest. Is that your belief? Agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. I would still disagree with this position as I believe that many things are known about God and the existence of God through the scriptures.

3rdAngel said: ↑ Without definitive evidence you view is no different to anyone elses except it is in the opposite direction.

Your resoponse...

Yes, unbelief is different from both belief and disbelief, both of which can be evidence or faith-based, but unbelief requires no faith since nothing is being believed nor disbelieved.

Like many believers, you seem to think that it is impossible to live without faith-based beliefs. Why else would you say that all atheists believe by faith?

But you would be incorrect. It is very possible to train oneself not to believe anything without sufficient supporting evidence. It becomes second nature. No idea is accepted without a compelling evidence-based reason. It's part of learning critical analysis. One is taught to be skeptical of all claims, how to evaluate evidence, and how to go from established premises to sound conclusions using fallacy-free reasoning.

Why? Because believing by faith is a logical error. It's another word for guessing, but forgetting that you guessed and believing that you have knowledge.

Unbelieve is simply the opposite of what is believed. It is still a belief in the opposite direction of something that is claimed to be true. If I believe in God and in the existence of God and you do not believe in God or the existence of God that is your belief which is simply unbelief of my claims to the existence of God. Now we simply are doing the full circle again. If I believe in God or the existence of God and you do not believe in God or the existence of God and none of us can prove what we believe or do not believe then what we believe is simply our beliefs that are based on faith we are not able to prove what we believe. I cannot prove to you the existence of God but I do not need to as I already believe in the existence of God through my personal experience and collective witness but you also cannot prove that there is no God to justify your belief that there is no God or that God does not exist you your belief or unbelief is based on faith because you cannot prove God does not exist.

More to come...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ad hom comments are not a get out of jail free card. Please if you disagree with post # 583 linked that shows why your understanding of the ninth commandment is wrong in what you posted earlier, please address the post and scriptures stating why you disagree. Now your only changing your story here and agreeing with what I have just posted to you that shows why you are in error. I have only told you the truth but you do not believe it. This is sad for you. The example you gave in your first post shows you are not telling the truth now....

You do not know what an ad hom is either.

And no, I never changed my story. Other people besides me have had to point out your inability to understand ideas that refute your beliefs.

Your clearly trying to argue above that a mistake is bearing false witness when the scriptures teach and has been proven in post # 583 linked that the meaning of bearing false witness is falsehood or lies with the intent to deceive.

But you failed. Your sources did not support you. You only highlighted the words you thought supported you and ignored the others.

Just acknowledge you were wrong and learn something. I think you have though as your simply back peddling now and have tried to change your story in this post but it is too late again as you can see I quoted you word for word again.

Your welcome

How can I acknowledge that I am wrong when you once again refuted yourself. You are a very funny man.

 

[3rdAngel]

3rdAngel said: ↑ Wheather these people have had an experience with aliens or not I do not know. I believe they believe their experience. If I am being honest with myself I do not know what experience they had one way or another. That would be my position as I have no evidence to prove them to be wrong.

Your response...

But I'll bet that you don't believe them, nor disbelieve them. Your position seems to be in between - maybe they're right, maybe they're not, you don't disbelieve them, but neither do you believe them (unless you do) Like I said, every now and again you seem to move toward an understanding of that middle place. One more attempt. You meet a person about whom you know nothing? Do you trust him? Do you distrust him? If so, you do so by faith, since you have no reason to take either position yet. Continuing with my use of un- and dis- as above, we could say that you neither trust nor distrust this person, a position we might call untrust, which is also undistrust. It's neither. It's a third position, and no faith is required to hold judgment until more is known about the character and trustworthiness of this person.
That's pretty much the description of a nonexistent thing. Nobody ever finds evidence for any nonexistent thing. You won't find the leprechaun's pot of gold whether you wait for evidence to come to you or you go seek it. You can drop disbelief from your definition, since disbelieving atheists are a subset of those lacking belief in gods. You can also drop "God," since whatever is meant by that word is a subset of gods. We're left with an atheist being someone lacking a belief in gods. But you didn't make an argument, and you provided no evidence to support your claim that atheism means the positive denial of the existence of gods. You simply keep repeating that atheism is a faith-based position, faith that gods don't exist, since there is way to rule out the possibility that there exists a god that doesn't want to be found, doesn't know we exist, or can't make itself known.

OK. That's what you believe, by faith, given the mountains of evidence you are ignoring from atheists who tell you that they do not make any faith-based claim about the nonexistence of gods. We exist. You can't understand that. I think we're all a little dumbstruck that you can't make progress from the errors in your OP. How does that happen? You've already been told that chimps are apes, and agreed that rather than apes, you should have written gorillas or orangutans. No, it doesn't mean what you wrote. Mating and producing fertile offspring is the criterion for two organisms being of the same species. Nobody is claiming that chimps and gorillas are even in the same genus. There is no reason that they could not have descended from a different, earlier ape species now extinct. This has already been refuted as well. You haven't established that if a universe exists, it must have come from a god. If you think that you proved that a god must exist with that argument, try varying it a little. Substitute multiverse for God, and the same argument "proves" that there is a multiverse, not a god. If you can see why that is wrong, perhaps you can see why your argument doesn't prove that a god exists or anything else. It's merely No, he doesn't, and it appears that he never will. He seems incapable of conceiving of that middle ground. He doesn't just deny it exists, he never refers to it even as a possibility, or something to reject. He simply cannot conceive of it to deny it. The analogy with biological conception seems apt. Here, a male sends a seed to a female, and if conditions are right, the seed is planted and a new life begins. This is the psychological analog of that. The thread has tried diligently to plant the seed of an idea in the field of his mind without success. He wasn't able to conceive the idea, so it appears nowhere in his posting. And to extend the analogy, in a sense, our minds are of different psychological species, with none of us able to plant the idea in his head.

From reading your post it sounds like you may have a misunderstanding as to what I believe. If I meet someone for the first time I have no opinion about them because I do not know anything about them. The view of athiesm however is defined as disbelief (inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. or lack of belief (absence or lack of belief especially : absence or lack of religious belief; nonbelief) in God in the existence of God or gods.

Let look at this in detail... What does "lack belief in God" mean?

"Lack" means deficiency or absence. "Belief" means acceptance and conviction that something is true or valid. Therefore, lack of belief would basically mean an absence of belief that something is true. But even the meaning of "absence of belief" is debatable. Someone can say, "I have absence of belief in screaming blue ants," but it is a meaningless statement. So? You lack belief in screaming blue ants. What about it? If "lack of belief" is complete ignorance about something, then it is a state of non-awareness about it. This would mean that it is not a purposeful, chosen neutrality about something since this is an intellectual categorization which implies awareness of a concept or thing--even if the category is called neutrality. We lack belief in concepts we are not aware of, and we categorize/assess concepts we are aware of. If "lack of belief" means that a person chooses not to make an intellectual commitment to a position but to remain intellectually neutral regarding belief or disbelief, that would be more logical.

However, complete neutrality about a concept is impossible since all concepts have an effect upon the hearer and illicit a response whether it be emotional and/or intellectual. Once you have been exposed to a concept, you categorize it as: True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., but you do not return to a complete mental neutrality or state of ignorance.

We do not "lack belief" in invisible pink unicorns. That is, we do not hold a mentally neutral position about the concept. We make a decision to categorize it as: True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., based upon our scope of knowledge and experience.

To the extent that this categorization occurs, belief or disbelief is associated with it. If True, then positive belief is applied. If False, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied. If Ridiculous, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied. If Unsure, then belief and disbelief are pending with either as the outcome. This is because we realize that belief in the concept (acceptance) is possible as also is disbelief (rejection)--depending on further information and analysis. Being unsure about something is as close to "lack of belief" as one can logically get, but even this is a categorization with pending commitment to belief or disbelief. Actions reflect belief. We act based upon what we do believe--not upon what we do not believe. In other words, I do something because I believe something--not because I don't believe something. If I don't believe my house is on fire, then I don't do anything; but if believe it is, I get out. In other words, if I believe my house is not on fire, then I don't need to get up and get out. It is not lack of belief that moves us but belief.

I lack belief in concepts I am unaware of. Therefore, I do not and cannot act based upon them since I am unaware of them. I can only act or not act based upon concepts I am aware of. If I believe there are invisible pink unicorns, I would act accordingly and either defend their existence or behave in a manner consistent with the belief that they exist. If I believe there are no such things as invisible pink unicorns, I may or may not defend my position depending on the circumstances. But, I do not promote their non-existence since it is not necessary to do so any more than it is necessary to promote the assertion that there is no ice cream factory on Jupiter.

If I believe that the existence of invisible pink unicorns is ridiculous, I may or may not assert that it is ridiculous; but I have categorized them and believe they do not exist. If I am unsure about the existence of invisible pink unicorns, I would wait for further information before making my decision. In this, I would be agnostic about their existence. If an atheist says he (or she) lacks belief in God yet actively seeks to undermine theistic proofs and promote atheistic principles, then we must conclude that his actions are consistent with his beliefs; namely, that he actively believes God does not exist.

Furthermore, if the atheist is actively promoting the non-existence of God yet says he lacks belief in God, then his words and actions are inconsistent. Atheists, who say they lack belief in God or disbelieve in God yet actively attack theistic proofs and seek to promote atheism, are acting according to their beliefs--not their non-beliefs or their "lack of belief." It is more consistent to say that the atheist who supports and promotes the idea that there is no God but attacks theistic evidences must believe there is no God. Otherwise, he is behaving without a reason, which is not logical.

To say you believe there is no God has problems. To say "I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice. Then, on what would the atheist be basing his belief that there is no God: evidence, lack of evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of all? If evidence, then what positive evidence is there that disproves God's existence? If lack of evidence, then it means he has not yet seen all evidence, and there might be sufficient evidence to demonstrate God's existence. This would mean that God may indeed exist; and the person is really an agnostic concerning God, so his atheist position is inconsistent with his statement.

If logic, then what logical proof do you have that negates God's existence? At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the proofs thus presented are insufficient. Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented, and negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs since no one can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does not disprove God's existence.

If there were a logical argument that proved God did not exist, it either has not yet been made known, or it doesn't exist. If it were known, then it would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of God's non-existence has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, there are no logical proofs for God's non-existence.

If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is an arbitrary position. If by a combination of evidence, logic and/or faith, then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism. A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism. For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism, and there are no logical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative. (Source: CARM)

Hope this is helpful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense. If you claim you do not believe in God or that God does not exist that is your belief that there is no God and that God does not exist. There is no extremes I have already posted many athiesm definitions. I have also asked you directly what you personally believe and you state in your own words that you believe there is no God and God does not exist. Lacking a belief means simply not to have one. All of the above do not prove there is no God neither are they evidence that there is no God but simply beliefs or no belief based on not believing that there is a God or gods. A disbelief (inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real; unbelief of do not believe) or lack of belief (lacking belief) in the existence of God or gods or even no belief is something that cannot be proven, therefore is faith based.

I never claimed that God does not exist. You are still guilty of black and white thinking in a color universe.

try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your response...



From reading your post it sounds like you may have a misunderstanding as to what I believe. If I meet someone for the first time I have no opinion about them because I do not know anything about them. The view of athiesm however is defined as disbelief (inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. or lack of belief (absence or lack of belief especially : absence or lack of religious belief; nonbelief) in God in the existence of God or gods.

Let look at this in detail... What does "lack belief in God" mean?

"Lack" means deficiency or absence. "Belief" means acceptance and conviction that something is true or valid. Therefore, lack of belief would basically mean an absence of belief that something is true. But even the meaning of "absence of belief" is debatable. Someone can say, "I have absence of belief in screaming blue ants," but it is a meaningless statement. So? You lack belief in screaming blue ants. What about it? If "lack of belief" is complete ignorance about something, then it is a state of non-awareness about it. This would mean that it is not a purposeful, chosen neutrality about something since this is an intellectual categorization which implies awareness of a concept or thing--even if the category is called neutrality. We lack belief in concepts we are not aware of, and we categorize/assess concepts we are aware of. If "lack of belief" means that a person chooses not to make an intellectual commitment to a position but to remain intellectually neutral regarding belief or disbelief, that would be more logical.

However, complete neutrality about a concept is impossible since all concepts have an effect upon the hearer and illicit a response whether it be emotional and/or intellectual. Once you have been exposed to a concept, you categorize it as: True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., but you do not return to a complete mental neutrality or state of ignorance.

We do not "lack belief" in invisible pink unicorns. That is, we do not hold a mentally neutral position about the concept. We make a decision to categorize it as: True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., based upon our scope of knowledge and experience.

To the extent that this categorization occurs, belief or disbelief is associated with it. If True, then positive belief is applied. If False, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied. If Ridiculous, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied. If Unsure, then belief and disbelief are pending with either as the outcome. This is because we realize that belief in the concept (acceptance) is possible as also is disbelief (rejection)--depending on further information and analysis. Being unsure about something is as close to "lack of belief" as one can logically get, but even this is a categorization with pending commitment to belief or disbelief. Actions reflect belief. We act based upon what we do believe--not upon what we do not believe. In other words, I do something because I believe something--not because I don't believe something. If I don't believe my house is on fire, then I don't do anything; but if believe it is, I get out. In other words, if I believe my house is not on fire, then I don't need to get up and get out. It is not lack of belief that moves us but belief.

I lack belief in concepts I am unaware of. Therefore, I do not and cannot act based upon them since I am unaware of them. I can only act or not act based upon concepts I am aware of. If I believe there are invisible pink unicorns, I would act accordingly and either defend their existence or behave in a manner consistent with the belief that they exist. If I believe there are no such things as invisible pink unicorns, I may or may not defend my position depending on the circumstances. But, I do not promote their non-existence since it is not necessary to do so any more than it is necessary to promote the assertion that there is no ice cream factory on Jupiter.

If I believe that the existence of invisible pink unicorns is ridiculous, I may or may not assert that it is ridiculous; but I have categorized them and believe they do not exist. If I am unsure about the existence of invisible pink unicorns, I would wait for further information before making my decision. In this, I would be agnostic about their existence. If an atheist says he (or she) lacks belief in God yet actively seeks to undermine theistic proofs and promote atheistic principles, then we must conclude that his actions are consistent with his beliefs; namely, that he actively believes God does not exist.

Furthermore, if the atheist is actively promoting the non-existence of God yet says he lacks belief in God, then his words and actions are inconsistent. Atheists, who say they lack belief in God or disbelieve in God yet actively attack theistic proofs and seek to promote atheism, are acting according to their beliefs--not their non-beliefs or their "lack of belief." It is more consistent to say that the atheist who supports and promotes the idea that there is no God but attacks theistic evidences must believe there is no God. Otherwise, he is behaving without a reason, which is not logical.

To say you believe there is no God has problems. To say "I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice. Then, on what would the atheist be basing his belief that there is no God: evidence, lack of evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of all? If evidence, then what positive evidence is there that disproves God's existence? If lack of evidence, then it means he has not yet seen all evidence, and there might be sufficient evidence to demonstrate God's existence. This would mean that God may indeed exist; and the person is really an agnostic concerning God, so his atheist position is inconsistent with his statement.

If logic, then what logical proof do you have that negates God's existence? At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the proofs thus presented are insufficient. Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented, and negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs since no one can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does not disprove God's existence.

If there were a logical argument that proved God did not exist, it either has not yet been made known, or it doesn't exist. If it were known, then it would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of God's non-existence has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, there are no logical proofs for God's non-existence.

If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is an arbitrary position. If by a combination of evidence, logic and/or faith, then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism. A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism. For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism, and there are no logical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative.

(Source: CARM)

Hope this is helpful.

CARM? Are you serious? Why would you rely on liars for Jesus?

 

[3rdAngel]

@Everyone ok guys enjoying the discussion. I have to go to work now so will catch up a little more latter when I have some more time bb for now

 

[3rdAngel]

CARM? Are you serious? Why would you rely on liars for Jesus?

If you disagree perhaps you can show why you dsiagree and if you cannot why simply disagree without proving your claims? Anyhow have to pop out for a while nice talking to you. I will try and come back latter

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you disagree perhaps you can show why you dsiagree and if you cannot why simply disagree without proving your claims? Anyhow have to pop out for a while nice talking to you. I will try and come back latter

Of course I can show why I disagree. All you have to do is to debate properly. You really seem to have a hard time understanding corrections. Why jot bring up your claims one at a time and we can discuss them. CARM is a site that has lost all credibility, except for with the Kool Aid drinkers. But if you care to use their arguments in your own words I will explain how they fail.

Again, one claim at a time. If you do a dishonest Gish Gallop you will only get corrections.

 

[3rdAngel]

Of course I can show why I disagree. All you have to do is to debate properly. You really seem to have a hard time understanding corrections. Why jot bring up your claims one at a time and we can discuss them. CARM is a site that has lost all credibility, except for with the Kool Aid drinkers. But if you care to use their arguments in your own words I will explain how they fail.

Again, one claim at a time. If you do a dishonest Gish Gallop you will only get corrections.

Nice rebuttal (joking)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice rebuttal (joking)

It was not even an attempt at a rebuttal. It was an offer to help you understand. Your claims were immediately refuted here. At best you did not understand the refutations.

 

[Ayjaydee]

It was not even an attempt at a rebuttal. It was an offer to help you understand. Your claims were immediately refuted here. At best you did not understand the refutations.

How long do you usually last before you tire of his schtick?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How long do you usually last before you tire of his schtick?

It depends on how bored I am.

I am an eternal optimist. There must be a pony somewhere in this pile of horse****.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

CARM? Are you serious? Why would you rely on liars for Jesus?

I am sure he is. What better source for nonsense than nonsense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How long do you usually last before you tire of his schtick?

He lost me a few threads ago. The problem is that the fringe produces the most vocal spokespeople with a lot of time and anger on their hands. They appear voracious for attention and often say things that should be addressed in their attempt to get it.

That logic and evidence fail them and their unwarranted dismissal of anything offered is obvious does not impede them in their fanatical zeal.