Do Christians who do bad things, nullify other evidences for God - addressing Christian Hypocrisy.

createdtoworship · Jun 19, 2016

simply put, if you reject facts as true, then all science is just a theory, cannot be verified as being valid.

so you shoot yourself in the foot.

or to put it another way, you cut of the nose to spite the face.

You need to have both be true, but you can't because they are self defeating.

and this bothers you doesn't it?

Well that feeling is what is called
Cognitive Dissonance

“This is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.

Dissonance increases with:

The importance of the subject to us.
How strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict.
Our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict.”

Above quote from: http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_dissonance.htm

I say repeatedly:,

"you have to be willing to be wrong."
"you have to be willing to change."
"if you can't do the above then debate is not for you"

And I exhort myself, we all have preconceived ideas of what truth is, but many times it is simply clouded with self interest.

I have been proven wrong many many times, and it always makes me a more rational thinker in the long run.

So I hope this helps you out as it did me in the past.

so in conclusion.

to reject premise one that Facts are true, is the say that the equation 2+2=4 - is not a fact. And then further more to say, that science is not factual either. Both of which are obviously wrong.

lastly, you must have both premises to be true for falsification to work.

and they cannot be logically true universally.

because if facts are true, and (yes, 2+2=4 is still a fact last time I checked)....then science is not factual according to your post because you mentioned that science cannot be proven.

if it can't be proven, then it's not factual, and the scientific method has actually failed at that point. As that is (last time I checked) the purpose of the scientific method to check validity of scientific hypothesis'.

so again this self defeats, and at this point we should toss out the scientfic method all together, and start from scratch.

so lets start by tossing out evolutionary biology as a hard science.

that would be my first step, if I were in charge.

so don't forget my conclusion:

facts are not falsifiable, if they were they would be false.

Davian · Jun 20, 2016

gradyll said:
simply put, if you reject facts as true,

It depends on what you mean by "true" in this context. Your link says that it is impossible to for an empirical law (fact) to be known as absolutely true in our universe.

Or by "true" do you mean, an accurate but falsifiable description of reality?

then all science is just a theory, cannot be verified as being valid.

I don't know where you are trying to go this this. Semiconductor theory is just a theory. How is that internet-connected computer working for you? Do you use cablevision? Satellite TV? A car?

so you shoot yourself in the foot.

or to put it another way, you cut of the nose to spite the face.

You need to have both be true, but you can't because they are self defeating.

You will first have to detail how they are allegedly self-defeating.

and this bothers you doesn't it?

Well that feeling is what is called
Cognitive Dissonance

“This is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.

Dissonance increases with:

The importance of the subject to us.

How strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict.

Our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict.”

Above quote from: http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_dissonance.htm

I say repeatedly:,

"you have to be willing to be wrong."

"you have to be willing to change."

"if you can't do the above then debate is not for you"

And I exhort myself, we all have preconceived ideas of what truth is, but many times it is simply clouded with self interest.

I have been proven wrong many many times, and it always makes me a more rational thinker in the long run.

So I hope this helps you out as it did me in the past.

Perhaps you should stick with the topic at hand - your understanding of the concept of falsifiability - rather than attempting to make this about me and what I am thinking. Your mind reading skills are woefully inaccurate.

Another Unsuccessful Test

Davian
Feb 27, 2016

so in conclusion.

to reject premise one that Facts are true,

...in accordance with the link you provided

is the say that the equation 2+2=4 - is not a fact.

Where did I say that? Can we not assemble two groups of two objects and observe the new total? Can this not be independently tested by others?

And then further more to say, that science is not factual either. Both of which are obviously wrong.

From your link: "Note that falsifiable does not mean "falsified" or "false" any more than breakable means "broken."

lastly, you must have both premises to be true for falsification to work.

Not according to the link you provided.

and they cannot be logically true universally.

because if facts are true, and (yes, 2+2=4 is still a fact last time I checked)....then science is not factual according to your post because you mentioned that science cannot be proven.

Where did I say that? Quote me.

if it can't be proven, then it's not factual, and the scientific method has actually failed at that point. As that is (last time I checked) the purpose of the scientific method to check validity of scientific hypothesis'.

Sure. A testable, falsifiable hypothesis.

so again this self defeats, and at this point we should toss out the scientfic method all together, and start from scratch.

And what would you suggest as a replacement for scientific methodology? Religious dogma? Yours?

so lets start by tossing out evolutionary biology as a hard science.

Ironic, given that your link uses as an example a falsifiable fact regarding genetic coding that is in support of evolutionary biology.

that would be my first step, if I were in charge.

Did you miss the application date for applying to be supreme dictator of the Earth? There was an app for that.

so don't forget my conclusion:

facts are not falsifiable, if they were they would be false.

From your link: "Note that falsifiable does not mean "falsified" or "false" any more than breakable means "broken."

Back to where we were in my last post: I completely agree with your source article. Now, why don't you?

createdtoworship · Jun 20, 2016

Thank you for the response. But what I mean by true is....true means true.

2+2=4, and other mathmatics.....do you call that a theory?

the theory of what?

I await your response.

So just as there can be mathematical laws, there can be all sort of scientific laws.

you point out theories, because it's an easy strawman fallacy that you can poke at while slipping in your argument here.

the context of what I mention involves laws, not theories.

besides, if falsification only applied to theories and not scientific laws, then only the theories would be factual, while the laws would fail the test, and not be factual.

which is self defeating.

so your argument, really has no legs to stand on here.

I noticed also your attempts to change the bars and direct the topic to another issue.

I guess this means you get the point I am making, and we can proceed?

Davian · Jun 21, 2016

gradyll said:
Thank you for the response. But what I mean by true is....true means true.

That is not very helpful; it is much like saying stellar nucleosynthesis means stellar nucleosynthesis.

2+2=4, and other mathmatics.....do you call that a theory?

the theory of what?

I await your response.

No, I do not recall calling that a theory.

So just as there can be mathematical laws, there can be all sort of scientific laws.

you point out theories, because it's an easy strawman fallacy

What did I misrepresent, exactly?

that you can poke at while slipping in your argument here.

What argument was that, exactly?

the context of what I mention involves laws, not theories.

besides, if falsification only applied to theories and not scientific laws, then only the theories would be factual, while the laws would fail the test, and not be factual.

which is self defeating.

The link you provided has the concept of falsification applied to both scientific theory and law.

Did you actually read the link that you provided?

so your argument, really has no legs to stand on here.

What argument was that, exactly?

I noticed also your attempts to change the bars

I think the word you are looking for here is "goalposts". No, I have not moved them; you just have yet to reach them.

and direct the topic to another issue.

No, the issue is still your understanding of the concept of falsifiability.

I guess this means you get the point I am making, and we can proceed?

All I see are your attempts to distract and misdirect.

Back to where we were in my previous post: I completely agree with your source article. Now, why don't you?

createdtoworship · Jun 21, 2016

Davian said:
That is not very helpful; it is much like saying stellar nucleosynthesis means stellar nucleosynthesis.

No, I do not recall calling that a theory.

What did I misrepresent, exactly?

What argument was that, exactly?

The link you provided has the concept of falsification applied to both scientific theory and law.

Did you actually read the link that you provided?

What argument was that, exactly?

I think the word you are looking for here is "goalposts". No, I have not moved them; you just have yet to reach them.

No, the issue is still your understanding of the concept of falsifiability.

All I see are your attempts to distract and misdirect.

Back to where we were in my previous post: I completely agree with your source article. Now, why don't you?

People repeat themselves when arguments break down and there are no other responses that can be given.

I gave you a definition of falsification.

by a trusted source.

and logically revealed how it self destructs. (I have rebutted your failed attempts to dismantle this solid logic, by your questions of what is truth, I responded with mathmatical law for example)

to which you did not respond, and asked basic questions like

"what is my argument, what is your argument" etc.

nonetheless, I have refuted every thing you have posted. Falsification fails, so declaring that something is not falsifiable self defeats.

a more appropriate terminology and classification for empiricism would be "verification, or verifiability"

not falsification and falsibility.

summary....if facts are true, and falsifiability requires something at least hypothetically to be false, then stating facts are falsifiable is an argument from silence. and thus negated by the fact that an argument from silence is a not a supported argument but a fallacy.

in conclusion:
facts cannot be falsified, because there is no observable reason to indicate them as false (even if they can be potentially falsified), stating so is an argument from silence.

Sources:
for a definition of falsifiablility see this source:
http://science.jrank.org/pages/7691/Falsifiability.html

Davian · Jun 21, 2016

gradyll said:
People repeat themselves when arguments break down and there are no other responses that can be given.

Indeed, that would be quite descriptive of your posts.

I gave you a definition of falsification.

by a trusted source.

Actually, what I asked for was the source from where you think you got your understanding of falsifiability from.

Now, if this is not the case, feel free to correct yourself.

and logically revealed how it self destructs.

Can you provide the post number where you did that?

(I have rebutted your failed attempts to dismantle this solid logic, by your questions of what is truth, I responded with mathmatical law for example)

to which you did not respond, and asked basic questions like

"what is my argument, what is your argument" etc.

Indeed, and you have yet to make that clarification.

nonetheless, I have refuted every thing you have posted.

I have not made statements to be refuted; it is your understanding that is on the table at this time.

Falsification fails, so declaring that something is not falsifiable self defeats.

a more appropriate terminology and classification for empiricism would be "verification, or verifiability"

not falsification and falsibility.

Surely you are aware that the concept of falsifiability was formulated in response to the criticisms of verificationism and positivism, are you not?

summary....if facts are true, and falsifiability requires something at least hypothetically to be false,

Not according to your link. Now, are you purposefully misrepresenting what that page says, or are you simply not reading it?

then stating facts are falsifiable is an argument from silence. and thus negated by the fact that an argument from silence is a not a supported argument but a fallacy.

in conclusion:
facts cannot be falsified, because there is no observable reason to indicate them as false (even if they can be potentially falsified), stating so is an argument from silence.

From your link: "Note that falsifiable does not mean "falsified" or "false" any more than breakable means "broken."

Sources:
for a definition of falsifiablility see this source:
http://science.jrank.org/pages/7691/Falsifiability.html

A good source, it would seem. Have you read it?

Back to before your attempts to derail: I completely agree with your source article. Now, why don't you agree with this page? Or more accurately, why don't you read it?

^_^

createdtoworship · Jun 22, 2016

I explained that my view of falsification is based in logic. That is it's source. Using your sources as my sources. And using intelligence to interpret them.

if you disagree then state why, please don't ask for sources again, and again, when I have given you them more than 2X already

again, please use logical laws, cited sources etc to refute my sources and premises.

my sources are secure, and as of yet, you have no source of your own, accept the ones I spoon fed you.

createdtoworship · Jun 22, 2016

you do realize you asked 22 questions in three posts.

I have asked maybe 3.

So who understands who better?

who understands the topic better?

who has the more solid grasp on the logic presented?

(now I am up to 6), less than 1/3rd of yours, only in the last three posts.

Because you apparently are a skeptic by nature, you have these questions.

you are unwilling to have the strength to come to any conclusion, on nearly any topic.

why you exist,

where you go when you die,

why is there evil,

why is there good,

why, why, why???

Well I can help out, but I can't dedicate all my time to this one forum, answering questions, that will probably never satisfy. You have to start sorting some of this stuff out, and digesting a little more than you currently are.

just saying (trying to help)

skeptic - My definition source, by a former atheist-

"The definition of a skeptic is; someone who will only be satisfied of the truth of any particular positive claim provided his own threshold of evidence has been met. Ergo, skepticism is the scrutiny of any positive claim. ...It turns out that atheist-skeptics are willing to be skeptical of just about everything and anything in the known universe and particularly beyond it, with the exception of their own atheism."

from a book called -Illogical Atheism (in ch1) -author - Jinn Bo 2013

Davian · Jun 24, 2016

gradyll said:
I explained that my view of falsification is based in logic. That is it's source. Using your sources as my sources. And using intelligence to interpret them.

Yet this "intelligence" that you use results in you contracting what your source says.

if you disagree then state why, please don't ask for sources again, and again, when I have given you them more than 2X already

again, please use logical laws, cited sources etc to refute my sources and premises.

Your own source refutes what you say. Read it.

my sources are secure, and as of yet, you have no source of your own, accept the ones I spoon fed you.

Well, it was obvious that you were poised in an attempt to "poison the well" if I had provided a source, hence my waiting for you to provide a source that (supposedly) was where you think you got your understanding of the concept of falsifiability.

If you are not happy with it, find another.

gradyll said:
you do realize you asked 22 questions in three posts.

I have asked maybe 3.

So who understands who better?

who understands the topic better?

who has the more solid grasp on the logic presented?

(now I am up to 6), less than 1/3rd of yours, only in the last three posts.

The questions I ask, in the manner of the Socratic method, are made on my part to provide you with the opportunity to demonstrate your understanding of the concept of falsifiability, based on the source you yourself provided. It is not the number of questions that are notable, but your responses to those questions; do you answer them directly and in a manner that is consistent with your own source, or do you obfuscate, evade, and change the subject?

That you choose to do the latter suggests that you still do not grasp the concept as described in your link.

Because you apparently are a skeptic by nature, you have these questions.

you are unwilling to have the strength to come to any conclusion, on nearly any topic.

why you exist,

where you go when you die,

why is there evil,

why is there good,

why, why, why???

Well I can help out, but I can't dedicate all my time to this one forum, answering questions, that will probably never satisfy. You have to start sorting some of this stuff out, and digesting a little more than you currently are.

just saying (trying to help)

Your mind-reading stunt fails as a distraction, particularly when it is so wildly inaccurate. ^_^

Another Unsuccessful Test

Davian
Feb 27, 2016

skeptic - My definition source, by a former atheist-

"The definition of a skeptic is; someone who will only be satisfied of the truth of any particular positive claim provided his own threshold of evidence has been met. Ergo, skepticism is the scrutiny of any positive claim. ...It turns out that atheist-skeptics are willing to be skeptical of just about everything and anything in the known universe and particularly beyond it, with the exception of their own atheism."

from a book called -Illogical Atheism (in ch1) -author - Jinn Bo 2013

In that context, I would not identify myself as a skeptic or an atheist, and I don't see what that has to do with the topic at hand.

With that distraction aside, back your source article; I don't have any issues with it.

Even as you cite it in support of your own alleged understanding of the subject of falsifiability, your posts continue contradict this source, and you continue with your attempts to derail and misdirect from the topic.

Reflecting on your responses in your latest posts have caused me to wonder: could it be that it is you putting yourself in the very OP of this thread? That the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty that you - a self-identified Christian - are now exhibiting in this thread is undercutting those religious assertions that you believe to be true in eyes of disbelievers such as myself?

Not really, but then your religious beliefs never did have any credibility in my eyes.

You can confirm that I have hit the mark with this by responding with yet more evasion and misdirection?

createdtoworship · Jun 25, 2016

Davian said:
Yet this "intelligence" that you use results in you contracting what your source says.

Your own source refutes what you say. Read it.

Well, it was obvious that you were poised in an attempt to "poison the well" if I had provided a source, hence my waiting for you to provide a source that (supposedly) was where you think you got your understanding of the concept of falsifiability.

If you are not happy with it, find another.

The questions I ask, in the manner of the Socratic method, are made on my part to provide you with the opportunity to demonstrate your understanding of the concept of falsifiability, based on the source you yourself provided. It is not the number of questions that are notable, but your responses to those questions; do you answer them directly and in a manner that is consistent with your own source, or do you obfuscate, evade, and change the subject?

That you choose to do the latter suggests that you still do not grasp the concept as described in your link.

Your mind-reading stunt fails as a distraction, particularly when it is so wildly inaccurate.

Another Unsuccessful Test

Davian

Feb 27, 2016

In that context, I would not identify myself as a skeptic or an atheist, and I don't see what that has to do with the topic at hand.

With that distraction aside, back your source article; I don't have any issues with it.

Even as you cite it in support of your own alleged understanding of the subject of falsifiability, your posts continue contradict this source, and you continue with your attempts to derail and misdirect from the topic.

Reflecting on your responses in your latest posts have caused me to wonder: could it be that it is you putting yourself in the very OP of this thread? That the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty that you - a self-identified Christian - are now exhibiting in this thread is undercutting those religious assertions that you believe to be true in eyes of disbelievers such as myself?

Not really, but then your religious beliefs never did have any credibility in my eyes.

You can confirm that I have hit the mark with this by responding with yet more evasion and misdirection?

seeing that your questions are taking up precious space in this thread (22 questions in 3 posts), I was probing into why would this happen. And concluded that you are a cookie cutter skeptic. You disagree but do not say why?

I am very well aware about the debate tactic that refuses to answer questions, however it is quite outdated. And is not really useful to any readers of the thread, looking for ideas.

other than learning to be an annoyance.

There is no need to go on and on 22 questions in just a few paragraphs.

it's a bit much, don't you think?

if you disagree with my premises here, please explain how 22 questions in a few posts, is necessary and normal in forum etiquette.

On the other hand, if you attempt to be part of this conversation, and wish to dialogue (meaning two people sharing views and sources, instead of one person (myself) spouting off to my lonesome self)....then let me know.

I would love to be apart of a conversation, and I don't like to talk so that I can hear myself. Although it may be fun for a moment, it's not really that enjoyable I would assume.

well, I thank you for the conversation and see that you are at a stopping point here, and due to the circulatory nature of your comments, I can see your either out of ammunition or out of breath, or both.

so let me, know.

In case I don't see you, take care, and thanks again.

Davian · Jun 27, 2016

Davian said:
Reflecting on your responses in your latest posts have caused me to wonder: could it be that it is you putting yourself in the very OP of this thread? That the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty that you - a self-identified Christian - are now exhibiting in this thread is undercutting those religious assertions that you believe to be true in eyes of disbelievers such as myself? Not really, but then your religious beliefs never did have any credibility in my eyes. Can you confirm that I have hit the mark with this by responding with yet more evasion and misdirection?

gradyll said:
seeing that your questions are taking up precious space in this thread (22 questions in 3 posts), I was probing into why would this happen.

Thanks for that. I figured that I had finally pinned down what you were actually doing in this thread.

And concluded that you are a cookie cutter skeptic. You disagree but do not say why?

I do not fit your description of that label, and it was an obvious attempt at evasion and misdirection.

I am very well aware about the debate tactic that refuses to answer questions, however it is quite outdated. And is not really useful to any readers of the thread, looking for ideas.

other than learning to be an annoyance.

That is quite descriptive of tactic that you yourself use in response to my questions, although I find it to be amusing, not annoying.

You contradict your own citations, and now it seems you will do anything to avoid having to admit that and back track. Should I feel sad for you?

There is no need to go on and on 22 questions in just a few paragraphs.

it's a bit much, don't you think?

if you disagree with my premises here, please explain how 22 questions in a few posts, is necessary and normal in forum etiquette.

As I said in an earlier post, in the context of a Socratic dialogue, the questions are entirely appropriate; that you don't think so may be simply because you are in the receiving end of them. ^_^

On the other hand, if you attempt to be part of this conversation, and wish to dialogue (meaning two people sharing views and sources, instead of one person (myself) spouting off to my lonesome self)....then let me know.

I would love to be apart of a conversation, and I don't like to talk so that I can hear myself. Although it may be fun for a moment, it's not really that enjoyable I would assume.

Actually, this sort of exchange is exactly why I come here. If I am wrong, I will welcome where that can be demonstrated. Your evasion and misdirections suggests that you cannot show me to be wrong.

well, I thank you for the conversation and see that you are at a stopping point here, and due to the circulatory nature of your comments, I can see your either out of ammunition or out of breath, or both.

Not at all. I simply had an epiphany about the role you were playing within your own thread, and called you on it, and you confirmed it. Subtlety is not my strong point.

The question still stands, however: as what you post about the concept of falsifiability contradicts the link that you yourself provided, are you purposefully misrepresenting what that page says, or are you simply not reading it?

so let me, know.

In case I don't see you, take care, and thanks again.

Leaving the site? Not on my part, I hope.

If you ever want pick up on where you went wrong on the concept of falsifiability, I'll be here.

Blondepudding · Jul 4, 2016

I find it weird that the Ignostics in community pay so much attention to denying any religions god.Given what it means to actually be Ignostic. And not an Atheist using a new word to hide their intent.

I don't think Christians that do bad things nullify evidence of the faith of a people who believe in god. I think they instead demonstrate in the case of Christian tenets what it means to continually need forgiveness by their god.

createdtoworship · Aug 31, 2016

Blondepudding said:
I find it weird that the Ignostics in community pay so much attention to denying any religions god.Given what it means to actually be Ignostic. And not an Atheist using a new word to hide their intent.

I don't think Christians that do bad things nullify evidence of the faith of a people who believe in god. I think they instead demonstrate in the case of Christian tenets what it means to continually need forgiveness by their god.

I notice that according to wikipedia ignostics require a "non controversial" definition for God before actually debating the existence or non existence of God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

But how do we know for a fact that one definition of God is controversial, and yet an ignostics definition for some reason is not controversial?

thanks for the reply.

Picky Picky · Sep 6, 2016

I would have thought the answer to the op startlingly obvious. The bad behaviour of individual Christians does not nullify the truth of Christianity any more than the good behaviour of individual Christians proves it.

anonymous person · Sep 13, 2016

Ultimately, people either reject Christ or take Him as both Savior and Lord.

But the one who rejects Him does so because they have something against Him.

Every professing Christian could live as Jesus lived and many would still reject Christianity. Why? Because they reject Christ.

So while the hypocrisy of many professing Christians in no way helps the gospel, those who reject Christ would do so even in the absence of this hypocrisy because it is not the Christian they have the problem with. It is Christ. Has it not been written, "the world cannot hate you but it hates Me, because I testify that its deeds are evil?"

Here Jesus gives us this simple but profound truth. After all the smokescreens disappear, after all the excuses and reasons fall to the wayside, men at the end of the day hate Jesus because He came declaring men were sinners and needed to be reconciled to God.

Period.

Hieronymus · Sep 13, 2016

gradyll said:
I certainly understand that Christians are a light in the world,

Really?

I understand that where a secular student may just give in to peer pressure to take another drink of alcohol, meanwhile, a christian student will refrain.

The Christian will have different kinds of peer pressure though.

But what about when Christians are involved in serious sin, debauchery, murder, molestation for example. Does this nullify God's Gospel and power?

No, they would be hypocrites.

Ed1wolf · Sep 26, 2016

MentalHolocaust said:
Jesus is supposed to work "positive" (whatever that means) change into the Christian's life. I see little evidence of this in most Christians, except for a few notable exceptions of "holy" people, but then again, every other religion has these too, and even we atheists have some pretty "good" people... which leads me to believe that there is nothing particularly exceptional about Christianity. It has nothing to do with our origins. Unless we somehow learn how to prove a negative, one can never definitively say that there is no deity out there. However, the fact is that there is simply no evidence, and part of that evidence is that Christianity demonstrably does not change the majority of its followers for the "better" (again, whatever that means).

Actually we saw major change throughout human history not only in individuals but in societies as wholes as the result of Christianity. Almost everything good about western civilization is the result of incorporating Christian principles and things that Christians have done. For example, modern science, modern hospitals, the concept of equal human rights, modern universities, and the ending of slavery, among other things were all started by Christians or were the result of people living out Christian principles.

Uber Genius · Oct 17, 2016

gradyll said:
I certainly understand that Christians are a light in the world, I understand that where a secular student may just give in to peer pressure to take another drink of alcohol, meanwhile, a christian student will refrain. But what about when Christians are involved in serious sin, debauchery, murder, molestation for example. Does this nullify God's Gospel and power?

I believe yes, and no.

While we are God's hands and feet in the earth, when people are before the throne of God, there will be no exception to the rule by stating...."hey there was this hypocritical Christian who was rude, that one time, or I saw a pastor in the news that committed sexual sin"

I am not surprised that the Bible states no examples of above excuses to get out of being judged for ones personal sin.

let me put it this way....

what is the worst thing a pastor has done.....say it's molesting little kids....for example.

ok, that's bad.

I agree.

but this does not actually take away the sins of others.

like yourself, like myself.

it is an attempt to tell God that no one actually follows the rules, even His followers.

But they are not technically our examples anyway.

Christ is.

The whole reason why Christ came in the flesh was to experience temptation in the flesh, and to reject it whole heartedly as our example.

He did it, and so can we, with His power.

But even if no one can be moral, ever....that still does not remove us from the fact that we should be.

The interesting thing is that while they reject Christianity based on a poor example, they take an even worse stance in another area.

the creation of the universe...

does the fact that one pastor messed up (in one hundred), mean that now, we all evolved from a rock somewhere, or a primordial soup, or when lightening struck a primordial ooze, that resultingly burped out life as we know it?

if an electrified primordial ooze, or a rock can be our creator now that we have proven God wrong (allegedly)....

then there are other issues than christian hypocrisy that we should be working on.

because this logic is seriously flawed.

agreed?

Ad hominem attacks prove nothing and are fallacious.

It is also equally true when using attacks against bad behavior of atheists. Atheism or theism stand on their own based on justification (both philosophical arguments and experiences). Both have defeaters and paradigm carriers (strengths).

That said we are to be ambassadors, the drinking and womanizing are not such a problem for me but engaging gently and humbly with those who not only reject one's strongest held beliefs but do so fallaciously, manipulatively, and mockingly, now that is hard work.

createdtoworship · Jul 1, 2017

Picky Picky said:
I would have thought the answer to the op startlingly obvious. The bad behaviour of individual Christians does not nullify the truth of Christianity any more than the good behaviour of individual Christians proves it.

but good behavior does prove it.
Matthew 5:16
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

The point is that if you do not have good works your light is not seen, and or hid under a bushel.

Matthew 5:15
15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

you don't turn on the lights and throw a blanket over it. you put it on light pole, to be most useful in a dark world. So the fact that God may be glorified with the light coming from his children, shows it's a witness to the previously unknown to be loving and holy in this world.

so I would effectively disagree with your post. Although it preaches well.

createdtoworship · Jul 1, 2017

Uber Genius said:
Ad hominem attacks prove nothing and are fallacious.

It is also equally true when using attacks against bad behavior of atheists. Atheism or theism stand on their own based on justification (both philosophical arguments and experiences). Both have defeaters and paradigm carriers (strengths).

That said we are to be ambassadors, the drinking and womanizing are not such a problem for me but engaging gently and humbly with those who not only reject one's strongest held beliefs but do so fallaciously, manipulatively, and mockingly, now that is hard work.

adhominem attack is posting material against the person, and not the post. Neither which I have done. Better learn your fallacies better.

Do Christians who do bad things, nullify other evidences for God - addressing Christian Hypocrisy.

In the grip of grace

fallible

In the grip of grace

fallible

In the grip of grace

fallible

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

fallible

In the grip of grace

fallible

Who Sprinkled You With Grumpy Dust?

In the grip of grace

Old – but wise?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"Super Genius"

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Similar threads