Genes

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Please, you at best have no idea of what you are talking about. I follow the evidence. You don't. You do not even understand the concept of evidence. I offered to discuss that concept so that you could debate properly. Until you understand the concept we do not even need to discuss evolution.

I agree that you believe that I have no understanding of the concept of evidence, and I understand that we don't even need to discuss evolution if I can't provide evidence to either prove or disprove it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Why is dishonesty so prevalent in believers?

I agree that it is a question you would like to have answered.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Why is dishonesty so prevalent in believers?

I understand that you want to repeat the same question in order to make your point more clearly.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

But it's not a problem that there is no substantive evidence for God?

Even if you ignore the multiple independent lines of evidence supporting evolution, it is based on a simple logical principle, consistent with known physical laws, and is demonstrably effective (if not efficient) in producing novel functionality.

God, on the other hand, is an ill-defined, ad-hoc, undemonstrable entity, supposedly beyond physical law, whose agency can be used as the answer to any question - and it's worth noting that a universal explanation is no explanation at all - an explanation must have some specificity and provide some understanding of the phenomenon to be explained, and especially not consist entirely of unanswerable questions itself.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see which is the testable scientific hypothesis and which is wishful thinking.

I agree that I really do ignore a lot of things I don't understand or believe in. You are correct that we don't have to be rocket scientists to understand the basics of evolution.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It's probably just the fact that you chose to focus on the 'absolute oblivion' you associate with lack of belief rather than the boundless positives associated with belief. It's the way you tell'em

I don't understand. What is it about my last comment that makes you think I am focusing on absolute oblivion?

I do agree that there are boundless possibilities associated with belief.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't understand. What is it about my last comment that makes you think I am focusing on absolute oblivion?

Well, it was your use of those actual words:

...we can't have any confidence that we are going to experience anything after death but absolute oblivion.
[My bolding]

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Well, it was your use of those actual words:

I still don't understand. What is it about my use of those actual words that makes you think I have a fear of death?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree that you feel like laughing at my assertions and I understand that you require proof.

No, I require evidence. The concept that you do not understand.

Why make a laughing stock of yourself?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree that you believe that Christians who write articles concerning their faith are dishonest and have zero credibility.

No, I know. Currently you are breaking the Ninth Commandment. You might not understand that law either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree that I should be asking how others know, in fact, I should make a whole lot of effort about it!!!

Strange. You appear to be making no effort at all. When and where have you ever asked someone how they knew what they knew? When or where have you ever tried to even learn that basics of science?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No, I require evidence. The concept that you do not understand.

Why make a laughing stock of yourself?

I don't understand. What is it not providing you evidence that makes me a laughing stock of myself?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No, I know. Currently you are breaking the Ninth Commandment. You might not understand that law either.

I still don't understand. What is it about my previous response that makes you think I'm breaking the ninth commandment?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Strange. You appear to be making no effort at all. When and where have you ever asked someone how they knew what they knew? When or where have you ever tried to even learn that basics of science?

Huh? What is it about my response that makes you think that I am making no effort at all?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't understand. What is it not providing you evidence that makes me a laughing stock of myself?

It tells the world that you are making foolish claims that you probably know yourself are wrong. You sink your own arguments by not supporting them. It is a losing debating technique.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I still don't understand. What is it about my previous response that makes you think I'm breaking the ninth commandment?

You are bearing false testimony about others. You probably do not understand the Ninth Commandment. Many Christians do not. It is not a ban on lying. It is a ban on "bearing false witness". That means if you say something about someone else, and that something is false, then you have born false witness, whether you knew what you said was false or not. In other words it is more than just a warning not to lie about others. It tells you that if you say something against others you better be absolutely sure that it is correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Huh? What is it about my response that makes you think that I am making no effort at all?

When you demonstrated that you did not understand the concept of evidence I politely offered to help you understand that concept. You did not take me up on that offer. That makes it look as if you almost want to bear false witness against others. In other words it makes it look as if you want to lie. You refuse to learn from any of your countless errors. Why is that? There are many Christians whose faith is strong enough to believe even though evolution is a fact.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It tells the world that you are making foolish claims that you probably know yourself are wrong. You sink your own arguments by not supporting them. It is a losing debating technique.

I agree that you believe that I am making foolish claims. But what I don't understand is that all I have done in the last series of exchanges is to either agree with you in that you believe what you are saying, or I have asked you to explain comments that I don't understand. So, where are the false claims?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You are bearing false testimony about others. You probably do not understand the Ninth Commandment. Many Christians do not. It is not a ban on lying. It is a ban on "bearing false witness". That means if you say something about someone else, and that something is false, then you have born false witness, whether you knew what you said was false or not. In other words it is more than just a warning not to lie about others. It tells you that if you say something against others you better be absolutely sure that it is correct.

I don't understand. What is it about my agreement that you believe what you are saying, and my questions to you for clearer understanding, that makes you think that I am making false claims in my last series of posts.

So, if I say that I agree with the fact that you believe what you are telling me, is a false claim? Does that mean that you don't actually believe your own statements? How does that work?

How can my asking questions of you a false claim? Doesn't make logical sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree that you believe that I am making foolish claims. But what I don't understand is that all I have done in the last series of exchanges is to either agree with you in that you believe what you are saying, or I have asked you to explain comments that I don't understand. So, where are the false claims?

Look to your earlier posts. And you have not agreed with me. You made false statements about me thus breaking the Ninth Commandment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't understand. What is it about my agreement that you believe what you are saying, and my questions to you for clearer understanding, that makes you think that I am making false claims in my last series of posts.

So, if I say that I agree with the fact that you believe what you are telling me, is a false claim? Does that mean that you don't actually believe your own statements? How does that work?

How can my asking questions of you a false claim? Doesn't make logical sense.

Right here you did:

"I agree that you believe that Christians who write articles concerning their faith are dishonest and have zero credibility."

That is not an agreement to start with. Second you used the word "believe" when I very clearly used the word "know". The proper action on your part would be to try to learn how I know. Since you cannot support your claims it makes it look as if all you have is mere belief, and then to make matters worse it looks as if you assume that others know as little as you do.

Instead of running away why not show that you can be honest. Would you like to learn about the concept of evidence?