The evolutionist mindset

[blader]

Originally posted by alexgb00


One thing i can trust is that the chaplain was a real person (it was Blader who cited it, not i), as opposed to "internet writers," about whom we can't know anything. My sister might as well write a "testimony" impersonating one of Nikita Khruschev's top officers in WWII. And nobody will be the wiser.

How do you know the chaplain was a real person? All I showed you was an internet site. And how do you know that the other ones I cited AREN'T real people? Clearly a double standard. These aren't random anonymous "internet writers." There's references and names and contact information. I even showed you the sources, which were publications and radio. I provided you with contact information. How can you say that you know the chaplain exists but the others don't?

As for me believing sources that support my claim and you believing what supports your claim, i'm not denying that. I said it myself.

Please, speak for yourself. Show me a source, show me a reference that supports your claims, and that is acceptable evidence by me, even if I don't like it. Show me that every single one of these people either do not exist or are lying. I might not like it, but you can't change the facts. I may be arrogant, but I'm not THAT arrogant, thank you. There's a difference between arrogance and blind stubborness.

If what you said about yourself is true, then I see no point in continuing this discussion with you, as reason and evidence is clearly futile and wasted.

 

[Lanakila]

This has nothing at all to do with the creation/evolution debate. My hubby is an active duty chaplain in the Army guys, there are a few atheists in foxholes. There are many more people who think about God for the first time when they face death, they may make promises to God at this point. Does that mean they keep their promises, not always. But, this is a pointless debate.

 

[Morat]

  Oh, this is bloody stupid. Alex has decided that there are no atheists in foxholes.

   To defend this statement, he invokes a varient of the "No True Scotsman" argument. If you're in a foxhole, you're a theist, even if you claim to be an atheist, think you're an atheist, and don't believe in God. Why? Because no true atheist can be found in a foxhole.

  He has decided he's right, and no amount of arguing will persuade him. Admittedly, continuing this thread is giving him a real blow to the reputation, but I don't see any real point.

   I mean, look at the things he's said. He says "There are no atheists in foxholes". Several people point to former soldiers who were atheists before, during, and after their military service.

  His answers? "Well, they're wrong." or "They're lying". Or "Yes, they thought and prayed to God, no matter what they say now". Basically "They weren't really atheists, even though they match all the criteria, because there are no atheists in foxholes".

   What's the point of arguing with someone who has assumed his conclusion and refuses to admit error? It's a ridiculous statement, and his defenses are correspondingly ridiculous as well.

 

 

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Morat

  His answers? "Well, they're wrong." or "They're lying". Or "Yes, they thought and prayed to God, no matter what they say now". Basically "They weren't really atheists, even though they match all the criteria, because there are no atheists in foxholes".

Try "they don't even exist" or "they were fake testimonies written by 12 year olds".