Dave Ellis
Contributor
- Dec 27, 2011
- 8,933
- 821
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What would you call evidently true?
No, the movie is trying to reduce the time our Lord was on Earh to the lowest human instincts.
So you are a humanist. Which is fine. Why don't you criticize science too for a change then?
What aspect of science in particular?
Then you need to rewatch the movie or read what the pythons said about the point of the movie themselves.
That which is supported by the evidence.
I'm not parodying you, I'm asking an honest question to point out the error in your argument.
You're saying the bible is credible because it was the first mass produced book.
However just because something is popular or mass produced has no bearing on its truth value. If Spider-Man was the first popular mass produced book, that doesn't make it any more credible or real. Same goes for the bible.
You're committing the appeal to popularity fallacy in this argument.
As an atheist I would not claim to be right: only currently unconvinced.Well, your thinking that they are wrong doesn't mean that atheists are right.
You would be if you listened to what atheists say about themselves.Would I be more self-aware if I acknoledged that atheism is right? No, thanks.
How would that make any difference.To me, you're just Larnievc. For all I know you might be a shoe salesman who posts when business in shop is slow.
What ever you say to this guy he will imply you are a liar when backed into a corner.It's a pointless demand to ask you to point out specifically which fallacy I've committed after you accused me of committing a fallacy?
That's not at all an unreasonable request, and one you seem awful reluctant to address.
I did not commit a fallacy, if you still think I did then back up your words or concede the point.
Attempting to dodge as you currently are doing is simple intellectual dishonesty.
You would be if you listened to what atheists say about themselves.
You seem unable to conceive that people may think in way other than which you imagine them to.
As an atheist I would not claim to be right: only currently unconvinced.
How would that make any difference.
Judgemental, much?
I think you may have misinterpreted my meaning in my previous post.Oddly enough I'm an atheist, yet I'm not homosexual, I don't persecute Christians, I haven't done anything I'm aware of to usher in Satan's kingdom (especially considering I don't believe Satan exists either), I have criticized Jesus but I'm not sure if I've ever insulted him, and I haven't destroyed America.
So if that's the point of atheism, I apparently missed the memo.
Lastly, if god and hell are actually real, I don't see how acting as if they weren't would cause you to avoid hell or live without fear of going there.
If you know for sure those things are real, basic logic would dictate that you should be really careful wherever possible to avoid going there. Blantantly disregarding reality would be foolish.
Luckily, I have no reason to believe either god or hell is actually real.
If you´d listen, you´d know by now that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive (theism and agnosticism aren´t either, btw.).Currently unconvinced is dangerously close to being an agnostic.
If you´d listen, you´d know by now that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive (theism and agnosticism aren´t either, btw.).
Not being mutually exclusive is something different than "close". ("Green" and "made of metal" aren´t mutually exclusive, but they aren´t "close" by any stretch of the term).That's why I said they ''dangerously close''.
Not being mutually exclusive is something different than "close". ("Green" and "made of metal" aren´t mutually exclusive, but they aren´t "close" by any stretch of the term).
And you may want to explain what the word "dangerous" is supposed to do in there.
I guess there´s no point in explaining to you another time how "atheism" and "agnosticism" are answering completely different qestions.Of course, what matters is the context. And the context is all about God.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?