Without God, atheists have no morals and will eat babies on a whim etc.

Stercus Accidit

ned78 wrote: »

Obviously we do eat babies, but only catholic and christian babies. It makes more room for the superior athiest babies instead

All that faith makes them sacrilisious!

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

stevejazzx: Without getting too much into it. Stephen Hawking has attended church, and no doubt he could be more open minded on the subject than most of the people in this forum.

you believe that on faith I assume since Hawking has never said that.

And you are still making the incorrect assumption that most atheists completely embrace the idea of a naturalistic creation and completely rule out the possibility of any form of creator. As I have told you before, the position of most atheists is that they don't know how the universe came into being.

In fact they are far more open minded about it than you because they say they don't know and are willing to look at any number of possibilities as long as the can be substantiated. You believe it was the Christian god as described in the bible, end of story and that is a statement that it is not humanly possible to prove. You are the most closed minded person here Jakkass, you're the only one with all the answers

stevejazzx

Jakkass wrote: »

stevejazzx: Without getting too much into it. Stephen Hawking has attended church, and no doubt he could be more open minded on the subject than most of the people in this forum.

.

With his missus I believe. He is listed in the 50 greatest Atheists poll - also he has made numerous declarations that he does not believe in a personal God. What more do you want? I am afraid if anyone is gonna get him it'll be the agnostics...although they seem unsure of that:)

philologos

stevejazzx wrote: »

With his missus I believe. He is listed in the 50 greatest Atheists poll - also he has made numerous declarations that he does not believe in a personal God. What more do you want? I am afraid if anyone is gonna get him it'll be the agnostics...although they seem unsure of that:)

I wasn't arguing that he was a Christian, but he definitely is more open minded on the issue, so as to even grace the inside of a church.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I wasn't arguing that he was a Christian, but he definitely is more open minded on the issue, so as to even grace the inside of a church.

I've been to mass many times over the past few years, doesn't mean I believe

sink

Jakkass wrote: »

I wasn't arguing that he was a Christian, but he definitely is more open minded on the issue, so as to even grace the inside of a church.

I was in church last week, is that evidence that I believe in god?

Overblood

Dades wrote: »

Jakkass, I'd prefer you didn't humour Overblood's question in this thread, thanks.

That way madness lies.

How about a PM Jakkass?

sink

Overblood wrote: »

How about a PM Jakkass?

Or a new thread?

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In fact they are far more open minded about it than you because they say they don't know and are willing to look at any number of possibilities as long as the can be substantiated. You believe it was the Christian god as described in the bible, end of story and that is a statement that it is not humanly possible to prove. You are the most closed minded person here Jakkass, you're the only one with all the answers

Actually, I'm not the only person with answers. I don't think I have it all worked out, infact I have plenty still to consider. Furthermore, I'm willing to listen to anyone who wants to put forward an alternative view to me. So, I'm left to see your post as merely an ad-hominem without any substance.

Overblood: Post a new thread on the Christianity forum.

Stercus Accidit

Home crowd eh?

We need an Atheism, Agnosticism and Christianity forum, purely, as a place to clash on even terms, and have mods from each forum on it, even they would argue, but it would be fair, and gloriously dysfunctional.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually, I'm not the only person with answers. I don't think I have it all worked out, infact I have plenty still to consider. Furthermore, I'm willing to listen to anyone who wants to put forward an alternative view to me. So, I'm left to see your post as merely an ad-hominem without any substance.

An ad hominem argument is where I try to prove my point based on some personal attribute of yours, eg "God doesn't exist because you're an idiot" would be an ad homimem argument. My point there was simply that you are closed minded, I did not try to use that fact fallaciously to prove something else so it's not an ad hominem argument.

And yeah you have plenty still to consider but those things are about the nature of god and how best to serve god etc. The idea of not believing in god is not something that is possible to you. you have shown that amply by repeating the same arguments over and over and over again despite getting the same responses from multiple people who pointed out exactly the same logical flaws in your arguments. In order for you to disbelieve in God we would have to provide absolute proof of his non-existence and that is physically impossible to do. You are not interested in being converted, you are here to convert. I also think it's very unlikely that I am going to convert based on anything you say but I don't go around calling you closed minded (except in response to you calling us closed minded) because it would just be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You are just as closed minded as anyone else Jakkass. Honestly, think about it. You called "most of the posters on the forum" closed minded and I responded saying that you're just as closed minded as anyone else and you called it an ad hominem argument. That doesn't make any sense

you are in fact the one using an ad hominem argument because you are implying that we don't accept your points because we're closed minded when in reality we don't accept your points because they're the same old logical fallacies we've been hearing for years.


You should look up "proof by assertion" btw. Basically it's a logical fallacy where you keep making the same points and ignoring all criticism until people aren't bothered arguing with you anymore

Sam Vimes

One thing I would say about spiritual experiences is that they only ever happen to people who have heard of Jesus. Millions of people worldwide have claimed to experience Jesus but there was never a case where Europeans came across a people who had been isolated from Christianity, such as Native Americans, Australian aborigines, various tribes etc, who had had spiritual experiences involving Jesus. Oh they had spiritual experiences alright but they saw them as evidence for whatever God they happened to believe in, just like Christians see it as evidence for their God.

Really it's not evidence of any God in particular

Valmont

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You should look up "proof by assertion" btw. Basically it's a logical fallacy where you keep making the same points and ignoring all criticism until people aren't bothered arguing with you anymore

i.e. The boards.ie fallacy