In Reply to: Re: Bible Questions posted by Ancaru on February 17, 2006 at 20:24:15:
Ancaru (and FRED!):
I never evangelized for atheism—its basic tenets, based on my understanding of physics and chemistry at quite n early age, showed themselves to be absurd on their face, and not worthy of much discussion.
Do you need elaboration here? I would be glad to oblige, if the discussion became a little less predictable and a little more mature in nature on your part. I'd appreciate it.
Otherwise, why should I bother, if your response is only the boringly predictable?
Your happiness is germane to my discussion of the religious and philosophically pretentious nature of the belief system of atheism in what way?
I made the observation from experience that “cornered atheists” (those asked the hard questions about the inherent weaknesses and vulnerabilities of their philosophical belief paradigm) generally resort to non-answers regarding said arguments—you merely multiply prove my point, here.
Don’t you have anything more poignant to say than “hogwash”?
Deny away, but at least make a respectably intelligent argument; what do you say? And, there you go again with an ad hominem (please look that up so as to avoid embarrassing yourself and continuing to prove my point).
Characterizing me as someone who “crams[s] that belief set down someone’s throat" or claims superiority of my way of seeing “it” is, again, merely a personal attack, not an argument, or a statement of fact.
So, prove Christianity is hogwash. I say it can be proven, and that atheism cannot.
I also say that millions of people disagree with your idea that the discussion is “pointless”, and that your use of the phrase “IF this is the case” is a conclusion made before an argument, which is absurd; even unintelligent in nature; no offense.
It categorically IS THE CASE—you have not responded to the argument, you merely continue to respond in the stereotypical manner I said that most professing atheists do; you’ve still said nothing substabntial. Opine away.
Finally, you made my point yet again—you state a conclusion while pretending that the argument has already been made and won, and the burden of proof, at least historically, lies with you.
God’s existence has already been proven to me.
Surely you can do better than to merely recite the bland statements in favor of atheism, in the same manner BOTH of us used to recite the crap that TF put out?
Please; try again—be a little more serious this time; OK?
PROVE me wrong.
By the way, I don’t believe in the superstition of “luck”—it’s the resort of a weak mind to avoid rigorous logic in the presence of an as-yet unexplained phenomenon.
It reminds me of when the Sci Fi Channel has a UFO show on, and the claim is made that “no one has been able to refute this UFO phenomenon!”
Yeah, no one intelligent, that is.
Sincerely,
OT2 (OldtimerToo)