[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Atheist fallacies

......what about the Torah?

Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about?

Sometimes I read something and I think "o that's a new idea" (which means I haven't encountered it before, not that it didn't exist before) so I look it up. Usually in a book but there is Conservapedia of course if you can't be bothered going to a library.
Or you could Google the subject. Then when you start saying it's wrong you can also say why it's wrong although it may be correct in which case you could say why it's correct but you do need to look something up. It's probably better if you just comment on subjects you're already familiar with however.

As for the factual evidences against his existence... the simple fact there isn't any prove in favor of his existence leads me to believe he doesn't exist.

yes in your case it probably does however Absence of proof is not Proof of absence. When looking stuff up though, and thinking "oooooooooooo that sounds good; I wonder what it means? I'll post that that'll stumpm" it tends to have unpredictable effects. In this example, for example:

If I claim I have a ring in my pocket you may believe it or not, it's a question of faith and while it is in my pocket it
. . . cannot be verified.

. . . If I take the ring off my pocket it can be verified and it's a factual proof.

the following is likely to occur:

If I claim I have made a World you may believe it or not, it's a question of faith and while it is shrouded in thick darkness it cannot be verified.

If I create light or otherwise enable you to see the World I claim to have made it can be verified and it's a factual proof.

That is what God is saying. He claims to have made a World. And according to your evidentiary values He needs to produce that world for you to see so that "it can be verified and it's a factual proof."

He has done so.

You can't have one standard for your own statements and another standard for everyone else. Just because you originate some bizarre claptrap does not make it valid any more than thinking it sounds "cool" makes it valid. Such genetic fallacy is doomed to failure. Origins without internal consistency have no standing.

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: Atheist fallacies

Really?

Why the obsession with anla sex?

Don't even answer that, I'm trying to have a serious and grown up conversation and it seems like with you it's not possible to have that.

It is you atheists who are obsessed with the anal sex, not me. I am just reporting the facts objectively, which is something you atheists seem to know nothing about.

If it wasn't for anal rape and queer adoption, the tides of modern homosexuality, AIDS, and atheism would be stopped dead in their tracks. The lie of atheism is the main propagator of anal sex obsession in otherwise straight adults, while anal sex is used to tempt the populace away from the Truth of Christ's Conditional Forgiveness. It is a vicious cycle of lies and child rape. You, my friend, are complicit in that when you deny the veracity of the Bible. It wouldn't surprise me if you were a rapist yourself, since you have no moral compass by which to navigate the landscape of good and evil. Since you reject the Bible, that means you accept the doctrine of ass rape. Your queer rage is palpable even through the medium of the interwebs.

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Atheist fallacies

Wrong, only factual evidence count because they can be verified. Faith related evidences cannot so they do not count.

If I claim I have a ring in my pocket you may believe it or not, it's a question of faith and while it is in my pocket it cannot be verified.

If I take the ring off my pocket it can be verified and it's a factual proof.

Yet you put your faith in scientists and what you hear on the TV, even though all it would take is a little bit (okay, maybe a lot) of research to discover that it's all educated guesses and mathematical proofs with no "factual evidence" at all.

But hey, since I noticed you ignored my post, you've proven to me that you have no interest in anything that doesn't fit in your preconceived notions of the world.

[Truth I Seek]

Re: Atheist fallacies

Wrong, friend. Atheism is nothing but an excuse for anal sex. All atheists secretly know this, and want to indoctrinate others into the way of the militant homosexual by denying God's supreme authority. It is a massive rape pyramid scheme with Satan at the top and True Christian ™ Republicans at the bottom, but it will never happen because Jesus is with me.

Really?

Why the obsession with anla sex?

Don't even answer that, I'm trying to have a serious and grown up conversation and it seems like with you it's not possible to have that.

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: Atheist fallacies

Atheism deals with facts, Faith has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism rejects faith. Faith cannot prove the existence of god because on its nature faith is believing without having proofs.

Wrong, friend. Atheism is nothing but an excuse for anal sex. All atheists secretly know this, and want to indoctrinate others into the way of the militant homosexual by denying God's supreme authority. It is a massive rape pyramid scheme with Satan at the top and True Christian ™ Republicans at the bottom, but it will never happen because Jesus is with me.

[Truth I Seek]

Re: Atheist fallacies

This unsaved vermin has just PROVED that there is a God, through an utter failure to appear objective while arguing for the precarious faith of atheism.

Next, please.

Atheism deals with facts, Faith has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism rejects faith. Faith cannot prove the existence of god because on its nature faith is believing without having proofs.

[Truth I Seek]

Re: Atheist fallacies

See, even atheists admit that faith counts as evidence. The only move they can make is to deny that our faith is a fact. This is why religious people laugh at atheists. You deny the fact that we have faith, but admit that such faith would be evidence of God's existence. Given these assumptions, how could there not be a God?

Wrong, only factual evidence count because they can be verified. Faith related evidences cannot so they do not count.

If I claim I have a ring in my pocket you may believe it or not, it's a question of faith and while it is in my pocket it cannot be verified.

If I take the ring off my pocket it can be verified and it's a factual proof.

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: Atheist fallacies

This unsaved vermin has just PROVED that there is a God, through an utter failure to appear objective while arguing for the precarious faith of atheism.

Next, please.

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: Atheist fallacies

These are all faith related evidences. I need factual evidence. And the reality is that there isn't a single factual evidence of the existence of your god.

The bible is not the proof of god's existence, it's the claim of it's existence. In the same way the qu'ran it's the claim that Mohammed is the true prophet of allah and has pretty much the same faith related evidences that the bible has. Why do you accept one and reject the other?

See, even atheists admit that faith counts as evidence. The only move they can make is to deny that our faith is a fact. This is why religious people laugh at atheists. You deny the fact that we have faith, but admit that such faith would be evidence of God's existence. Given these assumptions, how could there not be a God?

[Truth I Seek]

Re: Atheist fallacies

But the Bible is proof of God's existence. The very first verse states the existence of God as a fact.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And how do I know God's Word is true? Simple. The Bible tells me so.

Jn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Why is God's Word true? Because it is inspired by God.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I see 3 claims, Three convinient claims each one supporting the other but no proof of god's existence whatsoever.

I reject the koran because the Bible warns against adding to God's Word.

Rev 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The koran was written at least five centuries after Revelation. Accepting it would be adding to God's Word.

Fair enough. But what about the Torah?

^^^Misapplying the burden of proof^^^

So you say, but is there any factual evidence against His existence?

If I'm wrong and there factual evidences then please tell me where they are becaus I have no knowledge of any.

As for the factual evidences against his existence... the simple fact there isn't any prove in favor of his existence leads me to believe he doesn't exist. Besides is not the non believers that need to prove anything, it's the believers that claim his existence. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs.

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Atheist fallacies

It's just a matter ofsemantics. In practice both discussion and debate are the same, 2 or more people speaking about a subject.

Wow, so this is what public education has come to...

Perhaps you should read a dictionary before you attempt the KJV Bible.

Definition of discussion
noun

[mass noun]

• the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas: the committee acts as a forum for discussion the EC directive is currently under discussion
• [count noun] a conversation or debate about a specific topic: discussions about environmental improvement
• [count noun] a detailed treatment of a topic in speech or writing: see Appendix One, for a more detailed discussion

Origin:

Middle English (denoting judicial examination): via Old French from late Latin discussio(n-), from discutere 'investigate' (see discuss)




Definition of debate
noun

• a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote: last night’s debate on the Education Bill
• an argument about a particular subject, especially one in which many people are involved: the national debate on abortion [mass noun]: there has been much debate about prices

verb

[with object]

• argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner: MPs debated the issue in the Commons [no object]: members of the society debated for five nights
• [with clause] consider a possible course of action in one’s mind before reaching a decision: he debated whether he should leave the matter alone or speak to her

Phrases

be open to debate



be unproven and requiring further discussion: whether a further wave of takeovers would benefit consumers is open to debate

under debate



being discussed or disputed: the subject is still under debate

Let them ban me if they are so insecure of their beliefs that this is the only way they have to deal with someone that is not being rude to them.

Kicking a yappy dog does not mean I'm insecure about the dog. It means it's pestered me to the point I don't want to listen to it any more.

For some reason most of you atheist type come here looking to be banned. Somehow you think that annoying us to the point that our pastors kick you out the door somehow proves your intelligence. It doesn't. It just means you're an annoying yappy little dog who got kicked out the door for being a pest.

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Atheist fallacies

If the non-believers are not welcome make it an invite only forum.

Because Jesus told us to preach to all the world. Can you think of a better way of getting the word out in this day-and-age other than the internet?

Anyway, how would we find True Christians™ around the world if it wasn't open? We've even had people convert because of our pages.

Who told that I didn't read that? Foruns are by nature places of debate, a rule that states it isn't makes no sense to me. Theres something else on that thread that caught my attention:

No you didn't read the thread. We know that because you're asking questions that were answered in the thread.

"We tend to get two types of dissenters here. Some are calm and reasonable folks who are capable of rational discussion. I personally enjoy discussing religious topics with this sort of person."

seems like serious and rational debate are not that unwelcomed after all.

There's a difference between discussion and debate. We will gladly have a discussion with someone who has read the Bible and actually has some idea of what they're talking about.

You on the other hand

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Atheist fallacies

These are all faith related evidences. I need factual evidence.

The bible is not the proof of god's existence, it's the claim of it's existence. In the same way the qu'ran it's the claim that Mohammed is the true prophet of allah and has pretty much the same faith related evidences that the bible has. Why do you accept one and reject the other?

But the Bible is proof of God's existence. The very first verse states the existence of God as a fact.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And how do I know God's Word is true? Simple. The Bible tells me so.

Jn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Why is God's Word true? Because it is inspired by God.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I reject the koran because the Bible warns against adding to God's Word.

Rev 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The koran was written at least five centuries after Revelation. Accepting it would be adding to God's Word.

And the reality is that there isn't a single factual evidence of the existence of your god.

^^^Misapplying the burden of proof^^^

So you say, but is there any factual evidence against His existence?

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Irrits (the)

How many fallacies can you count there?

I couldn't count them all, but the song reminded me of the non sequitur. "P is true; therefore R." I can only assume that if heathens like the Beatles are prone to this fallacy, it must be widespread among atheists also. I must say, after reading those lyrics I needed to read my Bible for an hour straight just to clear my head.

Proof by assertion. Simply stating something to be true without offering evidence or a supporting argument for the statement. This fallacy takes the form "P is true." For example, "God doesn't exist." Or, "Evolution is now a fact." Atheists seem to think that if they just keep saying the same thing over and over, that makes it true. God wants us to immunise our children against this kind of brainwashing. That's why it's important to homeschool them so that they can learn the truth: God does exist, and evolution is a lie from the devil; God created everything.

Appeal to ridicule. Presenting your opponent's position in a way that makes it seem ridiculous. "If the Genesis Creation account is true, then God created light before He created the sun, moon and stars!" (Which of course is true, but imagine this being said in a condescending, mocking tone). They love to mock the Creation account. They can't see the folly of their own position. If there is no God, then the universe just appeared out of nothing.

[Truth I Seek]

Re: Atheist fallacies

How about explain why you reject all the evidence for God's existence. There are many sources of evidence: the Bible; creation (Rom 1:18-32), creation science and Flood geology; world events, answered prayers and miracles; and your own conscience (Rom 1:18-32). Rational discussion is encouraged on this forum. So I challenge you to explain why you reject all the evidence for God, without resorting to fallacious (irrational) reasoning, especially "begging the question," which I mentioned in the OP. Maybe then you'll see how foolish your position is.

These are all faith related evidences. I need factual evidence. And the reality is that there isn't a single factual evidence of the existence of your god.

The bible is not the proof of god's existence, it's the claim of it's existence. In the same way the qu'ran it's the claim that Mohammed is the true prophet of allah and has pretty much the same faith related evidences that the bible has. Why do you accept one and reject the other?