(August 20, 2015 at 11:21 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 20, 2015 at 8:06 am)Cato Wrote: Possibly the same as David Koresh's motivations. Who knows?

The conviction of his beliefs say absolutely nothing about the veracity of his beliefs.

Who knows? Well, anyone who has read his letters, actually.

Paul was transformed from chief persecutor of the Church to its greatest proponent.

How did that happen?

Did you know that the current Pope was a bouncer in a bar?  He saw an opportunity to wear fancy robes and work days so he took it.  

Paul got tired of fighting animals and being a bounty hunter and terrorist so he went into another line of work, flim-flamming the local yokels with a story about how a guy got crucified and rose from the dead.  He was then able to steal from churches when he needed money.

The argument from aesthetic experience? Jesus, Randy, why stop at twenty arguments when the list of obviously desperate sophisms you're so enamored by could go on ad infinitum?

In a maths exam, one proof of how you reach the desired answer is sufficient to get full marks for a question.

Writing hundreds of flawed methods for one question which don't reach the desired answer, but just announce that they do anyway, gets you zero marks.

The fact that you've written hundreds of methods also betrays your own lack of confidence in any of them individually.

(August 21, 2015 at 2:12 am)Nestor Wrote: The argument from aesthetic experience? Jesus, Randy, why stop at twenty arguments when the list of obviously desperate sophisms you're so enamored by could go on ad infinitum?

Which of them do you personally feel is the strongest of the bunch?

(August 21, 2015 at 2:18 am)robvalue Wrote: In a maths exam, one proof of how you reach the desired answer is sufficient to get full marks for a question.

Writing hundreds of flawed methods for one question which don't reach the desired answer, but just announce that they do anyway, gets you zero marks.

The fact that you've written hundreds of methods also betrays your own lack of confidence in any of them individually.

Does that really follow necessarily, rob?

What if I actually have confidence in all of them?

It doesn't automatically follow that you lack confidence in each, no. You may simply have so much time left in the exam you want to spam the markers with arguments I guess. I would have thought two or three different sound methods would be sufficient. More than that and I am becoming suspicious that it's quantity over quality.

(August 21, 2015 at 2:37 am)robvalue Wrote: It doesn't automatically follow that you lack confidence in each, no. You may simply have so much time left in the exam you want to spam the markers with arguments I guess. I would have thought two or three different sound methods would be sufficient. More than that and I am becoming suspicious that it's quantity over quality.

Interestingly, I heard it said once that the theist only needs one of those arguments to be true, but the atheist must be sure that all of them are false.

Indeed. And I'm sure.

(August 21, 2015 at 2:58 am)robvalue Wrote: Indeed. And I'm sure.

That's interesting.

You know, it might be a great addition to your website to post your refutations of each of these arguments...partly to solidify your reasoning in your own mind, and of course, as a resource for others.

What do you think?

Yes, if I'm up to it at some point I'd like to do that, thanks

There's loads more I want to add to my website, I just haven't had the energy.