The fact is, Phil, what is at issue us that you attributed a claim to him that he did not make.

For what its worth, you've seemed to be needlessly combative the last day or so. Just an observation, nothing personal.

Intentionally twisting it? Pull the other one. I'm quoting you word for word.

You, Phil, said this:

Quote:Who the hell do you think you are to make such a stupid claim that you have never seen a Christian here say atheists misunderstand Christianity?

This question implies that I made a "stupid claim" that I had "never seen a Christian here say atheists misunderstand Christianity". It has to imply this, otherwise the question makes no sense whatsoever.

Since I have made no such claim, I called you on it.

(April 22, 2012 at 3:42 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: The fact is, Phil, what is at issue us that you attributed a claim to him that he did not make.

For what its worth, you've seemed to be needlessly combative the last day or so. Just an observation, nothing personal.

So him following me into another thread to accuse me of mocking another user and holding a vendetta and then Tiberius starting an argument with me after I agree with his reply here (after he clarified it), is me being combative? Wow, you sure have an odd definition of combative.

edit: Or do you find me putting certain users on ignore so as to avoid "combat" to be needlessly combative?

(April 22, 2012 at 3:44 am)Phil Wrote:

(April 22, 2012 at 3:42 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: The fact is, Phil, what is at issue us that you attributed a claim to him that he did not make.

For what its worth, you've seemed to be needlessly combative the last day or so. Just an observation, nothing personal.

So him following me into another thread to accuse me of mocking another user and holding a vendetta and then Tiberius starting an argument with me after I agree with his reply here (after he clarified it), is me being combative? Wow, you sure have an odd definition of combative.

Ok, Phil. I would suggest you go back and read your posts from earlier in the day (prior to the events you speak of).

I'm going to bow out of this conversation. As I said in my first post, I really have no interest in being in the middle of this.

The naturalism, empiricism and the ethical theories of atheism are false. An atheist passes the burden of proof to the theist and then starts finding what he regards as flaws in each theistic proof, and believes his position is justified.

Oh for the stars -.-

(April 22, 2012 at 6:12 am)Christian Wrote: The naturalism, empiricism and the ethical theories of atheism are false. An atheist passes the burden of proof to the theist and then starts finding what he regards as flaws in each theistic proof, and believes his position is justified.

You really should learn the definition of words before you throw them around. For example, empiricism can't be wrong nor is it atheistic nor do you make any sense. Once again, I express my sympathies to Nick.

(April 22, 2012 at 6:12 am)Christian Wrote: The naturalism, empiricism and the ethical theories of atheism are false. An atheist passes the burden of proof to the theist and then starts finding what he regards as flaws in each theistic proof, and believes his position is justified.

Then produce evidence for your god and you'll have us beat, won't you.

(April 22, 2012 at 6:12 am)Christian Wrote: The naturalism, empiricism and the ethical theories of atheism are false. An atheist passes the burden of proof to the theist and then starts finding what he regards as flaws in each theistic proof, and believes his position is justified.

What part of "You're the one making the claims so the burden of proof is on you." are you having the most difficulty in understanding?

And how can atheism have any theories? It is simply the position that an individual holds regarding the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Atheism is not a religion, a philosophy, an ideology, a theory, a belief system or anything else. It is simple someone saying, "Hmm, I don't believe you."

How can you be so ignorant of such a breathtakingly simple fact? Oh, right!

(April 22, 2012 at 6:12 am)Christian Wrote: The naturalism, empiricism and the ethical theories of atheism are false. An atheist passes the burden of proof to the theist and then starts finding what he regards as flaws in each theistic proof, and believes his position is justified.

What ethical theories? Have you even read this thread for people defining atheism a million times?

Naturalism and Empiricism is false? You can only do that if reality is false.

We PASS the burden of proof? Is the burden of proof on you to disprove invisible dragons, unicorns and faeries instead of any who propose their existence is real?

Are you even reading what you write? You basically just said all science is wrong, and atheism has an ethical theory shared by all atheists, then go on to say that we PASSED the burden of proof for an unfalsifiable hypothesis is on those who say its highly unlikely.

Before I am tempted to abuse, can you back those statements up with any sort of sense, without becoming even more nonsensical?