Quote: I wouldn't defend the Bible untill I saw what the Vatican is hiding...

They are hiding pedo priests and money. Anything else is of no consequence to them.

I think they have original scrolls from before they "doctored" them... Possibly written in Hebrew. (speculation on my part)
.

(February 4, 2013 at 6:24 pm)catfish Wrote: wow, just wow....

And you guys think Christians are illogical when you both are here supporting making conclusions before evidence has been provided.

You made your decisions, it's obvious to me that even if you were presented with compelling evidence, you'd dismiss it.
.

Well... yes. Yes of course. Why would we make conclusions based on evidence that hasn't yet come to light?

You're looking at this the wrong way, if you think we're making conclusions before evidence is presented. Rather, we're making those conclusions based on the evidence that we already have. To do otherwise would be nothing but speculation without anything to back it, and it opens the door to all kinds of weirdness, with an entirely absent bar for credibility, since by your logic we'd need to be looking to any possible future evidence without having any method of divining which types of evidence are likely.

Cinjin's unicorn example is a good one: do you believe everything you hear because dismissing claims would just be doing so "before evidence is presented?" I would hope not. We can't base our entire worldview on accepting every idea just because the future might yield evidence of it. Keep an open mind in case that evidence surfaces, sure, but don't feel restricted from making dismissals of outright silly things because there might be evidence.

(February 4, 2013 at 10:20 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 4, 2013 at 6:24 pm)catfish Wrote: wow, just wow....

And you guys think Christians are illogical when you both are here supporting making conclusions before evidence has been provided.

You made your decisions, it's obvious to me that even if you were presented with compelling evidence, you'd dismiss it.
.

Well... yes. Yes of course. Why would we make conclusions based on evidence that hasn't yet come to light?

You're looking at this the wrong way, if you think we're making conclusions before evidence is presented. Rather, we're making those conclusions based on the evidence that we already have. To do otherwise would be nothing but speculation without anything to back it, and it opens the door to all kinds of weirdness, with an entirely absent bar for credibility, since by your logic we'd need to be looking to any possible future evidence without having any method of divining which types of evidence are likely.

Cinjin's unicorn example is a good one: do you believe everything you hear because dismissing claims would just be doing so "before evidence is presented?" I would hope not. We can't base our entire worldview on accepting every idea just because the future might yield evidence of it. Keep an open mind in case that evidence surfaces, sure, but don't feel restricted from making dismissals of outright silly things because there might be evidence.

I personally cannot dismiss the possibility that a unicorn may have existed, but if one did, I doubt it was magical. If you believe in evolution, what basis would you have to assert that a species of some horse or predecessor didn't (or couldn't) develop with a single horn?

You don't have to accept anything until proven, I agree with that. But, it is totally illogical to deny something citing "lack of evidence".
.

(February 4, 2013 at 6:59 pm)catfish Wrote: And he proves failure at every turn...
.

---

(February 4, 2013 at 6:58 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: Wow. The sheer perfection of your dickheadedness is astounding.

Do you have evidence of that???
.

As a matter of fact, one needs only read any post you have written. Your dickheadedness is self-evident.

See, we don't have to take your dickheadedness on faith. It is displayed for all to see within your posts. I believe you have also personally stated that you take more than a little personal pride in said dickheadedness.

That wasn't evidence, that was a statement...
.

(February 4, 2013 at 10:45 pm)catfish Wrote: That wasn't evidence, that was a statement...
.

Go print out all of you posts. That is your evidence. Testable, falsifiable, peer-reviewed evidence.

Your dickheadedness is a confirmed theory.

Burden of proof is on you, right?
.

(February 4, 2013 at 10:51 pm)catfish Wrote: Burden of proof is on you, right?
.

See previous post.

You know what? I owe you an apology. I did not intent to devolve into name calling. I know nothing about you beyond what I have read on the forum. I disagree with your viewpoint. That does not give me permission to call you names.

Please accept my apology and understand that I do respect your opinions, I just don't agree with them.

(February 4, 2013 at 10:34 pm)catfish Wrote: I personally cannot dismiss the possibility that a unicorn may have existed, but if one did, I doubt it was magical. If you believe in evolution, what basis would you have to assert that a species of some horse or predecessor didn't (or couldn't) develop with a single horn?

You don't have to accept anything until proven, I agree with that. But, it is totally illogical to deny something citing "lack of evidence".
.

Mhmm, you keep an open mind, that's right. But you can't base your worldview on the possibility of things existing. Never be afraid to change your views to fit reality, but always make sure your views do fit reality as it is currently known.