I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Edwardo Piet]

Actually I'm paraprhasing, you're just straight up repeated yourself.

And I'm paraphrasing because you keep ignoring you because you seem to fail to respond to this point:

You can't have rational reasons to believe and also have faith, because those reasons would equate to evidence, and if you have evidence you don't need faith.

You always dodge shit by half doing evidence and half not.

I'm going to repeat myself if you keep ignoring me, or it seems like you can't even grasp what I'm saying.

Paraphrasing yourself does not=spamming. I'm trying to get a response from you...all you keep doing is saying that evidence is invalid and that JP, etc's logic is sound. You're not even paraphrasing or trying to explain anything, you're just repeating assertions. If anything it's you that's spamming not me. Especially since you've just copied/pasted on top of that now, saying that I'm spamming when I'm just trying to get a response from you.

EvF

[fr0d0]

As soon as you say something original EV I'll be straight on it, believe me. When, like you're doing now, mindlessly repeating your zombie mantra "give me evidence" - there is nothing a human being can do to respond to that - there is nothing new you are coming up with to counter the very very many explanations already given to you. You really really do not want to see this do you? That much is obvious.

You think it's big and clever to repeat Ad Nauseum - literally ...you are the embodiment of the Chewbacca Defense, the "Proof by Intimidation", the "Proof by Verbosity", to quote yourself.

[Edwardo Piet]

Actually...you are repeating yourself back at me by saying I'm saying 'nothing original'

What exactly is there original on the God issue?

You're the one claiming that JP's arguments are valid...and yet you also claim there's no evidence. This is a contradiciton.

It doesn't fucking matter if it's not original, if I'm just trying to get a response, but you're just going to fucking ignore it and repeatedly spout how "unoriginal" it is.

Whether it's original or not, it's valid and you keep dodging it.

You claim that their arguments are logical. Back that up!! And stop contradicting yourself if you don't want me to point that out.

So you 1. Claim that JP and Aracnus' arguments are logical, you need to back that up with evidence.

But you also claim 2. "You really really do not want to see this do you? That much is obvious."

You claim that I 'really really' don't want to see something. But I don't know what you're talking about?

EvF

[Tiberius]

This thread officially has a stupidly large number of posts and views. Well done everyone! </sarcasm>

[fr0d0]

@ EV

1. It isn't valid
2. JP here, and Arcanus elsewhere have explained this so very clearly no one has an excuse not to get it. THERE IS NO NEED for any 'extra evidence/ proof'. It's already there and finished.
3. I'm talking about (you and you're zombie attraction to) evidence.

[Edwardo Piet]

1. Evidence is valid to belief by definition, if you are to rational, as I've explained over and over and you've dodged/ignored and called me unoriginal.

2. You contradict yourself again. If their argument is valid it is evidence, and yet in 1 you say the request for evidence is valid...because I never spoke of EXTRA evidence....I'm saying that their arguments aren't evidence...if they were valid then they would be evidence.

3. I'm attracted to evidence in the sense that it's absolutely paramount for being rational, any belief without evidence is irrational by definition. I've explained this over and over and even put the point in my sig now....you call me zombie and repettive, and yet the difference between me and you here...is that I'm actually trying to get a message across here, all you're doing on the otherhand is repeating over and over that I'm 'unoriginal', or being like a 'zombie'.....and also you still claim JP's and Arcanus' arguments are valid without supporting it. Over and over you keep repeating this.

You can't simply say that you don't need to support it because their arguments are 'already there', I know they are - and I say it's not evidence... you say it is...but that's just an opinion then if you're not going to back it up at all. If you're going to keep asserting it then I expect support from yourself because otherwise you might as well just tell it to yourself.

Again and again you barely assert that their arguments are logical....at least when I'm repetitive I try to explain myself.

EvF

[fr0d0]

at least when I'm repetitive I try to explain myself.

LMAO

"1. Evidence is valid to belief by definition"
But then we know you define belief as 'absolute knowledge'. Which is the opposite to what our belief in the Christian God necessitates. AGAIN - REPETITION - NOTHING NEW - BLIND IGNORANCE ON YOUR PART OF THE BASIC CONCEPT BEING PRESENTED TO YOU.

[Eilonnwy]

2. JP here, and Arcanus elsewhere have explained this so very clearly no one has an excuse not to get it. THERE IS NO NEED for any 'extra evidence/ proof'. It's already there and finished

Bullshit. You only think it was clearly explained because you're predisposed to agree with the conclusion and are willing to make the assumptions JP has to make, and we flatly refuse the assumptions because there is no evidence. TAG is a fucking useless argument for God, it fails.

[theVOID]

@ EV

1. It isn't valid
2. JP here, and Arcanus elsewhere have explained this so very clearly no one has an excuse not to get it. THERE IS NO NEED for any 'extra evidence/ proof'. It's already there and finished.
3. I'm talking about (you and you're zombie attraction to) evidence.

Evidence is the only thing that allows us to differentiate between two equally unproven assumptions.

You may not like the fact that we insist upon using the scientific method but we do insist upon it, it is the only reliable, consistent, open, repeatable, falsifiable method that we as a species have ever devised that allows us to differentiate between fact and fiction.

Your hypothetical loaded-arguments built upon asserted assumptions gives absolutely no proof of concept, explanatory power or evidence to differentiate them from any other myth within the same criteria, they are completely useless assumptions that offer absolutely no benefit to our species and draw their origins from ancient books written by primitive people claiming insight. The origin of these myths themselves is almost enough evidence for a rational person to dismiss the claims they make, the fact that they have offer no explanatory power, made so many incorrect predictions about origins, disease, sin, race, nature and the like only further solidify the position that this is in no way the word of God.

By the way, i find the fact that you are still using an argument designed in the late 1700's to be a fairly compelling description of the failures of Apologists to create a solid argument backed up by evidence.

[Edwardo Piet]

at least when I'm repetitive I try to explain myself.

LMAO

"1. Evidence is valid to belief by definition"
But then we know you define belief as 'absolute knowledge'. Which is the opposite to what our belief in the Christian God necessitates. AGAIN - REPETITION - NOTHING NEW - BLIND IGNORANCE ON YOUR PART OF THE BASIC CONCEPT BEING PRESENTED TO YOU.

No belief is not absolute knowledge. Belief is completely seperate to knowledge. You can believe in things that don't exist, and therefore you don't absolutely know exist....

Like on Adrian's scale of certaintly/knowledge/belief, knowledge and belief are seperate.

I'm not talking about absolute knowledge. I'm talking if you believe X or Y is or isn't true, and/or if it does or doesn't exist.....

Evidence is valid to belief by definition....if you care about the rationality of the belief, because as I've said many times - Evidence is that which gives credence to a belief.

And no, I'm not blind to your concept. Because your concept is on the one hand that evidence is irrelevant to the God belief, which is just special pleading on your part, and nothing to give any remotely serious thought whatsoever on my part....and on the other hand you say evidence is possible through logic, because you say proof is possible through it, and as I said - proof is the strongest evidence can be!

Yes i'm repeating myself....because it seems that you have repeatedly missed me pointing out that you contradict yourself when you keep slipping from 'no evidence', to supposedly valid 'reasoning' or even 'logical proof'..

Finally, I have a request:

Could you stop with the retarded usage of caps please?

EvF