Completely skipped this section.

[fr0d0]

I claimed that you claimed what?

That I claim that God exists!

I never have and never can.

[thesummerqueen]

Has it occurred to you that if you don't claim God exists, he wasn't talking about you in the first place?

Hullo, Mister.

[Mister Agenda]

Has it occurred to you that if you don't claim God exists, he wasn't talking about you in the first place?

Hullo, Mister.

Milady. (bows)

[fr0d0]

no religion has met their burden of proof

Did we miss this?

[Mister Agenda]

no religion has met their burden of proof

Did we miss this?

Are you claiming to be a religion?

But whatever you need to tell yourself to maintain the OP was about you.

[fr0d0]

If you read through the thread mister you'll see where it gets narrowed down to me.

But whatever excuse you need to hold onto your pride is fine by me


I'm a fully paid up member of the Christian religion. My Christian life has been far from isolated, so I feel confident in representing it.

[Mister Agenda]

Yet still you can't tell me what the claim is?

You can't accuse me of circular reasoning until I produce a reason that is circular. If you're going to make my argument for me then that's a sure way to win

Excuse me, but you said the theologies burden of proof has been met, when it clearly hasn't. That is circular reasoning and begging the question.

Your claim is that a god exists, is it not? let's not be dishonest. That's why you tried to shirk the burden of proof onto me.

This can't possibly be civil if you're going to pretend you aren't advocating for your Christian sky daddy.

You claim I have the burden of proof. To prove what exactly? thus my pixie example.

I gave my opinion that religions haven't met the standards of evidence to meet the burden of proof.

How exactly is that not acceptable unless you don't understand the burden of proof...

I think fr0d0 is what I would call an 'agnostic Christian'. His claim is not that the Christian God exists, only that he believes it does, and admits to not knowing. All it takes to make that position legitimate is holding it sincerely.

---

If you read through the thread mister you'll see where it gets narrowed down to me.

But whatever excuse you need to hold onto your pride is fine by me


I'm a fully paid up member of the Christian religion. My Christian life has been far from isolated, so I feel confident in representing it.

You mean after a series of interchanges, it became about you? Yeah, I noticed that. If this wasn't an intro thread, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

---

Mind your manners.

If you look you'll see I was called a creotard first. I'm not saying that makes me right, but it does display a certain blinkered vision.

I just re-read all of Q's posts in this thread up to this point looking for the one where he or she called you a 'creotard'. I couldn't find it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you'll give me the post number, I'll be happy to chide Q mildly for the breach of etiquette.

[fr0d0]

You're giving the op an opportunity to dodge the question. Let's keep to that.

I requested the thread split after r suggested it. As far as I'm concerned the discussion just grew. I got the impression the the op wasn't new here, from the thread title, which is why I was more willing to engage.

[Mister Agenda]

You're giving the op an opportunity to dodge the question. Let's keep to that.

I requested the thread split after r suggested it. As far as I'm concerned the discussion just grew. I got the impression the the op wasn't new here, from the thread title, which is why I was more willing to engage.

I'm glad you requested the split, hopefully that will happen. I realize he/she isn't completely new, but it's still an intro thread. I know how easy it is for things to escalate, and it takes two to tango and all that. This is the only situation where I give the OP more slack because they're the OP.

[MJ the Skeptical]

You're giving the op an opportunity to dodge the question. Let's keep to that.

I requested the thread split after r suggested it. As far as I'm concerned the discussion just grew. I got the impression the the op wasn't new here, from the thread title, which is why I was more willing to engage.

Who's "presumptuous" now?

I didn't dodge anything, your whole argument in this introduction thread is asinine. If you shift the burden of proof onto me in your first reply, then you are obviously a religious person. Do you have to say it directly? You did acknowledge later than you were Christian. It was in your custom title that you were Christian, until you changed it. And why would you claim it's my burden of proof? If you knew where the burden of proof rests you wouldn't show your "ignorance" on the topic.

This was done yesterday. It's just getting tiresome with you. Don't bother splitting this thread, there's nothing more to talk about with you.