RE: Evidence that God exists
March 1, 2009 at 3:02 pm
(This post was last modified: March 1, 2009 at 3:02 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(March 1, 2009 at 2:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:You say I digress and I missed the point. I explain why I didn't and ask how I did exactly.(March 1, 2009 at 2:01 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:Hope you aren't getting dizzy up there on that horse(March 1, 2009 at 1:44 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You've missed the point EF. Nice rant about why you shouldn't believe in a God. Maybe another time
Missed the point have I? I just corrected you on what I thought was completely incorrect. You don't need to show why something ISN'T drivel. If something's drivel then its assumed to be drivel until someone DOES show it isn't.
Then you digress. And you didn't even explain how me responding to you telling me that I digressed - by saying that I don't believe I did - is being 'on my high horse' either. Total digression as far as I'm concerned. When I only tried to explain that I don't believe I had digressed and that I thought my point was still valid

Quote:Ridiculous to you, I have no problem with that. But unfortunately that is precisely what belief in God is all about. Belief without proof. For you to pull it up because of lack of proof seems pointless.I don't understand why you would believe in the FSM you see. I know you don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster either - but I equally don't understand for exactly the same reasons why you believe in God when you say its not because of evidence but because of 'other reasons'.
What are these other reasons exactly? And how are they only applicable - in your eyes - to one particular supernatural being that you believe in? Unless you believe in more than one?
And when you briefly mentioned these 'other reasons' you then said "but I digress".
But you're arguing that its ridiculous to require evidence for belief in God but then the only alternative you briefly suggested are these 'other reasons' which you won't reveal because that would be a digression!
Well I'm sorry but I know of no such other logical reasons. So I can only so far assume that evidence is the only valid option. And its ridiculous NOT to require evidence for belief in God.
EvF
(March 1, 2009 at 2:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:I wasn't talking to you.(March 1, 2009 at 2:50 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Yeah I agree. But I think that's already obvious now.Nice cop out. Better luck next time
Afterall, a lot of theists shapeshift though don't they? Cherry-picking the bible and all that jazz.
EvF
EDIT: Oh, I see the misunderstanding I think - I was replying to Eilonnwy but the time I posted it you had already posted before me.