RE: Delicate Offers a Truce
December 29, 2015 at 3:16 pm
(This post was last modified: December 29, 2015 at 3:31 pm by Simon Moon.)
(December 29, 2015 at 2:04 am)Delicate Wrote:(December 28, 2015 at 8:15 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: It's not up to us to bring up a particular argument then refute it.
It is up to you to defend your claims with evidence and reason, then it is up to us refute them, or concede.
Every time, and I do mean every time, I ever attempt to define the god a theist believes in, then refute the arguments for that god, the theist will claim that is not the god they believe exists.
You do know there are 33,000 Christian sects, right? How are we able to guess which flavor you follow and how you define your god?
Well, you are making the claim that you have valid objections to theistic arguments, aren't you?
Or is your position something like "I have no refutation of a single theistic argument."? In this case, you're obviously not making a claim to possess any objections.
I have valid objections to every theist argument I've ever been presented.
Theists have been trying to support their case for thousands of years. If there were no valid objections and refutations, I would no longer be an atheist.
That is why I (and every other atheist here) continue to request that you present your arguments and evidence, in case you have something that I have not seen before that I might be convinced by.
EDIT: I am not about to put words in your mouth, and refute arguments and evidence that you don't think are valid to support your god belief. It is up to you to define what you believe, and most importantly, why you believe it.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
