Deciphering gibberish?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Thanks, yea, I wish I had arguments for some of them but some require information I'm still learning so I can't and others I understand but I'm sitting there going this is so bad that I do not know how to simplify this on the level their needing while also trying to avoid insulting them.

Why on earth would you want to avoid insulting them?

Boru

Yeah. Such people may become offended when you attack their beliefs.  That isn't the same as attacking the person.

Plus, imo, free speech must include the right to offend. To decline to say something because it may offend is to allow oneself to be manipulated. However, in Australia; we have anti hate speech laws. To decline to insult a person may be a pragmatic decision, as in fear of being arrested.

Keeping it simple; most theists I run across are presuppositional apologists. By that I mean they assume the existence of god is a given. It ain't. Before arguing  about the bible or specific beliefs, it's quite reasonable to demand they demonstrate the existence of their god. So far, no one in recorded history has managed to do that. Nor has anyone been able to demonstrate there is no god.

If you are not familiar, it might be a good idea to have a look at some of the more common logical fallacies.  At least one usually turns up in most discussions with believers.

It's worth remembering  that religious beliefs are based on faith, not reason and not facts. In fact Jesus himself is reported as admonishing his followers to believe on faith: John 20:29  (KJV) Jesus saith unto him,Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.


((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

25 Common Logical Fallacies That Sway You From Winning Arguments (coffeeandjunk.com)