I'm just wondering why sometimes during discussion between an atheist and theist there is a claim x made by the atheist with backing evidence y but the theist won't accept it. Before we all jump the gun here I think it's important to acknowledge that there's different situations of this happening. Sometimes it's an outright fact like e.g. Mark not containing verses 16:9-20 but other times it can be a little more ambiguous.
Anyways, the feedback I'm after (from theists) is to do with my argumentation style in general. Why don't you accept the arguments presented? Am I going about it wrong? Am I simply not logical or missing something out everytime? I feel like at times there's no traction between our arguments. Or is it simply that you must avoid the heartbraking truth at all costs?
Maybe it's not me. Maybe it's just how faith works. It doesn't matter how grim the situation looks, faith magically 'fixes' what can be shown to not be true.
I hope this sort of made sense. I'm about to go to bed and pretty much half asleep already...
Anyways, the feedback I'm after (from theists) is to do with my argumentation style in general. Why don't you accept the arguments presented? Am I going about it wrong? Am I simply not logical or missing something out everytime? I feel like at times there's no traction between our arguments. Or is it simply that you must avoid the heartbraking truth at all costs?
Maybe it's not me. Maybe it's just how faith works. It doesn't matter how grim the situation looks, faith magically 'fixes' what can be shown to not be true.
I hope this sort of made sense. I'm about to go to bed and pretty much half asleep already...
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
