RE: Only Twenty?
October 31, 2013 at 8:02 pm
(This post was last modified: October 31, 2013 at 8:03 pm by Max_Kolbe.)
(October 31, 2013 at 9:56 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote:(October 30, 2013 at 6:19 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: (I'm not going near Pascals Wager about hell #20 because I don't want get banned like SavedByGrace. Plus it's not nice to scare all the timid sensitive atheists so close to Halloween.)
You're assuming that we believe in hell in the first place.
(October 31, 2013 at 12:05 am)cato123 Wrote: A Scotsman by the name of David Hume answered your questions over 250 years ago.
Was he a true Scotsman?
(October 31, 2013 at 9:34 am)Max_Kolbe Wrote: What is there to respond to? I'm just here for the wisdom.
Bullshit. You're here to spam the board with links and then refuse to engage with us in discussion about them. What about all the refutations we've provided to the "arguments" you linked to? Please tell me, for instance, how Pascal's Wager is a valid proof for God's existence? Tell me how Argument from Design proves that Yahweh is the one true god and Jesus was his son? I say all these arguments you linked to are fallacious. What do you have to say about that?
I've never said, nor do I believe that Pascal's Wager is a valid proof for God's existence. I do not believe that the Argument from Design proves that Yahweh (whoever that is) is the one true god and Jesus was his son.
That's what I have to say about that.
(October 31, 2013 at 10:58 am)Esquilax Wrote:(October 31, 2013 at 9:34 am)Max_Kolbe Wrote: What is there to respond to? I'm just here for the wisdom.
Well, about a page back I provided, off the top of my head, a complete refutation of two of the points listed of your twenty, so there's that to begin with. I guarantee myself and the rest of us can do so for the others just as easily; if you're actually interested in the intellectual stability of these arguments, how they stack up, then a part of that is actually acknowledging the refutations that are available.
Are you even aware there was a point last night where you were banned for spamming links to inane apologetics without responding? It had gotten to that level; we've got no problems with you posting links to material, but you need to actually contribute to the discussion beyond that. Hit and run preaching doesn't get us anywhere.
OK
