RE: Devil's Advocate
January 13, 2014 at 9:59 am
(This post was last modified: January 13, 2014 at 10:09 am by Drich.)
(January 13, 2014 at 9:15 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: We have never ignored any 'proof' (and I use that word in the loosest sense) you have offered us. We have simply dismissed it.
er.. I mean of course not all of it is always examined and 'we' change our understandings to match only the purest form of facts.
(January 13, 2014 at 9:52 am)Esquilax Wrote:Well, that is an issue considering the sheer volume is it not?(January 13, 2014 at 9:10 am)Drich Wrote: So do you see the problem? To use the standard arguments calling for 'proof' while ignoring existing proof would make me portray the atheist as a hypocritical moron. Yet the irony is I was planing to use arguments I have already faced
Well, except that the issue isn't ignoring existing proof, really; it's understanding that the type of proof being presented is insufficient as verification of the types of claims being made, if we're talking religious claims specifically and not, say, just whether or not Jesus existed.
For if Christ is the most written about person of that era with the most period manuscripts verifying his existance and deeds, and all that is written is still not enough. This means everyone else who isn't better documented with period writtings have absolutly no hope of being confirmed as being real either, which is everyone elses in that time period.
