(September 2, 2010 at 7:19 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You miss the point VOID because you're only interested in your own subject, and throw the toys out of the pram rather than discuss anything rationally. You have seen and accepted much logical reasoning yet you blank that out for some reason unbeknown to me. Oh yes... to believe in God you have to have "proof he exists"... that's what Christianity is about... lmao. Get a grip VOID. Try discussing historicity with someone interested in the subject rather than hide away in here... or maybe you know your arguments are weak.
You don't get it do you? My standards are far too high to permit acceptance in your silly theology.
1)You have no evidence in indication of the existence of your Deity.
2)You have no valid argument supporting his existence.
3) Every single 'standard' you claim to have in determining the validity of belief is either ridiculously fallacious or can be used by any believer of any faith at all, no matter how contradictory or intentionally ridiculous, to also 'validate' their minds.
4) You continue to talk about how your ability 'rationalise' your belief to yourself is important in determining the truth of your claims, but the next minuet will be entirely inconsistent in admittance that anyone could potentially rationalise anything to themselves and it means nothing for the truth of the belief, yet a few posts later you're back to talking about 'rationalisation'.
5) You never provide any examples, analogy or evidence in support of any of the claims you make, nor in responding to any point of contention in an argument, you keep saying that we have "missed the logic" but when asked to provide it in the form of an argument you refuse to, and even admitted you were unable to.
6) You kept pointing out my "Bias'" in my analysis of the historical Jesus and the development of Christianity historically, even though i used clear examples, talked about features of manuscripts that are indicative of forgery, instances of literary inconsistency etc and even provided you with very early and reliable manuscripts to demonstrate my point (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus). Yet you denied your own bias despite the fact that you didn't even attempt to demonstrate the reasoning behind your belief.
Oh, and you don't for a second need to have reason and evidence to believe in God - You need to have reason and evidence to be rational - Something that your beliefs don't even vaguely resemble, why? Because you don't actually give a shit about not being able to know whether or not the thing you believe in is real - you cling to it none the less.
And it's funny that you raise the Historicity argument, seeing as i clearly understand the original incarnation of your precious religion better than you do (i.e you don't know a fucking thing) - To the point where you are too naive and incompetent to even respond with any kind of rational argument, you simply insist upon your existing conclusion time and time again. And FYI I have discussed this topic at length with several theists - One of which i have already explained to you in some detail the first time you wrongly accused me of this, which you well know.
.
