The Case for Theism

[Baalzebutt]

Oh, we haven't bailed.

We just get tired of getting this response to EVERY SINGLE FUCKING POINT WE POST:

The fact such occurs is due to the laws of nature , the same reason there are planets, solar systems, stars and galaxies. The question is why would mindless forces that don't care if there are planets, stars or galaxies or care if self-organization or self order occur or care if life exists or sentient humans exist wind up in an extremely narrow set of characteristics to allow such to occur.

See, if this argument was actually PROGRESSING, (in other words, if you would actually make a case and not just repeat the same drivel over and over) we might be more inclined to re-enter the conversation.

We can only point out the flaws in your arguments so many times before the head-banging-into-wall option becomes more attractive.

[pocaracas]

Some of my other adversaries have apparently bailed from this debate, that's fine, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Not bailed.... still here.
But I'm always late when it come to Rythm's speed at replying to you.... and I see no need to type roughly the same things he types ... and no point in making you read the same argument twice.

I may have failed to reply to you somewhere, because I read your reply on my mobile and then forgot to reply to it on the PC... it happens...

[Angrboda]

I have already been going at this for 25 pages and have made my case from 5 lines of evidence. Your coming late to the party. Some of my other adversaries have apparently bailed from this debate, that's fine, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. At this point I am working on my 'closing argument' then I will wrap things up and you guys can go back to reassuring each other there's no evidence in favor of theism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFr-GMdepvI

[Drew_2013]

One wonders why something as mundane as atheism requires apologetics at all? I don't think you understand what that word means.

Apologetics or atheism? I know what they mean if we use the dictionary as a source but I have often noted atheists reserve the right to interpret the meaning of a word to suit themselves.

Whether or not atheists are arrogant is irrelevant to why you have failed to make your case. You won't make the case for theism by proving atheism wrong (nor will the arrogance of another make that case for you) ........help me help you, what about this is difficult to understand?

It's your own arrogance that comes back to bite you in the ass. The fact you think it means something to me when you say I have failed to make a case is an example. You can't get the concept out of your head that I don't care what your opinion is and I expect you and your ilk not to be persuaded. Does it mean anything to you that in my opinion you've failed to make your case or failed to give me any reason to reject my belief and adopt yours? In my opinion my belief has more facts and data in support of it..but that doesn't mean anything to you does it? Do you think if two lawyers are trying a case that they only win the case if they persuade their opponent as to the merits of their case?

The other nuance about arrogance is the fact in the case of atheism...there's no basis to be arrogant. Its not like you have an overwhelming rock solid powerful case to be proud of, most of you won't even attempt to make a case, in your arrogance you seem to think that you can merely criticize (typically with theories the atheist himself doesn't believe in) the case in favor of theism and that alone will lead people to believe that our existence is due to mindless forces that blindly stumbled upon the incredibly complex formula to create the universe and something unlike itself, sentient life. Atheists are their own worst enemies in that regard.

Because it does, you've claimed that there's a superfairy at the bottom of all the turtles. Now get to work.

This is a classic example of the arrogance and rhetoric in action. I'm sure it makes a splash among fellow atheists totally committed to your point of view but does it persaude anyone else?

The best you could hope for is someone concluding that neither party has presented a compelling case. Which is what I was talking about when I mentioned that you were arguing uphill.

In a civil case a mere preponderance of evidence is all that is required, but here's your arrogance rearing its ugly head again. How do you figure I have an uphill battle when the majority of people believe a Creator is responsible for our existence? It is an uphill battle among born again dyed in the wool atheists but for people not committed to either point of view the 5 facts I have laid out to make my case are (IMHO) persuasive. Certainly in contrast to the anemic case you make but in your arrogance you don't think you even need to make a case.

I have already been going at this for 25 pages and have made my case from 5 lines of evidence. Your coming late to the party. Some of my other adversaries have apparently bailed from this debate, that's fine, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. At this point I am working on my 'closing argument' then I will wrap things up and you guys can go back to reassuring each other there's no evidence in favor of theism.

More accurately, you have -failed- to make your case after 25 pages....now you're hoping that I'll leave, or implying that somehow, by virtue of being the last man standing you will have established something? LOL, you're gonna have to try a little harder.

You just can't extract it from your mind that your opinion I have failed to make my case means nothing to me. Try to reverse polarity and realize it means nothing to you if I opine that you have failed to make (or even bother to present) a counter case. Then a light might go on in your brain that has been cauterized by atheist think.

---

We can only point out the flaws in your arguments so many times before the head-banging-into-wall option becomes more attractive.

Bang away...

[Foxaèr]

Then a light might go on in your brain that has been cauterized by atheist think.

Oh, that is just rich, especially coming from a theist who's brain is completely closed to anything resembling logic outside of the unholy bible of magic.

[The Grand Nudger]

Apologetics or atheism? I know what they mean if we use the dictionary as a source but I have often noted atheists reserve the right to interpret the meaning of a word to suit themselves.

Either, to be frank.

It's your own arrogance that comes back to bite you in the ass. The fact you think it means something to me when you say I have failed to make a case is an example. You can't get the concept out of your head that I don't care what your opinion is and I expect you and your ilk not to be persuaded. Does it mean anything to you that in my opinion you've failed to make your case or failed to give me any reason to reject my belief and adopt yours? In my opinion my belief has more facts and data in support of it..but that doesn't mean anything to you does it? Do you think if two lawyers are trying a case that they only win the case if they persuade their opponent as to the merits of their case?

Again, calling someone arrogant won't make your case for you. Sounds to me like you're trawling for ways to excuse your inability. If you didn't care, you wouldn't be here posting - over and over- so spare me. You can believe in whatever you like, whether or not you've made a compelling case for theism, and whatever you choose to believe are entirely different subjects. Why would I need to convince you to believe in anything?

The other nuance about arrogance is the fact in the case of atheism...there's no basis to be arrogant. Its not like you have an overwhelming rock solid powerful case to be proud of, most of you won't even attempt to make a case, in your arrogance you seem to think that you can merely criticize (typically with theories the atheist himself doesn't believe in) the case in favor of theism and that alone will lead people to believe that our existence is due to mindless forces that blindly stumbled upon the incredibly complex formula to create the universe and something unlike itself, sentient life. Atheists are their own worst enemies in that regard.

Wha-wah-wah, mean arrogant atheist meanies. I;m starting to think that you don't know what theism means either......

This is a classic example of the arrogance and rhetoric in action. I'm sure it makes a splash among fellow atheists totally committed to your point of view but does it persaude anyone else?

It's a classic example of the burden of proof. Get to work.

In a civil case a mere preponderance of evidence is all that is required, but here's your arrogance rearing its ugly head again. How do you figure I have an uphill battle when the majority of people believe a Creator is responsible for our existence? It is an uphill battle among born again dyed in the wool atheists but for people not committed to either point of view the 5 facts I have laid out to make my case are (IMHO) persuasive. Certainly in contrast to the anemic case you make but in your arrogance you don't think you even need to make a case.

Appealing to the mob now, because I'm sure that's some indicator of accuracy. Just...wow. It's this sort of thing that leaves you in the position of having failed to make your case.

You just can't extract it from your mind that your opinion I have failed to make my case means nothing to me. Try to reverse polarity and realize it means nothing to you if I opine that you have failed to make (or even bother to present) a counter case. Then a light might go on in your brain that has been cauterized by atheist think.

No "counter case" is required. You really have no clue how this is done, why you haven't been able to do it, or why your posts are being criticized - after having it explained to you at length? I doubt that very much.

Look amigo, this is blisteringly simple........If you don't care, if you aren't interested in addressing objections - your are not having a conversion with anyone but yourself - it would be difficult to understand why you would require these forums for that. You could have locked yourself in a closet and accomplished as much as you have here.

[Esquilax]

It's your own arrogance that comes back to bite you in the ass. The fact you think it means something to me when you say I have failed to make a case is an example. You can't get the concept out of your head that I don't care what your opinion is and I expect you and your ilk not to be persuaded. Does it mean anything to you that in my opinion you've failed to make your case or failed to give me any reason to reject my belief and adopt yours? In my opinion my belief has more facts and data in support of it..but that doesn't mean anything to you does it? Do you think if two lawyers are trying a case that they only win the case if they persuade their opponent as to the merits of their case?

If you don't care what we think, then that raises two very important questions: One, why are any of us bothering to argue with you, an individual who is, by his own admission, closing his mind to any contrary evidence or argumentation his opponents might produce?

And two, just where the fuck do you get off proceeding to then smugly declare that some of us have conceded defeat and bailed, when we all know that you're barely even reading what we write? You're declaring victory in a contest you've effectively said isn't happening.

Tell us why we should bother if you're not going to bother arguing back?

Oh, and by the way, if we're going to continue with this dumb as fuck courtroom analogy, I'd like you to go back and re-read the thread thus far: you'll find next to nobody agreeing with you on any point. Rather, this thread is filled with people attempting to debate you. The jury has spoken, numbnuts.

[Mister Agenda]

Drew, would you mind not caring what we think a little more briefly?

[Mystic]

Drew, people believe first, justify later.

If there were arguments that people claimed can prove morality for example, people might stop believing morality on faith, but rather seek to justify via arguments.

There is of course a problem, in that some people might trade their faith, for an argument, from the perspective we suppose to have faith directly, and not indirectly.

We seek confirmation to anything we believe.

Of course, I did the same thing, and now my faith is quite shaken

Before you reasoned in the way you reasoned, do you believe you were justified in faith in God if you had faith in God?

[Neo-Scholastic]

...declare that some of us have conceded defeat and bailed...

I agree (minus the insults). Sometimes, people decide to reflect on the counter-points rather than give knee-jerk responses or they just get bored and move to a more interesting thread. No one 'wins' a debate here. But if the debate continues too long, everyone loses.

Drew, people believe first, justify later...We seek confirmation to anything we believe.

Sometimes, but not always, MysticKnight. It's more like they ride an idea for all it's worth until they find a better horse.

Because it does, you've claimed that there's a superfairy at the bottom of all the turtles. Now get to work.

This is a classic example of the arrogance and rhetoric in action. I'm sure it makes a splash among fellow atheists totally committed to your point of view but does it persaude anyone else?

Of course not. And he doesn't care, so why bother arguing with him until you're blue in the face.