When will theists bring something new and fresh?

[Anomalocaris]

In my previous topic I was complaining about hearing same arguments billion times. They are spoken in a different way but are still about the same thing.
Do you think we will ever hear new arguments? Where will they come from? Or we will hear same arguments for another 10000 years?

When hell come into existence AND freeze over?

[Rampant.A.I.]

Paragraph one and two: I agree wholeheartedly. That's exactly what I've said above.

Paragraph 3. Bollocks Straw man again. Your projecting your own understanding onto me again. My faith is rationally based.

It's rationally based, but he can't provide any supporting evidence or an argument for why.



Presuppositional apologetics at their most pathetic.

[fr0d0]

It's rationally based, but he can't provide any supporting evidence or an argument for why.

I can and do provide it all the time rumpy. But don't let the evidence get in your way

[Rampant.A.I.]

Please walk me through what led you to believe

Nobody here cares, so it doesn't matter. No point in going into all that.

You believe and that's your choice. Guess we all make choices.

Good on you. You've seen how weak Frodo's beliefs and reasoning are in other threads.

He'll keep trying to shift the conversation onto the beliefs of others so he can nitpick them. Notice every time he makes a claim, he'll either try weakly to support it, or use the "well, those aren't my beliefs, it was an example of what some people believe, doesn't matter to me" as soon as it is challenged.

It's nauseating.

[fr0d0]

Please walk me through what led you to believe

Nobody here cares, so it doesn't matter. No point in going into all that.

You believe and that's your choice. Guess we all make choices.

Choices based upon our understanding. I don't want your 'Christian testimony'... just the logical process, the steps, stages etc..

Say for me it was :

Atheist parents and friends > strong atheism > Interest in many forms of spiritual expression: paganism, wicca, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism > seriously considered Christianity > reasoned Christianity to be true > decided to act on that > strong Christian > disillusionment with people > negativity > feeling of over stimulation > need for space > decision to not believe > growth into negativity and militant atheism > strong atheist > time > reasoned Christianity to be true again > decided to trust and act on that again > strong Christian

PM me if you'd rather, or don't answer if you'd rather. No pressure. Just interested.

---

Nobody here cares, so it doesn't matter. No point in going into all that.

You believe and that's your choice. Guess we all make choices.

Good on you. You've seen how weak Frodo's beliefs and reasoning are in other threads.

He'll keep trying to shift the conversation onto the beliefs of others so he can nitpick them. Notice every time he makes a claim, he'll either try weakly to support it, or use the "well, those aren't my beliefs, it was an example of what some people believe, doesn't matter to me" as soon as it is challenged.

It's nauseating.

It must be nauseating for the thought of confronting it rather than running away like you are here again.

Shifting the conversion onto the beliefs of others is EXACTLY what you always do in these weird 3rd person attacks you cowardly make.

Have some balls rampy, put up our shut up.

[Silver]

Proof can also be non verifiable, non transferable, personal. It's still proof, none the less.

False. No real scientist would agree with you. You would be laughed right out of the scientific community. Also, your false definition of proof would never even hold up in court.

[*Deidre*]

Just noticed Fr0d0's signature. Hmmm!

lol :p

[fr0d0]

Proof can also be non verifiable, non transferable, personal. It's still proof, none the less.

False. No real scientist would agree with you. You would be laughed right out of the scientific community. Also, your false definition of proof would never even hold up in court.

Scientists hold up to exactly that standard and wouldn't be seen dead violating it. Have you not noticed scientists use the term "empirical"? That's how they differentiate between the different types of proof. If my definition is false then you're saying that they are all wrong too.

Of course it isn't the type of evidence useful in law. But then I never said it was. Perhaps you didn't read the other half of the definition posted earlier.

[Silver]

Scientists hold up to exactly that standard and wouldn't be seen dead violating it.

The only scientist who would adhere to your false definition of proof is one that mistakenly thinks he is a scientist because he studies a pseudoscience.

[fr0d0]

Scientists hold up to exactly that standard and wouldn't be seen dead violating it.

The only scientist who would adhere to your false definition of proof is one that mistakenly thinks he is a scientist because he studies a pseudoscience.

Methinks you just don't get it