this just blew me away

[Little lunch]

So veganism, smoking and religion are related. Because there are positives and negatives.
I wonder what else might fit into that set.
It might be easier to find the things that don't.

[Alex K]

[Aractus]

Ok, I should have written "the true believer's mindset" and not have singled out Christians because it's not relevant. I don't want to be sidetracked with discussion about the sense or nonsense of Veganism either. My point was that you should say clearly why you think that arguments should to be made by people with impressive credentials.

Because you need to use evidence to support a valid argument, otherwise it's just a hypothesis.

[Alex K]

Ok, I should have written "the true believer's mindset" and not have singled out Christians because it's not relevant. I don't want to be sidetracked with discussion about the sense or nonsense of Veganism either. My point was that you should say clearly why you think that arguments should to be made by people with impressive credentials.

Because you need to use evidence to support a valid argument, otherwise it's just a hypothesis.

And the evidence you demand is... the credentials of the debater?

[Aractus]

So veganism, smoking and religion are related. Because there are positives and negatives.
I wonder what else might fit into that set.
It might be easier to find the things that don't.

Of course.
Any activity that effects health has positives and negatives. For example, let's say I tell you "you need more exercise you lazy bastard - get out there and go for a daily walk" and you work out that the only time you can go for your walk is between 8 and 9 PM. So that's what you do. But your neighbourhood is seedy and unsafe and every-time you do it you get mugged, or knifed, or worse. In your particular situation obviously the benefits do not outweigh the risks. You'll come back to me and say "your health advice was fucking shit".

And the evidence you demand is... the credentials of the debater?

Evidence. Publications by relevant academics - scholars/historians/archaeologists/anthropologists/etc.

[The Grand Nudger]

Evidence doesn't depend upon who published it or where.  Perhaps your misunderstanding here helps to explain why you were a christian to begin with? What a fantastic claim to make, on these boards, no less....that you never saw an atheist respond to christianity's claims with published articles by relevant academics. One needs only use the search function to see this happening day in and day out.

I wonder what might happen if we dredged through your old posts? Might we find evidence that your claim is false.....even though this isn't a journal...and we're not "relevant academics"............

[Alex K]

Evidence. Publications by relevant academics - scholars/historians/archaeologists/anthropologists/etc.

Yes, good. And why can't this evidence be cited by armchair scholars?

[Aractus]

My whole point is that's what they should be doing. But most refuse to do so.

It's completely contradictory to expect others to use a higher level of evidence to the one you are using.

[Alex K]

My whole point is that's what they should be doing. But most refuse to do so.

It's completely contradictory to expect others to use a higher level of evidence to the one you are using.

Then your criticism should have been "On the atheist side, the evidence presented was too often of low quality". The way you worded it makes you sound pompous and argument from authority fallacious.

[Aractus]

I never made an argument from authority. What I said remains valid. Most atheists quote from sources that are not of the quality they expect Christians or other theists to quote from.