What's up

[fr0d0]

I looked at those definitions of deny and tested them all against my accusation, and they all failed.

1. to declare (an assertion, statement, etc) to be untrue: he denied that he had killed her
requires statement
2. to reject as false; refuse to accept or believe
requires subject
3. to withhold; refuse to give
required subject
4. to refuse to fulfil the requests or expectations of: it is hard to deny a child
requires request
5. to refuse to acknowledge or recognize; disown; disavow: the baron denied his wicked son
requires wicked son
6. to refuse (oneself) things desired
requires thing

Please try to justify your point and satisfy your own requirement as you accuse me of failing to do.

---

You can't deny what I believe because you don't understand it.

Firstly, it is not true that you need understand something to deny it. YECs deny evolution and yet they do not understand it beyond their dogmatic characterizations.

YECs deny evolution using spurious (to you and I) evidence and reasoning. They present evidence and reasoning nonetheless for us to reject.
To us, they don't understand it correctly, but we would be disingenuous to suggest that their position was without reason presented. If Nap is denying something without reason then we can suspect his claim of denial as baseless and therefore not denial surely.

Secondly, Why not tell him in your own words what god is before you claim that he does not understand?

I've tried to explain to him the reason against every objection he has raised so far. If he wants me to explain to him what God is then I would gladly oblige. Point is... he must understand what he denies, or how could he deny it? It's his positive claim and not mine to defend.

[theVOID]

YECs deny evolution using spurious (to you and I) evidence and reasoning. They persent evidence and reasoning nonetheless for us to reject.

Which makes what bit of difference to the claim that you do not need to understand something to deny it?

I've tried to explain to him the reason against every objection he has raised so far. If he wants me to explain to him what God is then I would gladly oblige. Point is... he must understand what he denies, or how could he deny it? It's his positive claim and not mine to defend.

Firstly, without explaining God to him you have no way of knowing that he does not understand it.

Secondly, you can deny something without understanding it, you cannot be justified in denying it however.

What specifically was the positive claim that he made?

[Napoléon]

I was going to respond but void pretty much said what i was going to. Please i'm interested to hear what the positive claim i made was though.

[fr0d0]

Answer your own questions Nap & stop depending on never doing so and letting everyone else do that for you.

YECs deny evolution using spurious (to you and I) evidence and reasoning. They present evidence and reasoning nonetheless for us to reject.

Which makes what bit of difference to the claim that you do not need to understand something to deny it?

They deny it a. accepting it as existent and b. with reason

without explaining God to him you have no way of knowing that he does not understand it.

Nap made the statement challenged. A positive claim. Why are you defending his debt of defense of his extraordinary claim?

you can deny something without understanding it, you cannot be justified in denying it however.

Indeed

What specifically was the positive claim that he made?

He is denying that God exists.

[reverendjeremiah]

You can't deny what I believe because you don't understand it.

There is not a requirement to understand something to deny something. Again you seem to be making up your own definitions.

Its typical for believers to redefine words.. I just went through a 3 page argument with Tack and him trying to redefine forgiveness as an act that not only must be given, but accepted as well. In reality (i.e. "non-christian" world) forgiveness is a one way act, and the receiving end doesnt even have to be aware of it.

In the end Tack gave up the conversation when I gave him an unquestionable example: "If a man wrecks his car into my car, killing himself and my infant child, then you are saying that I will never be able to forgive him because he is DEAD and therefore cannot receive my forgiveness. That is untrue, because I can forgive him regardless of wether he is alive, dead, aware or not."

Then again, some christians feel the need to redefine words to fit their agenda of salvation thinking it will convince people to convert and "get saved". All it does for me is show how willing they are to be liars for christ. Tack's obvious goal was to make the definition of forgiveness exactly resemble the act of accepting Jesus into your life... and it didnt work at all: http://atheistforums.org/thread-6780.html

Secondly, Why not tell him in your own words what god is before you claim that he does not understand?

If fr0d0 did such a thing, he would have to remove that "agnostic" image from his signature.

Then again, Im not buying that he is agnostic anything at all...who else here see through that crap and doesnt believe that agnostic claim from fr0d0?

[fr0d0]

Nothing to actually ADD then Rev

[theVOID]

Answer your own questions Nap & stop depending on never doing so and letting everyone else do that for you.

That's just a plain BS call on your part fr0d0, if he shares my sentiment then there is nothing wrong with him simply stating so - Need I remind you how many times in conversation you've presented me with "What Ryft said"?

They deny it a. accepting it as existent and b. with reason

Huh?

He is denying that God exists.

Ah, so this is a semantic issue you two are bickering about.

Nap - Do you mean to say by denying that God exists either; 1. There is no god; 2. There is no reason to believe in a god.?

I feel either are appropriate in the use of the word deny. I consider myself as denying that a god(s) exists, but in the sense of 2.

[reverendjeremiah]

Nothing to actually ADD then Rev

I was unaware that I was supposed to add anything less of value to this current train wreck of a thread you are cunducting fr0d0

Was there something specific you wanted me to post, or was that just a prewrtitten smart ass remark you have saved on your desk top?

[theVOID]

If fr0d0 did such a thing, he would have to remove that "agnostic" image from his signature.

Then again, Im not buying that he is agnostic anything at all...who else here see through that crap and doesnt believe that agnostic claim from fr0d0?

Firstly, Why would fr0d0 describing what he believes god is necessitate that he not call himself an Agnostic?

Secondly, Fr0d0 believes in a god, I've never seen him claim to know that a god exists. I don't have a problem with considering him Agnostic.

[reverendjeremiah]

Firstly, Why would fr0d0 describing what he believes god is necessitate that he not call himself an Agnostic?

Because being an agnostic is all about lack of knowledge, and admitting that lack. If Fr0d0 goes into detail of what that god is, he will be claiming that he has knowledge. Agnosticism is saying that a god is unknowable, if he writes out a laundry list of what god is then he is claiming god is knowable...especially the claims of a god existing or not. Agnostic theism is Belief but without Knowledge.

Secondly, Fr0d0 believes in a god, I've never seen him claim to know that a god exists. I don't have a problem with considering him Agnostic.

I wouldnt either, but sometimes he openly points things out "This is god", "that isnt god", "You will go to hell", etc..