Whia
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2014
- Messages
- 179
It's almost like you're defying people to take you seriously.I used to call myself an atheist bounty hunter.
So you commented on videos you didn't watch? So you're just outright admitting to remarking on things you don't understand. Cool, noted.I would go to atheist videos, and pause at like the first 5 seconds, and head straight to the comment section (who needs to watch garbage material of some insecure atheist people who have a extreme hate boner to Christianity.
Yes. Yes they do. Off the top of my head, Ray Comfort and Kent Hovind make a career off this. Is there anything you're not wrong about?Do we Christians have channels dedicated to poking fun at atheist or differnt religons? no.
Curious why you haven't been doing any of that here then.I used to discuss the Bible with them, and I'd almost always just rip their arguments all to shred.
I bet you it's not.But that was at least a year ago. I'm rusty. Wisdom goggles need to be rejuvinated. Hence why you're exposing me on a few points. But that's going to change.
Not whom, but what. And the short answer is the scientific method.What do you mean by empircally verified? It's verfied by whom?
Sure. Now actually demonstrate this claim.I believe the Bible is the verifired Word of God.
Empirical evidence is part and parcel of scientific theories.I looked up the defintion of empircal and it means verfiable based on observation or expirence not by theory or "pure logic".
Yes, because it's an incredibly unremarkable claim - it has no elements that would require suspending belief until further notice. Note the distinction between "I went to Taco Bell" and "I have fairies in my closet" and see if you can figure out why that distinction was made.By your own frution, you trusting that your parents went to taco bell would you be trusting in some not verfied empircally.
What else would I possibly mean by demonstrate other than provide evidence?What do you mean by demonstrate? it has multple defintions.
And the problem is you're using them interchangeably when the context alters the definition of the word. That makes it an equivocation fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EquivocationThe defintion of that and the Bible's (thanks for the qutation of sciprute...edifying to read) aren't exclusive. To believe in the things not seen means we must have complete trust in confidence in the one who tells/guides us. As you can see, I later say the Bible defintion as well. I was just quoting the defintion from wikipedia.
"Faith and trust are synonymous"What are you talking about? faith and trust ARE SYNONUMS in of itself. faith is just more of spirtual word that the Bible uses. So yes, you have faith in things because you trust and/or believe in them. Like what is so hard to mentally understand about that? You're just over analyzing and confusing yourself.
Sure. But then that means...
"You have faith in things because you trust them"
is a tautology. Just like it was in the last post.
It's not my fault if you're sloppy with your terms.
Acknowledging the apparent, possibly inherent limits of human understanding ≠ I don't believe in searching for The Truth™.So you don't believe in searching for Truth.
Yeah you don't understand science even slightly. Any scientist or even scientifically literate layperson will tell you the exact same thing I told you.You just believe in some man-made process of where you sound the most intelectual and smartest then make claims backed by the most-beleiving arguments based on whatever evidence they can throw up or expose and call it a day wether it's truth or not. Sounds backwards and always a step behind.
The especially funny/embarrassing part is this is the exact same kind of "skepticism" you expressed in your previous post when you went on about how "we have to have trust and hope in our methods" and etc etc. So you appeal to radical skepticism when it suits you, but when it's pointed out that science rightly acknowledges its limits, then you respond with this drivel.
Per your religious beliefs, which still require substantiation.Faith in vaccume isn't always expident. What matters is WHERE YOU PUT your faith. And putting your faith in Christ is superior to anything else.
The irony of this is outstanding. I'm trying to pin you down on the consistent usage of one 5-letter word but apparently I'm the one lacking nuance.You see, now i'm starting to remember. This is how you combat decieving talking points. You atheist tend to look at things in wholesome and ignore the nuances.
Please be gentle.Like. ATHEISM VS THEISM. FAITH VS EVIDENCE. That's why you guys can be so deadly. But when you actually look at the Biblical nuances truth of life....who can stand against? my bounty hunting is starting to come back. Dude, I'd advise you stop right now. Drop this conersation and surrender your life to Jesus. Because you're about to start to get exposed.
Yeah at no point was that ever being disputed anywhere in this thread.there's no "rational way to justfy it's acceptance". Hm...interesting. How about this for a rationale. People have the right to worship and beleive in the gods or God they so choose or are led to.
Again, was never being disputed.And you Mr. Whia, should accept that.
Is there a name for the fallacy when your opponent just completely makes **** up about you?
Remember last month when you made this same fallacious argument, I pointed out it was fallacious, and you then agreed with me that it was fallacious? I'll provide quotes since you've clearly forgotten:yet atheist don't even make into the top 5 of held beleifs about God. lol.
So why are you using arguments that you not only know are fallacious, but that you've already admitted, in this thread, you know are fallacious?Me: How can you determine if the object of your faith is legitimate?
You: The amount of followers it has...
Me: This is a logical fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)...
You: Okay. That also applies to atheism/agnosticism as well. Dosent matter how many followers a belief system has - but wether that belief is CORRECT. I agree with this line of thinking.
Me: Then why did you bring it up in the first place? Why are you using arguments you admit you know are fallacious?
Demonstrate your claims.But hey, i'm in your boat (trigger warning to people of differnt relgions...REPEAT....Trigger warning). I find any spritual claim that's not rooted to be in complete acceptance and beleif in the Bible is a complete waist of time and all of those unforunate souls who died in the grave beleiving such lies and diversions will and are suffering greatly as they await judgement. Once judgement happens, they will all be thrown into the lake of fire and burn forever, amen. Dam I could give of what the population my religon is. The Bible is ABSLOUTE Truth. But the acceptance of Christ can save you from such a terrible fate.
Last edited: