Texas hospitals are running out of drugs, beds, ventilators and even staff

[Mountain Man]

No it's not. It's just so central to yours that you cannot imagine how to some-one else it might be on a par with whether Zeus throws lightning.

And you bear the burden of proving his existence. Since your deity is far more important to you than to me, since my reasons for not accepting your gods existence are largely based on you and your ilk's inability to agree on what your god is, let alone provide any evidence or argument for it, and since you declared you knew your god existed before I said he didn't, you can go first.

I'm not falling for your stupid
- "God is real!"
- "No it isn't"
- "Ha! You need to prove that"
burden shifting nonsense.

So you're saying that God's non-existence is not a central tenet of atheism? How very curious.

Also, your notion that the burden of proof exists exclusively on one side of the argument is another game that intellectually dishonest atheists like to play. In fact, the burden of proof rests on both parties: on the theist to make a positive case for God's existence, and on the atheist to make a positive case for God's non-existence. But, no, atheists are inherently cowards who want to make the theist do all the heavy lifting while they idly wave from the sidelines and say, "Humph! You've not convinced me, so I'm right by default!"

If you had any coincidence in your worldview at all, you would have no problem being the first to strike out in a debate and present your case. To that end, I have to at least respect the intellectual honesty of the late Douglas Adams who called himself a "radical atheist" and had no problem with "going first", even if his arguments weren't substantially better than any others I've heard (his basic argument was that the existence of God requires too much explanation to be plausible).

[Mountain Man]

So, at first you are open to the possibility that you could be wrong and shrug at it as if it is not important at all. At least that leaves it open that you could actually be wrong.

Then, leaving out the question asked, you go on to talk about the need for strong counter proofs. The question was:

"What if Abracadabra has already made himself and his eternal truth know to you but you rejected it because your "Christianity" is such a convenient justification for actions that Abracadabra has proven for you to be wrong?"

That, of course, includes strong counter proofs. So, in other words, your world view could be wrong and it could be wrong beacuse you rejected to hear the truth?

You're asking me to question my convictions based on a hypothetical. Do you have any idea how silly that argument is?

So if this is really the argument you want to go with then you need to add some substance to it:

First, who is "Abracadabra"? Second, what proofs are there of his existence? And third, what reasons do you think I should devote my life to him instead of Yahweh?

(It occurs to me that a moderator may want to split off some of these posts and start a new thread in Apologetics.)

[Charles]

You're asking me to question my convictions based on a hypothetical. Do you have any idea how silly that argument is?

It is not an argument, it is a question. Seemingly you find it reasonable to ask similar questions to others (using your God instead of Abrabadabra) but refuse to answer yourself.

So if this is really the argument you want to go with then you need to add some substance to it:

First, who is "Abracadabra"? Second, what proofs are there of his existence? And third, what reasons do you think I should devote my life to him instead of Yahweh?

(It occurs to me that a moderator may want to split off some of these posts and start a new thread in Apologetics.)

I never claimed I hat met Abracadabra or know who he is. I was pointing to the possibility that he might have already revealed himself and his truth to you and you refused to listen. That has got nothing all all to do with what I might say. And whatever I can say or not does not adress the situation in question, the situation where Abracadabra has revealed himself to you beyond any doubt, but you refuse to listen.

At an earlier stage you were open to the possibility you could be wrong, you could have refused to hear the truth or to accept it. Seems you are finding yourself in a bit of trouble here.

[Stoic]

So you're saying that God's non-existence is not a central tenet of atheism? How very curious.

I'm not sure why you consider that curious. It's pretty widely known, at least among atheists.

Also, your notion that the burden of proof exists exclusively on one side of the argument is another game that intellectually dishonest atheists like to play. In fact, the burden of proof rests on both parties: on the theist to make a positive case for God's existence, and on the atheist to make a positive case for God's non-existence. But, no, atheists are inherently cowards who want to make the theist do all the heavy lifting while they idly wave from the sidelines and say, "Humph! You've not convinced me, so I'm right by default!"

Consider the following four types:

1) A theist who wants to convince others there is a God.
2) An atheist who wants to convince others there aren't any gods.
3) A theist who doesn't try to convince others there is a God.
4) An atheist who doesn't try to convince others there aren't any gods.

The first two types have a burden of proof. The other two types don't. (I happen to be type 4, and the theists I get along with best are type 3.)

If you had any coincidence in your worldview at all, you would have no problem being the first to strike out in a debate and present your case. To that end, I have to at least respect the intellectual honesty of the late Douglas Adams who called himself a "radical atheist" and had no problem with "going first", even if his arguments weren't substantially better than any others I've heard (his basic argument was that the existence of God requires too much explanation to be plausible).

You can have confidence in your worldview without feeling a pressing need to change other people's worldviews to match yours.

[Sparko]

It is not an argument, it is a question. Seemingly you find it reasonable to ask similar questions to others (using your God instead of Abrabadabra) but refuse to answer yourself.



I never claimed I hat met Abracadabra or know who he is. I was pointing to the possibility that he might have already revealed himself and his truth to you and you refused to listen. That has got nothing all all to do with what I might say. And whatever I can say or not does not adress the situation in question, the situation where Abracadabra has revealed himself to you beyond any doubt, but you refuse to listen.

At an earlier stage you were open to the possibility you could be wrong, you could have refused to hear the truth or to accept it. Seems you are finding yourself in a bit of trouble here.

I will answer you. If some disciple of Abracadabra knocked on my door and wanted to preach the Gospel of Abracadabra to me, I would listen to him and evaluate the evidence. I would then do a lot of research on it and if it was overwhelming and credible, then I would probably believe. But I can tell you I have done this with several actual religions and cults, such as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hinduism and Islam. None of them stood up to actual scrutiny.

Mormonism falls apart as soon as you dig into the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith (and regular Christians like me still go to heaven in Mormonism). Jehovah's Witnesses fall apart when you study their history and their translation of the bible - and again, regular Christians get resurrected along with the JWs and then have 1000 years to get it right. Hinduism is so far out there that even if they were right, I would not go to hell, since there isn't one. I would just be reincarnated or something. If Islam was true, then basically the same. They believe that Christians are "people of the book" and as long as you live a life with more good than bad, you get to go to heaven, same as any Muslim.

So basically my best bet so far is to just remain a Christian, where I am forgiven of my sins. If I am wrong and any of the other religions are right, I still go to heaven or get reincarnated. Win/win.

[Mountain Man]

I never claimed I hat met Abracadabra or know who he is.

Right. Your argument is purely hypothetical with no basis in the real world or connection to any existing worldview.

It is, in short, a stupid argument.

[Charles]

Right. Your argument is purely hypothetical with no basis in the real world or connection to any existing worldview.

It is, in short, a stupid argument.

Like I pointed out it was a question not an argument. But you left that out. As well as other important parts of the post. Try again. Here it is:

It is not an argument, it is a question. Seemingly you find it reasonable to ask similar questions to others (using your God instead of Abrabadabra) but refuse to answer yourself.



I never claimed I hat met Abracadabra or know who he is. I was pointing to the possibility that he might have already revealed himself and his truth to you and you refused to listen. That has got nothing all all to do with what I might say. And whatever I can say or not does not adress the situation in question, the situation where Abracadabra has revealed himself to you beyond any doubt, but you refuse to listen.

At an earlier stage you were open to the possibility you could be wrong, you could have refused to hear the truth or to accept it. Seems you are finding yourself in a bit of trouble here.

[Mountain Man]

Like I pointed out it was a question not an argument.

In that case, it's a stupid question.

To pretend that there is any parallel at all between a historically based religion like Christianity and something you came up with off the top of your head is something only an idiot would think makes for a compelling rhetorical question.

[Charles]

I will answer you. If some disciple of Abracadabra knocked on my door and wanted to preach the Gospel of Abracadabra to me, I would listen to him and evaluate the evidence. I would then do a lot of research on it and if it was overwhelming and credible, then I would probably believe. But I can tell you I have done this with several actual religions and cults, such as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hinduism and Islam. None of them stood up to actual scrutiny.

Mormonism falls apart as soon as you dig into the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith (and regular Christians like me still go to heaven in Mormonism). Jehovah's Witnesses fall apart when you study their history and their translation of the bible - and again, regular Christians get resurrected along with the JWs and then have 1000 years to get it right. Hinduism is so far out there that even if they were right, I would not go to hell, since there isn't one. I would just be reincarnated or something. If Islam was true, then basically the same. They believe that Christians are "people of the book" and as long as you live a life with more good than bad, you get to go to heaven, same as any Muslim.

So basically my best bet so far is to just remain a Christian, where I am forgiven of my sins. If I am wrong and any of the other religions are right, I still go to heaven or get reincarnated. Win/win.

That is presupposing the religions you know about somehow consider all possible options of what or who God could be. That is a rather naive and limiting line of thinking. A God could make himself known to you in other ways than having someone knock on your door. He could be ready to talk to you right now while you are too concerned about answering my post, defending your own religion and the like.

[Charles]

In that case, it's a stupid question.

And somehow you had to leave the details out in your reply once again.

I note that you are unwilling to answer the question. It tells me all I need to know about your ability to defend your world view. Thanks.

[oxmixmudd]

That is presupposing the religions you know about somehow consider all possible options of what or who God could be. That is a rather naive and limiting line of thinking. A God could make himself known to you in other ways than having someone knock on your door. He could be ready to talk to you right now while you are too concerned about answering my post, defending your own religion and the like.

It is the belief in Christian faith that God did that in Christ. He became one of us, lived as us, died by our hand. The sign that this was Him and not just some other human is found in the Bodily Resurrection. Hence, if one believes in the Resurrection, one believes God did in fact come to us to let is know who He is and what He wants.

If one doesn't believe that event occurred, then it's more or less a free for all, good luck figuring it out sort of thing.

[Mountain Man]

And somehow you had to leave the details out in your reply once again.

I note that you are unwilling to answer the question. It tells me all I need to know about your ability to defend your world view. Thanks.

Yes, I often do cut out portions of your posts when I respond, and I make no apologies for it because I find much of what you write to be inane chatter that is not worth a point-by-point dissection. You apparently think your arguments are rhetorical gold deserving a detailed response. Well, you keep thinking that.

However, I did add some additional comments in an edit that you apparently didn't see when composing yet another inane response. For your edification, I reproduce the addition below:

"To pretend that there is any parallel at all between a historically based religion like Christianity and something you came up with off the top of your head is something only an idiot would think makes for a compelling rhetorical question."

I hope this helps you understand why I didn't take your stupid argument seriously.

[Cow Poke]

It is the belief in Christian faith that God did that in Christ. He became one of us, lived as us, died by our hand. The sign that this was Him and not just some other human is found in the Bodily Resurrection. Hence, if one believes in the Resurrection, one believes God did in fact come to us to let is know who He is and what He wants.

If one doesn't believe that event occurred, then it's more or less a free for all, good luck figuring it out sort of thing.

If Christ is not risen from the dead, then our hope is in vain.

[Charles]

Yes, I often do cut out portions of your posts when I respond, and I make no apologies for it because I find much of what you write to be inane chatter that is not worth a point-by-point dissection. You apparently think your arguments are rhetorical gold deserving a detailed response. Well, you keep thinking that.

However, I did add some additional comments in an edit that you apparently didn't see when composing yet another inane response. For your edification, I reproduce the addition below:

"To pretend that there is any parallel at all between a historically based religion like Christianity and something you came up with off the top of your head is something only an idiot would think makes for a compelling rhetorical question."

I hope this helps you understand why I didn't take your stupid argument seriously.

To present it as something I came up with is to miss the entire point, the entire challenge of the question (again: a question is not an argument). I once again note that you cannot answer the question and I already knew what this says about your ability to support the foundation of your world view. That you are not even able to fairly present the challenge makes it even more revealing. I have got all I need. Thank you.

[Charles]

It is the belief in Christian faith that God did that in Christ. He became one of us, lived as us, died by our hand. The sign that this was Him and not just some other human is found in the Bodily Resurrection. Hence, if one believes in the Resurrection, one believes God did in fact come to us to let is know who He is and what He wants.

If one doesn't believe that event occurred, then it's more or less a free for all, good luck figuring it out sort of thing.

I am aware of that and I also note that you refer to the position as belief. That is absolutely fair game.