Josh McDowell, who has probably participated in more theological debates then anyone from the theist side, after many years came to the conclusion that "the reason nearly all atheists won't believe when presented with evidence is that the evidence is not the issue with them but instead some sin in their personal lives". No matter what the evidence is it will not be good enough or they categorically reject it to continue to cover up their own real personal sin issue. The more testy they are then the more the guilt is festering. Many feel that debate with these people is futile because you can never get to the real problem.
666...the Devils Moving Average
- Thread starter crackhead
- Start date
hahahaha
EXACTLY!!!!!! YOU CAUGHT ME RED-HANDED!!! LOL!!!!!
that's a good one...
Translation: Atheists identify my so called "evidence" as bunk, and since I can never win a debate against them on merit alone, I will commit the fallacy of poisoning the well, and discredit them by claiming it is because of their "sin". (Which they don't believe in, in the first place)
LMAOOOOOOOOOO! Good one.
Did it ever occur to him that the debate is futile with atheists BECAUSE his theistic position is so unfounded and incredibly weak that he has ZERO chance of winning?
If you are consistently trounced attempting to defend your position, then the intellectually honest thing to do is RID YOURSELF OF THAT POSITION, as I did when I lost my faith.
peace
axeman
LMAOOOOOOOOOO! Good one.
Did it ever occur to him that the debate is futile with atheists BECAUSE his theistic position is so unfounded and incredibly weak that he has ZERO chance of winning?
If you are consistently trounced attempting to defend your position, then the intellectually honest thing to do is RID YOURSELF OF THAT POSITION, as I did when I lost my faith.
peace
axeman
___________________________________________Quote from axeman:
Translation: Atheists identify my so called "evidence" as bunk, and since I can never win a debate against them on merit alone, I will commit the fallacy of poisoning the well, and discredit them by claiming it is because of their "sin". (Which they don't believe in, in the first place)
LMAOOOOOOOOOO! Good one.
Did it ever occur to him that the debate is futile with atheists BECAUSE his theistic position is so unfounded and incredibly weak that he has ZERO chance of winning?
If you are consistently trounced attempting to defend your position, then the intellectually honest thing to do is RID YOURSELF OF THAT POSITION, as I did when I lost my faith.
peace
axeman
That may be an argument but to say that that debunks his observation could also be considered "poisoning the well".
Another question I have is: If evolution is true then where is there evidence of one species evolving into another species. Such as cat to dog not a bobtailed cat or taller dog.
I understand the changes within species and have been a selective breeding animal producer for years but I need evidence of going from one species to an entirely different one. We really need evidence of thousands of species jumps but that may be asking too much.
I understand the changes within species and have been a selective breeding animal producer for years but I need evidence of going from one species to an entirely different one. We really need evidence of thousands of species jumps but that may be asking too much.
when i read something like that, it is just appalling. you make a statement like that (which reveals how little you truly understand the subject) and have the nerve to attack someone like me, stu, axeman, or longshot/fpc for our skepticism of religion?!
read a few books and become familiar with the subject before you go around claiming "god" is responsible for everything and we're crazy.
Let's stick to the subject.
As I posted earlier, I asked the atheists to hypothetically REJECT evolution for the sake of discussion.
This will prevent the theists from hijacking the discussion
and switching it to an attack on evolution in a diversionary attempt
to draw us away from the core subject.
Creationism.
If you wish to concede that creationism does not have
enough evidence to be accepted as true, I will
be happy to start another discussion on evolution on
another thread
peace
axeman
As I posted earlier, I asked the atheists to hypothetically REJECT evolution for the sake of discussion.
This will prevent the theists from hijacking the discussion
and switching it to an attack on evolution in a diversionary attempt
to draw us away from the core subject.
Creationism.
If you wish to concede that creationism does not have
enough evidence to be accepted as true, I will
be happy to start another discussion on evolution on
another thread
peace
axeman
Douber: "That may be an argument but to say that that debunks his observation could also be considered "poisoning the well"."
Incorrect.
It is poisoning the well because he is asking us to dismiss
the atheists argument , not based on merit, but
because they have "sin". The is a fallacy.
I on the other hand, am NOT asking you to dismiss his argument because
he is biased by his christianity for example.
Therefore, I am not poisoning the well.
I am asking the question, did it ever occur to him
that he can't win these debates BECAUSE his very
argument has no merit?
peace
axeman
Incorrect.
It is poisoning the well because he is asking us to dismiss
the atheists argument , not based on merit, but
because they have "sin". The is a fallacy.
I on the other hand, am NOT asking you to dismiss his argument because
he is biased by his christianity for example.
Therefore, I am not poisoning the well.
I am asking the question, did it ever occur to him
that he can't win these debates BECAUSE his very
argument has no merit?
peace
axeman
right ..right. Doubter you should not believe in evolution but you gotta believe in de-evolution.
easy to prove, look in the mirror!!! You used to be a jackass... now you have de-evolved to a moron troll. :eek:
MRWSM how ya doing?
______________________________________Quote from axeman:
Let's stick to the subject.
As I posted earlier, I asked the atheists to hypothetically REJECT evolution for the sake of discussion.
This will prevent the theists from hijacking the discussion
and switching it to an attack on evolution in a diversionary attempt
to draw us away from the core subject.
Creationism.
If you wish to concede that creationism does not have
enough evidence to be accepted as true, I will
be happy to start another discussion on evolution on
another thread
peace
axeman
Try to reduce this a little so that I can understand your point.