|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: People - I /was/ a Christian | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
One thing that does bore me is the belief some people seem to have, that if you were a Christian and are now an atheist, then you now have the ultimate truth. Like it's some sort of proof that God doesn't exist. Man, that's so painfully obtuse, it's hard to watch.
Yawn. ...That's fine for you, but for others it's not the case and your arguments are not enough to convince them you are right because there seem to be holes in them you either don't recognise through some sort of denial, or you just seem to ignore no matter how many times they are presented to you.
Nator writes: While I wasn't encouraged to question faith, really, I was raised a Catholic What faith? Let's not pretend you had any, so that you can join in the "we've been there done that" T-shirt parade.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Ned, mikey reads between the lines - some things don't need to be said, they're just plain to see when you have a big steel irrefutable brain of truth.
This particular thread has been done a few times. It seems to consist of a group-comfort type scenario, where each comes and tells us what we have heard many times before. My infinite brilliance can only stand so much repetition of the sickening sight.
Apparently these people do know exactly what it is like. Well, they know what it's like to believe, then ultimately give up on that belief. Not that I mind. Their experiences are just as valid as anyone elses. All I am saying is that I don't think it actually proves much. But ofcourse, I have not said that anybody in this thread has said that it proves much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Good to hear from you in forums Phat, getting your two cents in. I agree with your post phat. you always offer a pleasant and reasonable/peaceful approach to things. We need more like ya, I'll miss your too, and a lot of guys here.
Meanwhile, the king of sting is about to flex his muscle, and demolish the frog. Stand back, you might here this one down under. .......it's comin'....it's comin' - oh no! - you don't want none of this frog!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Taz-judge writes: Well, let just say that everytime I talk to people like iano, faith, riverrat, nem_jug, mike the wiz, phat, etc I actually see the conversation as a reminder never to fall into the christian trap again. What you people don't realize everytime you try to tell me how loving and caring your god is and how I should worship him and all of that I can't see pass all the prejudice and ignorance that come hand-in-hand with the faith that you speak of. mikey's hatred of fags mikey's hatred of atheists mikey's supernatural fallacies mikey's views that only humans are intelligent So what did I do wrong? Was I supposed to agree with Phelps?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
mtw tends to be pretty obtuse Therefore there should be many examples of this. Can you show me some, because that's the first time anyone has called me "obtuse" in my life. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. but you knew that right? Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
That must be it, as there is no other possible explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
So, when I mentioned your name, I was thinking of the desperation that one has to prove god. You started out using bogus arguments. Now, you've familiarized yourself with basic logic to prove basically the same things that you tried to prove back in your bogus arguments days. You have said this before - that I am trying to prove God with logic. Yet I know logic can't do that, and I have never argued it.
But changing from using bogus arguments to prove creationism to trying to dress up your arguments with logical jargons It's not logical jargons. Every logical point I have made has had educational value. I am not being mean, but it's that you don't understand what I am saying. I couldn't create working riddles with jargon. Many here will think as you do because they either don't know the full extent of what I am saying, or they just think colloquially.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
That link you posted was from early 2003!
It's nearly 2008, Taz.
Not directly, no. I'll tell you what, I'm too lazy right now to actually track down your specific posts on the matter. However, I will be keeping my eyes open and point them out in the future. We'll see how long before you begin to try to use your logical jargon on the matter of god again. That's begging the question, because "again" assumes I done it in the first place without actually proving I did. And if yu think the 2003-link proves it, then that's a pre-hoc error, because that was before I used logic. Here's a link to the former fallacy - just incase you think logic is "jargon".
HERE Also, you said "logical jargon" ad nauseum. Here's what ad nauseum means;
argumentum ad nauseum link writes: But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place Read the links - but read into them. Don't just read the language - do the actual thinking required to understand them according to the notation of logic. Your posts consist of epithets, instead of reasoning. "Bigot""Jargon" Big words are no substitute for genuine sound reasoning.Or am I being obtuse? Oh - let's see what an independent source says! link writes: A loaded word is like a loaded gun, and its evaluative meaning is the bullet. [SNIP] - The fallacy is committed either when an arguer attempts to use loaded words in place of an argument, or when an arguee makes an evaluation based on the colorful language in which an argument is clothed, rather than on the merits of the argument itself. Your posts consist of colourful accusatory language. Your style is to point to specific examples of bad evil Christians and calim that all units of the whole are therefore guilty. (I apologise fo rthe grammatical tautology, bad evil Christians. We seen this when you said that ignorance go had in hand with being christian, etc...That was a false conditional. IF you're a Christian, THEN you're ignorant. Notice you don't have toprove any of this formally?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread. AdminPD Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
This concludes my participation at EvC. There are too many issues here. I sense a certain futility in this discussion.
Deep down I think you're a good guy Gasby, but I think you're a bit cynical because of your former experiences of Christianity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024