RAZD writes:
John 10:10 claims he is confident because he has evidence, but his evidence is only available to those with faith. His evidence is the faith he has in his faith. He'll present scripture verse at the drop of a hat, but ignore the issue, the topic and reality in the process, and dance around any real questions rather than answer directly.
Bertot claims he has objective evidence when talking to the loyal opposition, but is unable to present a single shred to test for validity, and when he is challenged that his definition differs from John 10:10 he equivocates and says they are the same.
Not one believer has presented objective "kick-the-tires" evidence for why one should drive off in a "Christler" instead of a "Hinda" yet they all display extreme confidence that only "Christlers" are worth driving down the path of faith.
It is the confidence of a closed mind, unwilling to consider that they could be wrong, therefore they are right about anything they discuss, whether it is logic, life, linguistics or the mating habits of a little known butterfly that only lives in the amazon basin's northern branch where only one specimen has been found.
It is the confidence of confirmation bias.
It is the confidence of cognitive dissonance's rejection\denial of reality rather than resolution of the conflict
While I am fully aware of the format for debate in the area of summation, I see or feel no need to repeat numerous valid points, whichany can go back and read if they choose. I also feel no need to repeat it for people that are not listening. As exhibit A, I present this very insightful and brilliant comment from Brian in another post.
Brian writes:
But even IF every story was confirmed historically and archaeologically it DOES NOT follow that there is a god, can't you see your faulty reasoning here?
Now does that sound like anyone that is interested in any truth whatsoever. I would make my bets that yourself and the others are not far behind in this type of evasion and ignorance. Why repeat myself? My goal in summationwas simply to pointout further why you proceed in the manner you do and offer reasons for this type of degenerative thinking pattern.
As I very easily demonstrated in another post you unwillingness to accept any of the evidence is not due to a lack of evidence, its that your methods and approach to what belief and evidence are are nothing short or ignorance and wilfull stupidity. As I suspected before I made the comment to Brian, he turns right around and confirms it in no uncertain terms.
RAZD writes:
Sadly, it is also my observation that most of this thread is pointless, once you get one answer from a person of faith all others are redundant for the very reasons given here.
Like Brian, my simple friend, your not interested in evidence or the truth and your not listening to reality or our arguments, you have abandonded reason and your head is buried in your nonsensical approach.
"There comes a time when even learned men must learn to dance".
Reality and a rational approach to belief, RAZD, are the dance instructors, just listen.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
.
™ Version 4.2
