cuchulain

You see...reject was the word of emphasis. But you would change that to 'no evidence vs absence of evidence'...you dont even see your answering the point that you use straw men deceptively, with another straw man. You are blind or deliberately playing dumb.

I understand the sentiment. I have considered the departure myself. Of course, the pagans are correct in their assertion that life begins, ages, then dies, and is reborn....at least so far as the life cycle of the average forum. Life here, or conversation, begins with a few brave souls. Then it ages...or gets old at least. Then it dies off, just as you described. Then it begins again later.

Sometimes I do. But this time, no. Some people wonder why I respond. Some tell me repeatedly I am beating the dead horse...I don't reference you, Johnathan. You have been supportive. Some people, though, don't understand the impetus that drives me to respond in seemingly useless debate. So I will take this opportunity to elucidate. There are people in this world who's passion leads them to cook. Leads them to become great chefs. There are those who work with their hands and create art, who manufacture stories with ease that entertain and enlighten others. There are those who teach and further knowledge to the new generations that come. My oldest son is one who has passion for computers and their workings. For me, I have a passion for philosophy. The joke goes, "what do you do with a philosophy degree? Think deep thoughts about being unemployed." This is very apt for me. I like to see the inner workings, understand the why's and how's. But that's science. I love to see how those why's and how's are translated and applied by others. I love to see the depth of thought, or lack thereof, from others' arguments. I like to examine the logic behind, to understand the deeper workings of the logic involved within the debates. I like seeing sound arguments made, and it doesn't matter which side they are made for, whether I agree or disagree. I like the sound argument. It's just that I so rarely encounter a sound argument coming from the faithful.

Straw Man Again!!! See, the atheist argument is that there is no evidence, so we don't believe. YOU CHANGED IT to "the absence of evidence causes them to reject..." I think you have no understanding of language, or you are deliberately misleading. Reject is an active word. It makes a claim. We don't' believe, much like you don't believe in Zeus. But you know this. You deliberately derail arguments in this manner so as to avoid the subjects you cannot answer. It would be better to simply admit a lack of knowledge.

And dan calls us fools using scripture, again. I guess hiding behind his mythology lets him get away with violating rules of conduct. Gee, wonder why atheists dislike dans methods...and deceptions.

I wonder if the founders of these religions were brain damaged and that shaped the beliefs of millions? Never know since most were anonymous.

Mythology...unless you can prove it.

The first quote is you claiming it can be proven, literally what you said. The second, that you cant prove it. This is a simple demonsration of your deliberately deceptive tactics in debate.

The fact, FACT, of its debatability...is proof that it IS confusing. Its confusing enough, that for centuries a special priest class was required for its interpretation...neverminding that they had as little insight as the next dan, er guy. They used psychology. They said it with conviction and 'authority' which people typically accept. It spread because it gave answers(though unproven) and claimed authority which became real by dint of shear numbers and the ability to enforce their mythology. When its a burning offense to believe otherwise, you should take stock on WHY the truth which is 'readily apparent' needs a death threat to be maintained.

Which means he knows but chooses to antagonise...

I liken it to understanding observation. The scientific process and education in general follow repeatable patterns with repeatable conclusions. To an extent, there is a reason to believe that the same conditions and stimuli will reproduce those conclusions. It is the observation, hypothesis and testing that lead to theory(something the avg person think means what hypothesis actually means). For example, through the use of these principles, automobiles have been created. When i turn the ignition, and there are no breaks in the mechanics, it is reasonable to believe the car will start. Faith is believing in the hypothesis before any testing. Its like taking some drug because someone with no qualifications beyond having done so themselves told you its safe to do so. only neglected the instructions, or they werent clear. Perhaps that home made penicillum gets rid of your infection. Or maybe you get hives and don't realize that's not how it should work. or maybe you die from complications of appendicitis and they failed to properly diagnose you. You had faith but that's not as useful as knowledge, no matter how its communicated.

What i was saying is he DOES know...he chooses to deliberately aggravate and then play dumb. Which is baiting, and a clear violation of terms...that seems to be ignored for some reason. He does this on numerous subjects...but look at me preaching to the choir.

Sure dan. I would accept the point you were actually making, that the book was unchanged. There are lots of reasons i dont believe, so proving me wrong on one is just one step on a trail. See how the straw man works? Your point was that it was the same message, now its that i wouldnt be convinced to be christian if it was proven. Two different arguments that are moot anyway since you havent proven the originals match what we have.

Nobody can be so obtuse as to continually make the exact same mistake that just so happens to have been a trigger to a group, after having it pointed out numerous times...only to keep it up time and again. The mods dont care to notice this deliberate baiting or legitimately think its insane(doing the same thing but expecting different results). Its one or the other though.

Again...you cant provide proof so resort to an attack that i wouldnt accept it any way. Does this personal attack further your point or your ego?