Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Christianity is Compatible with Reason/Logic

Hambone
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 1:58:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Every argument against Christianity I've heard from atheists basically comes down to a simple premise that Christianity defies logic and reason and, to that end, must be false. I disagree. I don't think any of the tenants of Christianity are incompatible with logic, if not simply for the fact that the omniscient, omnipotent, omni-all God of Christianity could use that omnipotence to bend logic and reason to whatever He/She would want it to be. Furthermore, Christianity and its necessity for faith recognizes the inability to prove or disprove God's existence - the only religion I can think of that recognizes this fact. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that Christianity is the religion that is most logical and reasonable for its use of faith.
Hot and Dangerous
inferno
Posts: 10,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 2:02:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 1:58:00 PM, Hambone wrote:
Every argument against Christianity I've heard from atheists basically comes down to a simple premise that Christianity defies logic and reason and, to that end, must be false. I disagree. I don't think any of the tenants of Christianity are incompatible with logic, if not simply for the fact that the omniscient, omnipotent, omni-all God of Christianity could use that omnipotence to bend logic and reason to whatever He/She would want it to be. Furthermore, Christianity and its necessity for faith recognizes the inability to prove or disprove God's existence - the only religion I can think of that recognizes this fact. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that Christianity is the religion that is most logical and reasonable for its use of faith.

Hambone. I strongly believe that inately most people know in their hearts that God exists. But for the ones who dont it is not really about what they cannot see.
It is about what they can relate to and respect.
cabio
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 2:09:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree and disagree. I agree that Christianity does not defy logic and reason. However, one cannot and smartly should not say that God could bend logic and reason. He is not one who can go against his character, which to change logic would allow him to do such things as lie and be otherwise immoral. But he cannot contradict his own character, which implies that logic as we know it is a part of him, and thus he does not change. Secondly, the Biblical definition of faith is not something blind as you suppose, but an active trust based on evidence.

It is not a smart defense to say that God can change logic or hold to a blind faith. Neither is true.
inferno
Posts: 10,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 2:19:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 2:09:15 PM, cabio wrote:
I agree and disagree. I agree that Christianity does not defy logic and reason. However, one cannot and smartly should not say that God could bend logic and reason. He is not one who can go against his character, which to change logic would allow him to do such things as lie and be otherwise immoral. But he cannot contradict his own character, which implies that logic as we know it is a part of him, and thus he does not change. Secondly, the Biblical definition of faith is not something blind as you suppose, but an active trust based on evidence.

It is not a smart defense to say that God can change logic or hold to a blind faith. Neither is true.

Christianity does defy logic with reason. But on a different plane than you do.
It is how you perceive it to be. But you could be just as illogical to me personally.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 2:22:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There is no special merit in living a life purely based on logic (reason is a bit more squishy). There are certain values that Christ held that were illogical; there is no logic in turning the other cheek, there is no logic in loving your fellow man, there is no logic in fogiving your brother 7 X 70 times. There can be great logic in genocide, and there can be great logic in war. There is logic in the ends justifying the means. When logic and morality are in sync it's only a coincidence.
cabio
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 2:25:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Inferno, you are simply irrational. I hope nobody takes you as a serious thinking Christian.

Innomen, the examples you gave have nothing to do with logic. You may say they seem odd, but they do not defy a law of logic.
inferno
Posts: 10,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 2:28:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 2:22:41 PM, innomen wrote:
There is no special merit in living a life purely based on logic (reason is a bit more squishy). There are certain values that Christ held that were illogical; there is no logic in turning the other cheek, there is no logic in loving your fellow man, there is no logic in fogiving your brother 7 X 70 times. There can be great logic in genocide, and there can be great logic in war. There is logic in the ends justifying the means. When logic and morality are in sync it's only a coincidence.

Innomen. Yes, there is logic in turning the other cheek and loving your fellow Man.
There is no logic in things that compromise from a life or death aspect.
Those other elements cause cause the endangerment of human life therefore
one must counterattack in order to be logical. I agree on that part.
inferno
Posts: 10,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 2:31:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 2:25:23 PM, cabio wrote:
Inferno, you are simply irrational. I hope nobody takes you as a serious thinking Christian.

Innomen, the examples you gave have nothing to do with logic. You may say they seem odd, but they do not defy a law of logic.

Cabio. I am not a Christian as I have admitted that before. It is simply rational to those who view the world from that perspective. You only see it as irrational
because you are a non believer and an insatiable skeptic. Nothing anyone says here will satisfy you. You cant even satisfy your own stupid and ridiculous logic.
You know way too much about nothing.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 2:31:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 2:25:23 PM, cabio wrote:
Inferno, you are simply irrational. I hope nobody takes you as a serious thinking Christian.

Innomen, the examples you gave have nothing to do with logic. You may say they seem odd, but they do not defy a law of logic.

If the value of life is at a level where it is contrary to the sustenance of life is that illogical?
cabio
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 3:26:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 2:31:11 PM, innomen wrote:
If the value of life is at a level where it is contrary to the sustenance of life is that illogical?

Technically, no. Not by the definition of logic nor according to logical laws.

Inferno, watch the ad hominems. You don't know the first thing about me or my beliefs.
inferno
Posts: 10,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 3:34:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 3:26:39 PM, cabio wrote:
At 8/1/2011 2:31:11 PM, innomen wrote:
If the value of life is at a level where it is contrary to the sustenance of life is that illogical?

Technically, no. Not by the definition of logic nor according to logical laws.

Inferno, watch the ad hominems. You don't know the first thing about me or my beliefs.

Cabio. Oh please. A vicious independent male from Rochester Minnesota.
Oh you do love wildlife dont ya ? You love to fish and you like boating too.
Now how did I know that ? Anyway, your view may be along the lines of agnotic
or atheist. You are more of the latter. Youre a skeptic and you demand to know.
You seek after knowledge like me. And you love to challenge people face to face.
You like to get at em. You love the game of' Im more intelligent than you.'
Does this ring a bell ? I thought so.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 3:35:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 3:26:39 PM, cabio wrote:
At 8/1/2011 2:31:11 PM, innomen wrote:
If the value of life is at a level where it is contrary to the sustenance of life is that illogical?

Technically, no. Not by the definition of logic nor according to logical laws.

Inferno, watch the ad hominems. You don't know the first thing about me or my beliefs.

Is it logical to provide bare sustenance to a starving populace which will only prolong the starvation and possibly expand the populace (given life as a high value)?
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 3:37:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 2:22:41 PM, innomen wrote:
There is no special merit in living a life purely based on logic (reason is a bit more squishy). There are certain values that Christ held that were illogical; there is no logic in turning the other cheek, there is no logic in loving your fellow man, there is no logic in fogiving your brother 7 X 70 times. There can be great logic in genocide, and there can be great logic in war. There is logic in the ends justifying the means. When logic and morality are in sync it's only a coincidence.

That's a really good way to put it.
cabio
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 3:42:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 3:34:20 PM, inferno wrote:
Cabio. Oh please. A vicious independent male from Rochester Minnesota.
Oh you do love wildlife dont ya ? You love to fish and you like boating too.
Now how did I know that ? Anyway, your view may be along the lines of agnotic
or atheist. You are more of the latter. Youre a skeptic and you demand to know.
You seek after knowledge like me. And you love to challenge people face to face.
You like to get at em. You love the game of' Im more intelligent than you.'
Does this ring a bell ? I thought so.

Actually, except for the male from Rochester, you are basically wrong on all accounts. Inferno, this is not worth the time.
cabio
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 3:43:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 3:35:29 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/1/2011 3:26:39 PM, cabio wrote:
At 8/1/2011 2:31:11 PM, innomen wrote:
If the value of life is at a level where it is contrary to the sustenance of life is that illogical?

Technically, no. Not by the definition of logic nor according to logical laws.

Inferno, watch the ad hominems. You don't know the first thing about me or my beliefs.

Is it logical to provide bare sustenance to a starving populace which will only prolong the starvation and possibly expand the populace (given life as a high value)?

Again, it is a category error. It has nothing to do with logic. Logic is very narrowly defined, given certain rules, similar to mathematics.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 3:50:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 3:43:21 PM, cabio wrote:
At 8/1/2011 3:35:29 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/1/2011 3:26:39 PM, cabio wrote:
At 8/1/2011 2:31:11 PM, innomen wrote:
If the value of life is at a level where it is contrary to the sustenance of life is that illogical?

Technically, no. Not by the definition of logic nor according to logical laws.

Inferno, watch the ad hominems. You don't know the first thing about me or my beliefs.

Is it logical to provide bare sustenance to a starving populace which will only prolong the starvation and possibly expand the populace (given life as a high value)?

Again, it is a category error. It has nothing to do with logic. Logic is very narrowly defined, given certain rules, similar to mathematics.

That was an utterly mathematical scenario I provided.
inferno
Posts: 10,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 3:50:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 3:42:08 PM, cabio wrote:
At 8/1/2011 3:34:20 PM, inferno wrote:
Cabio. Oh please. A vicious independent male from Rochester Minnesota.
Oh you do love wildlife dont ya ? You love to fish and you like boating too.
Now how did I know that ? Anyway, your view may be along the lines of agnotic
or atheist. You are more of the latter. Youre a skeptic and you demand to know.
You seek after knowledge like me. And you love to challenge people face to face.
You like to get at em. You love the game of' Im more intelligent than you.'
Does this ring a bell ? I thought so.

Actually, except for the male from Rochester, you are basically wrong on all accounts. Inferno, this is not worth the time.

Cabio please. I got you backed into a corner kid. I know more than you think.
cabio
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 3:56:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 3:50:00 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/1/2011 3:43:21 PM, cabio wrote:
At 8/1/2011 3:35:29 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/1/2011 3:26:39 PM, cabio wrote:
At 8/1/2011 2:31:11 PM, innomen wrote:
If the value of life is at a level where it is contrary to the sustenance of life is that illogical?

Technically, no. Not by the definition of logic nor according to logical laws.

Inferno, watch the ad hominems. You don't know the first thing about me or my beliefs.

Is it logical to provide bare sustenance to a starving populace which will only prolong the starvation and possibly expand the populace (given life as a high value)?

Again, it is a category error. It has nothing to do with logic. Logic is very narrowly defined, given certain rules, similar to mathematics.

That was an utterly mathematical scenario I provided.

It is an ethical conundrum. It appears there are some misunderstandings to the nature and definition of logic.
inferno
Posts: 10,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 4:00:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 3:56:41 PM, cabio wrote:
At 8/1/2011 3:50:00 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/1/2011 3:43:21 PM, cabio wrote:
At 8/1/2011 3:35:29 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/1/2011 3:26:39 PM, cabio wrote:
At 8/1/2011 2:31:11 PM, innomen wrote:
If the value of life is at a level where it is contrary to the sustenance of life is that illogical?

Technically, no. Not by the definition of logic nor according to logical laws.

Inferno, watch the ad hominems. You don't know the first thing about me or my beliefs.

Is it logical to provide bare sustenance to a starving populace which will only prolong the starvation and possibly expand the populace (given life as a high value)?

Again, it is a category error. It has nothing to do with logic. Logic is very narrowly defined, given certain rules, similar to mathematics.

That was an utterly mathematical scenario I provided.

It is an ethical conundrum. It appears there are some misunderstandings to the nature and definition of logic.

Ethical Conundrum ? You sound like a total nerd. How about oxymoron /
You Atheists have such narcissistic views about your own useless intelligence.
You know too much about nothing. And noone takes you seriously, yet again.

A fool says in his heart that there is no God. <
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 4:04:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 3:42:08 PM, cabio wrote:
At 8/1/2011 3:34:20 PM, inferno wrote:
Cabio. Oh please. A vicious independent male from Rochester Minnesota.
Oh you do love wildlife dont ya ? You love to fish and you like boating too.
Now how did I know that ? Anyway, your view may be along the lines of agnotic
or atheist. You are more of the latter. Youre a skeptic and you demand to know.
You seek after knowledge like me. And you love to challenge people face to face.
You like to get at em. You love the game of' Im more intelligent than you.'
Does this ring a bell ? I thought so.

Actually, except for the male from Rochester, you are basically wrong on all accounts. Inferno, this is not worth the time.

It's best to just ignore him.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
inferno
Posts: 10,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 4:07:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 4:04:58 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/1/2011 3:42:08 PM, cabio wrote:
At 8/1/2011 3:34:20 PM, inferno wrote:
Cabio. Oh please. A vicious independent male from Rochester Minnesota.
Oh you do love wildlife dont ya ? You love to fish and you like boating too.
Now how did I know that ? Anyway, your view may be along the lines of agnotic
or atheist. You are more of the latter. Youre a skeptic and you demand to know.
You seek after knowledge like me. And you love to challenge people face to face.
You like to get at em. You love the game of' Im more intelligent than you.'
Does this ring a bell ? I thought so.

Actually, except for the male from Rochester, you are basically wrong on all accounts. Inferno, this is not worth the time.

It's best to just ignore him.

PopCulture. The same goes for you. Fan or not, check the charts kid.
You need to catch up.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 4:45:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's not only about being illogical. The fact is there's simply no proof to back up most Christian claims. Period. Accepting them on blind faith is more than naive; it's absurd. I think it's ridiculous to make such incredible assertions without a shred of remotely decent evidence just because the story makes you feel good. Christians derive their seemingly contradictory moral system through authoritative means (from a more than questionable source, considering the God of the OT), and then barely ever abide by their own rules ever so conveniently. I think anyone with a basic grasp of history and who understands how religious myths have been recycled, manipulated and perpetuated throughout the ages can understand why it's a bunch of bs. Apologetics try so hard to make it sound reasonable. It's funny but a little sad.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 4:51:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 2:22:41 PM, innomen wrote:
There is no special merit in living a life purely based on logic (reason is a bit more squishy). There are certain values that Christ held that were illogical; there is no logic in turning the other cheek, there is no logic in loving your fellow man, there is no logic in fogiving your brother 7 X 70 times. There can be great logic in genocide, and there can be great logic in war. There is logic in the ends justifying the means. When logic and morality are in sync it's only a coincidence.

This sounds nice and all but fails to address the OP. All you've said is that various actions can be logically if not morally justified. In that case I fail to see why you can't follow a certain moral code, say one advocated by Jesus, without believing in God. I can easily follow Jesus' teachings without believing he was born of a virgin, fully ascended into heaven after rising from the dead, and other absolutely ridiculous lies like that which you accept on blind faith just for the heck of it. Your post was about morality, not whether or not claims made by Christians are realistic or logical.
President of DDO
inferno
Posts: 10,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 4:55:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 4:45:17 PM, Danielle wrote:
It's not only about being illogical. The fact is there's simply no proof to back up most Christian claims. Period. Accepting them on blind faith is more than naive; it's absurd. I think it's ridiculous to make such incredible assertions without a shred of remotely decent evidence just because the story makes you feel good. Christians derive their seemingly contradictory moral system through authoritative means (from a more than questionable source, considering the God of the OT), and then barely ever abide by their own rules ever so conveniently. I think anyone with a basic grasp of history and who understands how religious myths have been recycled, manipulated and perpetuated throughout the ages can understand why it's a bunch of bs. Apologetics try so hard to make it sound reasonable. It's funny but a little sad.

Danielle. You keep saying like most Atheists, that there is no proof.
If there is no proof, than why do so many people believe in God then ?
And have you ever thought to yourself that is only your perception of the matter. Just because you interpet it is a certain way, that does not mean the next person does. They may think that you are the one who is illogical just because you yourself seem to not get it at all.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 4:59:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 4:55:16 PM, inferno wrote:
Danielle. You keep saying like most Atheists, that there is no proof.
If there is no proof, than why do so many people believe in God then ?

So if a lot of people believed in Santa Clause, that would be proof of Santa's existence?

And have you ever thought to yourself that is only your perception of the matter. Just because you interpet it is a certain way, that does not mean the next person does. They may think that you are the one who is illogical just because you yourself seem to not get it at all.

This is irrelevant and non-sensical: irrelevant because all you're doing is saying that it's based on perception (which means your perception could easily be wrong), and non-sensical because it's not in fact based on perception. God either exists or does not exist. To say otherwise is illogical.
President of DDO
inferno
Posts: 10,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 5:04:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 4:59:58 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 8/1/2011 4:55:16 PM, inferno wrote:
Danielle. You keep saying like most Atheists, that there is no proof.
If there is no proof, than why do so many people believe in God then ?

So if a lot of people believed in Santa Clause, that would be proof of Santa's existence?

And have you ever thought to yourself that is only your perception of the matter. Just because you interpet it is a certain way, that does not mean the next person does. They may think that you are the one who is illogical just because you yourself seem to not get it at all.

This is irrelevant and non-sensical: irrelevant because all you're doing is saying that it's based on perception (which means your perception could easily be wrong), and non-sensical because it's not in fact based on perception. God either exists or does not exist. To say otherwise is illogical.

That argument about Santa Claus and Zeus. That doest work anymore man.
Typical dumb Atheist rhetoric. Let us be more sensible here than anything else please. Im not saying otherwise, I am saying He does. If you have not had any supernatural events or things take place. Oh well. You cannot say that the next Man has not. Because it never happened to you. You are getting beaten by your own logic. You try so hard to make it definitive. And it is not.
cabio
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 5:10:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 4:45:17 PM, Danielle wrote:
It's not only about being illogical. The fact is there's simply no proof to back up most Christian claims. Period. Accepting them on blind faith is more than naive; it's absurd. I think it's ridiculous to make such incredible assertions without a shred of remotely decent evidence just because the story makes you feel good. Christians derive their seemingly contradictory moral system through authoritative means (from a more than questionable source, considering the God of the OT), and then barely ever abide by their own rules ever so conveniently. I think anyone with a basic grasp of history and who understands how religious myths have been recycled, manipulated and perpetuated throughout the ages can understand why it's a bunch of bs. Apologetics try so hard to make it sound reasonable. It's funny but a little sad.

Ignore Inferno. It's not worth it.

However, to say that there is no proof is to be too dogmatic and close-minded. You can say that the evidence lies on one side or another, but to completely ignore the existence of such arguments like the several cosmological, teleological, ontological, and moral arguments is not intellectually honest. You may disagree on where the evidence lies.
inferno
Posts: 10,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 5:12:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 5:10:16 PM, cabio wrote:
At 8/1/2011 4:45:17 PM, Danielle wrote:
It's not only about being illogical. The fact is there's simply no proof to back up most Christian claims. Period. Accepting them on blind faith is more than naive; it's absurd. I think it's ridiculous to make such incredible assertions without a shred of remotely decent evidence just because the story makes you feel good. Christians derive their seemingly contradictory moral system through authoritative means (from a more than questionable source, considering the God of the OT), and then barely ever abide by their own rules ever so conveniently. I think anyone with a basic grasp of history and who understands how religious myths have been recycled, manipulated and perpetuated throughout the ages can understand why it's a bunch of bs. Apologetics try so hard to make it sound reasonable. It's funny but a little sad.

Ignore Inferno. It's not worth it.

However, to say that there is no proof is to be too dogmatic and close-minded. You can say that the evidence lies on one side or another, but to completely ignore the existence of such arguments like the several cosmological, teleological, ontological, and moral arguments is not intellectually honest. You may disagree on where the evidence lies.

Cabio. How about if we ignore you ? I would swear you are a Woman with all of the hooping and hollering. Ignoring me is something you should have done about 10 questions ago. Rather contradicting today arent we CABIO. Go away.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 5:13:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 5:04:08 PM, inferno wrote:
That argument about Santa Claus and Zeus. That doest work anymore man.
Typical dumb Atheist rhetoric. Let us be more sensible here than anything else please. Im not saying otherwise, I am saying He does. If you have not had any supernatural events or things take place.

Anytime someone says something you cannot refute, you say it's "dumb atheist rhetoric." You have not offered anything substantial to this discussion, and have contributed nothing but dumb theist rhetoric. We can go back and forth with the insults. It proves nothing. But that's okay I suppose considering proof is not that important to you apparently. Also there is no such thing as "supernatural."

Oh well. You cannot say that the next Man has not. Because it never happened to you. You are getting beaten by your own logic. You try so hard to make it definitive. And it is not.

I am going to follow everyone's advice and ignore you, because you fail to make any sense.
President of DDO
inferno
Posts: 10,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 5:17:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 5:13:56 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 8/1/2011 5:04:08 PM, inferno wrote:
That argument about Santa Claus and Zeus. That doest work anymore man.
Typical dumb Atheist rhetoric. Let us be more sensible here than anything else please. Im not saying otherwise, I am saying He does. If you have not had any supernatural events or things take place.

Anytime someone says something you cannot refute, you say it's "dumb atheist rhetoric." You have not offered anything substantial to this discussion, and have contributed nothing but dumb theist rhetoric. We can go back and forth with the insults. It proves nothing. But that's okay I suppose considering proof is not that important to you apparently. Also there is no such thing as "supernatural."

Oh well. You cannot say that the next Man has not. Because it never happened to you. You are getting beaten by your own logic. You try so hard to make it definitive. And it is not.

I am going to follow everyone's advice and ignore you, because you fail to make any sense.

Danielle. Anytime someone says something that YOU cannot refute, you use
dumb rhetoric like illogical and no proof. You dont seem so intelligent to me.
You just are good at putting big words together. Nothing more. The rest is garbage.