[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Funny. Your entire post was lacking in logic, evidence, tact, and any sort of presentable argument whatsoever...

Here is a small example of the illogicalness of Christianity.

DT 6:5, MT 22:37, MK 12:30, LK 10:27 Love God.
DT 6:13, PS 33:8, 34:9, 111:10, 115:13, 128:1, 147:11, PR 8:13, 16:6, 19:23, 22:4, IS 8:13, LK 12:5, 1PE 2:17 Fear God.
1JN 4:18 There is no fear in love.

or

PR 30:5 Every word of God proves true.
1KI 22:23, 2CH 18:22, JE 4:10, JE 20:7, EZ 14:9 God deceives some of the prophets.

or

JE 8:8 The scribes falsify the word.
2TH 2:11-12 God deceives the wicked (to be able to condemn them).
(Note: Every word of God cannot prove true if God deceives anyone at all; the Bible cannot be trusted if the scribes falsify the word. The first reference is mutually exclusive with the other three. Thus, the Bible cannot be the perfect work of a perfect and loving God since one or more of the above references is obviously untrue. Note also: Some versions use the word "persuade" rather than "deceives." The context makes clear, however, that deception is involved.)

or

EZ 20:25 God says that he intentionally gave out bad laws. (This means that God-given laws or commandments are sometimes suspect.)

or

LK 1:26-38 The angel who appears to Mary to foretell the birth of Jesus says that Jesus will be given the throne of David, that he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and that his kingdom will never end. (None of this took place nor can it now be fulfilled.)

or

MT 16:28, MK 9:1, LK 9:27 Jesus says that some of his listeners will not taste death before he comes again in his kingdom. This was said almost 2000 years ago. (Note: This and many other passages indicate that Jesus was to come again in a relatively short period of time and not just "quickly" as present day Biblicists assert. All of his listeners are now dead, yet Jesus has not come again in his kingdom. All of the alleged words of Jesus recorded in the Bible are therefore suspect.)

or

MK 16:17-18 A believer can handle snakes or drink poison and not experience any harm. (Note: Many unfortunate believers have died as a result of handling snakes and drinking poison. This kind of assertion negates the Bible as a useful guidebook for life.)

source
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...gan/intro.html

Quote:

And yet Christians renounce their logic? He presented you with evidence, and you ignored it. The burden of proof is on you to show why this evidence does not at least give a hint that at sometime many areas that are currently not underwater were at one point. Why is that hard to believe? It doesn't necessarily prove that a Biblical-size flood happened but it isn't meant to. It is easy to imagine that the flood did not cover the ENTIRE Earth but obviously many parts of the earth currently above water were not at one period in time.

What evidence there was no source quoted I mean if I were to say the shy is blue because a smurf pissed in it once upon a time is that considered evidence? No I would have to provide a notable scientific source he never provided a source so he got no response from me (and if he did provide a source I must have missed it but I never did see a source.)

Quote:

A second alternative would be to show that his evidence is somehow faulty. I am not an expert on the subject, but his evidence seems credible. If it isn't, surely it would be easy to show it's faultiness? I would be intrigued in that debate, despite my lack of vested interest in either side.

Yes this type of argument has been made before and has been debunked before and if you would really like I can dig the link back up for you if you would so like (yes I would do that for you)

Quote:

Instead of shouting scurrilous diatribes at people and trying to be a big jerk, how about just deal with the argument? A few times you probably do have good arguments but people just ignore them, because no one likes to be attacked. I mean, do you seriously think you are going to get anyone to listen to you by claiming that they have all abandoned logic? Instead of claiming it, show it--preferably charitably but that is not necessary. Politely would be good enough. Or, if you insist on vituperations, at least show evidence with it. Might make the argument more interesting.

Yes this type of argument has been made before and has been debunked before and if you would really like I can dig the link back up for you if you would so like (yes I would do that for you) When these people actually learn to back their assertions up with evidence I will gladly challenge them with counter evidence (I have said this before). But some of the things they are claiming require mental gymnastics beyond any logic and reason. I am not trying to be a "big jerk" it comes naturally (j/k) but seriously I will admit I do not take kindly to people spouting what they believe to be true off the top of their head, I (as I have said already in this post) Like to see some corroboration.