Originally posted by @tom-wolseyYou are not a good thinker. The first line of your code contains a lie, and you insist on keeping it. You are fluff, buddy.
And thus is deemed "not evidence." Check.
Next?!
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemI love the Chuck Norris jokes; they’re hilarious.
Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyYou apparently believe any evidence, no matter how bad, is good enough.
And thus is deemed "not evidence." Check.
Next?!
Explains why you're religious.
1 edit
Originally posted by @vivifyOn one hand many Christians accept and acknowledge that their beliefs are based on "faith".
You apparently believe any evidence, no matter how bad, is good enough.
Explains why you're religious.
On the other hand others seem unwilling to accept and acknowledge this.
So they come up with silly "proofs" - which ultimately reflects badly not only on themselves, but to Christianity in general.
The "proof" in the OP is no better than the following:
Christian Circular Reasoning in BASIC
10 God does exist. -because-
20 There is evidence for God. -because-
30 Any presented evidence for God is evidence. -because-
40 GOTO 10
Neither demonstrates anything worthwhile.
Originally posted by @thinkofoneThere is a distinction. The Christian doesn't accept just any presented evidence as evidence. Whereas the atheist--true to the circular reasoning in the OP--rejects every single claim ever made in support of God's existence.
On one hand many Christians accept and acknowledge that their beliefs are based on "faith".
On the other hand others seem unwilling to accept and acknowledge this.
So they come up with silly "proofs" - which ultimately reflects badly not only on themselves, but to Christianity in general.
The "proof" in the OP is no better than the following:
...[text shortened]... vidence for God is evidence. -because-
40 GOTO 10
Neither demonstrates anything worthwhile.
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyOkay, I'll accept that distinction. Though it doesn't make the "proof" given in the OP any less silly.
There is a distinction. The Christian doesn't accept just any presented evidence as evidence. Whereas the atheist--true to the circular reasoning in the OP--rejects every single claim ever made in support of God's existence.
Many Christians accept and acknowledge that their beliefs are based on "faith" because they accept and acknowledge that there is no reasonable evidence. There just isn't.
Originally posted by @thinkofoneIt was intended to be silly.
Okay, I'll accept that distinction. Though it doesn't make the "proof" given in the OP any less silly.
Originally posted by @apathistWhen did you call me a liar? I stopped paying attention to your posts over an hour ago.
I called romans a liar and he has no response. Now I have to talk to myself.
Not for the first time, I guess.
You are doing a fine job as the atheists’ new lickspittle, though. You had some pretty big flippers to fill.
Originally posted by @apathistThe first line says God does not exist. If that's not the atheist position, please explain.
You are not a good thinker. The first line of your code contains a lie, and you insist on keeping it. You are fluff, buddy.
Originally posted by @thinkofoneThere’s plenty of evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ but you need an open mind (and open heart) to see it.
Okay, I'll accept that distinction. Though it doesn't make the "proof" given in the OP any less silly.
Many Christians accept and acknowledge that their beliefs are based on "faith" because they accept and acknowledge that there is no reasonable evidence. There just isn't.
Originally posted by @romans1009Oh, and if you don’t see it, that only shows your mind and heart are closed.
There’s plenty of evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ but you need an open mind (and open heart) to see it.
Pardon me, but you seem to be a wee bit hoisted on your petard there.