Your tooth fairy not mine

@moonbus said
I looked at the evidence and considered the arguments. Then I made up my mind. Present a better argument or more compelling evidence, and I'll reconsider. Can you say the same? I mean, of course, are you really prepared to abandon Christianity if, for example, Jesus's bones were discovered by archaeologists and there were no doubt they were Jesus's bones?

If you have looked at the evidence, exactly what particular evidence can you point to that supports your views?

@vivify said
This accusation doesn't fly on a forum full of adults that have debated in Spirituality for many years.

Maybe you could've used that line of thinking back when RHP was first created by not now in a forum where all the posters are quite familiar with everyone's beliefs and opinions after hundreds or possibly thousands of posts exchanged.

I'm quite sure you don't have any arguments that haven't been posted many times before in favor of your particular god.

So you say.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Interest. I also put significant study into class and social mobility.

Does somebody need to be a Christian to study Christianity, and if so, does one need to be a dinosaur to be a Palaeontologist?

Hah!

-Removed-

Tsk, there's that word again, "claimed".

Why are you always in a rush to judgement?

@kellyjay said
If you have looked at the evidence, exactly what particular evidence can you point to that supports your views?

I looked at the arguments and evidence for the existence of God, in the writings of, for example, Anselm’, Thomas Acquinas, Aristotle’s argument for an unmoved mover (obviously not the god of Abraham), various arguments for intelligent design, and so on. They are all nicely presented and refuted, one after another, in John Mackie’s book, “The Miracle of Theism.” There is also “The Portable Atheist”, a compendium of articles on the topic, edited by Christopher Hitchens. I have had personal discussions with devout Catholics and Orthodox priests. I have read the Bible, as well as numerous other texts held to be holy or divinely inspired by various religious groups. My view is that there is no compelling evidence or argument for existence of a supreme being. I don’t need an argument or any evidence why there isn’t a supreme being; no more than I need an argument or evidence proving there is no such thing as vampires, werewolves,hobbits, tooth fairies, kobolds, orcs, unicorns, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster. The burden of proof lies entirely with those who claim such things exist.

@kellyjay said
"your particular flavour of god"

Yes. That's what I said.

-Removed-

The old maxim says we should never discuss politics or religion at the dinner table. It doesn't include geography or sociology.

Why do you think the maxim singles out politics and religion? Do you think perhaps this is because those topics stir emotions unmatched by physics or media studies? - In discussions, people are passionate about their political and religious views and will defend them to the hilt, as they often relate to their personal identity and values. Can you offer another subject at school that did likewise?

I enjoyed the religious discussions at A level (got an A grade) and went on to take a degree in the subject, with a view to going into teaching. A bit odd you are struggling with this.

-Removed-

Oh, no, more criticism! Time to lash out before anyone else notices!



Yes, he said it. Why not SAY he said it, instead of saying he CLAIMED it?

Why use that word?

Come on, man, time for confession.

@moonbus said
I looked at the arguments and evidence for the existence of God, in the writings of, for example, Anselm’, Thomas Acquinas, Aristotle’s argument for an unmoved mover (obviously not the god of Abraham), various arguments for intelligent design, and so on. They are all nicely presented and refuted, one after another, in John Mackie’s book, “The Miracle of Theism.” There is also ...[text shortened]... Flying Spaghetti Monster. The burden of proof lies entirely with those who claim such things exist.

Surely you understand that a stance on something with zero evidence lies firmly in the realm of faith?

And there seems to be a somewhat surprising dearth of faith in literature.

@suzianne said
Surely you understand that a stance on something with zero evidence lies firmly in the realm of faith?

And there seems to be a somewhat surprising dearth of faith in literature.

Of course. Fideism is an option. Just not a live option for me.

@moonbus said
I looked at the arguments and evidence for the existence of God, in the writings of, for example, Anselm’, Thomas Acquinas, Aristotle’s argument for an unmoved mover (obviously not the god of Abraham), various arguments for intelligent design, and so on. They are all nicely presented and refuted, one after another, in John Mackie’s book, “The Miracle of Theism.” There is also ...[text shortened]... Flying Spaghetti Monster. The burden of proof lies entirely with those who claim such things exist.

Well, nice claims, but I have seen you say things as true I'm afraid I have to disagree with. Do you mind sharing the evidence that supports the arguments for the refutation of the umoved mover, and Intelligent design? Can you submit evidence that justifies your stance, to see if it is logically justified, and that it is more than just you justifying your own opinion?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Yes. That's what I said.

I know, and that is my point with you. It isn't God you are concerned about it is my views, these are two different subjects, and you are not addressing the more important of the two topics, my views could be anything about anything, not changing reflecting the universe correctly at all, but the reality of God as true is the real question. You ignore the required question to go head to head with other people's thoughts about a topic you are not addressing.

@kellyjay said
I know, and that is my point with you. It isn't God you are concerned about it is my views, these are two different subjects, and you are not addressing the more important of the two topics, my views could be anything about anything, not changing reflecting the universe correctly at all, but the reality of God as true is the real question. You ignore the required question to go head to head with other people's thoughts about a topic you are not addressing.

I don't understand any of that.