• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is no god, which version of atheism do you think has a greater probability of being true?
 
This looks like fun!

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is no FSM, which version of pizza do you think has a greater probability of being tasty?
 
Assuming, for sake of argument, that logical fallicies don't exist, which version of hasty generalization is likely to be true?
 
Filippo Lippi said:
I'm interested in seeing some of that evidence you promised us in the OP.
Click to expand...

Your welcome to read my 319 posts. You might start with post #1. If you don't know what my and answers.com definition of evidence is you can read post 13. And if you read all of my posts you would know that this is the response you would get. So the fact you made your post tells me you either haven't read most of the posts in here or you are a troll.
 
DOC said:
Your welcome to read my 319 posts. You might start with post #1. If you don't know what my and answers.com definition of evidence is you can read post 13. And if you read all of my posts you would know that this is the response you would get. So the fact you made your post tells me you either haven't read most of the posts in here or you are a troll.
Click to expand...
Are you taking the piss on purpose, or is it merely an involuntary reaction to being proved a liar and a troll yourself

Seriously DOC, either provide some evidence or piss off
 
Marcus said:
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is no god, which version of atheism do you think has a greater probability of being true?
Click to expand...

List all the versions of atheism you can think of and if you're an atheist which one are you.
 
DOC said:
Your welcome to read my 319 posts. You might start with post #1. If you don't know what my and answers.com definition of evidence is you can read post 13. And if you read all of my posts you would know that this is the response you would get. So the fact you made your post tells me you either haven't read most of the posts in here or you are a troll.
Click to expand...
While it is permissible to show where a person has been untruthful, the simple name-calling is considered a personal attack. Such accusations should be referenced to relevant discussions in the thread.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky


You have no evidence and your continued garbage and dishonest little game of "I've posted billions of crap post therefore I'm right" continues to be disgusting and delusional behavior.

I say keep it up. You're are a great example of the type of theist that no one wants to become. You are driving more people toward atheism, hope you feel proud of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DOC said:
List all the versions of atheism you can think of and if you're an atheist which one are you.
Click to expand...
If you are implying that there is more than one version of atheism, please describe two

Thank you
 
Marcus' post* asked which version has a greater probability of being true.

Is there a significant difference between weak and strong with regard to 'truth'? I think not

ETA

* a parody of DOC's inanity
 
Last edited:
six7s said:
Are you taking the piss on purpose, or is it merely an involuntary reaction to being proved a liar and a troll yourself

Seriously DOC, either provide some evidence or piss off
Click to expand...

Your post might confuse someone who haven't read my 319 posts (which might be your goal) but to those who have read them or at least most of them and they have an open mind, I believe you've hurt your credibility.
 
DOC said:
Your post might confuse someone who haven't read my 319 posts (which might be your goal) but to those who have read them or at least most of them and they have an open mind, I believe you've hurt your credibility.
Click to expand...

I've read the 319 posts, and not a single one has any of the promised evidence.
 
six7s said:
Marcus' post* asked which version has a greater probability of being true.

Is there a significant difference between weak and strong with regard to 'truth'? I think not

ETA

* a parody of DOC's inanity
Click to expand...
I
Oh i know, but I thought we'd try and make this thread interesting again.

If Atheism is true, which version of atheism is closer to the truth?

Well, I think by it's very stance, it'd have to be strong atheism.

Afterall, you would know that there is no god, and strong atheism says that there is no god. however, Weak atheism says that there is no evidence for a god and therefore we assume there is none.

Once the evidence for "no god" is confirmed, weak atheism becomes meaningless.

Now, of course, this is merely a product of the premise of the question and not a function of reality. In reality, it is impossible to know conclusively that there is no god as you can't prove a negative.

I'll wait for DOC to see if he can recognize the correlation of this argument to the one he attempted to make.
 
paximperium said:
You are a liar. It is a proven fact and your posts are all the evidence there is to prove it.

You have no evidence and your continued garbage and dishonest little game of "I've posted billions of crap post therefore I'm right" continues to be disgusting and delusional behavior.

I say keep it up. You're are a great example of the type of theist that no one wants to become. You are driving more people towards atheism, hope you feel proud of it.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'll be happy if people read at least half of my 319 posts in here and they can judge for themselves.

And if I was really driving people towards atheism, atheists would be glad and treat me nicer. I wouldn't say your post is treating me nice.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Your post might confuse someone who haven't read my 319 posts (which might be your goal) but to those who have read them or at least most of them and they have an open mind, I believe you've hurt your credibility.
Click to expand...
Doc, I have read your posts and have an open mind and I found a distinct lack of credibility in those posts.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
I've read the 319 posts, and not a single one has any of the promised evidence.
Click to expand...
You and others are entitled to your opinions. But like I said, I'll be happy if people with an open mind read at least half of my posts.
 
DOC said:
You and others are entitled to your opinions. But like I said, I'll be happy if people with an open mind read at least half of my posts.
Click to expand...


Considering at least half of your posts are simply repeats of earlier posts (such as this one), they probably really only need to read a quarter of your posts in order to have all of the information they need to make a determination as to your credibility.
 
DOC said:
You and others are entitled to your opinions. But like I said, I'll be happy if people with an open mind read at least half of my posts.
Click to expand...
I have, I think, read all of your posts in this thread

Attack the argument, not the arguer. If you post an accusation of lying, that post must also include the reason for making that accusation.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

If you have even ONE post that can debunk my claim, please do present it*

Edited by Tricky: 
Removed personal attack.


ETA

* and I will be more than happy to acknowledge any error on my part and apologise sincerely for having maligned your hitherto unblemished record as an astute, honest and sincere critical thinker
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How many kinds of non-belief in Scientology are there?

How many kinds of non-belief in wormhole Alpha Centaurian visitors?

How many kinds of disbelief in magic are there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom