Are you religious?

[clarion]

I am open to sound reasoning, but nothing has ever been presented which remotely holds water.

Epic FAIL.

Teapots do exist, though. As does the physics of orbits. Which is more than there is for gods. On what basis do you favour belief in the existence of gods over Russell's teapot? If you can provide one sound argument, I will be prepared to listen. Until then, the gaping holes in your argument remain.

 

[Rev]

I am open to sound reasoning, but nothing has ever been presented which remotely holds water.

Epic FAIL.

Teapots do exist, though. As does the physics of orbits. Which is more than there is for gods. On what basis do you favour belief in the existence of gods over Russell's teapot? If you can provide one sound argument, I will be prepared to listen. Until then, the gaping holes in your argument remain.

Complete and utter twaddle of the first degree

I have never claimed to believe in gods!
Why do you insist on missing the point?
Where did I claim I had a belief in gods?
As I have not claimed a belief in god how then do I favour this (non-existent ) belief over another non-existent belief?
I am wondering now why you are being really absurd?
You have the audacity to mention sound argument when you jump from one assumption to another via a fallacy and add a little absurdist make believe for good measure!

Come on Clarion writing fail in big letters does not wash nor does making things up!

OWNED! as our transatlantic friends like to exclaim.

 

[Rev]

Diversionary tactics again to cover ones ........glaringly obvious inability to answer.

 

[Rapples]

[QUOTE 2377146, member: 1314"]The Christian Church has no right to impose it's beliefs on others. I refer back to my post about going to school as a 6 year old.[/quote]

I agree, but in practice it happens in every country around the world with their religion of choice.

I think we have a pretty good record in this country of being tolerant to other religions, but it's an inevitable consequence of living in any country where you are not part of the main religion. I feel the same way as an atheist about Miss Rapples at school, although at least they don't have the compulsory Christian assembly every day, and RS covers all religions.

 

[Aperitif]

“If there was a god, I'd still have both nuts.”
Lance Armstrong. (until now, the undisputed 'thread pages leader...but this one is a second coming...up fast on the rails)

 

[Rapples]

“If there was a god, I'd still have both nuts.”
Lance Armstrong. (until now, the undisputed 'thread pages leader...but this one is a second coming...up fast on the rails)

I think Lance probably p*ssed off Rev in a previous life

 

[clarion]

Rev, your debating style is somewhat like a naive sixth former. You seem to have very little understanding of others' experience, and an inability to keep to the discussion in hand. It is very boring trying to debate with you, as you cannot get the most basic of concepts.

 

[Rev]

I am open to sound reasoning

I question that statement as I have absolutely no evidence that it is true!

but nothing has ever been presented which remotely holds water.

Firstly one assumes that one is in possession of all relevant evidence whether anecdotal, philosophical or even theologically.This is a highly questionable assumption that you can not be reasonably sure of, certainly not so certain as to make such an absolutist remark.
An assumption that is of course self fulfilling if one refuses to investigate or consider. As one does when one has made a Priori Rejection!

Teapots do exist, though. As does the physics of orbits.

So you presume from two pieces of evidence to draw a fallacious conclusion.

We have already dealt with you making stuff up about me believing in god and favouring that belief etc

So really there is little substance to your post except a bit of bluster and a touch of diversionary lying.

 

[Rev]

Rev, your debating style is somewhat like a naive sixth former. You seem to have very little understanding of others' experience, and an inability to keep to the discussion in hand. It is very boring trying to debate with you, as you cannot get the most basic of concepts.

Diversionary ad hominem

Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

1. The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personemargument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.
   
   
2. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.

 

[Dan B]

Rev, your debating style is somewhat like a naive sixth former.

There's a standard that some of the contributors to this thread can only aspire to meet

 

[kedab]

my mum was raised C of E, my dad - Roman Catholic...me and my sister were never taken to church by either parent, we were never told we should or indeed, needed to choose a faith. my mum and dad believed that my surviving childhood cancer had much to do with 'the man upstairs', i've always wondered what a 4 year old did to deserve it in the first place. my mum and my dad both had their lives cut short by cancer and that had nothing to do with not having any kind of faith, rather that life can be pretty cruel and a god has nothing to do with it....'that's all i have to say about that'

 

[Rev]

Rev, your debating style is somewhat like a naive sixth former.

Obviously Ad Hominem, we have dealt with that.

You seem to have very little understanding of others' experience,

Am I the one discounting all peoples experience as to religion and belief (millions and millions) because it does not fit MY template?

and an inability to keep to the discussion in hand

I think readers will find that my posts are very focused on the issues raised (as they are now dealing with your tangential mutterings)

It is very boring trying to debate with you,

Read I don't like losing!

as you cannot get the most basic of concepts.

Read I don't like losing and this is my get out clause........"you didn't understand what I meant"

Well others will get the concepts if you have explained it well enough, if you haven't.........

 

[Rev]

my mum was raised C of E, my dad - Roman Catholic...me and my sister were never taken to church by either parent, we were never told we should or indeed, needed to choose a faith. my mum and dad believed that my surviving childhood cancer had much to do with 'the man upstairs', i've always wondered what a 4 year old did to deserve it in the first place. my mum and my dad both had their lives cut short by cancer and that had nothing to do with not having any kind of faith, rather that life can be pretty cruel and a god has nothing to do with it....'that's all i have to say about that'

I am truly sorry to hear that.

 

[kedab]

I am truly sorry to hear that.

appreciate that, rev.

 

[EltonFrog]

You lot really need to ride your bikes more, this thread is complete and utter load of bollix and a total waste of the Internet.