Complexity? Really?

That’s true I’m not but I simply have no clear recollection of the thread or the point we were at in that thread, I have no context. I’d need to review it to get that context.

Note that I said at the time “For a host of reasons that I won’t go into here”. It was a remark, an opinion that I did not want to even attempt to argue because the audience was hostile and inclined to paraphrase and closed minded and keen to use fallacious arguments like strawman and no true Scotsman.

I do not use this forum to advocate for theism but to argue against atheism, I put you and your often desperate arguments and reasoning under a microscope. I’m not here to convince you I am right but to convince a neutral visitor that you are wrong and sometimes you make this far too easy for me.

You don’t need any of that, your claim is there verbatim:

Simply give us three of those reasons.

I don’t care you made a claim in a public debate forum, you don’t get to evade the question without people drawing a pretty obvious inference, and you’ve had six months since I first asked you to think of an honest answer.

What a spectacularly stupid claim. You are here to peddle unevidenced superstition, and you know you can’t to any objective standard, that is why you are using the very popular apologist tactic of trying to reverse your burden of proof, by endlessly hiding behind evasion and argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies.

You’ve had this question under your microscope for six months, and still you refuse to give an honest answer. This is a public debate forum, so when you reel off unevidenced superstition, and refuse to evidence it, all while you sententiously and hypocritically lecture others for missing one question, asked just a few hours ago, the I will be calling you on that hypocrisy and dishonesty, and best of all is that when you start playing the victim I can quote the posts from you to @Calilasseia that set the tone.

That’s fortuitous as you can’t even evidence one simple claim you made after 6 months of waiting.

Please give us three of those reasons, or I going to assume you lied, and we can see what “neutral observers” think of someone who sententiously lectures others on evading questions then.

But I do, we all do, nobody is compelled to answer any question that we are asked and that is evident by how often people here leave questions unanswered.

I said I had there are good reasons, thousands of scholars and theologians share that position so I suggest you read some of the literature. Go ahead, I won’t demand that you be a qualified theologian either.

It is an interpretation of evidence though, all evidence is interpreted and different people with different worldviews often have different interpretations, I explained this too recently with reference to the various interpretations of the mathematics in quantum physics, one set of equations but different interpretations, different meanings attributed by different people.

So for me God exists and is the source of all there is, if you don’t share that premise then no argument about the Bible being supernaturally inspired will convince you because you don’t share a neccessary premise.

No at all Sheldon, it’s actually why you are here. No atheist has ever explained how they can honestly make the claims “there is no evidence for God” or “I’ve never seen evidence for God”.

What evidence do they provide that they are able to make such a distinction between evidence for God and not evidence for God?

Therefore it is you, it is the atheist who peddles superstitions.

I think you’re a troll.


You didn’t heed my warning so a timely reminder of why I am asking you to show some integrity and answer a question I first asked of you 6 months ago:

Then you should be able to do better than that argumentum ad populum fallacy, and give a few reasons you claim there are, but you can’t can you, the obvious inference is because it was dishonest vapid rhetoric.

Except this is not about interpretation at all, it’s about you making a claim, that “there are good reasons to regard the Biblical cannon (and perhaps some extra canonical works too) as being - to some degree - supernaturally originated.” Then refusing to give even one example to support your claim for six months, and then lecturing another poster for not answering one question asked an hour or so previously in a sententious baiting manner.

Now do you have the integrity to offer any examples, or admit it pure rhetoric?

Oh I think I am happy for anyone to read your spiel here and decide for themselves on that one, as it is manifestly true.

I think we can add superstition the growing list of words that don’t mean what you think they do, or by all means quote a single example of me peddling superstition.

Which part of the claim do you need explained? Which words are tripping you up?

I already offered a very expansive answer on this, and you ignored that answer, quelle surprise. What’s worse you’re now lying that no one has answered, your duplicity is becoming tedious now. Go and find it, as i am done catering to your petulant demands everyone answer you while you dishonestly evade questions ptu to you.

Quote even a single example of me peddling superstition, I dare you, but if you will take a little advice you will Google the word first, as I am pretty sure this is another word that doesn’t mean what you think it does based on that hilarious lie. Here’s a clue I don’t believe the supernatural is possible, so why would I try and peddle it to others, you’ve lost the plot here it seems.

1 Like

Where is that answer please?

You ignored it, so you can go find it yourself, if you don’t have the integrity to even attempt an answer to my question, do you seriously imagine I am going to waste my time looking for it for you.

I note again you have ignored the other two examples I gave that you asked for, and have again failed to offer even a single example to support your claim that there are many good reasons to believe the gospels had a supernatural origin.

You also ignored this after lying that I was peddling superstition, you’re priceless fair play.

I actually completely missed it (which is why I just asked for it), but never mind.

So you aren’t going to even attempt to find it, what a surprise.

Can you give one of the “many good examples” you claimed exist to believe the gospels were supernatural in origin?

I could but not to a closed minded unreceptive audience, there is nothing whatsoever to be gained.

You are one of the most relentlessly dishonest posters I have ever seen on here. The generic lies and insults aimed at atheists here is of course how you started your campaign of dishonest trolling, at least I no longer have any compunction about treating your trolling with anything but the contempt it deserves.

FYI we know you’re lying here again, as you earlier claimed you were not here to convince any atheists, but to sway neutral observers, so the lie of that last claim is again manifest. As demonstrating examples might convince those neutral observers you weren’t just espousing dishonest and unevidenced rhetoric, its hard to see how they could infer anything else now though.

1 Like

Again, I disagree with you. Even basic assumptions in mathematics and physics are subject to review, and are–on occasion–revised, and/or discarded.

As an example, Euclid’s 5 postulates were graven in stone and accepted as an inalienable, unquestionable mathematical fact for almost 2,000 years . . . and they never failed us.

Yet if we modify the 5th postulate (which concerns parallel lines on a plane), we have a mathematically consistant non-Euclidean geometry.

Nikolai Lobachevsky made considerable advancements in mathematics because he challenged a “mathematical fact,” Paul Dirac made many contributions in physics when he worked with non-Euclidean geometry, and–of course–we have Albert Einstein, who used non-Euclidean geometry in describing the intricacies of Special and General relativity . . . and how the Universe may be “shaped.”

So, scientists may accept things on faith . . . but are not above changing where they place their faith.

The only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths.


Or he was talking about a category of beliefs that are entirely subjective, like religious faith for example.

Unless you want to falsely claim there is scientific evidence for a deity using a discredited creationist as an appeal to authority fallacy of course. As I said I’d bet every penny I have that you go to a doctor when you’re sick, and that trust as you put it is based on the inherent understanding that the doctor is a) properly credentialed and qualified, and b) that those credentials involve knowledge of objective medical facts.

This mendacious attempt to pretend science is not different to subjective religious beliefs is a tire old canard of apologetics, it is not at all compelling for the reasons stated, and of course the minute apologists strat this dishest rhetoric the clock is ticking until they accuse you of scientism, as @Sherlock-Holmes has already done of course in atheist bashing thread, that is one the funniest own goals I have seen in a while.

1 Like

Indeed, but two important points here, firstly the word faith there is the primary definition (complete trust or confidence in someone or something.) and is only a starting point in the methods of science, it would never be sufficient on its own to validate new ideas. Secondly religious faith is very different, as it is defined as strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. Though the word is the same the meanings are not at all comparable, though it seems in vogue with religious apologists to dishonestly equate the one with the other.

It’s this simple, theists can design and build a plane based solely on their religious faith, and scientists can use their faith in the axioms of science, and lets see which one theists are keen to take a trip in, that would neatly expose the hypocrisy in conflating the two different definitions of the word faith.

Now do they use something for that, like an arbitrary decision by an Inquisition, and then torture people to death they don’t agree with? Does the accepted knowledge move forward based on who has the most power to enforce their own subjective doctrine? So again you are right to disagree, as these duplicitous attempts by apologists to compare religious faith and belief, with the rigorous, robust and objective methods of science is demonstrably laughable.

NB All scientific ideas must be falsifiable, religious apologetics generally have an unfalsifiable concept at their core, and it’s hard to imagine that is an accident.

1 Like

Thank you for responding to my post, and I agree with your points.

I also admit that I was using the word “faith” in a different context than Sherlock-Holmes. I reviewed Sherlock’s post again, and he seems to try using the idea of “faith” from science interchangably with “faith” in religion.

It seems to be a common tactic with apologists, as I see them constantly using terms borrowed from science when discussing God’s existence . . . perhaps to add legitimacy to their arguments.

I also see them name-dropping famous scientists, with frequent references to their academic credentials. It seems that almost everyone is a “doctor” of some sort.

I conclude that they want the credibility of science without the substance of science . . . so talking to these clowns is like debating the merits of astrology.

A good example that supports this last point is the Church of Christian Science, where they use big words like “malicious magnetism,” and books like Science and Health with Key to Scriptures. They use terms borrowed from science because it adds validity their religious claims. This is rather like the Tylenol (paracetamol in the U.K) commercial that informs us that capsules have “laser-drilled holes” to “precisely deliver the powerful, pain-relieving medicine when you need it most.”

It sounds much more effective than piercing holes in a capsule with a pin, but does the idea that they use a laser to poke holes in a capsule make the medicine more effective?

People who don’t know science get taken in by this advertising confidence game without even knowing it, and I’m convinced that religious apologists are doing the exact same thing when they borrow terms from science to legitimize their position . . . and people get taken in by it.

Organized religion is, therefore, a confidence scheme on par with selling the Brooklyn bridge to some trusting yokel.


I feel your pain, but he @Sherlock-Holmes has said one thing that is true, that there might be neutral observers reading these exchanges. Of course he also thinks his poorly reasoned and unevidenced religious rhetoric will sway them to his superstitious beliefs, which is insanely funny. However it is what I remind myself when I have to spend a few hours reading his tediously duplicitous fabrications. I am only human though, and sometimes a little payback is inevitable.


I am a bad bad man… :innocent:


Well, I’ll be borrowing that line from time to time. :grin: