One for all you theists out there, somewhere

More than one do that Sheldon…I :heart: when they do that - lie…it makes it more fun :partying_face:

1 Like

That might be why no theists have turned up yet. They are still making up their sock puppet accounts.

@Grinseed

You may not be far from the truth there. Quite a few seem desperate to tell atheists what atheism means, and it’s seldom what the dictionary says it means.

@Sheldon

I love how theists push their crap, then when law correctly defines rights of people, and do not side with theist ideals, they cry to media and government that their rights are being trampled on, as if their beliefs are rights…like other peoples beliefs don’t matter.

4 Likes

It’s our “lack of belief” and “immoral ways” that require a “return to god” so the “last days and prophesy” can be stopped, which means Christ doesn’t have to return or won’t because it’s not the last days and prophesy hasn’t been fulfilled…

My mind is all pretzeled :pretzel: up…

@ Sheldon

But we have seen this dishonest debating tactic often, where a theist attempts to redefine something just to support their “weak” argument.

2 Likes

Boomer47,

In turn, I don’t need any “no true Scotsman” scenario because of the simple fact of what a pseudo-Christian describes. They are a Christian in name only, where they DO NOT follow all of Jesus’ inspired words as He intended them to do. The irony of which, if they did, there would never be enough prisons to house them all.

Whereas, a True Christian follows the biblical axioms set forth by the brutal serial killer Jesus the Christ within the scriptures. Which in turn, is a rarity because when was the last time you saw a True Christian murder his kid for cursing against him and using the Bible as a defense because it said it was okay to murder your child under this circumstance. (Leviticus 20:9)

No true Scotsman aside, the majority of Christians on planet earth are “pseudo-christians” for the simple fact that they DO NOT follow the Bible 100 percent, therefore the prefaced term “pseudo” before the term “Christian” is apropos.

1 Like

@21stCenturyIconoclas

No? You just did it again. Who put you in charge of judging a couple of billion human beings

Making sweeping generalizations of any large group of human beings is indeed a no true Scotsman fallacy and a classic example of bigotry. Unless of course you can prove your claim. Kindly put up or shut up.

That’s all I have to say to you on this matter. You’re starting to look an awful lot like trolls we’ve had here before. In any case, I can’t be bothered with you.

1 Like

BUT WHAT THE FUCK, I AM GONNA USE ONE ANYWAY –

@ 21stCenturyIconoclasAtheist

SERIOUSLY - You are calling yourself “Atheist.”

OBVIOUSLY HE JUST SAID THAT SO THAT YOU WOULD NOT NOTICE HE IS ABOUT TO USE THE FALLACY ONCE AGAIN.

THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A TROLL -

2 Likes

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, no one can take away their “right” to believe whatever they want, and that includes all manner of religious bigotry. This doesn’t mean they have the right to actively discriminate against the rights of others, based on that bigotry.

They don’t like abortion and think it shouldn’t happen, good for them, don’t have an abortion, or encourage others to have one, and that’s their right, but don’t insist they have the right to trample over the rights of others by telling them how they must view abortion, or by stopping a woman from choosing for herself whether to seek a termination.

It’s odd that an eternity of bliss in the afterlife is never enough for theists, they always want to wield power in this life as well.

4 Likes

Your question is vague since there are at least 15 forms of evidence that I am aware of and some of which can justify faith. I will assume that you meant to ask what evidence exists to account for faith in spite of any empirical evidence lacking. Theists will revert to any of the 15 forms of evidence that allows them to justify their faith and disregard the rest. I’m not saying it’s the correct way but I believe it answers your question.

I’m assuming this is the question you’re responding to…

Welcome @Earth - hope you’re “down to it” :wink:

@Whitefire13
Thank you and yes that is the question I am responding to

I am a bit curious what these 15 forms of evidence that you are aware of. Maybe talk of some of the easiest/fastest ones?

I seen zero evidence that can justify faith. To me, the way you are using the word faith, literally means to believe without evidence. And quite often to believe completely without reservation despite the total lack of actual testable/repeatable evidence.

15 forms of evidence, huh? Oooo… This should be fun. Please, do tell, what are those 15 forms of evidence that justify faith?

Oh, and welcome.

@Earth Welcome to Atheist republic, I hope this little way stop on you journey in life is a pleasant one that adds knowledge.

Please expand and explain what you mean.

Earth

Unless one form of evidence is part of an equivocation fallacy, you have no justification what so ever for the “Christian Version” of faith. If you plan on identifying faith as simply “hoping” then you are playing word games and can just fuck off.

2 Likes

@LogicFTW
1: Analogical evidence
2: Anecdotal evidence
3: Character evidence
4:Circumstantial evidence
5: Demonstrative evidence
6: Digital evidence
7: Direct evidence
8: Documentary evidence
9: Exculpatory evidence
10: Forensic evidence
11: Hearsay evidence
12: Physical evidence
13: Prima Facie evidence
14: Statistical evidence
15: Testimonial evidence

All I am saying is that theists will claim they have faith according to one or more of these types of evidence. I am not claiming that their claims are justified. I can understand that atheist require scientific evidence but the OP asked based on what evidence and I am merely pointing out the possible ones and not justifying them.

WTF? Perhaps you could rewrite the sentence. Do you even know what an “equivocation fallacy” is? You might want to read up on that specific fallacy prior to displaying your ignorance in the next post.

@David_Killens

Thanks David and yes I am open minded and can easily accept to change my views. I am here to engage. Not to preach. Can’t learn anything from preaching.