News, Atheist Christopher Hitchens' cancer news prompts conversion debate. (recall, faith, Satan)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Vey well, chum, we can live with that, but, if you do it, don't complain when you get it back. As for a thoughtful argument, I have very rarely encountered any such from theists. Thom R is a welcome exception and Miss velcro puts sensible points. Apart from that I can't think of any who do other that wriggle, evade, whinge, mislead and snipe rather than engage in serious, rational, discussion. Certainly not you.
I wish you did. You would rocket in my estimation and respect if you argued sensibly and logically rather than try to score cheap points, but then of course, you would lose ground every time. Because there is no good logical, rational and evidential support for your beliefs. That's why you have to be tricky, tricky, tricky.
Have a very nice day.
Aw shucks, I'm crushed. I was hoping you would give me your stamp of approval. I guess I will have to go get locked to drown my sorrows.
Your attempt to score a cheap point through sarcasm gains you as little as your appeal to authority (Craig's own authority ) on Craig's behalf.
It is symptomatic of your theist - typical poor reasoning that you think you can buy the argument by waving a certificate and a procession of books.
The fact is that I have looked at the arguments (to get back finally to the topic) that Craig made and they are long discredited arguments -for- God. Theists fail to admit that of course but continue to trot them out. I can't say why Hitchens failed to counter them. I can't say even whether he did and it was edited out to make Craig look good. It has been done before.
All I can say is that the arguments that I read he put forward are hogwash. And you should be asking why rather than trying to filch the argument by fallacy and appeal to authority.
Sorry - I missed this one earlier.
You say Craig's arguments are "long discredited" - discredited by whom?
My point is NOT that Craig has PROVEN HITCHENS (and you) WRONG. My point, rather, is that for every objection Hitchens makes there is a counter-argument that has been made -- whether by Craig, St. Thomas Aquinas, Peter Kreeft, Maimonides, et al...the list of theistic philosophers goes on and on.....
None of those I listed has "half a brain stem" (as one of your confreres put it, earlier on this thread); In fact, I sincerely doubt journalist Hitchens is the intellectual equal of ANY of those men.
Wriggle and fudge. . I love the way you try to imply that 'my' definition of evidence is somehow some tricky definition of my own which does not agree with the 'legal' definition.
Merriam - webster
Main Entry: 1ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century 1 a: an outward sign :indicationb: something that furnishes proof :testimony; specifically: something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter 2: one who bears witness; especially: one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
— in evidence1: to be seen :conspicuous <trim lawns…are everywhere in evidence — American Guide Series: North Carolina> 2: as evidence
Now where does my definition differ from that? You appeal to 'Law' (rather than science). Now where does the law just hear a bald statement and say 'we can't prove it or disprove it, therefore we should accept it on trust'.
"I cannot PROVE the truth of Christianity any more than you, or Hitchens, or anyone else can DISPROVE it. I have mentioned this before on this forum."
But the law tries to get more information. It cross - examines to see whether the claim stands up. That is what cross - examination is about. You should know this, but is would seem that you are unfamiliar with legal procedure and, if you have ever even watched Judge Judy you have evidently failed to understand this simple fact.
.......
And do now watch those videos or admit that you do not understand sound reasoning as used in science and law and that you don't want to.
Finally, your argument from conversion proves nothing about whether God is real or not. Should be obvious.
Two points, AREQUIPA (before I go get locked because you have rejected me):
1. I am not trying to prove that "God is real" nor have I ever tried to do so--not here at City-Data or anywhere else. So why in the heck are you bringing it up?
2. This is equally simple: You claimed that I had provided no evidence that Robert had converted from Atheism to Catholicism. This claim is nonsense! I provided the most common form of evidence in use in any courtroom: my own testimony (as I'm sure you realise, "written testimony" [AKA an affidavit] is also a form of evidence).
Maybe you should stop relying on "Judge Judy" for your "legal education" and instead spend some time in the trenches of the court system, where you will learn that what factfinders do under the common law system is evaluate the CREDIBILITY of testimony.
Most bog-standard civil cases (and some criminal cases) come down to exactly this: who is telling a true story, and who is telling a lie.
Please provide backup for that claim. I'd be interested in looking at it.
Here are quite a few, but I really doubt that you will do more than skim the main page. Leaving Christianity
In the US there were 138% more non religious in 2008 than there were in 1990, and that represents a 6.8% increase of non religious in the population.
During the same period there was a 10.2% decrease in Christians in the US population. Where do you suppose the huge increase in the non religious came from?
Here are quite a few, but I really doubt that you will do more than skim the main page. Leaving Christianity
In the US there were 138% more non religious in 2008 than there were in 1990, and that represents a 6.8% increase of non religious in the population.
During the same period there was a 10.2% decrease in Christians in the US population. Where do you suppose the huge increase in the non religious came from?
Thanks for the link. I will take a look at it over the weekend.
Your stats address those "leaving Christianity." The claim that I questioned, however, is that of conversions FROM CHRISTIANITYTO ATHEISM:
Quote:
a "onesy" case of a deathbed conversion from atheism to Christianity is statistically outnumbered by the vastnumber of rational, non-terror-induced conversions from Christianity to atheism,
I don't think there are any stats on leaving Christianity for atheism, but it is reasonable to assume that a good part of the 138% increase in the numbers of non religious did indeed leave belief behind.
I don't think there are any stats on leaving Christianity for atheism, but it is reasonable to assume that a good part of the 138% increase in the numbers of non religious did indeed leave belief behind.
Rifleman says those who leave Atheism for Christianity are "statistically outnumbered" by those who leave Christianity for Atheism. Because Rifleman used that term and he is a scientist, I presumed that he has statistics to back up his claim.
I really don't think it matters if there are statistics or not...I know many atheists ( in fact all of them) who were formerly members of various sects of Christianity and I also know many religious people. I do not know even one person who went from non belief and became religious...That tells me that Rifleman is almost certainly correct.
I really don't think it matters if there are statistics or not...I know many atheists ( in fact all of them) who were formerly members of various sects of Christianity and I also know many religious people. I do not know even one person who went from non belief and became religious...That tells me that Rifleman is almost certainly correct.
That's been my observation also. Everyone still seems to be spinning their wheels on this topic. The only thing I would agree on with the good dreamingspires is that we disagree; I could say until he sees the light, but with all respect, I seriously doubt thats gonna happen.
I really don't think it matters if there are statistics or not...I know many atheists ( in fact all of them) who were formerly members of various sects of Christianity and I also know many religious people. I do not know even one person who went from non belief and became religious...That tells me that Rifleman is almost certainly correct.
Again, Rifleman used the phrase "statistically outnumbered."
Why should the fact that you don't know a single person personally who has done so validate Rifleman's sweeping claim? That's a totally irrational leap.
As someone once said, "The plural of anecdote is not data."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) on Craig's behalf.
. I love the way you try to imply that 'my' definition of evidence is somehow some tricky definition of my own which does not agree with the 'legal' definition. 
