Mark My Words - commentary on news, politics, religion, philosophy, science and social issues

This is another RRS groupie not caring for my previous post on the (ir)rationals. I'll start with Pirate Fish's replies to my comments to Wank Falton. Pirate Fish in bold font my original comments in italics. If you like to read ahead, you can see the entire discussion, thus far, in it's original format here.

*double yawn*

Perhaps you might consider Christian doctrine as developed over several thousand years from experience and the Bible? Online "contradictions" lists don't count.

I actually would NOT consider an ancient piece of literature, written by a hundred odd folk (no pun intended) over a couple centuries about events that took place in the PAST as evidence to believe in the supernatural. There are so many internal contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible (yes, I have read it) that for people to claim it as the word of god (even as the "inspired" word) is intellectual dishonesty. If there really was a god - an omnicient, omnipresent, all powerful deity - the world would truely be a different place indeed.

Go fish. It's not like the information is difficult to find in this day and age. Your attitude shows that you've already determined none exists, which is typical of the (ir)rationals and their groupies. I see no reason to waste my time providing the fish myself, so to speak.

That is such a cop out. Such a simple, dodgeful, easy out, for someone who believes in something for which there is no evidence. "The evidence is right in front of you, if you can't see it, that's your problem!" That's debating etiquette taboo number one: no supporting evidence for your arguments.

Properly used, I see no reason to automatically dismiss the data within the Bible.

Egad! Have you even read the bible? And what do you mean "properly used"? Cherry picking the good parts and throwing out the rest? But wait, that WOULD make it the perfect word of god then, wouldn't it.

And I like how you mention "The Sap" is not interested in a reasonable discussion - the problem is, it's practically impossible to have a reasonable discussion with a theist as soon as faith enters the picture. Because any potential argument for belief in a god always seems to come down to it - faith. And by definition, religious faith is believing in something for which there is no evidence. It's such a trump card - another easy theist out to avoid having to provide any supporting evidence for the existence of a god.

How can one debate that rationally? When you can leave faith at the door, then a rational discussion would probably ensue.

If YOU can't provide a sliver of evidence in response to a simple blog post (as in mine above), I can't imagine you being a mass debater when you don't provide supporting evidence for your arguments.

In the end, the god of the Bible, or any other monotheistic supreme being for that matter, is so highly improbable, that it's irrational to think otherwise. When evidence is provided to support the contrary, I'll be one of the first to believe.

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

Atheists for Jesus!

---

I think most reasonable and informed people, of course this excludes the (ir)rationals groupies, can understand my reply to this drivel being rather brief.

Little Pirate,

Unfortunately for you, simply because I don't care to bother with those entrenched in their bias and misinformation i.e. the Bible is full of contradictions, your use of the ad novitatem fallacy, your dismissal of historical data, your misconception of faith, etc. doesn't change the fact that I have offered evidence on this blog at other times and elsewhere in discussions.

Despite my not caring to engage your ilk, at this time, there really is nothing preventing you, except your arrogant bias, from finding this information easily yourself.

Little Pirate has since responded to this in typical (ir)rationals groupie fashion. I'll create another post later with their comments, as well as my extended replies to Little Pirate's continued foolishness.

---

Previous post:

Dialogue with RRS groupies - round 1

---

Filed under: Religion -- Christianity -- Apologetics

Trackposted to: Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Common Folk Using Common Sense, Thought Alarm, The Amboy Times, Maggie's Notebook | Conservative Blog, Pursuing Holiness, Sujet- Celebrities, The HILL Chronicles, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, The Pink Flamingo, Renaissance Blogger, Right Voices, Right Pundits, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Phastidio.net, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Thought Alarm: And the Truth Shall Set You Free (If It's Not Supressed), Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Blue Star Chronicles, High Desert Wanderer, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.