And someone that's not using evidence to support their position is inherently illogical, especially when it's such an important part of many of their lives.
That's like saying there's a difference between beige and magnolia. You would argue? Well, isn't that nice. Not that it makes you a hypocrite or anything eh? That's because they know they can't provide any evidence which makes such a claim a complete cop-out. As I said to Dev, if someone came to you claiming there was a mythical creature living nearby you would question it. If someone says to me I belive in a God but there is no evidence to prove he or it exists then I have every right to question such a claim.
Indeed you would, but the OP is completely the reverse, he is simply having a go at people who believe in God or who are not concerned what he thinks of their God. It's as pointless as him telling me Celtic are **** and I'm an idiot for following them.
Well, that's up to the OP but all I'm saying is that people have every right to challenge claims that God exists, especially when there is NO evidence to suggest he or it does. And again, your second point makes no sense in the context of the thread as Celtic DO exist.
No it isn't No it doesn't You say this so definitively. I take it you have proof of this assertion? It is just you are relying on facts and science to say there is no God, yet are apparently relying on extra sensory perception to relay what other people think. That most definitely is hypocritical. Of course. It is a tangible thing. The construction of the sentence betrays that they also think the creature is mythical, so they debunk their own argument. I don't think anyone suggested they have no right to ask the question. Merely asking the question why people would wish to continue to engage on terms that the person you are asking that question of has no intention or desire to engage on.
You're one of the most argumentative people on here. You argue about everything yet when people question something you believe in but you have no argument to back up your stance, you resort to the old "I don't have to prove anything" bullshit. You're just the Celtic-supporting version of Medro
You have a right to challenge anything you want to, everyone does, the point I am making is that religion is no threat to me and it does not concern me one iota what people choose to believe in, I certainly don't feel the need to challenge people for believing in God,after all, you cannot alter their faith, and as Jip said earlier on my signature says that very thing. As for my second point, following Celtic is a free choice a person makes, it does not have to be logical, and because it is not necessarily a logical decision does not mean it should be challenged.
And that's the point I'm making. The likes of Rebel don't want people questioning their faith in God because they have no logical explanation for it and have to resort to "I don't have to prove anything to you" type nonsense. Only up to a point.
Ok, so I am argumentative. My argument is and was that I feel no compulsion to offer any justification to anyone about my faith. I readily acknowledge it is not rational. I am comfortable with that. I am happy for people to question that. If you want to be the champion of science and logic then you must apply it consistently throughout your argument. You haven't done that.
As if pre-ordained by some higher being you leap in and prove my assertion. It is not a logical conclusion for you to leap to. It is logic to suggest that I have no evidence for the of God. It is not logical for you to suggest that I do not want you questioning that. To state that, you needed to make assumptions. You put trust in that assumption to pass it off as fact. You posted it here. You believe I don't want people questioning the existence of God.... That is not logic. That is a belief that you have no evidence for.
No, not really. I have every right to ask why you think it is ok to make illogical assertions whilst at the same time asking others to justify theirs. I think it is more Med Dog-esque to just start making **** up. May I assume that a man of science needs evidence to support every argument?
Go back and read some of your posts on here. You've accused me of wanting to "shake someone's belief" and other such crap which I didn't do. Like Medro, your argument is all over the place and is typically contrariety. All I've ever argued, apart from the odd occasion in putting you right on your unfounded accusations, is that people have the right to question whether God exists. I don't see why you need to make such an issue of it other than your Medro-like need to keep on arguing a point that turns threads into a Brobdingnagian mess.
