why is it that you ignore 90% of my arguments and utterly fail to validly rebut the ones you DO respond to?
how can you find it rational and acceptable debating behavior to ignore arguments and change the rules when you lose?
do you not find it even remotely odd that you have never conceded a point of any kind on this forum? are you always right? do you never make a mistake?
alright, let's go point by point. by the way, i love how you responded (invalidly) to one post and ignored all the rest. was sdn closed today? did you have to think of this one on your own? it seems likely considering it was just a further continuation of a point i have dealt with more than once.
Prove that they "failed". What standards to you use to determine that somebody "failed" in their disproof or that they succeeded?
well, that's an interesting thing to ask for. you keep asking for evidence while blatantly ignoring my requests for same! here's my thoughts on proof that christianity hasn't been proven false, and i think you'll agree it's valid - IF EVIDENCE EXISTED DISPROVING CHRISTIANITY, YOU WOULD HAVE POSTED IT BY NOW, CONSIDERING I'VE ASKED FOR IT TEN TIMES. the very fact that you've posted absolutely no proof or even evidence that you can pretend is proof shows that either it doesn't exist or you are not aware that it exists. simple enough for you? did you understand that? now, instead of blathering on and on about the necessity that i PROVE CHRISTIANITY when your original request asked for nothing of the kind, how about you put forth some evidence of your own, since you make it so clear that you believe such evidence exists.
just in case you didn't catch that, let me just say it again -
PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE CLAIMED EXISTS WHICH DISPROVES CHRISTIANITY. i've asked and asked. put up or concede the point.
i don't think you have that evidence. i don't even think you've ever read a book dealing with atheism and christianity. i don't think you've read the bible, i don't think you've read dawkins, i don't think you've read armstrong, i don't think you've read the FSM book. i think you've read 3 paragraphs of sdn propaganda, and i think you thought 'hey, since i constantly get my ass kicked on star trek versus star wars, i'll bring a debate to sfj that they probably don't know that well!'
problem: I KNOW IT THAT WELL.
i have absolutely destroyed you here. the ONLY way you can even PRETEND that that's not true is by ignoring and twisting evidence. you've brought up maybe three somewhat interesting ideas, then after i debunked them, you brought them up again, after which i debunked them in new ways, and then you basically stopped trying and now you responded to the ONE argument you thought you might be able to still fight without admitting defeat. nice job.
Let me tell you what: you use the standards as to whether or not the public agrees with Richard Dawkins and other atheists to determine whether or not something is "disproved". Your entire argument is a not-so-cleverly concealed Appeal to Popularity.
except that that's a complete lie, which i have explained no less than 4 times.
Let me tell you what: stop pretending you have an argument here. IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER WHETHER THE PUBLIC BELIEVES DAWKINS. i doubt you believe dawkins, since i really, really doubt whether you even know what he says. why would i doubt that? because dawkins doesn't try to pretend evidence exists which disproves christianity. DAWKINS HAS NEVER CLAIMED THAT. I HAVE HIS BOOKS. I'VE READ THEM. I'VE WATCHED HIS DEBATES. have you? because it really looks like that's a big no, swst.
it's amazing that you can sit there and use dawkins in an argument about whether evidence exists to disprove christianity. it really, really is amazing. i never ever should have bothered to troll you. i should have just debated you! you do it yourself!
and i could have sworn i asked you to stop hiding behind a bunch of sdn 'i have no argument so i will pretend you are committing a logical fallacy' bullshit.
Furthermore, I already countered your point;
uh, no you didn't. not even close. but i'm going to make a guess here and predict that you are about to simply offer me a repeat of the argument i just thoroughly debunked yesterday.
people haven't been trying to disprove it for 6000 years. You mean for 2000 years the religion has existed,
really, this again? please show that judaism is not the root of christianity and therefore should not be included in the length of time that christianity has existed. you know what? never mind. fine. 2,000 years it is then.
and for the beginning of that time period it wasn't popular enough for anybody to try and disprove it
man, deja vu! remember when you said this yesterday, and everyone reading it laughed, because it's not true? and remember when i put forth evidence to show that it was not true, and you just ignored it and posted the same thing again instead of either conceding the point or offering any sort of evidence? yeah, don't do that.
When it gained control over much of Europe, nobody dared to try and disprove it for fear of being hanged .
ok, first off, what are you talking about? how can you say with a straight face that noone attempted to disprove christianity? swst, i'm asking again. please provide some sort of evidence. just SAYING things doesn't make them true. regardless of the fact that there was a social stigma against trying to disprove christianity throughout most of it's existence, PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DO IT THROUGHOUT. i have said before i can provide proof of this. all you have to do is ask.
(and the Islamic world hardly tried to "disprove" it)
wouldn't it be strange if they DID try to disprove it, since most of the beliefs islam espouses are LITERALLY THE SAME as those in christianity, only more extreme? wouldn't it be strange if a religion tried to disprove itself? oh, wait! THE FSM DOES THAT! but that doesn't make it less convincing. good argument!
It's only in the last few centuries that Atheism has risen to prominence,
hey, the LYING MACHINE turned on again!
'The history of atheism, depending on how one defines the term, can be dated to as early as the 6th century BC...'
good try though. can you imagine how badly my argument would have suffered if that had been true?
'Atheism can also be traced to Ancient Greece in the 5th century BC. Diagoras of Melos is often referred to as "The First Atheist", and other men who claimed to be atheists include Theodorus of Cyrene and Euhemerus.'
yeah, that would have destroyed my argument. it sure is a good thing you were flatly lying again.
and one can argue that modern science has disproven Christianity.
please do. you keep saying that, and then not doing it! do you see how that's pointless? EVIDENCE PLEASE.
But again, your standards for proof and disproof is "what do the ignorant masses think?"
i love how anyone who disagrees with the position which you are arguing, but completely fail to understand the rational basis of, are the 'ignorant masses'. because you see, i personally would define ignorance as it is used in my dictionary, meaning, you know, lack of knowledge. like for instance if i had put forth the claim that dawkins provides evidence of christianity being false, or even that he tried to do so, it would make sense to call me ignorant. i didn't do that, though, because i actually possess the knowledge that he never does that. see how that makes me 'not ignorant'? and hey, even better, see how calling the vast majority of mankind ignorant kind of backfired by allowing me to point out that you yourself are ignorant without even using it in a derogatory way that would provoke a warning? because hey, just statement of fact, totally admissible legitimately, you're ignorant.
but to continue, you have yet to provide even the slightest evidence that i am making an appeal to popularity. i have repeatedly explained how and why you are wrong about that, in extremely simple terms, just in case i wasn't being understood. if you're going to bring it up over and over, at least have something to lean on. don't you get bored of just continuing to be wrong, over and over, about the same things?
And your "I wasn't trying to prove that Christianity is true!" deflection was already addressed in my post.
i assume you mean this..
You're required to prove that it's more plausible, which is a lesser degree of "truth". So far, none of your arguments have anything to do with truth/plausibility/rightness/whatever.
..which is an undeniable example of either ignorance or outright lying.
The Dictionary wrote:
plausible
-adj. (of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable: a plausible explanation; it seems plausible that one of two things may happen.
The Dictionary wrote:
truth
-n. the quality or state of being true: he had to accept the truth of her accusation.
do you see the difference there? there is no 'lesser degree of truth'. truth is black and white. a thing is true or false. there is no middle ground.
i don't even know where you thought you were going with that, except that you had nowhere left to run.
I'm beginning to wonder if you actually read it.
i did.
Your arguments don't only fail in that they fail to prove that Christianity is true;
and your arguments fail to prove that santa is real! guess what? that's just as valid a complaint!
they fail to prove that Christianity is plausible, which is the entire point of the thread.
oooh. see, that's where the confusion was. i thought that i was trying to prove that christianity was more plausible than the flying spaghetti monster. because, see, i've done THAT over and over. if only you had been honest from the beginning, and admitted that you used the fsm as a way to mock people who believe in a higher power, we could have gotten right to it. see, it was the LYING that you kept doing that was stopping me from understanding you. the same way that you keep LYING when you say you have an argument against any point i've made in this debate so far. good job!