Hi all,
This is not a response to Bertot, so much as using this post as an example for my argument and summary.
From a final post Bertot demonstrates non-comprehension of the issue.
Why would I repeat and duplicate arguments to which no one has provided an adequate answer?
The question was not to repeat and duplicate, but to summarize, annotate, conclude with a concise opinion that sums up all your arguments into a cohesive whole: Why so friggin confident in faith and do you have any real objective touch\see evidence to support your faith?
Oh, On the contrary admin demi god, please let them respond, we encourage any and all attempts at reason to overthrow these obvious facts of reality. Besides this you had no problem at taking a shot, why not them? Or if you are implying that I may respond to thier last attempts at arguments, Iwould lkie that as well and I know that ICANT, John and Jaywill would love it also.
The point is NOT to continue the debate but to present "closing arguments" as is typical in a debate format. The responses have all already been made, and it is time to reach conclusions. The point is not whether they have answered your questions, the point is how you have addressed the question of the topic, how your detractors have not, and what conclusions one can reach from those results.
As one who has lurked this thread, rather than participate in head-banging, it is obvious that the fundamentalist literalist christian uses a different definition of "evidence" than the others in this debate. One that is personal and subjective and only available to believers. The "other" definition is that evidence is objective and reproducible, even for non-believers. This is how they equivocate on the definition of faith being based on evidence.
John 10:10 claims he is confident because he has evidence, but his evidence is only available to those with faith. His evidence is the faith he has in his faith. He'll present scripture verse at the drop of a hat, but ignore the issue, the topic and reality in the process, and dance around any real questions rather than answer directly.
Bertot claims he has objective evidence when talking to the loyal opposition, but is unable to present a single shred to test for validity, and when he is challenged that his definition differs from John 10:10 he equivocates and says they are the same.
Not one believer has presented objective "kick-the-tires" evidence for why one should drive off in a "Christler" instead of a "Hinda" yet they all display extreme confidence that only "Christlers" are worth driving down the path of faith.
It is the confidence of a closed mind, unwilling to consider that they could be wrong, therefore they are right about anything they discuss, whether it is logic, life, linguistics or the mating habits of a little known butterfly that only lives in the amazon basin's northern branch where only one specimen has been found.
It is the confidence of confirmation bias.
It is the confidence of cognitive dissonance's rejection\denial of reality rather than resolution of the conflict/s.
It is the confidence of delusion in maintaining a belief in spite of contradictory evidence.
It is the confidence of groupthink.
It is the confidence of "
My dogs better than your dog" childhood.
It is the confidence of ignorance, of not knowing what you don't know.
It is the confidence of group reinforcement and hypnosis\trance.
Sadly, it is also my observation that most of this thread is pointless, once you get one answer from a person of faith all others are redundant for the very reasons given here.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : g
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
™ Version 4.2
