davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Well you either do believe in Jesus or you don't. Simple.
Raising Children Without the Concept of Sin
- Thread starter Goldtop
- Start date
Well you either do believe in Jesus or you don't. Simple.
They are certainly as real as Santa Claus and God.
This is the classic argument from incredulity - "wow, I don't understand how that can happen, therefore it is false." Using that type of argument, it would be easy to argue that electric motors don't work and airplanes can't fly.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This thread was pretty cleanly answered in post 3. The rest of this thread is mostly stamp-collecting.
What you have there is a conjecture.
You suppose it's true, but you have no way to evidence it.
Notice that I address your arguments directly; I do not attempt to sidestep invalidating your arguments by instead attempting to invalidate you. I simply dismantle your assertions directly. That's how it's done.
In your view, does that make unicorns real?
Correct. You just contradicted yourself - after saying I don't accept that.
Ad hom. Invalid.
I am in a position to recount what you have said about your belief in God as a matter of public record. You have said that your belief is that God objectively exists. And yet you are demonstrably unable to back that up.
What you have there is a conjecture.
You suppose it's true, but you have no way to evidence it.
Notice that I address your arguments directly; I do not attempt to sidestep invalidating your arguments by instead attempting to invalidate you. I simply dismantle your assertions directly. That's how it's done.
Indeed. People who are skeptical of unicorns are capable of having a discussion about unicorns with people who believe in unicorns.
In your view, does that make unicorns real?
Last edited:
Simple?
That statement doesn’t follow on from the point I made.
It doesn’t address if Jesus died for the purpose of atonement.
Jan.
Last edited:
From you POV, probably.
But you deny there is such a thing as sin, because you have convinced yourself there is no God to transgress against. So it is you that is done, in this discussion. Not that your little point is a universal conclusion. Bye!
No.
God is simply a word to you.
I accept you have convinced yourself that what I have said is invalid, but where is the “Ad hom”?
Which is based on your understanding of theism, and God.
No I haven’t.
I maintain that God Is.
Why do you think you can get away with just making stuff up?
Again from a perspective of someone who subconsciously affirms to them self that there is no God.
What makes you think God has to be scientifically evidenced, in order to be believed in?
Could it be that you are blind, when it comes to God?
Are you prepared to accept such a possibility?
No.
You don’t fully grasp my assertions because of your atheism, or subconscious affirmation that there is no God
That God is not real, or similar to belief in unicorns, is your fundamental starting position. Why? Because you are an atheist who has subconsciously accepted there is no God.
My fundamental position is that I believe in God.
Why should we use your position as the starting one, in s discussion, if we choose not to? When for the theist it is obvious that God Just Is.
In saying that, theists always give that advantage to the atheist.
It is unfortunate that the atheist is so spoilt, he or she cannot conceive that they have been given this advantage.
Oh, and we’re not talking about unicorns, we’re talking about God.
Jan.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Again with the ad homs.
What is the point in writing another two dozen lines if you opening line is invalid?
Look, if you can get through a whole post without committing an ad hom, you might gain a smidgeon of credibility. Until then, you're just cluttering the thread with trolling tricks. Argue in good faith.
Raising a child without sin is a simple as raising them without the oppressive bits of religion.
Any rebuttals out there?
I like this because it keeps kids out of church
Try raising them without WiFi
someecards.com
Can you explain why you think they are?
There’s nothing to rebutt Dave.
What do you mean by “raise a child without sin”?
The thread assumes that sin is merely a concept, then puts forward the idea of raising a child without (the mere) concept of sin.
That means to brainwash a child into thinking either there is no such thing as sin, by leading by example. Or let the child do what they want and letting them get away with it.
So what does “without oppressive bits of religion have to do with anything?
Jan
Last edited:
Huh???
Dare you elaborate on that.
Or shall we just let the nonsense go by, as though it was never said?
Jan.
Couple of interesting question that brings up:
1.
I wrote: "Oh. Em. Gee. I look in 8 pages later, and she's still chasing that same tale!"
to which you responded"
Now, what made you so sure the 'she' was referring to you?I’m a he?
Jan.
2. that response had a question mark, as though perhaps you were not sure you're a 'he' and expected me to confirm it. I'm in no position to do that.
Then comes the most recent question. Why do I refer to the person who spent ten pages in a circular argument he/she/they/it cannot possibly win, as 'she'?
A: Because flipping a coin was too much effort.
If it matters to you - as it doesn't to me - make your gender identity manifest.
But, hey, at least this irrelevant exchange provided a tiny diversion from your fruitless pursuit of God-know-what.
Last edited:
Of course. Just as there are paintings of Santa Claus and God.
No worries.
You said that "little doggy-type creatures turning into modern whales" is magic, because you don't understand how that can happen. Using the same argument, a person who does not understand electromagnetism could claim that electric motors don't work; that an invisible, magical force (magnetism) does not exist - or is magic. Of course, if he could be bothered to learn Maxwell's Equations, he would see that it is not magic, that it is just science.
Evolution is similar. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it "magic."
And fossil remains. And genetic clocks that match the timeline. And genetic matches with other common ancestors. Science, in other words.
Neither do you.
I see what you’re trying to do.
You’re trying to equate something that works with something that doesn’t.
It is a belief.
Jan.