True. That is the problem I have. I would like them to provide evidence for their assumption not give me what Mopac is doing which is circular logic.Most Christians don't like their assumptions challenged.
Hey stupid fucking atheists. Proof is not required to have a right to faith. Get a clue bigots.
It's like if the word 'jesus' appears in a document from 200 years after he supposedly died the whole of the bible must be true!
there are also a number of ancient hostile Jewish sources describing Jesus. These are written by Jewish theologians, historians and leaders who were definitely not sympathetic to the Christian cause. Their writings are often very harsh, critical and even demeaning to Jesus. But there is still much these writings confirm:
Followed up by:But theists keep on presenting stuff they say is proof! It's like if the word 'jesus' appears in a document from 200 years after he supposedly died the whole of the bible must be true!
but it won't sway anyone with the most basic grasp of the actual science.
Yes.Do you consider love to be good?
I don't care about the Bible which has yet to give evidence to prove its validity. Come back to me with evidence. God is not love or good because he doesn't exist.That's what the God of the Bible is noted to be. If God is love, then God would have to be good, right?
I'm sorry, but you'll have to prove that God doesn't exist. If God definitely doesn't exist, then it's a non-issue. The real issue in terms of your stance would be more along the lines of just God existing being an assumption.I don't care about the Bible which has yet to give evidence to prove its validity. Come back to me with evidence. God is not love or good because he doesn't exist.
The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.I'm sorry, but you'll have to prove that God doesn't exist. If God definitely doesn't exist, then it's a non-issue. The real issue in terms of your stance would be more along the lines of just God existing being an assumption.
If you're open to the possibility of God existing, then that's a different story.
I'm sorry, but you'll have to prove that God doesn't exist. If God definitely doesn't exist, then it's a non-issue. The real issue in terms of your stance would be more along the lines of just God existing being an assumption.The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.If I said unicorns do not exist. Do I have to prove it? No so take the burden of the positive claim.
Evidence is what I care about not being so open minded that I don't care about evidence.
You very first comment was not about the topic at hand. Stop lying about who was at fault about the derail.You've moved beyond that into whether or not God is good (God being good being an assumption).
What would do you think would qualify as evidence?
