Whats your religion

[Blood Fetish]

When this thread dies, I'll make a debate thread.

Here is the problem I see with that. To have a true debate you need two sides providing evidence to support their claims. Religion cannot do that, so it will just devolve into atheists asking for evidence and theists ignoring them.

 

[LunaWofl]

I hate athiests, always trying to convert me, like their disbelief in something is suddenly an epiphany or a stroke of genious, at least they dont do it door to door but i digress.

Im not athiest, or even agnostic, that would imply i believe that its possible there is a god, or just havent decided to follow a faith, but i dont want anything to dictate my life, I have my own sense of right and wrong, and I dont need anyone's scare tactics, or past, or morals to guide me.

 

[Pyrmon]

When this thread dies, I'll make a debate thread.

Here is the problem I see with that. To have a true debate you need two sides providing evidence to support their claims. Religion cannot do that, so it will just devolve into atheists asking for evidence and theists ignoring them.

Theists can make very good, valid arguments that do not conflict with modern science. I have seen it happen, I'll see it happen again.

 

[DeathStrudel]

When this thread dies, I'll make a debate thread.

Here is the problem I see with that. To have a true debate you need two sides providing evidence to support their claims. Religion cannot do that, so it will just devolve into atheists asking for evidence and theists ignoring them.

I think he meant a general debate thread, not just religion

 

[Pyrmon]

When this thread dies, I'll make a debate thread.

Here is the problem I see with that. To have a true debate you need two sides providing evidence to support their claims. Religion cannot do that, so it will just devolve into atheists asking for evidence and theists ignoring them.

I think he meant a general debate thread, not just religion

One thread for several debates? I don't think that'll work. yeah I meant religious debate.

 

[Blood Fetish]

Theists can make very good, valid arguments that do not conflict with modern science. I have seen it happen, I'll see it happen again.

An argument can be valid without being sound.

 

[DeathStrudel]

Theists can make very good, valid arguments that do not conflict with modern science. I have seen it happen, I'll see it happen again.

An argument can be valid without being sound.

umm....not really, the definition of valid is sound

 

[Uncle FEFL]

do you know how a dictionary works? you just proved yourself wrong I hope you know

No, I did not actually. There are plenty of definitions of a word, as "belief" shows just by itself. And here in the United States, you should know, we use "belief" as a synonym for "faith," and not "opinion," as it shows in the dictionary. Yet, belief can be both.

And, just so you know, the dictionary is not the linguistic law of the land, as jargon, slang, colloquialisms, and connotations show. People rule the language. Dictionaries are just a tool we use to provide a logical divide between words.

For example, if I pointed at the color blue and called it "violet," and it caught on with the populace (for whatever reason), the definitions that we know of now would be switched.

 

[DeathStrudel]

When this thread dies, I'll make a debate thread.

Here is the problem I see with that. To have a true debate you need two sides providing evidence to support their claims. Religion cannot do that, so it will just devolve into atheists asking for evidence and theists ignoring them.

I think he meant a general debate thread, not just religion

One thread for several debates? I don't think that'll work. yeah I meant religious debate.

oh....my bad

 

[Pyrmon]

Theists can make very good, valid arguments that do not conflict with modern science. I have seen it happen, I'll see it happen again.

An argument can be valid without being sound.

I clearly meant the make sound arguments based on true facts.

 

[BobTheJoeBob]

When this thread dies, I'll make a debate thread.

Here is the problem I see with that. To have a true debate you need two sides providing evidence to support their claims. Religion cannot do that, so it will just devolve into atheists asking for evidence and theists ignoring them.

I think he meant a general debate thread, not just religion

One thread for several debates? I don't think that'll work. yeah I meant religious debate.

Its happened on this forum before, except in a more organised method.

 

[DeathStrudel]

do you know how a dictionary works? you just proved yourself wrong I hope you know

No, I did not actually. There are plenty of definitions of a word, as "belief" shows just by itself. And here in the United States, you should know, we use "belief" as a synonym for "faith," and not "opinion," as it shows in the dictionary. Yet, belief can be both.

And, just so you know, the dictionary is not the linguistic law of the land, as jargon, slang, colloquialisms, and connotations show. People rule the language. Dictionaries are just a tool we use to provide a logical divide between words.

For example, if I pointed at the color blue and called it "violet," and it caught on with the populace (for whatever reason), the definitions that we know of now would be switched.

in a dictionary, the first definition is the most used one, and the first one for belief is opinion, and you referred to atheism as an opinion, so yes, you did prove yourself wrong

 

[ShinyLatios]

I believe in the father of Chuck Norris!

nah, I wouldn't care if there's a god out there. because he won't show himself anyway!

 

[Uncle FEFL]

do you know how a dictionary works? you just proved yourself wrong I hope you know

No, I did not actually. There are plenty of definitions of a word, as "belief" shows just by itself. And here in the United States, you should know, we use "belief" as a synonym for "faith," and not "opinion," as it shows in the dictionary. Yet, belief can be both.

And, just so you know, the dictionary is not the linguistic law of the land, as jargon, slang, colloquialisms, and connotations show. People rule the language. Dictionaries are just a tool we use to provide a logical divide between words.

For example, if I pointed at the color blue and called it "violet," and it caught on with the populace (for whatever reason), the definitions that we know of now would be switched.

in a dictionary, the first definition is the most used one, and the first one for belief is opinion, and you referred to atheism as an opinion, so yes, you did prove yourself wrong

No it's not. Aside from what I just said about the Americans and how we use the word belief, not every dictionary is the same.

 

[Blood Fetish]

An argument can be valid without being sound.

umm....not really, the definition of valid is sound

Absolutely incorrect.

 

[ProtoKun7]

An argument can be valid without being sound.

umm....not really, the definition of valid is sound

Absolutely incorrect.

Even so, just because you can't see something does not mean it isn't there.

 

[DeathStrudel]

An argument can be valid without being sound.

umm....not really, the definition of valid is sound

Absolutely incorrect.

I looked up valid and it said "sound" so it's entirely correct

 

[Blood Fetish]

An argument can be valid without being sound.

umm....not really, the definition of valid is sound

Absolutely incorrect.

I looked up valid and it said "sound" so it's entirely correct

How am I expected to have any kind of rational discourse if you refuse to acknowledge even basic critical thinking skills?

 

[DeathStrudel]

No it's not. Aside from what I just said about the Americans and how we use the word belief, not every dictionary is the same.

YES IT IS!
And sorry, I didn't realize that you were "the Americans" and know how "the Americans" all use the word belief

 

[Blood Fetish]

An argument can be valid without being sound.

umm....not really, the definition of valid is sound

Absolutely incorrect.

Even so, just because you can't see something does not mean it isn't there.

Just because you cannot see something does not mean it is there. Evidence: otherwise what is the point? Just believe any crazy thing that another person says.