Agnostic atheism

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Yes you talked to people and read stuff but you cannot discuss any specifics. Nothing new there.

You are free to characterize our past discussions in whatever way suits your purpose here.

Originally posted by @fmf
You and I have already discussed before my views on the reasons that Christians cite for believing that Jesus and many other people supposedly rose from the dead when he was executed. My side of that conversation does not need to be repeated. Start a thread about it and see who joins in.

What has lead you to believe that you are being intellectually honest here I wonder?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What has lead you to believe that you are being intellectually honest here I wonder?

My posting record. Anyone can look at it. I stand by everything I have ever said and my contribution to every thread I have ever made. If anything is found that indicates a change of mind or that requires an apology, I will acknowledge and explain and/or apologize as necessary.

Originally posted by @divegeester
What evidence is your own personal belief in god based on?

I could talk about how God led me to Him four years ago but I won’t - would just be fodder for trolls.

But I will say the evidence summarized in that article I’ve referenced plus all the Messianic prophecies that Jesus Christ fulfilled; simple logic (Why would early Christians willingly undergo persecution, torture and death for refusing to deny they saw Jesus Christ alive after His crucifixion if they knew what they claimed was a lie?) and my own experiences post accepting Christ have reinforced what I already had come to believe.

There’s more, but what I cited here is probably the basics

Originally posted by @fmf
You may think simply throwing in a logical fallacy here in there moves the discussion along, but I beg to differ.

How is what I posted a logical fallacy?

Originally posted by @fmf
I don't think it is an error.

So you know why someone believes in God better than he or she does? And you know this how?

Originally posted by @fmf
[b]...the experts in evaluating evidence I cited earlier...

Do you think there are any experts in evaluating evidence who have come to the conclusion that the things that Christians claim about Jesus are unfounded or untrue?[/b]

I don’t know; can you cite any and include their qualifications? I doubt their qualifications will be as impressive as the three gentlemen I cited earlier.

Originally posted by @romans1009
So you know why someone believes in God better than he or she does? And you know this how?

You are mistaken if you think that I do not realize people live religious lives or become religious for all manner of reasons and in diverse circumstances.

Originally posted by @romans1009
I don’t know; can you cite any and include their qualifications? I doubt their qualifications will be as impressive as the three gentlemen I cited earlier.

I'm not interested in doing any research of this kind in support of this conversation. Your admiration for the three people you found using Google is duly noted.

Originally posted by @fmf
You can Google it if you want. I am not going to copy paste the profiles of three atheist historians and commentators in order to match Romans1009 Googling efforts. Not interested.

I knew about Sir Lionel Luckhoo and Lee Strobel long ago, though I wasn’t aware of the third gentleman until I Googled to find the quote from Luckhoo and pulled up that article.

You seem incapable of acknowledging that the exemplary credentials and qualifications of the three men I cited are in the evaluation of evidence. They’re not historians, they’re not simply “commentators,” they’re experts in evaluating evidence.

Originally posted by @romans1009
How is what I posted a logical fallacy?

If you look through a list of logical fallacies with an open mind about what might have been the rhetorical weakness of what you did, I imagine the penny will drop. If you encounter it this way, you might take the lesson learned on board. For me to simply tell you would probably lead to you ignoring it. I'm not going to spell it out for you. If you don't know what I was referring to, I don't care.

Originally posted by @fmf
I'm not interested in doing any research of this kind in support of this conversation. Your admiration for the three people you found using Google is duly noted.

I didn’t find them using Google. I knew about Luckhoo’s quote and had read Strobel’s book quite a while ago. It was in Googling for Luckhoo’s quote that I pulled up the article that I posted.

Originally posted by @romans1009
You seem incapable of acknowledging that the exemplary credentials and qualifications of the three men I cited are in the evaluation of evidence. They’re not historians, they’re not simply “commentators,” they’re experts in evaluating evidence.

Your enthusiasm about these three people and how I seem to you are both acknowledged and understood.

Originally posted by @romans1009
I didn’t find them using Google. I knew about Luckhoo’s quote and had read Strobel’s book quite a while ago. It was in Googling for Luckhoo’s quote that I pulled up the article that I posted.

Thanks for this information about how you ended up posting what you did.

Originally posted by @fmf
If you look through a list of logical fallacies with an open mind about what might have been the rhetorical weakness of what you did, I imagine the penny will drop. If you encounter it this way, you might take the lesson learned on board. For me to simply tell you would probably lead to you ignoring it. I'm not going to spell it out for you. If you don't know what I was referring to, I don't care.

So that’s your long way of saying,

“I have no idea, but logical fallacy sounded intellectual and impressive, and I was hoping nobody asked me what I meant by it.”

Why not just post the truth instead of a half-baked, accusatory word salad?