Theists don't ask questions

[Blastcat]

Hi

I ask a lot of questions.. and SOMETIMES ( but not always ) get answers.

One of the reasons that I do ask a lot of questions, is that I don't actually learn anything new by proselytizing atheism. I do that a bit, of course, I think it's important that people get to know an atheist and what he thinks about the "big questions" and so on, but I am ALSO here to learn what OTHER people think.

So, the questions.

It just occurred to me that I RARELY get any questions from the theists.
Isn't that odd?

____________

Question for debate:

• 
  
  Why is it that theists don't seem very curious as to what outsiders to their beliefs think?
  
  

____________

[TheBeardedDude]

[Replying to post 119 by William]

Implying that what you are doing is akin to a parent chastising a child is demeaning. That too seems to be more slander and at the very least it is disrespectful.

[TheBeardedDude]

[Replying to post 120 by William]

What do you mean "not aligned with actuality?" Do you mean that there is objective and verifiable evidence that demonstrates the existence of a god? Or do you mean that you believe in a god and don't like it when atheists don't accept your "evidence" as evidence of a god?

As for atheists making "sweepingly inaccurate charges against the general idea of a god," you'll need to clarify. All I can do as an atheist is respond to the ideas of gods put forth by theists.

So when you say "god is complex," that doesn't tell me anything tangible about your god. It tells me that YOU believe your god is complex, but that only informs me of your belief. It does not give me any characteristics or attributes of your god to evaluate for myself.

Also, what statements did I make that were "unrealistic?"

[William]

[Replying to post 119 by William]

Implying that what you are doing is akin to a parent chastising a child is demeaning. That too seems to be more slander and at the very least it is disrespectful.

Perhaps the real issue here then is my pointing out the disrespectful nature of childishness which sometimse makes its way into comments, while the rest of ones post is ignored?

It seems to me that if someone takes the time to write a reply, the least anyone can do out of respect is to reply to that post rather than single out some part of it which is rather minor in regard to all things 'disrespectful'. Can you agree with me here?

Not to say that we all might not behave as such from time to time, but I think maybe you are protesting over nothing much indeed and using this as a means of not having to focus and reply to my whole post in context?

[TheBeardedDude]

[Replying to post 123 by William]

Respect is earned and not merely given freely. If you want your replies respected, you should reply in a respectful tone. Being dismissive and comparing yourself to a parent and the person you are replying to as a child, is disrespectful. Pot meet kettle.

[William]

[Replying to post 122 by TheBeardedDude]

You can find descriptions of my particular idea of GOD through posts I have already made on this forum.

My post in context explains adequately enough that the answers to you questions can be found therein.

If you can, perhaps have another look at it and comment on that in context.

Otherwise, I find it pointless continuing along this track with you.

[TheBeardedDude]

[Replying to post 125 by William]

"Otherwise, I find it pointless continuing along this track with you."

Your preceding comments make it abundantly clear you are not interested in a two-way conversation. You seem to prefer to be dismissive instead of actually answering genuine questions.

Edit to add: The irony of the thread still being a paucity of questions from theists to atheists is not lost on me

[William]

[Replying to post 123 by William]

Respect is earned and not merely given freely.

And the poster who I was replying to has yet to earn my full respect but I treat him/her with enough respect required for healthy interaction among adults.

I see you beg to differ. I will watch your own example to see if I can spot something to learn by it, one way or the other Clownboat.


Pots and kettles and all that. Nuff said.

Shall we return to the program (thread topic). Do you have any answers to the questions I raised in the post in question?

[TheBeardedDude]

[Replying to post 127 by William]

You want respect, but don't want to give it then?

As for the questions in the post in question, I only see two:
"Wait long enough and you probably still won't get one. Perhaps in death the opportunity will afford itself some evidence you can latch on to. Who really knows? "

This is known as an argument from ignorance. Presuming that evidence exists but can't be known, is an assumption and not an answer and not evidence. There may be pink unicorns that appear after I die, technically no one knows if they do or don't. But what we understand about death is that it is the end of life and that no one (and no part of them) survives their own death.

So if the only evidence of a god is evidence that can't be known now, then it is useless and not valid. (argument from ignorance)

and the second question is:

"What claim would you consider requires burden of proof Blastcat? "

Positive claims have a burden of proof. If you say unicorns exist, it is on you to provide the evidence of the claim. Those that disbelieve/reject your claim, do not have the burden of proof for showing your claim to be untrue or unlikely. For instance, what evidence or proof could one provide for something that does not exist?

[William]

[Replying to post 128 by TheBeardedDude]

Explain the difference between the idea of unicorns and say...the idea of the Abrahamic God, BeardedDude...be specific and keep it to the differences in form and function if you would be so kind.

Thank you

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Blastcat]

Yes, true. And that's why I point out you have a serious misconception about what ad hominem arguments are.