Atheists do have a burden of proof as was argued at length in the topic, Is There Evidence for Atheism. Off topic here.
http://www.longecity...-22#entry654448
Again, it is obvious you don’t have a clue. My teaching was never, “Your argument is still–> different wavelengths of lights, therefore jesus and God.” You shut no scripture down. The discussion for the last time was on the APOPHATIC AND KATAPHATIC, negative and positive. Nature of God. http://www.longecity...-36#entry667108
If you don’t get it, OK. 
What does light do? It illuminates and thus we can say Jesus is the light if the world.
You seem to have trouble reading. I'm not an athiest. Every athiest is technically an agnostic; including richard dawkins as the most famous "athiest." In fact he would refer to himself as an adiest.
There's no way to disprove anything, including Pink Unicorns. Saying: there is certainly no God would require a burden of proof, since that would be a claim. Agnostics, since you cannot wrap your head around what I am saying, do not claim anything. They are not a leaporconists or a santa clausists. They don't claim anything. They simply say that they don't believe anything until there is sufficient evidence. You have the burden of proof. I can quote you the definition of the argumentative fallacy you used again, but you don't seem to understand the meaning of the definition, so it would be futile. You can keep denying argumentative fallacies, but you seem to complain that others use argumentative fallacies, so that would mean you're a hypocrite by definition.
I don't care what you argued at length for; it's not relevant to my position or any other reasonable athiest (who are technically agnostics). If you deny basic argumentative fallacies as the one I quoted you directly, than how can you consider yourself an intellectual at all?
I do understand it, it's just a bad argument. Disagreeing with a bad argument does not mean i don't understand it. I explained to you several times about your numerous assumptions and argumenative fallacies, but you haven't responded to those arguments.
"It illuminates and thus we can say Jesus is the light if the world."
Jesus does not illuminate, except for a small range of infrared radiation. However, he only illuminated a small cross sectional area of the world as a function of his position on the earth, and the average temperature of his body. If you're referring to metaphorical nonsense, then he really only illuminated a small group of jews. He did not illuminate the Native Americans, or the Chinese, or the Indonesians, or all of South America, or all of Africa, or all of the modern non believers, or all of the other millions of people that existed before him.
"My teaching was never"
Actually it was. You talked about how different spectrums of light support your argument about "APOPHATIC AND KATAPHATIC", which it does not at all. Your false analogy is baseless, and you've given no justification as to how it supports the notion of APOPHATIC AND KATAPHATIC. You quoted some scripture about Jesus being the light. Where is the connection besides using the word "light" and illuminate?
I also like how you just ignored my counterargument in your fallacious reasoning concerning historical evidence. You didn't respond as to how Christian evidence is any better than the thousands of other religions and myths out there, that have equivalent historical support.
"Nature of God"
How could you possibly know the nature of God? How can you know what you cannot know? Did some ancient book from iron age peasants, who didn't know the earth orbited the sun, tell you?
"You shut no scripture down."
Would you care to justify any of your contradictions to my claims? It's obvious your arguments are so weak that you can't even respond with an explanation.
Edited by serp777, 07 June 2014 - 03:21 AM.
This topic is locked
