Originally Posted by davidmash

Kerry,

Do you know what Marty means by a "universal belief"?

Originally Posted by elchivito

I just want to see, since he can tell me unequivocally that his god is not only his god but should be MINE, if he can tell me the specifics of my suffering;

Originally Posted by chilcutt

Astounding...you cannot see the hypocrisy..lets see, you have insulted me by calling me spineless for believing in a religion that differs from yours.

You have called another member a belligerant idiot because he did not defend the religion you believe in.

And then here, you make it personal, by saying you have no respect for me..if my beliefs do not coincide with what you interpret to be..
"The way to go"..

Tell me...does your religion commonly accept the practice of belitteling others..making cruel remarks..etc..in order to bring people to them?

Originally Posted by kerry

I have a fair number of evangelical and conservative Christian friends, especially on Facebook. I've noticed that a fair number of the apologists resort to insult as a tactic quite frequently. I don't think this is just bad manners or an accident. There have been intellectual developments within Evangelicalism which has produced this tendency. At one time, evangelicals were 'evidentialist', that is people who attempted to provide convincing reasons for their beliefs. But, as a result of the influence of an Evangelical philosopher named Alvin Plantinga, their intellectual tactics changed. He argues that instead of proving the truth of religious beliefs, one only needs to prove that they are 'properly basic'. A properly basic belief is a legitimate belief which cannot be proven, such as the existence of other minds. According to him, people are entitled to hold 'properly basic' beliefs without evidence. This amounts to a 'weak' defense of religious beliefs. They're not 'true' but 'unprovable yet ok to be believed'.
In these circumstances, there is little the apologist can do except see if he or she (not likely to be a 'she' though) can do except try to find claims in the opponents views that are not true and then hope for the best. So if you can't establish positive reasons for religious beliefs, it's easy to resort to hurling insults at the enemy.

Originally Posted by martureo

I specifically attack Islam because it is a touchy subject (and a false belief). I find it rather hypocritical that Christianity is attacked at every turn yet similar (or harsher) beliefs in Islam are never touched. Look at the homosexuality threads, why haven't the Muslims been read the riot act?

Originally Posted by martureo

Something which is not relative. It is true everywhere and for everyone.

Originally Posted by martureo

No, I can't. And it is a bit of non sequitor to to assume that since I know the identity of God that I must know what suffering rebels will get. Can you tell me why you are claiming this?

Originally Posted by martureo

Where did you hear that from?

Originally Posted by elchivito

You've previously told us you have him on speed dial.

My suffering stopped the moment I accepted the mystery of creation, life, death and the hereafter and quit the magical thinking required to explain them.

Originally Posted by Air&Road

I've always found the world of many atheists/agnostics to be quite interesting. Although I rarely hesitate to state my opinions on things, I've never been one to try to push my religious beliefs off on others, except for a few, rare, close and personal conversations.

The world of atheists/agnostics OTOH seems to contain many people who REALLY put forth a case for why others should join him in his disbelief. If you don't believe, FINE, have at it.

It just seems very odd that many of those who do NOT believe are so BENT on trying to convince others not to.

Just sayin'.