{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/24/2015 1:42:03 AM
35
Your argument here is ultimately a petty one at best, underlining an unimportant factor of a much larger argument.
Think of it like this:
-Christians are the restaurant owners/chefs
-The name of their restaurant is "Best Burgers Ever"
-Atheists are skeptical customers
Atheist: "Yeah, I think I'll have the double cheeseburger to see if it really is the best tasting burger ever."
Christian: "Well sir you need to understand the context of the recipe and the history of our establishment first."
Atheist: "What? Look, I just want to try it for myself to see if it [i]really[/i] is the best ever."
Christian: "No you don't understand the details and context of this burger. You can't judge it until you do."
Atheist: "That doesn't make sense. I can make a judgement just by tasting-"
Christian: "The lettuce was not grown in Mexico! It was actually harvested in California. The seasoning is a secret recipe developed by expert chefs-"
Atheist: "Forget it, I'll just take my business somewhere else."
Except in real life Christians claim to have the best burger without providing an actual burger.
You're the cashier claiming that the context is important, when in actuality it is but a detail of the bigger claim that God is real. Atheists can misinterpret to their heart's content because the bible still makes the claim of an invisible man in the sky that created everything.
TL;DR:
Even if atheists misinterpret the bible, the burden of proof still lies with Christians to prove that their context/claim is legitimate.
English
-
Yeah hey I'll take a big Mac with medium fries and a coke...Uhh yeah it's gonna be cash...yeah that completes--no wait, make that two big Macs...that'll do it.
-
Edited by gerManicjag: 8/24/2015 7:23:18 PMCommin' right up
-
This is hilarious and weirdly accurate lol
-
Thank you haha
-
I don't get why people think God is a man in the sky
-
I used it simply for argument sake
-
Love it
-
Thanks
-
This^^^^
-
That's not my argument at all. My argument is that I give an atheist a double cheeseburger layered patty, cheese, patty. They open the bun and look at the top patty and then say, " this isn't a double there's only one patty!" And I say," no, look under the cheese, it's there. You just have to understand how it's layered. " and they say, "no! It's not there, you're delusional!" Then they put on their fedora and leave.
-
... what?
-
Not really. It's more like a Christian gives an atheist a bacon cheeseburger, and then when they open up the buns, they will ask - "hey, there's no bacon on this burger!", then the Christian will say - "well, you gotta have faith that the bacon exists." Then the atheist will say - "well, that seems not only unrealistic, but also an excuse. You have no evidence to back up your claim that bacon is on this burger, and I reject the notion that it requires faith, especially in a time when you need to provide evidence to substantiate your claim." Then the Christian will say - "I don't need to prove it's there, you need to prove it." Finally, the atheist will say - "Wut? How can I prove or disprove a negative?"
-
You still don't understand the argument. I'm not trying to argue that God exists or that Christianity is true. It's sad that you don't get this. My argument is that if you are going to assert that a written work states something, you need to know what the written work actually says and that includes the context of the passages in question.
-
Context is what allows people to state that whatever they say means something radically different to fit the situation I could make a context analysis of Hitler and make him sound normal. The 1930's for Germany were absolutely dismal and the German people needed hope and cash, also, the entirety of the planet was anti-semitic. Hitler wasn't considered entirely radical because he was just doing what he needed to do to survive and in a manner that the rest of the world agreed with
-
You are mistaken.
-
Wouldn't it be more like you give an atheist a bread roll and he says "there's no patty on this burger", and you say "yes there is you just need to have faith it's there".
-
You're not understanding the argument
-
I don't think I am.
-
Well if we're going to continue with the burger analogy then let me reiterate. Atheists may not understand the layers or ingredients and the context thereof, but don't need to in order to [b]taste[/b] the burger and see if it really is the best/legitimate. I'm sorry to say your argument is nothing more than tunnel vision and dodging the real argument.
-
That was never my argument. In the op I said they could believe whatever they want, but the arguments they make against it don't hold up, because they lack context and a willingness to search for an answer.
-
And the only way a Christian believes a person has gained context and understanding is if they believe. It's a cyclical bs wheel of fggtry
-
Not true.
-
You already proved it in another reply chain It's circular logic all the way to the papacy
-
Biggest problem often times is that too many group atheists to a centralized cause when really the only thing we typically hold in common is a lack of belief pertaining to gods. The missing link is the fact that identifying a flawed argument from one atheist is no better than assuming all party members of any given religion will confront you with the same exact method of attempting to invalidate one's beliefs.
-
I bet you think you sound clever.
