• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ted Cruz: An Atheist 'Isn't Fit To Be' President

RAMOSS said:
And, when trying to defend your claims on the 'five ways', you make declarations without being able to support your claims, claim that there is a shifting of the burden of proof on the part of the other person, and declare yourself the winner. All in all, I don't see the level of comprehension about the arguments on your part for you to make those declarations.
Click to expand...

I am getting so tired of your verbosity, again.
 
Riveroaks said:
I am getting so tired of your verbosity, again.
Click to expand...


I am sure you are. However, it would be nice for you to back up your claims with something other that logical fallacies, including unjustly accusing someone else of doing the exact logical fallacy you are doing.
 
RAMOSS said:
I am sure you are. However, it would be nice for you to back up your claims with something other that logical fallacies, including unjustly accusing someone else of doing the exact logical fallacy you are doing.
Click to expand...

Verbosity.

Shifting the burden.

Sophistry.
 
Cephus said:
So... still waiting for direct examples that this has actually happened. Got any? Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

How does Jim Jones grab you? Trying to free people from the opiate of religion. I think it is funny how you try to commit this association fallacy to discredit religion. It doesn't really strengthen any argument you have against the religious.

Ps

Are you now backing down from that hilarious claim that Hitler was a Christian?
 
stonewall50 said:
How does Jim Jones grab you? Trying to free people from the opiate of religion. I think it is funny how you try to commit this association fallacy to discredit religion. It doesn't really strengthen any argument you have against the religious.

Ps

Are you now backing down from that hilarious claim that Hitler was a Christian?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Jim Jones, leader of the People's Temple, a church based on Pentecostal Christian beliefs, was an atheist? Seriously? You are so far out in the weeds, we can't even see you from here.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Ted Cruz isnt fit to be president.
Click to expand...

I could not agree more. Cruz is an immature boy in a man's body. He is a schoolyard bully, a divisive figure and full of putrid hate. He is so thoroughly disliked by his congressional colleagues, that one wonders how he ever hope to attain the White House.
 
Riveroaks said:
Verbosity.

Shifting the burden.

Sophistry.
Click to expand...


yes... those are your traits. However, what you have not been able to do is show that axioms and logic of the Aquinas' 5 ways are true.. you have not responded to the criticism except with snarky comments, and hand waving tactics. I encourage everyone to examine the threads and make up their own minds.

If I am verbose, it's because I actually address the issue. You might learn to do that someday.
 
Cephus said:
Are you saying that Jim Jones, leader of the People's Temple, a church based on Pentecostal Christian beliefs, was an atheist? Seriously? You are so far out in the weeds, we can't even see you from here.
Click to expand...

I guess when one stands out in the weeds it looks like others are in them too. Especially if stuff is starting to get over your head.

Just read up on the guy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple

Just check the sources on the atheists quotes. This is pretty well known slick.
 
RAMOSS said:
yes... those are your traits. However, what you have not been able to do is show that axioms and logic of the Aquinas' 5 ways are true.. you have not responded to the criticism except with snarky comments, and hand waving tactics. I encourage everyone to examine the threads and make up their own minds.

If I am verbose, it's because I actually address the issue. You might learn to do that someday.
Click to expand...

Ah Ramos.

Ramos again.

Ramos, have I been able to teach you anything about philosophy and debate ???
 
Frank Apisa said:
With all the respect in the world, Riveroaks, neither Aquinas nor Descartes ever offered a PROOF of the existence of a God.

They offered what they purported to be proofs...but I doubt there is a logician alive right now who would assert there is any validity to these purported "proofs." Each of them fails the test of logic...by a WIDE margin.
Click to expand...

What they offered were argumentation, not actual proof or evidence.

There is a difference between arguments, and claims, and then proof.

For an argument and a claim to be true, it must be backed up with observable verifiable, evidence.

Everything else, while might be eloquent and interesting and entertaining, is just an argument.


For example, the claim that life on other planet must exist is simply an argument. What would be proof is if we brought back some microbes or even an insect of some sort, like in the movie mission To mars.

The claim that Bigfoot exist, well while there is some film of some blurry object, the only thing that will settle the matter is a body.

And that is what is so difficult about proving the existence of God.

There is absolutely NOTHING but arguments and claims and assertion.

And here is a website for all of those arguments:

Hundreds of Proofs of God?s Existence
 
Ancient Herald said:
What they offered were argumentation, not actual proof or evidence.

There is a difference between arguments, and claims, and then proof.

For an argument and a claim to be true, it must be backed up with observable verifiable, evidence.

Everything else, while might be eloquent and interesting and entertaining, is just an argument.


For example, the claim that life on other planet must exist is simply an argument. What would be proof is if we brought back some microbes or even an insect of some sort, like in the movie mission To mars.

The claim that Bigfoot exist, well while there is some film of some blurry object, the only thing that will settle the matter is a body.

And that is what is so difficult about proving the existence of God.

There is absolutely NOTHING but arguments and claims and assertion.

And here is a website for all of those arguments:

Hundreds of Proofs of God?s Existence
Click to expand...

Not sure of your point.

In response to Riveroaks suggestion that Aquinas offered proofs of the existence of God...I am saying that Aquinas offered claims...not proofs.

You are saying Aquinas offered claims...not proofs.

The "five proofs" are nothing more than begging the question.

We are in agreement...right?
 
99percenter said:
Ted Cruz: An Atheist '''Isn'''t Fit To Be''' President


More atheist persecution. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

From a Christian perspective, no one can truly say that atheist or non-believers aren't fit to rule or govern.

God had used non-believing kings for His purposes in the Old Testament. King Nebuchadnezzer as an example (for the punishment of Judah),
or King Cyrus the Great, who freed the Jews and had helped restore the Temple.


An atheist or a non-believer, can just as easily be inspired, or guided by God.
 
Last edited:
Frank Apisa said:
Not sure of your point.

In response to Riveroaks suggestion that Aquinas offered proofs of the existence of God...I am saying that Aquinas offered claims...not proofs.

You are saying Aquinas offered claims...not proofs.

The "five proofs" are nothing more than begging the question.

We are in agreement...right?
Click to expand...

on this specific issue, yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom