"Playing word replacement game is easy, any bloke can play this
game. Question is, after changing the words can you support what is
being said? For atheism, the answer is a resounding NO."
How would you know when you are not an atheist? Would anyone
consult a doctor for toothache when there's an available dentist?
Feel free to voice your opinions that nobody asked...
"You are shifting goalpost and invoking strawman here, the issue
is not whether you believe IN something, but whether you believe
THAT something exists. The person who knows nothing believes
nothing. But the atheist claims to know that there is no God. Or if
he is being less dogmatic about it he claims he does not believe
there is a God. So either the atheists KNOWS or BELIEVES there is
no God. Unless the atheist wants to defend a knowledge that he
claims he does not have, I don't see how you can evade the need for
faith."
I have been very consistent. I using different ways of
expressions for you to understand. Its your misinterpretations
that's causing your confusion. You liked to appear smart (mis)using
the various fallacies however the opposite is true...
One who knows no god believes in no god... One who knows god,
believes according to one faith. No knowledge, no faith. No faith,
no believe. What God is to you, is but an sign of delusion to
atheist. What knowledge is to atheist is but a rejection of godly
faith to you. Faith is needed to believe in anything. How can one
believe without knowing what is it to be believed?
"I read your link, but you did not read mine. Too bad then, it
shows you just conclude without doing due diligence. Don't be
lazy."
Read my quoted post carefully... I posted "...click the links...
to find out more?" Read and understand before believing whatever
assumptions you have.
"You did
comment on the question? When? Which post? Before or after I
pointed that you didn't?"
You did not even realized that you had quoted previously that
part which I commented on the question... Is it even possible for
the born blind to fully understand colors using just
words?
"Having
problem with the dictionary lately? Dictionary.com defines mistake
as
1. an error in action, calculation,
opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness,
insufficient knowledge, etc.
2. a misunderstanding or
misconception.
3. to regard or
identify wrongly as something or someone else: I mistook him for
the mayor.
4. to understand,
interpret, or evaluate wrongly; misunderstand;
misinterpret.
In this context "They did made
a mistake for not obeying God", its number one. What
problem were you implying?
"How does the
above relates to Adam's rebellion? God said not to eat but they
did. If this is not rebellion then what? "
I will not feed you just to compel you to look up any dictionary
of your choice on "rebellion" since its like a hobby to you now.
After that answer this "How were they resisting authority, control or
convention?"
"To call that
a mistake is really to downplay sin."
It was a mistake as everybody is a sinner. Whats is there to
downplay when everybody is a sinner?
If children
disobey their parent's instructions you call that a
mistake?"
Its possible that number 1~4 definitions aptlys describe
mistake in your context correctly.
"Your English
is bad. To take the fruit when it is forbidden to do so, that act
of eating of the fruit IS sin."
This is concerning.... Which is worse? Bad English or poor
understanding?
"So
convenient, did not show how my premise is incorrect just ignore
the whole thing I said. And then say no need to elaborate because I
did not figure something out, but also never show what I did not
figure out. What a cop out."
See above reply.... To elaborate, White Dust was
asking about my position. I believe that the tree of knowledge of
good and evil served a purpose other than the conventional idea of
testing the duo who were doomed to fail by omniscience of God and
perfect hindsight. That was the premise that was lost on
you.
"Fact
is, intellectual honesty demands an admission that REDEFINING
atheism as lack of belief is an evasive debate tactic to avoid the
burden of proof. Another intellectual cop-out, which of course
atheists will deny it with all their might. See http://carm.org/i-lack-belief-god"
Intellectual honesty? Demands? Is it necessity or mandatory or a
right? By which or whose standard? Is it God's? Or is it just
you?
"Looks like a
face-saving tactic to me. Kena exposed for blunder then turnaround
and said the misinterpretations were
intentional. Duh...."
Would I be of concern of your un-Jesus like ways? *waves to ward
off the irritant.*