From your quote I replied. You kept trying to incorporate people groups. My answer stands.
For my purposes of the debate, it was more than sufficient for an individual tribal member's instance of being "saved". You understood this, and knew this. Please, this nonsense has got to stop.
Sorry james, you are not being honest on this point.
You specifically used the word 'Tribals' - plural
It wasn't until I forced you to refine your definition. Now you want to back track some more citing another reference - my my james you are all over the board - little wonder you are recognized for goal post moving extraordinare.
This is a classical fallacy of forcing me to prove the negative. You are proposing this exception, so the onus is on you to prove why you assert this exception.
Looking to split some more frogs hairs I see. Why does it have to prove the negative james - you are open to prove the positive as well. You just assume off the bat that.
You on the other hand employ the same attack you accuse me of - that being that since the proposition has not been "proven" (at least to your mobile standards), it cannot be considered true and therefore must be false.
Bottom line is james, this is just a smokescreen to the fact that you cannot deny the proposition I made - just your response to it. Since you are incapable of proving it wrong via positive means, you try to turn the tables and accuse me of what you then do. Very obamaesque of you.
You prefer to know of God through the words brought to you by mere men?
When those words of God are validated and protected by that same God - yes. What has the 'god' atheism brought us james? Not a whole heck of a lot to show.
The violent confrontations, the bloody wars over what's God-said,
Compared to the last 100 years and what atheistic countries did by the hundreds of millions - just because the people believed in God.
the formation and compilation of the Bible by committee, all could have been avoided by direct, individual revelaton. If your deity can preserve the scriptures, then why are there so many versions of it?
Ignorance on the formation of the bible as well. Tsk, Tsk. james, really. By 'versions' you better define yourself better.
Why do you lie and bear false witness, Godzilla? Why do you force me to call you a liar?
Only yesterday (and one out of, literally, thousands, of comments):
I quick screened your profile - i noted 3 negative comments about islam, yet the the posts of yours were overwhelming anti-Christian in nature in the first four pages. Funny that none of the anti-islam comments were in threads in the thousands as this one. YOur evidence is weak.
No, said I DON'T believe in it. Is 'bald' a hair colour, Godzilla?
Whats the matter james - afraid of the 'believe' word? You believe there is no God. Better take the advice of your fellow atheists james -
If Atheism is a Religion... Then Bald is a Hair Color
Oh, but only works if I am making atheism into a religion james. Taking the statement at face value - you BELIEVE there is no God. Are you denying that statement? Atheists hold to a common belief - there is no God. BTW baldness is a lack of hair, atheism is the lack of a God.
From your quote I replied. You kept trying to incorporate people groups. My answer stands.
Which quote? The one I began with, specifies individuals. Why do you love to fudge and hair-split so much, Godzilla? I am seeking anomalies to the accepted dogma. Even one case would suffice to serve the purpose at hand. This is not so hard to understand, but your motives speak of intent to obfuscate the debate and cloud the argument. I ONLY NEED TO POINT TO ONE example.
Sorry James, you are not being honest on this point.
You specifically used the word 'Tribals' - plural
Yes, LOL, so? Did I mean 'tribals' to indicate all tribals on Earth, or as a collective term for those individual tribal members, who are "saved" without having heard your religious dogma? Tell me, Godzilla! If I have already invoked the individual in the beginning of this whole argument where I began with the ignorant tribal problem, and if you jumped into the thread sometime later and MADE YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS about whether I was referring to the collection of individual "saved" tribals or whether I was referring to *ALL* tribals, on Earth, it is you who's at fault. I clearly began by invoking the individual. My later comments using the plural, 'tribals' was to refer to a collection of such individuals. This is easily deduced by following all my comments on the WHOLE thread, right from the beginning. Go ahead, and be my guest in doing so. You are merely employing a distraction technique to blur the argument - which was in answering whether such tribals (now don't go "Bingo!" on the plural form, LOL!) are saved or not. Try again, Godzilla.
It wasn't until I forced you to refine your definition. Now you want to back track some more citing another reference - my my James you are all over the board - little wonder you are recognized for goal post moving extraordinare.
Yawn, Godzilla. I have more than amply clarified my stance on this. Go back, and try again. It is not my fault if you're too lazy to read the entire thread, FROM where the whole argument began.
Your point not only failed to stand, it got swept away, Godzilla. It was a counter-productive tactic that you employed to distract from the question at hand - as to how such tribals are "saved" without scriptural knowledge.
Looking to split some more frogs hairs I see. Why does it have to prove the negative James - you are open to prove the positive as well. You just assume off the bat that.
LOL, Godzilla, you surely make great, unintentional jokes.
YOU suggested that I cannot prove that "angels" didn't exist to tell those tribals about your deity.
This is what comprises of asking someone to prove a negative.
Which, if you can comprehend simple English, implies that you believe that "angels" COULD have told those tribals and thus "saved" them (your belief), and thus you have to prove this to me ("proving the positive"). Your failure to recognise your attempt at making me prove a negative, is documented on this thread and any attempt to shy away from that will only bring you embarrassment. Why do you want that, Godzilla?
You on the other hand employ the same attack you accuse me of - that being that since the proposition has not been "proven" (at least to your mobile standards), it cannot be considered true and therefore must be false.
Wrong, Godzilla. You again display your incapacity to recognise your invoking of the fallacy of 'argumentum ad ignorantiam. Go read up on the material I posted about it, earlier. This time, spend some time to understand it - go slower than you usually do.
I have declared more than once that to prove your dogmatic theories wrong, all I need to do is raise a contradiction (the tribal case, the clone, the god-outside-time-ordering-sequenced-events, etc.).
Bottom line is james, this is just a smokescreen to the fact that you cannot deny the proposition I made - just your response to it. Since you are incapable of proving it wrong via positive means, you try to turn the tables and accuse me of what you then do. Very obamaesque of you.
LOL, again invoking your fallacious "argument," Godzilla. Because I caught you attempting that, I am now Obama. Wow, I wish I could hand you a medal, Godzilla - for you surely humour me!
When those words of God are validated and protected by that same God - yes. What has the 'god' atheism brought us James? Not a whole heck of a lot to show.
Distraction, Godzilla! You must learn to make more sense. Have you heard of the term, non-sequitor? LOL!
Compared to the last 100 years and what atheistic countries did by the hundreds of millions - just because the people believed in God.
LOL, Godzilla, please think before you ink! I am not performing a comparison game here. Your fallacious "argument" basically comprises of claiming "look, my guys only killed 100,000+ people in deciding what comprises the Bible, 'your' guys killed much more, hence my guys are right!"
Sheer nonsense, Godzilla. The truth is not a popularity contest. The fact remains, deciding what the Bible is made up of, all numerous versions of it, that is, invoked violence which direct, individual revelation would have avoided. Yet, you prefer the spurious "guarantees" of man-based conveyance of what is purpoted to be the "truth" over direct, divine revelation! You are a strange believer, Godzilla!
Ignorance on the formation of the Bible as well. Tsk, Tsk. ames, really. By 'versions' you better define yourself better.
Do Bibles vary in content, Godzilla? Yes or no, Godzilla? LOL.
I quick screened your profile - i noted 3 negative comments about islam, yet the the posts of yours were overwhelming anti-Christian in nature in the first four pages. Funny that none of the anti-islam comments were in threads in the thousands as this one. Your evidence is weak.
LOL, Godzilla, you first accuse me of doing something I didn't (whereby you ended up bearing false witness) and the outright lie on my stance on Islam. You searched the first four pages? Wow, Godzilla! Report back when you search through the 4,000-odd comments of mine, the 1000-odd articles posted by me, and then judge. You noted three negative comments by me about Islam in your lazy attempt at examining the evidence, and then declare that my evidence is weak? Did you ever come across anything positive that I said about Islam? Why that haste in making that idiotic judgment, then? Why are you so deceptive, Godzilla? Don't you think you should apologise for this?
Taking the statement at face value - you BELIEVE there is no God. Are you denying that statement?
Forcing me to prove a negative again, Godzilla? LOL! It is for you to prove God exists. I raised the problem of deity and time, and about who is under who in this arrangment. Resolve it first.