{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/24/2015 3:04:46 PM
1
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?"
English
-
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.
