Paul the Apostle is the Ur-Example of an individual experiencing a sudden overwhelming personal urge to convert, and the primary model around which Evangelical Christianity is based.
Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 even lay out the mystical mechanics of this conversation, straight from the horse’s mouth.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
Yes, it’s equal work for each person Googling it. However, if the person making the claim Googled it one time and listed the chapters and verses, no one else would have to. It’s not one vs one, it’s one vs however many people read their post. The person making the claim should post the proof so a dozen people (or more, sometimes less) don’t have to research it themselves. Otherwise, that person should not make the claim they can’t defend.
I like how you posted chapter and verse… I just searched them (I use DDG, though it doesn’t matter) and clicked on the BibleGateway link. You used to be able to choose your Bible. I’d always pick KJV because it feels like the original to me. I got NIV, which I kinda respect for making things more accessible while not diluting the message. Either way, it’s just mystical mechanics and doesn’t really get into the whole “personal relationship with God” thing.
As a non-Christian (who has some opinions about Bibles, apparently — go figure, people are complicated) I always just assumed that because Christ had relationships with the disciples, when he re-integrated with God or however that went after the resurrection, He craved personal relationships with everyone, but I had no chapter/verse to point to, just what I heard from “true Christians.” I guess I never cared enough to fact check them.
Pointing to 1700 year old document
“Prove it doesn’t say something!”
“Brother, you can just Google this”
“Fuck you, asshole, how dare you make me do even the modest amount of leg work. Also…”
“I simply cannot read”
Paul the Apostle is the Ur-Example of an individual experiencing a sudden overwhelming personal urge to convert, and the primary model around which Evangelical Christianity is based.
Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 even lay out the mystical mechanics of this conversation, straight from the horse’s mouth.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
Yes, it’s equal work for each person Googling it. However, if the person making the claim Googled it one time and listed the chapters and verses, no one else would have to. It’s not one vs one, it’s one vs however many people read their post. The person making the claim should post the proof so a dozen people (or more, sometimes less) don’t have to research it themselves. Otherwise, that person should not make the claim they can’t defend.
I like how you posted chapter and verse… I just searched them (I use DDG, though it doesn’t matter) and clicked on the BibleGateway link. You used to be able to choose your Bible. I’d always pick KJV because it feels like the original to me. I got NIV, which I kinda respect for making things more accessible while not diluting the message. Either way, it’s just mystical mechanics and doesn’t really get into the whole “personal relationship with God” thing.
As a non-Christian (who has some opinions about Bibles, apparently — go figure, people are complicated) I always just assumed that because Christ had relationships with the disciples, when he re-integrated with God or however that went after the resurrection, He craved personal relationships with everyone, but I had no chapter/verse to point to, just what I heard from “true Christians.” I guess I never cared enough to fact check them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Okay, but claims presented without evidence can be summarily dismissed without evidence.
Sealioning is badgering people for details after they’ve met the burden of proof. If you haven’t even done that, you’re just trolling.
I’ve already cited multiple Bible verses.
But these are trivially easy to research on your own.
deleted by creator
Wasn’t Christopher Hitchens one of the guys who accepted that Iraq had WNDs without any evidence?
I believe he also smoked himself to death, because he wasn’t satisfied with the scientific link between cigarettes and cancer.
deleted by creator
Haha. That’s not even the right fallacy.