david f,

Giving up so easily?

It's what I've come to expect.

david f,

<<You will believe what you will. To me your beliefs are superstition.>>

We can go nowhere in our discussions when you use an ad hominem (Guilt by association) fallacy against me. See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association

This fallacious reasoning does not enter into discussion as to why you regard my beliefs as 'superstition'. Instead, you wipe them off the discussion board by associating my Christian views negatively with superstition.

Using a logical fallacy prevents rational dialogue.

Banjo,

<<Christianity confronted me with the God hypothesis which I took very seriously and investigated for the best part of my life before concluding that it was insufficiently substantiated for adoption on the basis of existing evidence.>>

That's not how God treats you and this is the evidence He has provided:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that PEOPLE ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE" (Romans 1:18-20).

One minute after your last breath, you won't be able to answer God, "You didn't provide enough evidence for me to believe in you". His answer will be: 'You have no excuse'. The biblical message is, 'People have to die once. After that, God will judge them' (Hebrews 9:27).

omygodnoitsitsitsyou,

<<Notwithstanding his undoubted sporting prowess he was nevertheless an elitist bigot against anybody whose lifestyle he disapproved of. He wore the Australian jersey ... not the folau jersey. He represented the country and all who live here no matter who they are. He stood for ALL australians.. not just the handful he happened to approve of. If he's got a beef he might like to take it up with Ian Roberts.>>

When Folau made the comments about the nature of sinners who would go to hell, he was not what you have proclaimed him to be:

+ 'an elite bigot'. He shared his beliefs on a social media platform that obviously clashes with your intolerance of his beliefs.

+ 'He wore the Australian jersey ... not the folau jersey;, False! He was not wearing any jersey when he made those comments.

+ 'He represented the country and all who live here no matter who they are'. False again. When he made the comments he was NOT representing Australia. Why must you create such an embellished story?

+ 'He stood for ALL australians'. So sir! He stood for Australians who support the Scriptures where it lists the sinners who will not inherit God's kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

+ 'If he's got a beef he might like to take it up with Ian Roberts'. That's your spin. If Israel Folau has a warning to all sinners about their need for repentance and forgiveness by God, he chose a social media platform that was suited to his message. He did not speak as a rugby player.

I will add that, in my view, he should have used gentleness to deliver the same message. I also understand he's a champion rugby union player who is used to the rough and tumble of the game and is not an elite lawn bowler.

david f,

<<I don't understand how saying that Christianity is nonsense is imposing my view on anybody. Don't I have a right to state my opinion? There are many belief systems. In my view they are all nonsense. >>

Here you go again with your fallacious reasoning - Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association): http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association

<<There is no evidence that there is a God. There is no evidence that the scriptures are anything but the work of humans. >>

They are your assertions/opinions. They do not relate to the topic of this thread, 'Outspoken Christians will not be tolerated'.

Why don't you write 2 articles and submit to OLO for publication: (1) There is no evidence for the existence of God: Here are the reasons, and (2) The Christian Scriptures are the work of human beings and there is no evidence to support their trustworthiness.

Dear OzSpen,

Please explain how pointing out the flaws of a belief system have anything at all to do with guilt by association. Ad hominem means attacking the person instead of speaking to the argument. That has nothing to do with guilt by association. I have not attacked you in any way. You brought your superstition into the discussion, and I called it what it is.

<<There is no evidence that there is a God. There is no evidence that the scriptures are anything but the work of humans. >>

Those are not my assumptions. There is no evidence for either the existence of a god or that the scriptures are not solely the work of humans like any other books. If there is evidence for either, state the nature of the evidence.

I have written articles which have been on olo.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10065 points you to my article:

God is a human invention

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10790 points you to my article:

There is no God in which we all Trust

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=4977 points you to all the other articles I have put on olo.

Please learn what ad hominem means. I have commented on your silly superstition which lacks any evidence to support it. Belief is not evidence. Even though many believe in God there is no evidence for her existence. Go and learn.