I disagree. I think that argument cuts both ways. Perhaps it is we who don't want to be convinced. As an example, I asked you if you would consider listening to an interesting perspective from a pastor. You declined, and I respect you and your decision enough to not push it upon you. Yet, at the same time, I see an internal inconsistency in your philosophical position. Please do not think this is an attack on your integrity. It's just an observation that puzzles me.<quoted text>
Oh, bullshit. There is no other way to describe your lame excuse here.
I expected better from you, than this tired old excuse.
Skeptics may take longer to come around-- but if there really **is** evidence in support of something?
They **will** come around.
Clearly, your god is incapable of ... being convincing.
Your statement was that you wouldn't listen to the podcast on the A PRIORI assumption that the pastor's presentation was based upon emotion. Yet in one of your recent replies to me, you stated that the evil and suffering in this world is offensive to you, and is a key reason in why you lost your faith.
Evil and suffering are subjects that affect our sensibilities. Or at least they should. Those who aren't offended by evil and suffering are usually considered to be pathological. This is where I notice an inconsistent philosophy. You're justifiably emotionally offended by evil and suffering, but yet you prefer not to listen to a pastor's podcast on the A PRIORI ASSUMPTION that his presentation is purely emotional.
Do you see why I am puzzled? Am I missing something here?