I disagree. I have found IANS to ever be honest. And meticulous. That's his defining characteristic, the main reason few people can argue with him. It's why he can pull out your posts to show you what you said, his reply, and then point out the mistakes in your reasoning.<quoted text>
Right proof is a higher standard
I remember last time this came up you suggested maybe he forgot he said it and I asked you how does someone forgot they believe its possible creator gods exist?
I know the deal Hididng, IANS lies and his friends all come running to say maybe he forgot or evidence isn't proof even though he never bothered to say that is why he was denying it or jab is different than slam
He has repeated a pattern of denying what he has said
He denied he said anything to indicate all or most Christians are indoctrinated and then went on to say Christians think the way their churches tell them to
He said I got him all wrong when I said he wanted to limit the church's influence on society and politics and claimed he instead was trying to reduce them to all volunteers which he said later he already believes they are and then admitted of course his goal is to limit its influence on society and politics
He denies he was implying Christians lack empathy for those they hurt and then went on to show thats exactly what he meant
The list goes on and on
IANS deals in dishonesty
You and I aren't so meticulous, so as we write, we refine our ideas and explanations - kind of working them out for ourselves while explaining them to others. Writing like this is generative; it creates new ideas. Hence, your understanding of "evidence" and "proof" has changed through this discussion. B/c IANS began with a clear idea of how both words are defined, and linked to your earlier posts, he was able to show how you altered your interpretation of his writing and understanding of those words as you've gone along.
If what I wrote above is correct - that you refined your ideas rather than dissembled - then IANS' successful demonstration of your changing interpretation of his initial claims more accurately represents development of your thought than dishonesty on your part. If true, then IANS is mistaken in calling you dishonest, despite that altering one's definitions in the midst of an argument resembles dissembling.(I left those last two words that way 'cause they make a mess of the tongue!)
Hmmm. I'd have to agree that Christians have little to no empathy for those they hurt. I don't think lacking empathy is limited to Christians though, but all peoples dealing with other peoples.
The biggest problem in Christianity (or most religions) is the "I'm absolutely right and you're utterly wrong and therefore immature" stance. Christians believe, violently, that it is their duty to destroy other people's cultures and religions and make everyone Christian.
Tell me where the empathy lies in forcing people to your religion?
Now don't get me wrong - all peoples have done this in their history, so I'm not saying "only Christians are X."
History in brief: the European expansion and the world's greatest ethnocides and genocides in large part b/c of Christianity's need to make everyone good Christians.
Let's acknowledge a lot of greed on the part of rulers, too, and move on to contemporary times. In Japan, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are trying to make inroads here. They don't think our culture is good enough and that we should become Christian. That's pretty umempathetic.
Or take any of the Christians on here who cannot admit that other believers in other religions subjectively experience their deities as real as equal to any Christian "knows" God is in their life.
Sorry, but religion does not spawn empathy for other peoples. It does for other believers of the same religion, but not for outsiders - b/c you believers "know" everyone else is wrong. You have the blinders on to other people. That's not empathy; it's ignorance.