with last words being from atheist "You're closed-minded".
I see bias. ^^
mainly because out of arguments.
Mainly because out of arguments? Philosophy doesn't take absolute truth, proof or evidence. I've argued a few times that if God were real, he is evil or at least not perfect.
Trying to spark that we're using immature responses is a poor argument in itself, considering that I'm nearly certain that we've cleared every line of text relevant to the debate with a well-thought out response.
This implies "One cannot either prove or disprove God's existence by logical means".
Which is a cover to him not being real.
Right now I've no reason to believe he's real, rather than countless people - many of which I know have been indoctrinated, saying he is. It's essentially the same as a conspiracy theory.
that could only be approached philosophically.
Which is more or less irrelevant to the main topic, though. To me, philosophy can't be proven, nor disproven - if you say it's wrong to kill, what actually PROVES that rather than the subjective measurement of how much worth is someones life, relative to say... the costs to keep them alive ?
Most people (and I) would say it is wrong to kill to save food / finances, but I wouldn't be surprised if others disagree, and we can't really prove them wrong, can we?
If it is a philosophy brought by the Bible or by "God", then I'm sure it can already be obtained by other means that follow a more logical approach.
thus rendering the argument useless due to the above
Said this before on this thread I'll say it again - don't generalize Atheists, I'm not gonna do that, and neither has others.
Stickying this - I'd rather say yes.
As would I.
one has to define what IS open-mindedness and closed-mindedness.
Again, philosophical, but in this case it could bare something useful.
Open-mindedness is the capability to accept something with reliable evidence / proof, with the ability to maintain distance in terms of how much you folow this, for preparation of another possibility. On the other hand, it doesn't mean you're open to things without logic or reason (Openmindedness =/= Naive), you can be just as stubborn against a point as the next person - open-mindedness and closed-mindedness are more or less
what you're going to argue against.
Closed-mindedness is the unreasonable distrust / hate / refusal of things. In this case it would apply to religious people being unable to accept a fact or near-100% proven theory, that has more ground than a religious stance, or an Atheist not keeping perspective that explanations > cheesy remarks, and goes with the latter.
So far I was accused of closed-mindedness several times within this thread,
You've been at this for more than 200 pages, it doesn't surprise me.
while being able to clearly support my position from both scientific and philosophical sides
I've not been around for much of this threads time, but I'm sure some people would disagree. Are there pages / arguments in particular that you think have remained unanswered?
Evolution? Covered, accepted as not contradicting the belief.
This is another thing :/
What is the belief though? Not all Christians believe the world is 6,000 years old, yet they still believe that God is watching over them and they will burn in eternal hell if they are (to God) "bad people".
So hopefully this is a refreshing argument.
It is to me :P
- H