A Premium Car Worthy of When America Was Truly Great - And Now Available

[saforwardlook]

If you go back and read my previous posts I've already countered this argument regarding reversal of onus. It's actually quite humorous that a religious apologist is demanding the use of the scientific method while engaging in blind faith. I suppose that is what is called cognitive dissonance. But you are right I'm done with this discussion.

I am not demanding the use of the scientific method, just consistency in the use of its results. Blind faith? You didn't hear a word I said, but I predicted that early on. "Religious apologist", "cognitive dissonance" are terms that guys like Hitchens uses, but they don't compel me any more than straight talk. Yes, lets learn from this exercise. Have a good day!

 

[saforwardlook]

[QUOTE="saforwardlook,
But we can agree that B7 blue 300 convertibles are more desirable than crimson ones!

Now THAT is an opinion. If nothing else, there are two standards. Convertibles and pick ups always look best in red. Blue is for police cars[/QUOTE]

Actually, Will, I didn't say that B7 blue convertibles looked better, just that for me I felt I would enjoy owning and driving a blue one more (that is the discussion Carsten and I had at length on his last visit). I am not the kind of guy that wants to drive around in California traffic in a red convertible with a white interior and have to put up with all the gawkers. A B7 blue one looks more discrete and has the same beautiful lines. I actually like the way both of them look and many other colors too. But I don't really like driving convertibles out here any way much of the time due to intense sun and traffic. They are more for the open road where traffic is light. If I should drive one, it would be in the early morning out here and I would head east out to the desert or mountains. To each his own! I do very much admire your convertible - don't get me wrong. It is beautiful! Just not for me (but I do have one with a TNT engine, crimson & white just like yours, but a 1970 model, and it is a total project - but it runs.) I will focus on the blue one though, probably selling the red/white one that I liked early on but not after reflecting more on it.

 

[drpreposterous]

Once again a religious apologist reversing the onus of proof. It is those that make unreasonable and preposterous claims that have the onus of proof.

That's just the thing, Fratz, many--maybe even most of us--who identify as believers don't make any claims or push our beliefs in anyone's faces. And most of us don't pretend there's a scientific process to the existence of God. We simply have faith. And, I put it to you, whether you subscribe to a Big Bang theory or by a longer drawn out process, by identifying as an atheist, (and by calling beliefs "fairy tales" and "nonsense,") have drawn your conclusions based on belief, not science. Honestly, in the realm of reason, only the agnostic has credibility to me. As a believer, I acknowledge that. But then, as Pascal once said, "The heart has reason that reason knows not."

 

[Fratzog]

This thread started with the assertion that early America was different because God mattered more than money. So believers don't make any claims? Re-read the thread. That was only the first of plenty of religious claims made in this thread to which I didn't turn the other cheek.

Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. Frater Ravus