If Christ died on the cross for all of humanity

Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be a logical fallacy.

A common feature of appeals to motive is that only the possibility of a motive (however small) is shown, without showing the motive actually existed or, if the motive did exist, that the motive played a role in forming the argument and its conclusion. Indeed, it is often assumed that the mere possibility of motive is evidence enough.

The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference. There are actually two types of this fallacy, both of which are known by the same name (because of the high degree of similarity).

The first type of fallacy of Composition arises when a person reasons from the characteristics of individual members of a class or group to a conclusion regarding the characteristics of the entire class or group (taken as a whole). More formally, the "reasoning" would look something like this.

1. Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
2. Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.

It's a rare treat when I get to point out two logical fallacies in one post, and for this I thank you lol

First of all, we get upset with you because you A) don't present any evidence of anything, and I guess that happens because B) I don't think you or any of us know what you're arguing. Also, C) you keep insinuating that we are in some way afraid of something.

Now, I'm not sure you've considered this (as you seem like somebody who "considers" much of anything), but the atheist/agnostic viewpoint is SCARY. Very scary. For a long time I was a coward for clinging to my beliefs as a young Christian... I believed for a long time because it was scary to believe the alternative. Finally, in high school, I realized that all this was "unbelievable" in the sense that I could no longer justify practicing that (or any religion) because there was no reason for me to believe any of it was true, and the agnostic/atheistic viewpoint made (and still makes) far more sense to me as a rational individual.

Why you continue to call us cowards is beyond me, because if you consider for three seconds what it means to be an atheist/agnostic and try to compare that with the beliefs of a theist, atheism is far more unsettling and takes a strong will to accept.

*don't seem like somebody who considers anything

Rostos:

I'm promise I'm not trying to be an asshole... seeing what you have written about your beliefs, I think something like this would interest you:

https://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Bible-Thomas/dp/0807077143

It's called the Jefferson Bible (written by Thomas Jefferson of course)... it focuses strictly on Christ's teaching about love, peace, etc. It uses the story of his life to help others live a pious existence, and takes out the "miracles" or "magic" if you will (virgin birth, resurrection, and so on). I think of all the people arguing your viewpoint, you are the only one who is genuinely seeking to follow the actual principles taught by Jesus' life story. I think this book is perfect for somebody like you who mostly appreciates the idea that Christ's story should only be used as a model to live a good life, and not necessarily a vehicle to show miracles and what have you. It's definitely a radical notion but I think this book gets to the core idea of the religion and leaves out the things that one might question as "unbelievable." I hope you see that I'm being genuine here because I think your search for answers is equally as genuine, and I hope you find what you are looking for.

WAIT!! WAIT ONE DAMN SECOND!!

Wow Ex4life, 

The problem, Offensive, is that if someone believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old, or the noah actually built an ark large enough to fit 10 million animals AND actually found 10 million animals, then that person cannot be taken seriously, because obviously that person is a moron.

And people are constantly switching to atheism.  Happens all the time...  Stop trying to back your point with your logical fallacies.  Those arguments won't fly here.  And Kitty is right, anyone who believes that stuff is clearly a moron, and should be getting medical attention because his brain does not work...

Yes Nobel prize winners that win for quantum electrodynamics that switch to Christianity are morons dude. Geez, atleast say something that doesn't make u look so dam stupid. 

Offensive: IF YOU THINK THE EARTH IS ONLY 6,000 YEARS OLD, YOU ARE A MORON BECAUSE THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN 100% FALSE.

There are MANY intelligent people that are atheists.  I would not involve them in the discussion because it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to back an argument?  Do you understand logical fallacies?  No, of course you don't.  If you think naming someone who is intelligent and believes in god passes for an argument, you are sorely mistaken...  The issue here is that the unintelligent of the world (you) can not think at a higher level like the rest of us, and therefore can not have a discussion at our level, because you are unaware that a higher level of thinking exists.  This is why it is pointless to argue with peons, because in order to do so one must lower their level of thinking, which could not possibly result in an intelligent conversation.  So you see, the problem here is you.

Sometimes the mind cannot grasp things. Like I said earlier, if I told you millions of microscopic organisms lived on your body a hundred years ago you would have laughed and called me a moron. It would not have made sense. U couldn't get your head around it. On that note, thanks again for posting all of that Ex4life

Yea, you wrote some BS about how he only needed 16,000 animals.  What a joke.  If you think only 16,000 animals out of 10,000,000 is acceptable, then you are even dumber than I thought.  Do you believe the creation story too? 

6,000 years old

Let me put this into perspective for you guys...

The bible says the earth is 6,000 years old...
The earth is actually about 5 billion years old...

The bible is so far off, it would be like me telling you that the distance from New york to Los Angeles is 18 feet...........

Real close...

Keep believing the scientists, the bible talks about the Earth being round, those geniuses (scientists) thousands years later said it was flat. Imagine the forum back then. All the geniuses like Mikniks would be calling everyone morons for thinking it was round. How did that work out?

Laughing at me and calling me names; acting childish, does absolutely nothing accept help you feel better about yourself... and the fact that none of you want to read my posts, and tell me how I am wrong, strengthens what I say all the more.

No dummy, the bible says the earth is like a circle.  It describes it like being similar to a pancake...  That is not "round"...