Attn: Christians, We've Heard Them Already

[DeistPaladin]

Your positions seem to be inconsistent. At the end of the post, you say “By the way, if *YOU* want to pick up either gauntlet or both, you are welcome to.” Similarly, you taunted others for not responding to two links you posted. But, if you consider the issue debunked and are not interested in any further discussion on such issues, there’s no point in other responding.

OK, I'll go slow.

"I'm not interested in re-hashing the same debate where nothing new is offered. I've already debunked these arguments. Here's the link."

"I've followed your link and read your post. Here's where you made some mistakes... (counter-arguments to the linked post ensue)."

"Ah, *now* we have something new to discuss..."

Clear?

Your challenge is to find the weakness in this post that no other Christian could. Good luck.

I agree that linking to external material and quoting a relevant section is appropriate. I disagree that linking to an internal discussion without quoting the pertinent material (the practice we’re actually discussing) is the same as linking to external material and quoting a relevant section.

Ah, yes, because clicking on a link is just so hard.

Btw, I'd taken your advice and accordingly modified my approach in this thread, copying and quoting my post, hoping Ronedee would be able to offer something of substance.

It didn't work.

The reply was a bare assertion and a repeated appeal to ridicule despite being advised against using these logical fallacies.

And you Christians wonder why you aren't taken seriously?

First, as noted above, how or why would I pick up such a gauntlet when you’ve stated you’re not interested in further discussion on the topic?

Perhaps I need to clarify. I'm not interested in further discussion until you've addressed how I've already thoroughly debunked the argument you're using.

Second, as others have since noted, your opinion of victory is just that – your opinion. Sometimes both sides walk away believing they had the upper hand, or thinking that the matter is still open.

When one side either runs away, abandoning a formal debate, it's a concession. When one side can only offer fallacies, that side has lost. And most readers who aren't indoctrinated will be able to see that.

Is this a general rule, that if someone stops replying they’ve conceded?

In a formal debate, as the one I had on the historicity of the Gospels, yes.

All of AIG. Have fun!

False comparison.

Linking to a post =/= linking to an entire forum and website.

Seriously, try creating a new post where you link to an AIG article and present it as a great argument against evolution and see how it works out for you.

No, you inferred that.

And here's your chance to clear up the confusion. What are you saying?

I could care less what you do or don't accept. I leave such determinations to the reader.

Either you’re lying about that, as you haven’t polled the readers on all threads for which you claim victory; or, you’re relying on the fact that opponents of Christianity form a majority on this board and are likely to agree with you, which is an argumentum ad populum.

Or perhaps I was just saying that your opinions aren't important to me.

No, I’ll point out that, even if you beat a single Christian, that hardly counts as debunking the position.

And here's your chance to pick up the gauntlet and succeed where the other Christian failed. Do it for Jesus!