Mock dialogue of the Theist/Atheist discussion here.

[Mystic]

Ok I need a break. One week I'm not coming on these forums.

Jenny A, I will open a thread about subjective and objective value after a week.

I need a break. I getting frustrated because I practically been living on this forum for a week.

[Jenny A]

Ok I need a break. One week I'm not coming on these forums.

Jenny A, I will open a thread about subjective and objective value after a week.

I need a break. I getting frustrated because I practically been living on this forum for a week.

No worries. See you later.

[GrandizerII]

. Not to battle, and argue over the points. Not that you do that, 

I do that. 

But this complaint/whining is heard. You watch from now on the dialogues are going to get better.

No, sorry, MysticKnight, they won't generally get better than they are now. The problem is you feel like they need to get better, but I don't agree with this at all because as much as I respect your right to your beliefs I can't see arguments for God as rational arguments worthy of better dialogues.

[The Grand Nudger]

Go chase some skirts!  Have fun amigo.

[Rhondazvous]

When I was a believer, I never bothered trying to get nonbelievers to validate my reasons for believing.  I think you have to ask yourself why this is important to you.

Hmm....and you ended up leaving faith. On the other hand, dialogue with people of different faiths as well as Atheists, has lead me to stronger faith in my religion (Even though I left it for five years).

I feel this non-dialogue, I will just rely on my own reasoning/subjective experience, if there is a true religion is not the way God wanted us to go about it.

I think rational dialogue is the means to come to agreement. Not everyone can we expect to walk into the door of light and see everything he needs to see and that's it, leave it that, you either in or out.

Rather I believe we ought to have rational dialogue. But the reason why we disagreeing, is because are not going about this sincerely.

So the solution is a change of attitude towards dialogue.

Ingenious!
Tell people you believe, then if they disagree, accuse them of being insincere.

Of course, dialogue will strengthen your faith if you play by those rules. You can’t lose.

And BTW, how do you know what god wants? Does he speak to you in an audible voice that can be clearly distinguished from your own thoughts?

[Brakeman]

Ok I need a break. One week I'm not coming on these forums.

Jenny A, I will open a thread about subjective and objective value after a week.

I need a break. I getting frustrated because I practically been living on this forum for a week.

Maybe you just need to fly around on a winged horse. That must have calmed Mo' to go flying in space with a flying horse.


Ha ha.

[Heat]

The best theist is the one who doesn't tell people they're a theist.

Atheists tend to have better arguments, theists tend to have more emotional attachment.

In the end of the day, if you aren't interested in having a serious discussion based on evidence, or considering that your belief may be false, don't tell everyone in the first place. Once you claim it to be true, there's no turning back, you have to accept that you will then be questioned on it's validity, so if you're not interested in being questioned, don't give the option.

[The Valkyrie]

Yes. Don't try to convince atheists of your deity until you have conclusive evidence of its existence.

[Edwardo Piet]

In other words: Don't try to convince atheists. Hehe.

[robvalue]

Since you're not responding to my points, which others have similarly raised, I will just put down my thoughts for others to see. This is for your benefit as well.

I think you're very conflicted and you can't reconcile your beliefs with reality. Clearly so, because whenever someone disagrees with you, you start talking about "demons and dark forces". With this mental attitude, you can and will never learn when you are wrong because you just explain anyway any differences with magic. This idea undermines your entire position, because any such hazard applies equally to you. Everything you say is also subject to whatever these "dark forces" are, and so if you're putting that forward as a premise, you should not believe anything you yourself think is true, because it may be being warped by these things. So either we agree to focus on what is being said and what we can demonstrate in reality, or we talk about magic and achieve nothing.

It really is pointless. Watch this: "There is no God. If you disagree with me, you're affected by a demon."

What does that achieve? Even if it's true, it's a pointless statement to make which does not further conversation. (I mean, even if you really are affected by a demon.) The inference does not hold, even if it happens to be true in some cases. (Which we never have any reason to believe it us, since demons like most religious statements are unfalsifiable and therefor useless.)

You simply can't acknowledge that you might be wrong. You talk about us as if we're just wrong, and need correcting. Very bad attitude to have. Even if you pay lip service to this point, as soon as you're into an argument, you're straight back to assuming you're right without evidence.

Your logic is bad. Even if it was good, you just have arguments. Arguments are not evidence. Until you understand this point, you're banging your head against a wall talking to any sceptic. Arguments take a simplified model of reality, and produce a result (when applied properly) only relevant to that simplified reality. It's not necessarily true that the result applies in any meaningful way to our reality, due to the nature of the simplifications. Therefor it is very important to check the results with evidence. If there is none, it is just too bad I'm afraid. A sceptic has no need to prove you wrong, or to even say you are wrong. A sceptic just dismisses anything not supported by evidence because it's mere conjecture.

We don't believe your beliefs. End of story. Why this matters so much to you says way more about you than us.