(July 7, 2011 at 12:46 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote: You have to realize that these people have spent their whole lives coming up with arguments that at face value seem to be factual and intellectual. These arguments are not meant for people like you who will go outside their circle to find the answers, but are more meant for people who will just agree with it because it sounds smart. Christian apologists rely on sounding smart and having unquestioning followers.

Oh, and the obsession with boobies never goes away.

yeah ive noticed that. when i try talking to my christian friends they argue i have good points and it doesnt make sense but they still say im worong. They dont say why or how they just accept it! so frustrating.

i think apologists missed a golden opportunity with that. If anything ever suggested a loving god, its boobs.

Amen to that.

let's not forget ribs and beer, especially beer

http://www.extremelysmart.com/humor/beervsrel.php

You're too kind but we're glad to help. It comes with practice of debating with apologists and seeing the patterns.

If you haven't done so already, google "logical fallacies". That will help. Some of the most commonly used are "special pleading", "false dilemma", "begging the question", "circular reasoning", "non sequitur" and my favorite, the abuse of the "ad hoc hypothesis"

(July 7, 2011 at 12:41 pm)searchingforanswers Wrote: its kinda sad really cuz i can tell they think im in some sort of otherwordly trouble. every debate ends with "well you dont know how time you have. i hope you see the light before its over."

This is probably the most despicable part of Islamo-Christianity and what makes these religions so dangerous and so prone to violence and intolerance: The faith-based salvation scheme. The terrifying images of Hell are what drive so many believers to commit acts of violence. After all, if killing an unrepentant heathen like me will save their child like you, why not?

Here's my favorite answer:

OK, let's assume God exists.
Let's also assume there is an afterlife (the two are separate issues)
Let's also assume that we retain memory and personality in the afterlife.
Let's also assume that there's a judgment day to determine our fate in the afterlife.

All that assumed for the sake of argument, let's say we're dead. We're standing before God. On what basis is it most likely that God will judge our character? What question do you think a just and good God would ask to evaluate our worth?

1. How well did we love?
2. Is the universe better or worse off for having known us?
3. Did we conduct ourselves with integrity and respect for others?
or
4. Did we join the right church?
5. Did we have the correct but unproven metaphysical beliefs?
6. Did we remember to perform the right rituals?

It's easy to understand why the priest, pastor or mullah would tell us that faith is important. It's not clear why this is important to an attention hungry and jealous god who yet hides his existence.

These questions also underscore why a faith-based salvation scheme is neither necessary nor helpful to promote morality.

wow thanks man. im gonna have a good time trying to pinpoint all of those fallacies lol. and i like your rebuttal for the salvation argument. Ive always thought similiar but didnt quite know how to word it.

(July 7, 2011 at 1:47 pm)searchingforanswers Wrote: wow thanks man. im gonna have a good time trying to pinpoint all of those fallacies lol. and i like your rebuttal for the salvation argument. Ive always thought similiar but didnt quite know how to word it.

You've inspired me to start another thread on this topic in the philosophy section.

@OP: Not to hurt your head... but logic is itself a circular system. Why is logic true? because it is logical. Why is that so? Because it is.

One either accepts logic as a basis, or they don't. And if they do it is entirely on faith

sigh, negative. One can attempt to invalidate logic. It doesn't require faith. Logic isn't a thing..it is a set of observations. There is no "Logic" floating around forcing things to conform to itself.

(July 7, 2011 at 2:23 pm)Rhythm Wrote: sigh, negative. One can attempt to invalidate logic. It doesn't require faith. Logic isn't a thing..it is a set of observations. There is no "Logic" floating around forcing things to conform to itself.

Logic is a thing. It is three rules.

A = A. (Identity)
A ≠ not A. (Contradiction)
A must be either A or not A. (Excluded Middle)

And this is either taken on faith to be true (and hence mathematics are also true)... or it is taken to be not true (and hence scientists are smoking the crack-rock, or flarp)

And there is this thing called tautology (identity). Cheese is cheese by tautology. It cannot be not cheese. It cannot be a third option.

And logic has only itself to support itself

How's the search for the squared circle coming along? And you're right, I should have been more careful in my wording. Lets people play games with the words, believe you know a little bit about my frustration there..Judas.