Attn: Christians, We've Heard Them Already

[fr0d0]

I notice you have no reply to either of the threads I linked for you. Does this mean you can't do any better than the other Christians who tried?

EDIT
For your convenience, here's the debate on the historicity of the Gospels LINK

And here's the thread where I patiently explain to Christians why secular morality is superior: LINK

Enjoy!

Aww C'mon! You're teasing right?!

[DeistPaladin]

Hopefully I can find some time this week to write up a proper rebuttal for you.

Good luck. You'll need it.

[John V]

I notice you have no reply to either of the threads I linked for you.

So much for the position that this practice facilitates discussion.

Does this mean you can't do any better than the other Christians who tried?

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

[DeistPaladin]

So much for the position that this practice facilitates discussion.

No system will force Christians to answer questions they don't want to.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Fail!

1. It's a question.
2. Refusal to answer a question can be legitimately assumed to mean they don't have an answer.

[John V]

No system will force Christians to answer questions they don't want to.

Some systems will be more fruitful than others. Expecting someone to read and then respond to an entire thread will be less fruitful than just engaging in discussion without reference to another thread.

Fail!

1. It's a question.

It's a loaded question, the implication being that the theists were defeated in the linked thread, and so is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

2. Refusal to answer a question can be legitimately assumed to mean they don't have an answer.

Not necessarily. Anyone can ask a question of such broad scope that they're unlikely to get an answer on an internet forum simply because participants have limited time and interest.

[DeistPaladin]

Expecting someone to read and then respond to an entire thread will be less fruitful than just engaging in discussion without reference to another thread.

Except, as I've said, I don't like wasting my time repeating myself over and over again. I'd rather just point out how I've already fought that battle and won and challenge the Christian to do better if he/she can.

Were the tables reversed, such as Panda guy actually linking me to a thread where he already "debunked" the problem of evil or whatever, I'd have no problems quoting it and picking it apart. In fact, I've often done just this very thing.

It's a loaded question, the implication being that the theists were defeated in the linked thread, and so is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Theists were defeated in the linked thread. This is not an assumption. Further, there are many different legitimate answers he could provide, which you can't do with a loaded question. For example, "no, sorry, I haven't had time yet but will shortly."

It's a repeated challenge and a prompt for him/her to pick up the gauntlet.

Not necessarily. Anyone can ask a question of such broad scope that they're unlikely to get an answer on an internet forum simply because participants have limited time and interest.

He brought up the topic, not me. He should have time to answer the challenge that directly related to the topic he chose to bring up. If he continues to avoid the challenge, the reader can only assume he either can't or won't answer it. Either way, he's lost the debate.

Now, for you to suggest that he probably does have a brilliant answer but we just haven't heard it because he doesn't have the time or interest to flatten my argument, that IS argument from ignorance. In fact, that would be a classic example.

[John V]

Except, as I've said, I don't like wasting my time repeating myself over and over again.

And as I've said - then don't do that. There are plenty of opponents of Christianity here who will take care of it for you.

I'd rather just point out how I've already fought that battle and won and challenge the Christian to do better if he/she can.

I know what you'd like to do. The question is whether that encourages or discourages discussion.

Were the tables reversed, such as Panda guy actually linking me to a thread where he already "debunked" the problem of evil or whatever, I'd have no problems quoting it and picking it apart. In fact, I've often done just this very thing.

You've responded cold to a dead 11-page thread? If so, you're very unusual. Why should everyone else go along with your peculiarities? IIRC apo noted a little while ago that the boards don't exist for your personal pleasure.

Theists were defeated in the linked thread. This is not an assumption.

sigh

He brought up the topic, not me. He should have time to answer the challenge that directly related to the topic he chose to bring up. If he continues to avoid the challenge, the reader can only assume he either can't or won't answer it. Either way, he's lost the debate.

It's elephant hurling regardless of who brought it up. If you were to bring up evolution, would it be fair of me to challenge you to refute every article on AIG?

Now, for you to suggest that he probably does have a brilliant answer but we just haven't heard it because he doesn't have the time or interest to flatten my argument, that IS argument from ignorance. In fact, that would be a classic example.

I haven't suggested that. Neither am I accepting your declaration of victory in those other threads.

[CleanShavenJesus]

The funny part about the ones you listed is that a majority of them are true.

Same can be said for all the arguments listed in the OP. Don't agree, huh? Well, you're in luck; we're on a discussion board!

...


...


dur

No, it can't.

This isn't opnion. The things from the OP have ben debunked. Cold hard. And the things that panda posted (the majority of them) are true and have been proven to be true.

[DeistPaladin]

And as I've said - then don't do that. There are plenty of opponents of Christianity here who will take care of it for you.

And as I've already said to what you said, not acceptable. I don't want to be remiss in my duty to challenge Christian bullshit. And this brings us back to my solution of "already debunked, *Link*".

I know what you'd like to do. The question is whether that encourages or discourages discussion.

It's not only what I'd like to do, it's what I am doing. I'm not interested in any further discussion on apologetics I've already debunked. You may as well complain that I'm discouraging discussion on the flat earth theory, or geocentrism, or other long resolved issues.

You've responded cold to a dead 11-page thread? If so, you're very unusual.

What is unusual or strange about it?

"Hey guys, what do you think of this?" *Link*

I then follow the link. I quote the relevant section. And then post:

"It's total crap and here's why..."

Linking to external material, articles or arguments is hardly unusual, nor is quoting or discussing them in separate threads.

Theists were defeated in the linked thread. This is not an assumption.

sigh

I know it's sad but you just have to deal with it. Or pick up the gauntlet and try to do a better job.

On the debate I linked to on the historicity of the Gospels, I spanked the Christian so hard he abandoned the debate, running with his tail tucked between his legs. Thus, it's not just my opinion he lost. It's apparently his as well.

It's elephant hurling regardless of who brought it up. If you were to bring up evolution, would it be fair of me to challenge you to refute every article on AIG?

You are welcome to start a post on an article in AIG that you can link to and get schooled.

I haven't suggested that.

In fact you did suggest that very thing when you claimed "argument from ignorance". You suggested that his refusal to post any refutation might be due to, how did you put it, "limited time and interest". It's a thinly concealed argument that he could have crushed me but just didn't feel like doing so. This is a classic argument from ignorance.

Neither am I accepting your declaration of victory in those other threads.

I could care less what you do or don't accept. I leave such determinations to the reader. However, I will go so far as to say when a Christian runs away from a formal debate, it's hard to argue that he really won. But I'm sure you will anyway.

By the way, if *YOU* want to pick up either gauntlet or both, you are welcome to.

[fr0d0]

I'm not interested in any further discussion on apologetics I've already debunked.

I've never ever seen you debunk anything. Maybe you're going to have to make what you personally see as debunking for your own reference, or for you to point people to as your best answer/s.

---

when a Christian runs away from a formal debate, it's hard to argue that he really won. But I'm sure you will anyway.

Argumentum ad verbosium