Attn: Christians, We've Heard Them Already

[Savannahw]

um... Fail.

I'm going to have to side with the hoary hobbit on this one (with respect to the analogy).

A theistic religion might satisfy the criteria for being a philosophy, but theism (see note below) doesn't, as (like atheism) it only represents an answer to the question "Do you believe any gods exist?".

1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism ).

I think I might have gotten confused... I thought that the opposite was meant. As in Theism = philo because off=tv channel... in which what I said would have been appropriate. However.. I don't it is anymore. I'm really hyper.

[Jackalope]

I think I might have gotten confused... I thought that the opposite was meant. As in Theism = philo because off=tv channel... in which what I said would have been appropriate. However.. I don't it is anymore. I'm really hyper.

Have some more sugar.

[John V]

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.

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.

What is unusual or strange about it?

I’ve been doing this for a long time on a number of boards and have rarely seen it, so it’s unusual.

"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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

All of AIG. Have fun!

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.

No, you inferred that.

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.

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.

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

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

With whom? You’re not interested in further discussion on issues you’ve already debunked.

[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!

[John V]

OK, I'll go slow.

Likewise.

"I'm not interested in re-hashing the same debate where nothing new is offered.

Then don't. No one's asking you to. What's this "duty" you have? Why aren't you exercising it daily?

I've already debunked these arguments.

In your mind.

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)."

"I've ignored your link cause I didn't feel like reading 11 pages of old stuff to see if any of my arguments are new, and because there are plenty of people here willing to debate it from scratch."

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

No, because reading many pages of discussion to determine if I have anything new to offer is time consuming.

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

I agree in a formal debate. Since there are few formal debates on this site, I ask again - is it a general rule?

False comparison.

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

False comparison. Linking to a post /= linking to a long thread.

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

Maybe not. However, you seem to be mostly interested in tooting your own horn with these links to old threads.

[DeistPaladin]

Then don't. No one's asking you to. What's this "duty" you have? Why aren't you exercising it daily?

Because of the damage Christianity does to society. I'm making the world a better place by challenging it and doing my part to bury Jesus alongside Zeus, Odin and Ra.

In your mind.

Oh no, in reality. If you disagree, you can respond to my debunking of the morality argument. It's just one single post. I can repost the whole thing if it will help.

"I've ignored your link cause I didn't feel like reading 11 pages of old stuff..."

How about just reading the one post I linked to?

I agree in a formal debate.

Then we agree that this Christian lost. The formal debate is the one I'm referring to.

False comparison. Linking to a post =/= linking to a long thread.

But my post on morality is the one I linked to.

The link to the historicity of the Gospels debate is, admittedly, longer than my post on morality but it's a much broader topic. And even this debate exchange that I, by your admission, won, is nowhere near as long as "the entire AIG website".

[DeistPaladin]

Here you go, John V, my rebuttal of the moral argument and 7 reasons why secular morality is superior. And it's all copied, pasted and reposted for your convenience so you don't have to click on any links.

Good luck.

1. (Perhaps most important) Theistic morality confuses the issues of what morality is and what is moral.

By its nature, religion will be concerned with gaining more followers and gaining increased obedience with its established followers. This is why when you read through the Bible or Koran, often what is described as "evil" are such victimless crimes as idolatry, blasphemy and apostasy. Other moral issues and labeled "abominations" have to do with failure to adhere to rituals and traditions, like not working on the Sabbath or not eating certain kinds of food.

Read the 10 commandments if you don't have time to read the whole Bible. You'll notice that the first four, the one's that Yahweh thought of first and foremost, have to do with religious adherence and not real moral issues. A few deal with how we treat others (don't murder, don't steal, etc) but the majority prohibit victimless crimes. This muddying of the waters is not helpful to our understand of what is moral or what morality is.

By contrast, secular morality focuses on the issue with laser-like precision. Morality is a function of how we treat our fellow sentient beings.

2. Theistic morality provides an "easy out"

When you do wrong in theism, you pray to a god to forgive you or perhaps perform some useless rituals of penance that do nothing to clean up the mess.

When you do wrong as a secularist, you apologize to those you've wronged and seek to make direct amends.

Jesus sacrificing himself on a cross and other blood sacrifice rituals do nothing to clean up any messes.

Newt Gingrich is a great example of how twisted this system of morality and atonement is. He says he doesn't have to answer for his adultery despite being a professed "family values" politician. Jesus forgave him and that's that. Has he apologized to any of his ex-wives?

3. "GodWillsIt" is not an answer

Just as "GodDidIt" doesn't satisfy our curiosity about science, "GodWillsIt" does nothing to help us understand morality. This is an appeal to authority, little better than "Cause I said so".

Compare this with secular morality where things labeled "wrong" or "evil" are activities that involve a victim. Morality can be explained in terms of such useful tools as "the social contract" or in term of our sense of empathy and community. Saying, for example, that slavery is wrong because it violates the rights of others and we would not wish to be treated this way is far more elucidating than "cause big daddy in sky says so".

4. Euthephro's Dilemma

Does GodWillIt because its good or is it good because GodWillsIt?

If GodWills what is good, than goodness exists outside of and independent to God. That which is evil would thus remain so without God.

If things are good in accordance with what GodWills, than this is little more than a might-makes-right system of justice. The rules are just as arbitrary as with any human imposed system. Therefore, GodWillsit wouldn't solve the problems Elunico frets over.

Apologists, typical of their style when in a conundrum, try to make it "both and yet neither". They babble about goodness being ingrained in the very nature of their god. Beyond the fact that this is a bare assertion, it's also viciously circular. "We know that God is good because God is good and so we know that God only wills what is good because God is good."

5. Read the damn Bible already!

Yahweh can't seem to answer no-brainer moral issues that humans have long since solved. Issues like rape, slavery and genocide are ones that Yahweh can't seem to provide a correct answer to.

6. Christianity is a dangerous belief system

Any religion that proposes a good god vs. evil devil system is going to demonize any who are not part of the religion. By process of elimination, any who do not serve the defined good god must be in league with or at least duped by the devil. If you believe your enemy is in league with the devil, you are capable of doing anything to him.

Worse, any religion that proposes a faith-based scheme of salvation is going to push atrocity. After all, if killing a few heathens saves thousands of souls for all eternity, isn't that a good thing. The stakes are as high as they can be if there's a real danger of your children going to Hell for all time. No wonder Christianity has such a violent history.

7. Look at the results

Secular societies do not explode into a fireball of mayhem and murder when they lose their religion. Quite to the contrary, social studies have shown that crime rates fall along with teen pregnancy and other social indicators show that secular societies are happier and better adjusted.

Neither do individuals lose their morality when they lose their religion. I can tell you this from all the ex-Christians I've known.

[John V]

Here you go, John V, my rebuttal of the moral argument and 7 reasons why secular morality is superior. And it's all copied, pasted and reposted for your convenience so you don't have to click on any links.

Good luck.

1. (Perhaps most important) Theistic morality confuses the issues of what morality is and what is moral.

By its nature, religion will be concerned with gaining more followers and gaining increased obedience with its established followers. This is why when you read through the Bible or Koran, often what is described as "evil" are such victimless crimes as idolatry, blasphemy and apostasy. Other moral issues and labeled "abominations" have to do with failure to adhere to rituals and traditions, like not working on the Sabbath or not eating certain kinds of food.

Read the 10 commandments if you don't have time to read the whole Bible. You'll notice that the first four, the one's that Yahweh thought of first and foremost, have to do with religious adherence and not real moral issues. A few deal with how we treat others (don't murder, don't steal, etc) but the majority prohibit victimless crimes. This muddying of the waters is not helpful to our understand of what is moral or what morality is.

By contrast, secular morality focuses on the issue with laser-like precision. Morality is a function of how we treat our fellow sentient beings.

2. Theistic morality provides an "easy out"

When you do wrong in theism, you pray to a god to forgive you or perhaps perform some useless rituals of penance that do nothing to clean up the mess.

When you do wrong as a secularist, you apologize to those you've wronged and seek to make direct amends.

Jesus sacrificing himself on a cross and other blood sacrifice rituals do nothing to clean up any messes.

Newt Gingrich is a great example of how twisted this system of morality and atonement is. He says he doesn't have to answer for his adultery despite being a professed "family values" politician. Jesus forgave him and that's that. Has he apologized to any of his ex-wives?

3. "GodWillsIt" is not an answer

Just as "GodDidIt" doesn't satisfy our curiosity about science, "GodWillsIt" does nothing to help us understand morality. This is an appeal to authority, little better than "Cause I said so".

Compare this with secular morality where things labeled "wrong" or "evil" are activities that involve a victim. Morality can be explained in terms of such useful tools as "the social contract" or in term of our sense of empathy and community. Saying, for example, that slavery is wrong because it violates the rights of others and we would not wish to be treated this way is far more elucidating than "cause big daddy in sky says so".

4. Euthephro's Dilemma

Does GodWillIt because its good or is it good because GodWillsIt?

If GodWills what is good, than goodness exists outside of and independent to God. That which is evil would thus remain so without God.

If things are good in accordance with what GodWills, than this is little more than a might-makes-right system of justice. The rules are just as arbitrary as with any human imposed system. Therefore, GodWillsit wouldn't solve the problems Elunico frets over.

Apologists, typical of their style when in a conundrum, try to make it "both and yet neither". They babble about goodness being ingrained in the very nature of their god. Beyond the fact that this is a bare assertion, it's also viciously circular. "We know that God is good because God is good and so we know that God only wills what is good because God is good."

5. Read the damn Bible already!

Yahweh can't seem to answer no-brainer moral issues that humans have long since solved. Issues like rape, slavery and genocide are ones that Yahweh can't seem to provide a correct answer to.

6. Christianity is a dangerous belief system

Any religion that proposes a good god vs. evil devil system is going to demonize any who are not part of the religion. By process of elimination, any who do not serve the defined good god must be in league with or at least duped by the devil. If you believe your enemy is in league with the devil, you are capable of doing anything to him.

Worse, any religion that proposes a faith-based scheme of salvation is going to push atrocity. After all, if killing a few heathens saves thousands of souls for all eternity, isn't that a good thing. The stakes are as high as they can be if there's a real danger of your children going to Hell for all time. No wonder Christianity has such a violent history.

7. Look at the results

Secular societies do not explode into a fireball of mayhem and murder when they lose their religion. Quite to the contrary, social studies have shown that crime rates fall along with teen pregnancy and other social indicators show that secular societies are happier and better adjusted.

Neither do individuals lose their morality when they lose their religion. I can tell you this from all the ex-Christians I've known.

I don't know from this whether anything I say will be new to you, and you only want new content.

---

Because of the damage Christianity does to society. I'm making the world a better place by challenging it and doing my part to bury Jesus alongside Zeus, Odin and Ra.

Can you show how you determined objectively that religion is a net detriment to society? Seems to me that would be impossible to calculate.

Oh no, in reality. If you disagree, you can respond to my debunking of the morality argument. It's just one single post. I can repost the whole thing if it will help.

If I only read the argument, I don't know what responses you've had in the past, and you say you're only interested in new content.

How about just reading the one post I linked to?

If I only read the argument, I don't know what responses you've had in the past, and you say you're only interested in new content. Oops - you've heard that before - sorry.

Then we agree that this Christian lost. The formal debate is the one I'm referring to.

And I'm referring to the informal thread which you also linked and referred to. And again, if you did beat a single Christian, that means just that - you beat a single Christian. Hooray for you, but it doesn't mean you've debunked the argument.

But my post on morality is the one I linked to.

Post or thread? You keep switching to avoid problems with your positions.

---

Regarding your morality post, if you're now retracting the whole bit about arguments you've heard before and would like to discuss it, put it in another thread.

[fr0d0]

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

That post is bullshit and tedious in the extreme. You display a glaring ignorance of the subject matter.

if you're really interested in testing your self proclaimed infallibility why don't you take it somewhere where it's likely to face serious challenge, instead of preaching to the converted here?

I and other theists challenge atheism here, because this is a place you're going to get a reasonable response.

[DeistPaladin]

I don't know from this whether anything I say will be new to you, and you only want new content.

Try me. I dare you.

EDIT TO ADD: Just for your convenience, here is a summary of the coherent and thoughtful arguments I've heard against my post:

...

So if you can come up with an intelligent counter-argument other than the one I just quoted above, you're good. Go for it! Do it for Jesus!

Can you show how you determined objectively that religion is a net detriment to society? Seems to me that would be impossible to calculate.

That's a lengthy thread topic which I may get to next.

And again, if you did beat a single Christian, that means just that - you beat a single Christian. Hooray for you, but it doesn't mean you've debunked the argument.

And as I keep challenging you, pick up the gauntlet and succeed where this other Christian failed.

Do it for Jesus!