Religious Background

[TheBeardedDude]

You spotted what you thought is a problem and don't like the answers I have given in response. You want to obfuscate and present theological special pleading while constructing straw men from my replies. This is very disingenuous, and your answers to my questions appear to be too.

No, that is not the case. No offence, but I can't discuss anything with someone who hides behind a misuse of "special pleading" at every turn. 

For example, in response to my post https://atheistforums.org/post-1580092.html#pid1580092 (which took me awhile to write), your responses amounted to "special pleading", "straw man" and restating there is no evidence/magic isn't real. You did not address specifics in any way. That tells me you are either unwilling or unable to discuss the issues on a deeper level--which is fine. I will move on.

No offence, but I can't discuss anything with someone who hides behind a misuse of "special pleading" at every turn. 

This is the pot calling the kettle black

When all you present to me are logical fallacies or misrepresentations of my points (regardless of how long it took you to write it), there is nothing of substance to reply to. The theological interpretations you present are irrelevant and back-up my point that there are only two options when it comes to the bible: 1) literal interpretation, 2) non-literal interpretation. The rest of my points remain.

There is no "deeper level" to discuss the paucity of evidence for biblical claims. The specifics of theological arguments (that assume a god is a possible thing and that it is possible for the bible to be true) are not relevant with respect to what has been my primary point all along: there is no evidence to show a god is a possible thing to exist. Meaning that it doesn't matter what apologetics you engage in within the context of believing your religion, because I have no reason to believe your religion is possible. As I (and others) have pointed out several times, it doesn't matter if people believe in magic because that tells me nothing about whether or not magic is real. If you want your magic to be considered possible, you need evidence the bible is true. Pointing to the bible for said evidence is circular (you can't use the source of the claim as evidence the claim is true).