Attn: Christians, We've Heard Them Already

[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.