Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[A_Nony_Mouse]

But magic remains magic even if you give it the fancier name of miracle. They are still tricks even if you call them supernatural. Apollonius of Tyana did magic as did Simon Magus. Once you admit magic you can't pick and choose. And as almost all the magics worked by Jesus are the same kinds worked on god TV I do not see why you are impressed. Again why do magicians hate amputees?

The miraculous accounts detailed in scripture are not magic.

Magic is magic no matter what name you give it. I did make that point very clear in noting most of the same tricks are still done today by preachers on god TV channels.

1. God upholds His creation in a uniform and predictable manner (Genesis 1 and 8).
2. At certain points in our redemptive history God alters the manner in which He upholds His creation. This is what we call a miracle; magic has nothing to do with it.

Upon what physical evidence, not your faith, not your argumentation do you believe the unknown people of unknown character and of unknown motivation recorded magical events? Any evidence the magics were not made up centuries later?

It is clear by inspection the Genesis discredits itself in the manner of creation and the events following it. Ribs and naming animals come to mind quickly. When you have crap like that you know the author is either a liar or a whacko.

It is sort of surprising that you, who apparently have spent some time with the material, have not realized there is no evidentiary basis for your opinions regarding the material.

The default assumption is that stories which contain magic even if given a more impressive name of miracle which has the same meaning were written as fiction and were intended to be read as fiction.

[smax]

A person either has to assume that scripture is the infallible word of God ahead of time or assume it is not, I am just intellectually honest enough to admit I am in the former group. Anyone who claims it is not the infallible word of God is in the latter group.

Funny how you consider yourself intellectually honest and yet, in the same sentence, declare that you are completely and uncontrollably biased.

I think what’s apparent is your reluctance or inability to properly define your terms and standards. I ask you for a standard for determining what a magnificent claim is, you provide me with none. I ask you for the difference between a magnificent proof and inductive/deductive proofs and you provide me with an example of an inductive proof. I ask you for clarification on exactly what you mean by verify (since you apparently do not mean firsthand experience/observation) and you are unable to clarify. I just do not think you have properly thought a lot of these things through.

Define round? What is your definition of hair? Give me examples of the word bald?

That's how pathetic your attempts at deflection have been here. And, at first, I gave you the benefit of fhe doubt, and provided you with reasonable expansion. But then you just got even further from the subject and further into semantics.

Deflection and getting into semantics = I have nothing, so I'm going to be as petty as possible now to try and draw attention away from the obvious subject matter.

Quite the contrary, I feel very strongly about my position, and the fact that no atheist seems to be able to even present a logically coherent challenge to my position only makes me feel more strongly about the consistency and coherency of the Biblical view of reality.

I think I get all of the petty defense tactics now. You have, for whatever reason, decided to make a hobby of sorts of debating Atheists about your various religious views. And, although you claim this has strengthened your belief and position, it's actually caused you see that your views are baseless and without any real merit. So what's left? Well, either you face the reality that you dred so much, which is you not existing at some point, or you can make a petty mockery of the views which have so thoroughly defeated your position.

Case in point:

And, while that may sound good to you, it's a useless piece of gibberish to anyone with any sense of objective logic.

Why?

Again you need clarification on a matter that couldn't be any more clear.

So now we are debating again? If you’re interested in the Christian perspective I’d be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. However, it appears you were more interested in taking personal jabs at me, which is why I had to point out your misspellings because they detracted from your insults.

Not at all. You have nothing of value to offer the debate, so you resort to being petty, a practice I'm quite sure Atheists have forced you to develop. And you claim you've been "mixing it up". LOL. More like being mixed up by facts and logic, as you try and reconcile them with your blind faith.

You’ve yet to make a clear point, you merely produced a multitude of the typical atheistic assertions and when you were challenged to define or clarify what you were even referring to you seemed unable to do so. I’d love to continue the discussion but if you continue to behave irrationally I am going to have to point it out to you, what’s the point of having a conversation if we are allowed to be irrational?

I can't help but laugh at the irony of someone who has an imaginary friend promoting rationale.

You see, it’s these sorts of comments that make it very hard to take you seriously. Implying that all Christians are somehow childish or ignorant is itself a ridiculous and rather childish position to adhere to.

I'm not implying anything, I'm flat out saying that Christians are childish. Is it childish to believe in Santa Claus (spelled it that way on purpose)?

It's equally childish to continue believing in mythological characters as an adult. That's why I said I finally grew up.

You jumped into this discussion assuming that I was some sort of buffoon who didn’t possess any philosophical sophistication or knowledge of epistemology. This is not my first rodeo, I have heard everything you’ve presented to this pint at least five times before on here and I am well aware of how to poke holes in all of it. I like you (almost as much as I like Queen and Shell B, but not quite :-P), I think you’re a decent enough fellow, but I think you’d be well-served by being bit more respectful of your opponent at times, but that’s just my opinion.

I didn't jump into this discussion, I created this thread. Duh!

And, as for having respect, I'm more than happy to give it when I get it. As I said, try facing the subject matter and we might find some meaningful dialogue here. Short of that, however, we are where we are.

[Statler Waldorf]

Magic is magic no matter what name you give it. I did make that point very clear in noting most of the same tricks are still done today by preachers on god TV channels.

Magic is magic? That’s a meaningless statement. Sure, magic is magic, but that’s not what I said, I said that Biblical miracles were not magic. I have not seen anyone do the miracles Jesus did, I am not sure what channel you’re watching.

Upon what physical evidence, not your faith, not your argumentation do you believe the unknown people of unknown character and of unknown motivation recorded magical events? Any evidence the magics were not made up centuries later?

I do not believe people recorded magical events; I believed they recorded miraculous events. I am not logically obligated to respond to your question until you accurately represent my position.

It is clear by inspection the Genesis discredits itself in the manner of creation and the events following it. Ribs and naming animals come to mind quickly. When you have crap like that you know the author is either a liar or a whacko.

What? People cannot name animals? I wonder where you think animals got their names from if not from people.

It is sort of surprising that you, who apparently have spent some time with the material, have not realized there is no evidentiary basis for your opinions regarding the material.

No, the very notion of evidence assumes that my position is correct, so by asking for evidence you’re only demonstrating that you too assume my position is correct.

The default assumption is that stories which contain magic even if given a more impressive name of miracle which has the same meaning were written as fiction and were intended to be read as fiction.

According to whom is that the default position and why? So you assume ahead of time that supernatural events cannot happen and therefore the supernatural doesn’t exist? That’s rather self-serving.

Funny how you consider yourself intellectually honest and yet, in the same sentence, declare that you are completely and uncontrollably biased.

Everyone is biased, so by admitting that I am biased (as are you) I am being intellectually honest. By not admitting that you too are biased even though you logically have to be means you’re not being intellectually honest.

Define round? What is your definition of hair? Give me examples of the word bald?

I’ve never used any of those terms have I? You did use the terms “magnificent claim”, “magnificent proofs”, and “verify” didn’t you? So it’s completely appropriate for me to ask you to elaborate on what you mean when you use those terms is it not?

That's how pathetic your attempts at deflection have been here. And, at first, I gave you the benefit of fhe doubt, and provided you with reasonable expansion. But then you just got even further from the subject and further into semantics.

Pathetic? I think that more accurately describes your ability to back up your own position.

Deflection and getting into semantics = I have nothing, so I'm going to be as petty as possible now to try and draw attention away from the obvious subject matter.

Asking someone to define their terms and standards is a philosophical and intellectual necessity, it has nothing to do with deflection; you’re just deflecting by bringing up deflection because you could not even explain what you meant.

I think I get all of the petty defense tactics now. You have, for whatever reason, decided to make a hobby of sorts of debating Atheists about your various religious views.

It’s something I enjoy doing, I am not sure I’d classify it as a hobby though.

And, although you claim this has strengthened your belief and position, it's actually caused you see that your views are baseless and without any real merit.

So now someone who claims they do not believe anything that they cannot verify is making claims about something as totally unverifiable as what someone else really thinks? I really wish you’d be more consistent, it’s hard to debate with someone who apparently doesn’t even know what they believe.

So what's left? Well, either you face the reality that you dred so much, which is you not existing at some point, or you can make a petty mockery of the views which have so thoroughly defeated your position.

How on Earth do you arrive at the conclusion that your views have ever remotely come close to defeating my position? You’d have to possess logically coherent views in order for that to even be a possibility and that is obviously not something you possess at this point in time.

Again you need clarification on a matter that couldn't be any more clear.

No, you made a baseless assertion, I asked you to back it up with something. For all I know it was merely your opinion, which doesn’t prove anything.

Not at all. You have nothing of value to offer the debate, so you resort to being petty, a practice I'm quite sure Atheists have forced you to develop. And you claim you've been "mixing it up". LOL. More like being mixed up by facts and logic, as you try and reconcile them with your blind faith.

What facts and logic do you think you have presented? I do seem to recall demonstrating that the very few logical proofs you have provided were not even logically valid much less logically sound. If you think you have something actually logical to provide I’d be more than happy taking a look at it for you to examine it’s merit, but as of yet you haven’t provided me with anything more than mere conjecture and rhetoric.

I can't help but laugh at the irony of someone who has an imaginary friend promoting rationale.

Who here has an imaginary friend? I hope you were not being irrational yet again by referring to my God as an imaginary friend and therefore committing the fallacy of the question-begging epithet.

I'm not implying anything, I'm flat out saying that Christians are childish. Is it childish to believe in Santa Claus (spelled it that way on purpose)?

I am glad you spelled Santa Claus correctly this time; at least you learned something from our discussion. Simply because it is childish to believe in Santa doesn’t mean it’s childish to believe in God, that’s a false analogy and quite the logical non-sequitur.

It's equally childish to continue believing in mythological characters as an adult.

Sure, but we are talking about Christians here, not people who believe in mythological characters, so that’s another false analogy.

And, as for having respect, I'm more than happy to give it when I get it. As I said, try facing the subject matter and we might find some meaningful dialogue here. Short of that, however, we are where we are.

How can I face subject matter that you have yet to define? Present a coherent and defensible view of reality by consistently defining your terms and standards and we can finally dance.

[smax]

Statler,

It's not my views that have thoroughly defeated your position, it's the views of Atheists in general. You did click on this thread, which I created, which contains some of my views. However, aside from that, you and I haven't discussed many of my views. You are more interested in definitions and examples of obvious terms. As I said, this is undoubtedly the result of years of logic and reason defeating your position. You like "mixing it up" with Atheists, but you've been reduced to nothing more than petty deflection and weak arguments that you cannot support as a result. Object to that conclusion all you want, but I did accuse you of having an imaginary friend, and you offered nothing more than a simple rejection of the notion as a counter. Pretty weak considering the fact that your delusionary state of mind fits the defintion:

Imaginary friends are made often in childhood, sometimes in adolescence, and rarely in adulthood. They often function as tutelaries when played with by a child. They reveal, according to several theories of psychology, a child's anxieties, fears, goals and perceptions of the world through that child's conversations. They are, according to some children, physically indistinguishable from real people, while others say they see their imaginary friends only in their heads. There's even a third category of imaginary friend recognition: when the child doesn't see the imaginary friend at all, but can only feel his/her presence.Imaginary friends are more often seen as abnormal in adults, whereas quite common in children.

Like it or, you got yourself an imaginary friend. Can't be seen, conveniently caters to all of your psychological insecurities, and acts as your own personal guardian (or tutelary).

The fact that you are delusional, however, does not bother me half as much as the fact that you seem to have no desire whatsoever to discuss meaningful subject matter.

Just look at the last few pages of our discussion: nothing! There's nothing there. We aren't discussing anything because you refused to.

I know, I know, it's because I can't explain myself when I use quite obvious language and terms. What is a magnificent claim? What does it mean to verify something?

[sarcasm]
What great questions! Here we are, talking about Christianity and the Bible, but we can't help wondering what's so magnificent about it and why it all needs to be verified. Can't we just accept it as a great and legitimate history book that's already met the burden of proof. Can't we just continue the debate with the agreed position that the Bible is the infallable word of god, which is 100 percent true? Is that really too much to ask?
[/sarcasm]

I will say this, in this discussion, I feel you have proven the existence of the supernatural. Your resolve to talk about absolutely nothing is nothing short of supernatural. It's a resolve that is well beyond anything I thought humanly possible.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Magic is magic no matter what name you give it. I did make that point very clear in noting most of the same tricks are still done today by preachers on god TV channels.

Magic is magic? That’s a meaningless statement. Sure, magic is magic, but that’s not what I said, I said that Biblical miracles were not magic. I have not seen anyone do the miracles Jesus did, I am not sure what channel you’re watching.

And I pointed out these miracles are the same as and indistinguishable from magic. If you are unaware healing the sick is commonly done on god TV it is unclear where you are coming from.

Upon what physical evidence, not your faith, not your argumentation do you believe the unknown people of unknown character and of unknown motivation recorded magical events? Any evidence the magics were not made up centuries later?

I do not believe people recorded magical events; I believed they recorded miraculous events. I am not logically obligated to respond to your question until you accurately represent my position.

Unknown people of unknown character of unknown motivation. Do you paper over the obvious issues with faith?

Passing on faith in the stories of the original unknown people from their beginnings to the present still has all those unknowns you must paper over with something.

It is clear by inspection the Genesis discredits itself in the manner of creation and the events following it. Ribs and naming animals come to mind quickly. When you have crap like that you know the author is either a liar or a whacko.

What? People cannot name animals? I wonder where you think animals got their names from if not from people.

The manner of creation is discredited. That ALL the animals were paraded through Eden to be named is absurd, particularly for the penguins. That female humans did not exist until the rib event is absurd by inspection.

Two out of three if you are going to stick with the march of the penguins.

It is sort of surprising that you, who apparently have spent some time with the material, have not realized there is no evidentiary basis for your opinions regarding the material.

No, the very notion of evidence assumes that my position is correct, so by asking for evidence you’re only demonstrating that you too assume my position is correct.

I have yet to read you posting any physical evidence in support of your position. Perhaps you could repeat it just for me?

The default assumption is that stories which contain magic even if given a more impressive name of miracle which has the same meaning were written as fiction and were intended to be read as fiction.

According to whom is that the default position and why? So you assume ahead of time that supernatural events cannot happen and therefore the supernatural doesn’t exist? That’s rather self-serving.

By all the other stories which contain magic why would one presume one collection of unknown authorship to be authentic while other stories of known and unknown authorship are not correct.

The default position regarding all claims is against the claim. That is only modified in favor of the claim based upon the physical evidence presented by the claimant.

When I claim the OT stories were all written in the 2nd c. BC I back it up with mountains of evidence and also point out why alternate older dates are excluded. That claims like yours are common does not make them the default as they are in the same category as a flat earth and Genesis.

[Statler Waldorf]

It's not my views that have thoroughly defeated your position, it's the views of Atheists in general.

Like what?

Object to that conclusion all you want, but I did accuse you of having an imaginary friend, and you offered nothing more than a simple rejection of the notion as a counter.

You asserted it, but that doesn’t prove anything. You simply used the term imaginary friend in the assertion rather than God. In logic that’s known as a question-begging epithet and it’s a logical fallacy. I was obligated to point that out to you.

Pretty weak considering the fact that your delusionary state of mind fits the defintion:

Scripture says that you’re the one with the delusions, how do you know it’s wrong?

Imaginary friends are made often in childhood, sometimes in adolescence, and rarely in adulthood.

Well you just refuted your own position with that. If believing in a deity is having an imaginary friend then the vast majority of adults would have imaginary friends, and according to that text- imaginary friends are rarely believed in by adults. Oops!

There’s nothing imaginary about God’s existence.

Like it or, you got yourself an imaginary friend.

Not according to the text you cited; and how do you know God is imaginary?

…conveniently caters to all of your psychological insecurities, and acts as your own personal guardian (or tutelary).

Do you ever even read the Bible? None of that applies to the Christian God at all.

The fact that you are delusional, however, does not bother me half as much as the fact that you seem to have no desire whatsoever to discuss meaningful subject matter.

I’ll discuss whatever subject matter you like (as long as you can coherently present me with the material). Scripture says you’re the one who is delusional.

Just look at the last few pages of our discussion: nothing! There's nothing there. We aren't discussing anything because you refused to.

…and yet I have learned an awful lot about you from this discussion.

I know, I know, it's because I can't explain myself when I use quite obvious language and terms.

Apparently they’re not that obvious considering how difficult it is for you to even define them.

What is a magnificent claim?

That’s my question for you.

What does it mean to verify something?

I am still waiting for an answer to that one.

but we can't help wondering what's so magnificent about it and why it all needs to be verified.

Yes.

Can't we just accept it as a great and legitimate history book that's already met the burden of proof.

What burden of proof are you referring to? You seem to still be assuming that fictitious neutral ground exists.

Can't we just continue the debate with the agreed position that the Bible is the infallable word of god, which is 100 percent true? Is that really too much to ask?

Well that’s my position, why would you ask me to defend my position by giving up my position and taking up yours? That makes no sense at all.

I will say this, in this discussion, I feel you have proven the existence of the supernatural.

The existence of the supernatural was rather obvious before we even began this discussion.

And I pointed out these miracles are the same as and indistinguishable from magic.

But they’re not.

If you are unaware healing the sick is commonly done on god TV it is unclear where you are coming from.

Jesus did far more than heal the sick.

Unknown people of unknown character of unknown motivation. Do you paper over the obvious issues with faith?

They’re not unknown at all, we’re told who they were, and we’re also told of their origins.

The manner of creation is discredited. That ALL the animals were paraded through Eden to be named is absurd, particularly for the penguins.

The animals were created in the garden and dispersed after they were named; I thought that was obvious from the text.

That female humans did not exist until the rib event is absurd by inspection.

Inspection? Inspection of what?

I have yet to read you posting any physical evidence in support of your position. Perhaps you could repeat it just for me?

I do not need to; the concept of physical evidence assumes my position is correct ahead of time. So by appealing to physical evidence you too are assuming my position is correct.

By all the other stories which contain magic why would one presume one collection of unknown authorship to be authentic while other stories of known and unknown authorship are not correct.

Because that collection of stories (of known authorship) provides a view of reality that must necessarily be true, the others do not.

The default position regarding all claims is against the claim. That is only modified in favor of the claim based upon the physical evidence presented by the claimant.

Ok, so then the default position must also be against the claim “The default position regarding all claims is against the claim.” Since you said it’s against all claims. So where is your physical evidence to support the claim that the default position is against all claims without physical evidence? I think you painted yourself into a bit of a corner on that one.

[smax]

Like what?

Like the views that have you deflecting at every turn.

You asserted it, but that doesn’t prove anything. You simply used the term imaginary friend in the assertion rather than God. In logic that’s known as a question-begging epithet and it’s a logical fallacy. I was obligated to point that out to you.

In other words, I told a blind man that he was blind, and he simply denied it.

Thanks for validating my point.

Scripture says that you’re the one with the delusions, how do you know it’s wrong?

So many ways. The lies, the impossibilities, the improbabilities, the copies of the copies of the copies of the translations of the translations of the translations of the different denominations from the diferent interpretations.

It stands to reason that, if the word were actually god's infallable work, he'd be intensely protecting it from corruption.

As it is, there really is no clear Bible or view in Christianity. It's practically all up for debate.

Well you just refuted your own position with that. If believing in a deity is having an imaginary friend then the vast majority of adults would have imaginary friends, and according to that text- imaginary friends are rarely believed in by adults. Oops!

I guess you missed the part where you are all childish, huh? That's okay, it's not the only thing you missed.

There’s nothing imaginary about God’s existence.

That statement is just too vague for this subject. The Christian god is your imaginary friend. He doesn't exist, but the idea of him helps you cope.

When (or if) you ever become and adult, you will learn to accept reality. Until then, your imaginary friend will help you.

Not according to the text you cited; and how do you know God is imaginary?

Yes, according to the text I cited. You, and the rest of the people on this planet, who need a god to comfort them, are children until you all learn to face and deal with reality.

A lot of gods have been invented, and all but one of them are not your god. Billions and billions of people have believed in those gods.

Is it your take that those gods were not imaginary?

Do you ever even read the Bible? None of that applies to the Christian God at all.

I've read the Bible in it's entirety, and expositionally. And, yes, the Christian god fits all of the criteria for an imaginary friend.

I’ll discuss whatever subject matter you like (as long as you can coherently present me with the material). Scripture says you’re the one who is delusional.

No, you won't discuss meaningful subject matter, and it has nothing to do with presentation. You know that your position is weak so you deflect.

…and yet I have learned an awful lot about you from this discussion.

That's debatable, but was that your goal here, to learn about me?

Apparently they’re not that obvious considering how difficult it is for you to even define them.

It's not that difficult at all, it's just become evident that it will be an endless process with you. You are not interested in discussing the material, because all of the merits of that discussion weigh against you and your position.

So, with that, you've decided that you will simply argue against the method of presentation. Examples: What did you mean by this? How do you know it means what you say it means. If say you know it means what you say it means, how do you know you aren't wrong to be so sure in the first place?

That’s my question for you.

Correction: that's your deflection. Most people wouldn't ask what a magnificent claim is because it's obvious to anyone who's educated beyond the 3rd grade.

I am still waiting for an answer to that one.

Correction: that's your deflection. Most people wouldn't ask what a magnificent claim is because it's obvious to anyone who's educated beyond the 3rd grade.

Yes.

Yeah, because there are no super natural claims in the Bible. It doesn't say that Moses parted the Red Sea. It doesn't claim that a man survived in a fish for several days. It doesn't say that a virgin bore a child. It doesn't say that a man walked on water. It doesn't say that a man rose from his grave and then ascended into the heavens. And, most of all, it doesn't say that there is a magical and eternal kingdom awaiting anyone who simply loves Jesus.

So, we definitely do not need any verification of these events. And, if we do, the questionable and inconsistent testamonies of the people who wrote for the people who wrote for those people and then translated the translation of the translation and then disagreed and broke into different sections of different sections of different interpretations of the many varying interpretions of the infallable word of god, should suffice as adequate proof.

What burden of proof are you referring to? You seem to still be assuming that fictitious neutral ground exists.

You are either born deluded or you are not, is that your position?

Well that’s my position, why would you ask me to defend my position by giving up my position and taking up yours? That makes no sense at all.

No reason to doubt the Bible, that's for sure. Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll run out and acquire me a slave or two, and turn a few homosexuals into the authorities for their rightful executions.

The existence of the supernatural was rather obvious before we even began this discussion.

No doubt. In fact, I just whipped up a batch of Dom Pérignon using nothing but my kitchen sink.
[/quote]

[Statler Waldorf]

Like the views that have you deflecting at every turn.

Well like what? Give me an example…

In other words, I told a blind man that he was blind, and he simply denied it.

No, you merely used biased language rather than proving your point.

So many ways. The lies, the impossibilities, the improbabilities, the copies of the copies of the copies of the translations of the translations of the translations of the different denominations from the diferent interpretations.

You didn’t answer my question though, if you are indeed the one with the delusions how on Earth do you know that you are accurately perceiving anything that you just mentioned above? It seems like you are assuming you’re not delusional (so assuming scripture is wrong again) and then arguing that you’re not delusional. I thought you were open-minded.

It stands to reason that, if the word were actually god's infallable work, he'd be intensely protecting it from corruption.

He is protecting it; those whom He desires to come to the knowledge of the truth have no difficulties coming to the knowledge of the truth. There’s a reason Jesus spoke in parables (Matthew 13).

As it is, there really is no clear Bible or view in Christianity. It's practically all up for debate.

Christians do debate, and that’s a very good thing, that however does not mean the truth is unobtainable.

I guess you missed the part where you are all childish, huh? That's okay, it's not the only thing you missed.

Being childish is not the same thing as “being a child”. Not only this, but if the vast majority of adults do believe in a deity (which is undeniable), then believing in a deity would not be childish at all but rather something both children and adults believe in, which is like many beliefs. It’s not childish to believe that your parents love you, even though both children and adults share that belief.

That statement is just too vague for this subject. The Christian god is your imaginary friend. He doesn't exist, but the idea of him helps you cope.

No, he does exist, and His existence is the only reason either of us cope.

When (or if) you ever become and adult, you will learn to accept reality. Until then, your imaginary friend will help you.

You took another personal jab at me so I could point out your misspellings here to make you look dumb, but I won’t. What is reality? How do you know what reality is? You’re going to have to answer those questions before you can appeal to reality my friend.

You, and the rest of the people on this planet, who need a god to comfort them, are children until you all learn to face and deal with reality.

They are physically children?

A lot of gods have been invented, and all but one of them are not your god. Billions and billions of people have believed in those gods.

That’s irrelevant.

Is it your take that those gods were not imaginary?

I would not necessarily use the word imaginary; falsely named, falsely conceived of, or falsely identified would be more accurate.

I've read the Bible in it's entirety, and expositionally. And, yes, the Christian god fits all of the criteria for an imaginary friend.

Good! Then you should know that God never promises to protect His elect, in fact He tells them they will experience more trial, suffering, and tribulation simply because they believe in Him than they will if they didn’t. So your assertions that Christians believe in God so He will protect them is absurd.

No, you won't discuss meaningful subject matter, and it has nothing to do with presentation.

It has everything to do with presentation, I usually make it past this point with most atheists, you’re just struggling more than most do.

That's debatable, but was that your goal here, to learn about me?

Nope, but it’s not a bad result.

It's not that difficult at all, it's just become evident that it will be an endless process with you. You are not interested in discussing the material, because all of the merits of that discussion weigh against you and your position.

I have no problem discussing the material. Present it.

Examples: What did you mean by this? How do you know it means what you say it means. If say you know it means what you say it means, how do you know you aren't wrong to be so sure in the first place?

Since you have read the Bible and claim to be quite familiar with it, I am sure you are aware that scripture claims that unbelievers are not able to formulate a coherent view of reality. They essentially become futile in their reasoning. So when I ask you to back up what you are saying and you are unable to do so I am essentially adding credibility to scripture because you are doing exactly what it says you will do. There’s a method to my madness.

Correction: that's your deflection. Most people wouldn't ask what a magnificent claim is because it's obvious to anyone who's educated beyond the 3rd grade.

I asked you how you determine whether a claim fits your definition, that’s completely different.

Correction: that's your deflection. Most people wouldn't ask what a magnificent claim is because it's obvious to anyone who's educated beyond the 3rd grade.

We’re supposed to be talking about verification here, not magnificent claims, that was the question above.

Yeah, because there are no super natural claims in the Bible. It doesn't say that Moses parted the Red Sea. It doesn't claim that a man survived in a fish for several days. It doesn't say that a virgin bore a child. It doesn't say that a man walked on water. It doesn't say that a man rose from his grave and then ascended into the heavens. And, most of all, it doesn't say that there is a magical and eternal kingdom awaiting anyone who simply loves Jesus.

Sure it makes those claims (although they are rather roughly stated). You still haven’t told me how you know those are indeed magnificent claims though.

So, we definitely do not need any verification of these events. And, if we do, the questionable and inconsistent testamonies of the people who wrote for the people who wrote for those people and then translated the translation of the translation and then disagreed and broke into different sections of different sections of different interpretations of the many varying interpretions of the infallable word of god, should suffice as adequate proof.

I never said that’s what suffices as adequate proof.

You are either born deluded or you are not, is that your position?

No, everyone is born deluded; the elect overcome it through God’s grace.

No reason to doubt the Bible,

You’re right; there is no reason to doubt the Bible. In fact, without the Bible there’d be no ability to reason.

[Tonus]

You guys could save yourself some carpal tunnel by just writing "is too!" and "is not!" as your replies. :p

[smax]

You guys could save yourself some carpal tunnel by just writing "is too!" and "is not!" as your replies. :p

Sadly, I have to agree. We're definitely not have a meaningful debate. But, then again, even if we do ever get to the material, we'll just be stuck at "It's the infallable word of god, and it's the only reason for anything!"