Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[smax]

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?

You think you've gotten to know me? Wow have I gotten to know you. The above response typifies your response to just about everything, and I've seen you use the same pattern with other posters.

I presented a brief, yet compelling, case that scripture is, in the very least, significantly flawed. And what do you do? You question whether or not I have a deep enough grasp of reality to even consider such matters! LOL.

If you can't beat em, question their perception, that's what I say.

What's that, the Earth is spherical, you say? How do you know aren't just deluding yourself into believing that? How do you the billions of other people who think the same thing aren't deluding themselves? Hell, how do you know that you aren't deluding yourself about others thinking that when in reality is just you alone who thinks the Earth is round.

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).

And people wonder where Joseph Smith got the idea for magic glasses!

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

There is no clear truth in Christianity. It's so open that a new Christian religion practically develops on a bi-weekly basis.

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 a childish mentality, and we are talking about psychology here. Try and keep up.

It’s not childish to believe that your parents love you, even though both children and adults share that belief.

No one said it was. Then again, believing that your parents love you isn't exactly a supernatural claim now is it?

Believing in a friend that does not appear, does not speak, or make himself universally and undeniably evident, is a supernatural claim.

Children believe in Santa Claus but eventually stop because their parents admit to them that it was a lie just to get them to bahave.

Adults believe in thousands of different types of gods. Unfortunately, these same adults do not have an authority such as their parents to tell them that it's a lie to bring them under control.

It's the same childish condition, it just doesn't have an end.

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

Wow! You just convinced me. All this time I've been trying to get you to tackle subject matter, and you were holding back undeniable proof such as this.

"He does exist". I don't know why, but that's just so much more compelling than the same argument all other religions are making!

They are physically children?

Mentally, yes.

That’s irrelevant.

Convenient.

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

I think those other religions would say the same thing about yours. Only, most of the gods that have ever been invented, predate yours. In fact, your god, in many ways, is the accumulation of many of those gods.

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.

And yet Christians make up over 30 percent of the world. Couldn't have discredited scripture better myself, thank you.

So your assertions that Christians believe in God so He will protect them is absurd.

Not at all. Christians do believe in god so that he will protect them from eternal torment.

Pretty obvious, dude! Are you okay? I feel a little bad having to teach you the basic fundamentals of your own faith. Although, it's not even close to the first time I've had to do it.

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.

I'm sure many Atheists have done a better job than me, I don't mind conceding that. That said, I don't think that is why you have failed to get to the subject matter in this case.

For one thing, I won't allow you to dictate the terms of our discussion. You want to draw me into an endless discussion about what I mean about everything. That may have worked with others, but it will not work with me.

Another thing that I suspect you are avoiding is dealing with the fact that I know your religion as well as you do, which puts you at a significant disadvantage in this case. This explains why you are completely resolved to avoid the subject matter in this case.

I don't blame you.

I have no problem discussing the material. Present it.

The suggestion itself is redundant.

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.

I've explained myself fine. You just don't want the explanation to lead anywhere, so you refuse to let it.

I mean, let's face it, anyone who thinks he's sporting a special pair of glasses that give him a clearer understanding of things is going to be quite difficult to effectively communicate with.

It's like trying to break down the walls of communication with an autistic, it's damn near impossible.

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

As often as I possibly can, I try to avoid wasting peoples time by creating my own set of special meanings for words and terms.

But clearly this is a common practice for you, which explains why you have such a difficult time communicating. .

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

I gave you the same answer for the sake of time and because it's basically the same question.

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.

And I won't. Either you are just stupid enough to not understand the supernatural implications, or, as I've made a case for, you are just trying to create an endless series of meaningless Q and As in order to deflect away from the subject matter.

You say you usually get farther by now. Why do I get the distinct feeling that you usually succeed in sucking others into this trap of yours?

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

You haven't said anything for that matter.

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

Man, that is some sound logic there!

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

And yet human's managed without it for well over a 150000 years.

[Statler Waldorf]

You think you've gotten to know me? Wow have I gotten to know you. The above response typifies your response to just about everything, and I've seen you use the same pattern with other posters.

How is this relevant (even though you have called me delusional so your objection above could just as easily be turned around on you)? I do not need to know you, scripture says all unbelievers are delusional, and you’re an unbeliever so you would fall in that class. Are you going to answer my question or do you not know the answer?

I presented a brief, yet compelling, case that scripture is, in the very least, significantly flawed. And what do you do? You question whether or not I have a deep enough grasp of reality to even consider such matters! LOL.

Yup, because if scripture is infallible you would not have a deep enough grasp of reality to make such claims, so again you are being biased by assuming scripture is fallible by asserting that you have a deep enough grasp of reality to prove it’s fallible, that’s called begging the question.

If you can't beat em, question their perception, that's what I say.

You’re being irrational, that’s easy enough to beat.

What's that, the Earth is spherical, you say? How do you know aren't just deluding yourself into believing that? How do you the billions of other people who think the same thing aren't deluding themselves? Hell, how do you know that you aren't deluding yourself about others thinking that when in reality is just you alone who thinks the Earth is round.

The shape of the Earth is not relevant to this discussion, even though people in those times were well aware of the Earth’s shape due to ships disappearing beyond the horizon. Additionally, “what everyone else thinks is true” is irrelevant to what is actually true. You of all people should know that, especially considering you’re one of the few people on Earth who doesn’t believe in the supernatural (everyone else must be delusional eh?).

And people wonder where Joseph Smith got the idea for magic glasses!

Joseph Smith didn’t use magic glasses; he said he used the Urim and Thummim stones. You’re deflecting though, the point is that your representation of the God of scripture and what you think He ought to have done is nothing more than a fallacious misrepresentation. God is not some passive being desperately hoping that people will come to a knowledge of the truth on their own terms.

There is no clear truth in Christianity. It's so open that a new Christian religion practically develops on a bi-weekly basis.

A new Christian religion? I think you’re confusing the term denomination with the term religion.

It's a childish mentality, and we are talking about psychology here. Try and keep up.

Why is it a childish mentality? Because you say so? I reject that standard.

No one said it was. Then again, believing that your parents love you isn't exactly a supernatural claim now is it?

I never said that it was. Try and keep up. Believing in the supernatural is not childish at all, most people believe in it.

Believing in a friend that does not appear, does not speak, or make himself universally and undeniably evident, is a supernatural claim.

You have friends who have made themselves universally evident? How?

Children believe in Santa Claus but eventually stop because their parents admit to them that it was a lie just to get them to bahave.

And yet most adults still believe in God, therefore that’s a fallacious analogy.

Adults believe in thousands of different types of gods.

That’s irrelevant.

Unfortunately, these same adults do not have an authority such as their parents to tell them that it's a lie to bring them under control.

…because it’s not a lie to bring them under control. You’re awfully long on assertions and rather short on support for those assertions.

It's the same childish condition, it just doesn't have an end.

Prove that it’s the same condition.

Wow! You just convinced me. All this time I've been trying to get you to tackle subject matter, and you were holding back undeniable proof such as this.

Arguments are not measured by their ability to persuade; many people such as yourself are not persuaded by logically sound arguments.

"He does exist". I don't know why, but that's just so much more compelling than the same argument all other religions are making!

I do not think you’ve figured out the rules of this game yet, which is kind of amusing. Every time you make a baseless assertion (such as God does not exist) I have been merely making the opposite assertion back at you since they both hold the same amount of merit. I find it funny that you object to my assertions but you seem to see no problem with yours (even though they are logically identical). Keep making assertions, it makes my job easier.

Mentally, yes.

Proof?

Convenient.

Rationality can be rather convenient at times.

I think those other religions would say the same thing about yours.

Irrelevant.

Only, most of the gods that have ever been invented, predate yours. In fact, your god, in many ways, is the accumulation of many of those gods.

No, He’s the one true God, all others are false gods.

And yet Christians make up over 30 percent of the world. Couldn't have discredited scripture better myself, thank you.

What does that have to do with anything I just said? Scripture says the gospel will spread to all of the other nations, so you actually just supported scripture. The point is that Christians are not believing in God because they want protection (as you misrepresented), they believe in Him because they are His adopted children.

Not at all. Christians do believe in god so that he will protect them from eternal torment.

No, they believe in Him because they are His adopted children.

Pretty obvious, dude! Are you okay? I feel a little bad having to teach you the basic fundamentals of your own faith.

All you have taught me is that you never properly understood the faith to begin with, it’s no wonder you left it.

I'm sure many Atheists have done a better job than me,

Replace “many” with “nearly all”.

That said, I don't think that is why you have failed to get to the subject matter in this case.

Sure it is, I was able to get to it with them, seems that you’re the only variable in the scenario that has changed.

For one thing, I won't allow you to dictate the terms of our discussion.

So far we’ve discussed exactly what I wanted to discuss…

You want to draw me into an endless discussion about what I mean about everything.

No, I want you to back up your position, that’s not too much to ask of someone.

That may have worked with others, but it will not work with me.

So far it’s working perfectly.

Another thing that I suspect you are avoiding is dealing with the fact that I know your religion as well as you do, which puts you at a significant disadvantage in this case.

That’s the most absurd claim you’ve made to date. You didn’t even know that Christianity teaches that neutrality is impossible.

This explains why you are completely resolved to avoid the subject matter in this case.

We are discussing the subject matter, namely your inability to present a logically coherent and cogent view of reality without believing in the God of the Bible.

The suggestion itself is redundant.

So you cannot present the subject matter you’d like to discuss?

I've explained myself fine. You just don't want the explanation to lead anywhere, so you refuse to let it.

You have done nothing of the sort! You cannot provide me with a standard for what makes something a magnificent claim other than your arbitrary opinion. You cannot explain to me why a magnificent claim would logically necessitate a magnificent proof. You cannot even explain what a magnificent proof is and how it is different from regular proofs accepted by logicians. You cannot tell me what you mean by the word verify because you obviously do not mean firsthand experience. You cannot reconcile the fact that you claim to be open-minded and yet you assume that scripture is not the word of God a priori. You cannot verify the fact that you claim to only believe in that which is verifiable and yet you believe in a whole host of claims that are by their own nature unverifiable. You’re nothing more than a poorly thought out rhetorist.

I mean, let's face it, anyone who thinks he's sporting a special pair of glasses that give him a clearer understanding of things is going to be quite difficult to effectively communicate with.

I am easy to communicate with, but difficult to debate with.

It's like trying to break down the walls of communication with an autistic, it's damn near impossible.

That doesn’t stop me from trying to break down those walls with you though!

As often as I possibly can, I try to avoid wasting peoples time by creating my own set of special meanings for words and terms.

Ok, well fine then, since you cannot give me a standard, atheism is a magnificent claim, where’s your magnificent proof to support atheism?

And I won't. Either you are just stupid enough to not understand the supernatural implications, or, as I've made a case for, you are just trying to create an endless series of meaningless Q and As in order to deflect away from the subject matter.

You cannot tell me how you know those are magnificent claims? Well then I reject your assertion that they are and I therefore do not need to provide any magnificent proof.

You say you usually get farther by now. Why do I get the distinct feeling that you usually succeed in sucking others into this trap of yours?

Defining your terms and explaining how you know what you claim to know is a “trap”?

Man, that is some sound logic there!

Yes, it is.

And yet human's managed without it for well over a 150000 years.

That’s amusing. That’s like saying, “Humans do not need air to breathe! I do not believe in air and I breathe just fine!” If the God of scripture didn’t exist you’d be unable to know anything at all.

You think you've gotten to know me? Wow have I gotten to know you. The above response typifies your response to just about everything, and I've seen you use the same pattern with other posters.

How is this relevant (even though you have called me delusional so your objection above could just as easily be turned around on you)? I do not need to know you, scripture says all unbelievers are delusional, and you’re an unbeliever so you would fall in that class. Are you going to answer my question or do you not know the answer?

I presented a brief, yet compelling, case that scripture is, in the very least, significantly flawed. And what do you do? You question whether or not I have a deep enough grasp of reality to even consider such matters! LOL.

Yup, because if scripture is infallible you would not have a deep enough grasp of reality to make such claims, so again you are being biased by assuming scripture is fallible by asserting that you have a deep enough grasp of reality to prove it’s fallible, that’s called begging the question.

If you can't beat em, question their perception, that's what I say.

You’re being irrational, that’s easy enough to beat.

What's that, the Earth is spherical, you say? How do you know aren't just deluding yourself into believing that? How do you the billions of other people who think the same thing aren't deluding themselves? Hell, how do you know that you aren't deluding yourself about others thinking that when in reality is just you alone who thinks the Earth is round.

The shape of the Earth is not relevant to this discussion, even though people in those times were well aware of the Earth’s shape due to ships disappearing beyond the horizon. Additionally, “what everyone else thinks is true” is irrelevant to what is actually true. You of all people should know that, especially considering you’re one of the few people on Earth who doesn’t believe in the supernatural (everyone else must be delusional eh?).

And people wonder where Joseph Smith got the idea for magic glasses!

Joseph Smith didn’t use magic glasses; he said he used the Urim and Thummim stones. You’re deflecting though, the point is that your representation of the God of scripture and what you think He ought to have done is nothing more than a fallacious misrepresentation. God is not some passive being desperately hoping that people will come to a knowledge of the truth on their own terms.

There is no clear truth in Christianity. It's so open that a new Christian religion practically develops on a bi-weekly basis.

A new Christian religion? I think you’re confusing the term denomination with the tem religion.

It's a childish mentality, and we are talking about psychology here. Try and keep up.

Why is it a childish mentality? Because you say so? I reject that standard.

No one said it was. Then again, believing that your parents love you isn't exactly a supernatural claim now is it?

I never said that it was. Try and keep up. Believing in the supernatural is not childish at all, most people believe in it.

Believing in a friend that does not appear, does not speak, or make himself universally and undeniably evident, is a supernatural claim.

You have friends who have made themselves universally evident? How?

Children believe in Santa Claus but eventually stop because their parents admit to them that it was a lie just to get them to bahave.

And yet most adults still believe in God, therefore that’s a fallacious analogy.

Adults believe in thousands of different types of gods.

That’s irrelevant.

Unfortunately, these same adults do not have an authority such as their parents to tell them that it's a lie to bring them under control.

…because it’s not a lie to bring them under control. You’re awfully long on assertions and rather short on support for those assertions.

It's the same childish condition, it just doesn't have an end.

Prove that it’s the same condition.

Wow! You just convinced me. All this time I've been trying to get you to tackle subject matter, and you were holding back undeniable proof such as this.

Arguments are not measured by their ability to persuade; many people such as yourself are not persuaded by logically sound arguments.

"He does exist". I don't know why, but that's just so much more compelling than the same argument all other religions are making!

I do not think you’ve figured out the rules of this game yet, which is kind of amusing. Every time you make a baseless assertion (such as God does not exist) I have been merely making the opposite assertion back at you since they both hold the same amount of merit. I find it funny that you object to my assertions but you seem to see no problem with yours (even though they are logically identical). Keep making assertions, it makes my job easier.

Mentally, yes.

Proof?

Convenient.

Rationality can be rather convenient at times.

I think those other religions would say the same thing about yours.

Irrelevant.

Only, most of the gods that have ever been invented, predate yours. In fact, your god, in many ways, is the accumulation of many of those gods.

No, He’s the one true God, all others are false gods.

And yet Christians make up over 30 percent of the world. Couldn't have discredited scripture better myself, thank you.

What does that have to do with anything I just said? Scripture says the gospel will spread to all of the other nations, so you actually just supported scripture. The point is that Christians are not believing in God because they want protection (as you misrepresented), they believe in Him because they are His adopted children.

Not at all. Christians do believe in god so that he will protect them from eternal torment.

No, they believe in Him because they are His adopted children.

Pretty obvious, dude! Are you okay? I feel a little bad having to teach you the basic fundamentals of your own faith.

All you have taught me is that you never properly understood the faith to begin with, it’s no wonder you left it.

I'm sure many Atheists have done a better job than me,

Replace “many” with “nearly all”.

That said, I don't think that is why you have failed to get to the subject matter in this case.

Sure it is, I was able to get to it with them, seems that you’re the only variable in the scenario that has changed.

For one thing, I won't allow you to dictate the terms of our discussion.

So far we’ve discussed exactly what I wanted to discuss…

You want to draw me into an endless discussion about what I mean about everything.

No, I want you to back up your position, that’s not too much to ask of someone.

That may have worked with others, but it will not work with me.

So far it’s working perfectly.

Another thing that I suspect you are avoiding is dealing with the fact that I know your religion as well as you do, which puts you at a significant disadvantage in this case.

That’s the most absurd claim you’ve made to date. You didn’t even know that Christianity teaches that neutrality is impossible.

This explains why you are completely resolved to avoid the subject matter in this case.

We are discussing the subject matter, namely your inability to present a logically coherent and cogent view of reality without believing in the God of the Bible.

The suggestion itself is redundant.

So you cannot present the subject matter you’d like to discuss?

I've explained myself fine. You just don't want the explanation to lead anywhere, so you refuse to let it.

You have done nothing of the sort! You cannot provide me with a standard for what makes something a magnificent claim other than your arbitrary opinion. You cannot explain to me why a magnificent claim would logically necessitate a magnificent proof. You cannot even explain what a magnificent proof is and how it is different from regular proofs accepted by logicians. You cannot tell me what you mean by the word verify because you obviously do not mean firsthand experience. You cannot reconcile the fact that you claim to be open-minded and yet you assume that scripture is not the word of God a priori. You cannot verify the fact that you claim to only believe in that which is verifiable and yet you believe in a whole host of claims that are by their own nature unverifiable. You’re nothing more than a poorly thought out rhetorist.

I mean, let's face it, anyone who thinks he's sporting a special pair of glasses that give him a clearer understanding of things is going to be quite difficult to effectively communicate with.

I am easy to communicate with, but difficult to debate with.

It's like trying to break down the walls of communication with an autistic, it's damn near impossible.

That doesn’t stop me from trying to break down those walls with you though!

As often as I possibly can, I try to avoid wasting peoples time by creating my own set of special meanings for words and terms.

Ok, well fine then, since you cannot give me a standard, atheism is a magnificent claim, where’s your magnificent proof to support atheism?

And I won't. Either you are just stupid enough to not understand the supernatural implications, or, as I've made a case for, you are just trying to create an endless series of meaningless Q and As in order to deflect away from the subject matter.

You cannot tell me how you know those are magnificent claims? Well then I reject your assertion that they are and I therefore do not need to provide any magnificent proof.

You say you usually get farther by now. Why do I get the distinct feeling that you usually succeed in sucking others into this trap of yours?

Defining your terms and explaining how you know what you claim to know is a “trap”?

Man, that is some sound logic there!

Yes, it is.

And yet human's managed without it for well over a 150000 years.

That’s amusing. That’s like saying, “Humans do not need air to breathe! I do not believe in air and I breathe just fine!” If the God of scripture didn’t exist you’d be unable to know anything at all.

I have two questions for you to answer though, where did the first Human come from and what did he or she mate with?

[pocaracas]

I'll just admit I haven't been following all these walls of text...
You guys seem to be having fun by yourselves... enjoy.
I'll just point out one detail that popped into view on this reply... noticed what I bolded

I do not need to know you, scripture says all unbelievers are delusional, and you’re an unbeliever so you would fall in that class.
[...]
Yup, because if scripture is infallible you would not have a deep enough grasp of reality to make such claims, so again you are being biased by assuming scripture is fallible by asserting that you have a deep enough grasp of reality to prove it’s fallible, that’s called begging the question.
[...]
Joseph Smith didn’t use magic glasses; he said he used the Urim and Thummim stones. You’re deflecting though, the point is that your representation of the God of scripture and what you think He ought to have done is nothing more than a fallacious misrepresentation. God is not some passive being desperately hoping that people will come to a knowledge of the truth on their own terms.
[...]
What does that have to do with anything I just said? Scripture says the gospel will spread to all of the other nations, so you actually just supported scripture. The point is that Christians are not believing in God because they want protection (as you misrepresented), they believe in Him because they are His adopted children.
[...]

We are discussing the subject matter, namely your inability to present a logically coherent and cogent view of reality without believing in the God of the Bible.
[...]
You cannot reconcile the fact that you claim to be open-minded and yet you assume that scripture is not the word of God a priori. You cannot verify the fact that you claim to only believe in that which is verifiable and yet you believe in a whole host of claims that are by their own nature unverifiable.

Am I the only one who notices a pattern?
You base this god's existence of a book.
It's like (strawman time) claiming the harry potter exists, based on the 7 books written by J.K Rowlins, and all the remaining contributions about the subject, including the movies.

This is exactly how an atheist views the "god of scripture". A fictional entity.
Without the book, you have nothing on the character.
The extraordinary proof some atheists require is something completely defying the known laws of Nature, like.... e.g. a constantly floating rock above a lake.... or an eternally burning bush... something extraordinary, something evidently extraordinary... that doesn't require drinking the kool aid, nor putting on the loony glasses.

If you put the book aside and discount oral tradition as faulty, you have nothing, zero, didly squat, nada, niente.... well, you have the gaps

[smax]

Statler,

Here are my final thoughts on our discussion:

This entire time I didn't realize I was dealing with a Calvanist. I just noticed that as your religious affiliation. When I was Christian, I, too, studied Reformed Theology. And, while I feel Reformed Theology is the most scripturally accurate, it's also the least logical from a world view. So it comes as no surprise to me that your strongest arguments are merely dogmatic references to scripture and basic Christian principles. With that, I must admit a high level of disappointment. At the beginning of our discussion, I thought we might actually engage in a meaningful and challenging debate about the validity of the Christian claims. But, as you point out, you are already uncontrollably swayed (although, I prefer the words "insanely deluded") about these matters, and you see scripture as the most valid point of reference. This dynamic makes any meaningful debate with you impossible, as I'm sure I'm not the first to find out.

Still, some part of your brain seems to understand the obvious contradictions that are at play with your perspective, which is why you deflect so much. When addressing other religions, to you it's "irrelevant". When addressing divisions and errors within your own religions, it's "irrelevant".

Ofcourse, you have maintained throughout the course of the conversation that you are not deflecting, but rather asking for greater clarification. But we both know that isn't true. Clarification has been provided, and did not satisy you. With regard to "magnificent claims", I intentionally made reference to a burning vehicle speeding through the neighborhood. With regard to verification, I gave the example of a dead sasquatch being given over to science for study.

After that failed to satisfy you, I realized that we would never tackle the subject matter. We would be stuck in an endless, and meaningless debate about what everything means.

I refused to engage, and decided, for no better reason than my own personal amusement, to focus more on your own personal struggle with menal illness. Like anyone with mental illness, you assume you do not have it. You rationalize the symptoms you display: having an imaginary friend, believing highly improbable and unreliable fictional tales, and delusions of grandeur.

Rationalization #1. Everyone's doing it!

Rationalization #2. You only think I'm crazy because you didn't get the special glasses!

Rationalization #3. I know I'm right because I feel it

Anyway, despite all your deflecting and loopy comments, I actually enjoyed this unexpected development in this thread. I only wish I had realized your specific religious angle earlier on in the conversation. It would have drastically changed my approach. There's always next time, and I'm quite sure now that there will be one.

[Statler Waldorf]

I'll just admit I haven't been following all these walls of text...
You guys seem to be having fun by yourselves... enjoy.

Yes…a blast.

Am I the only one who notices a pattern?

No, you’re not the only one, there’s a definite method and pattern to my reasoning.

You base this god's existence of a book.

Well partially off of His direct revelation, but also by the things He has made. Scripture is the ultimate authority though.

It's like (strawman time) claiming the harry potter exists, based on the 7 books written by J.K Rowlins, and all the remaining contributions about the subject, including the movies.

Yes, that’s a straw-man argument. Another alleged holy text would have been a better analogy.

This is exactly how an atheist views the "god of scripture". A fictional entity.

I do not care how atheists view scripture.

Without the book, you have nothing on the character.

Not quite, we could still learn of His attributes through the things He has made, but we have His direct revelation so that’s not a very relevant hypothetical to consider.

The extraordinary proof some atheists require is something completely defying the known laws of Nature, like.... e.g. a constantly floating rock above a lake.... or an eternally burning bush... something extraordinary, something evidently extraordinary... that doesn't require drinking the kool aid, nor putting on the loony glasses.

First of all, millions of people claim to have such supernatural experiences and atheists simply write them off as mistaken perception, so why would it all of a sudden be a valid proof if those atheists experienced the same phenomena? Secondly, you know as well as I do that atheists would simply postulate a naturalistic explanation for such events, or simply say there must be one that we do not understand yet. The proof for God’s existence is far more fundamental than that.

If you put the book aside and discount oral tradition as faulty, you have nothing, zero, didly squat, nada, niente.... well, you have the gaps

This assumes there is some neutral position a person can reason from in order to “put the Book aside” and then reason back to the Book being what it claims to be. There is no neutrality, you either have to assume that the Book is the word of God or you have to assume that it is not. You cannot say you are being any more rational by assuming it’s not the word of God than I am by assuming it is. The bigger question is; which view of reality is logically consistent and coherent and which one is not, and in that arena the Biblical view of reality trumps the anti-Biblical view in every which way, which means it must also be the true view of reality.

Here are my final thoughts on our discussion:

Final? Leaving so soon?

This entire time I didn't realize I was dealing with a Calvanist.

Perhaps you should have taken the time to learn what your opponent actually believes, just a thought.

And, while I feel Reformed Theology is the most scripturally accurate,

Yes.

it's also the least logical from a world view.

How?

So it comes as no surprise to me that your strongest arguments are merely dogmatic references to scripture and basic Christian principles.

My ultimate authority is infallible, it’d be illogical for me not to appeal to it.

With that, I must admit a high level of disappointment.

With that, I must admit I am happy to disappoint someone like you.

At the beginning of our discussion, I thought we might actually engage in a meaningful and challenging debate about the validity of the Christian claims.

The offer to do so is still out there, you’re just going to have to engage me in a manner that is rational, that’s all.

and you see scripture as the most valid point of reference.

Yes, that’s the Christian doctrine of the inerrancy and authority of scripture in a nutshell; did you not know you were debating with a Christian?

This dynamic makes any meaningful debate with you impossible, as I'm sure I'm not the first to find out.

It’s not impossible at all; you just have to know how to do it! If you want to have a debate about whose view of reality provides a coherent and consistent framework for human experience and knowledge itself then I’d love to have that debate! However, trying to attack my central doctrines by assuming they are false ahead of time (begging the question) is not going to get you anywhere with me; and shame on any Christian who actually falls for that ruse. You wanted to have a debate where I gave up my position and allowed you to keep yours; I have learned never to play when the deck has been unfairly stacked like that.

Still, some part of your brain seems to understand the obvious contradictions that are at play with your perspective, which is why you deflect so much.

What contradictions are you referring to?

When addressing other religions, to you it's "irrelevant".

Yes, you’re an atheist, and I am a Christian, therefore only atheism and Christianity are relevant to this discussion. Appeals to other religions are nothing more than fallacious red herrings.

When addressing divisions and errors within your own religions, it's "irrelevant".

The validity and soundness of a truth claim is non-contingent upon what anyone else thinks about it, therefore Christians disagreeing on scripture is irrelevant to whether scripture is infallible or not.

Ofcourse, you have maintained throughout the course of the conversation that you are not deflecting, but rather asking for greater clarification.

Yes, of which I am still waiting for.

But we both know that isn't true.

It is true.

Clarification has been provided, and did not satisy you.

That is simply because I was asking for logically coherent clarification, and I have yet to receive it.

With regard to "magnificent claims", I intentionally made reference to a burning vehicle speeding through the neighborhood.

A burning car? I do not consider that to be magnificent at all, so which one of us is right?

With regard to verification, I gave the example of a dead sasquatch being given over to science for study.

Yes you did. So are you waiting for the body of a immaterial, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent God to be given over to science for study? If not, then your example was not clarifying what you are looking for at all. Not to mention, science studying a body is not a magnificent proof but merely an inductive inquiry.

After that failed to satisfy you, I realized that we would never tackle the subject matter. We would be stuck in an endless, and meaningless debate about what everything means.

Not my fault.

I refused to engage, and decided, for no better reason than my own personal amusement, to focus more on your own personal struggle with menal illness.

Menal illness? What’s that? I think a better and definitely more humorous use of our time would be to focus on your personal struggle with basic grammar and spelling.

Rationalization #1. Everyone's doing it!

I never used that one.

Rationalization #2. You only think I'm crazy because you didn't get the special glasses!

Well because you suppress the truth. Self-deception is a very real phenomenon.

Rationalization #3. I know I'm right because I feel it

I never used that one either.

Anyway, despite all your deflecting and loopy comments, I actually enjoyed this unexpected development in this thread.

As did I.

I only wish I had realized your specific religious angle earlier on in the conversation.

I wish you were intellectually honest enough to learn about your opponent’s position before trying to debate him too. Perhaps you should have taken the time to ask me for clarification.

It would have drastically changed my approach.

Doubtful.

There's always next time, and I'm quite sure now that there will be one.

I sure hope so.

[pocaracas]

damn... this is why didn't follow this thread... too many points to follow

Am I the only one who notices a pattern?

No, you’re not the only one, there’s a definite method and pattern to my reasoning.

You base this god's existence of a book.

Well partially off of His direct revelation, but also by the things He has made. Scripture is the ultimate authority though.

"direct revelation", huh?
Why was I not included in that memo?

It's like (strawman time) claiming the harry potter exists, based on the 7 books written by J.K Rowlins, and all the remaining contributions about the subject, including the movies.

Yes, that’s a straw-man argument. Another alleged holy text would have been a better analogy.

Would yield the same result.
The gods of Olympus, the gods of Valhalla... you see them as fictional, just as I see yours... or am I mistaken in your portrayal of religions to which you don't subscribe?

This is exactly how an atheist views the "god of scripture". A fictional entity.

I do not care how atheists view scripture.

Then why are you here, on this forum?
To tell atheists how to read your precious scripture?

Without the book, you have nothing on the character.

Not quite, we could still learn of His attributes through the things He has made, but we have His direct revelation so that’s not a very relevant hypothetical to consider.

"his attributes", "the things he has made"? and which would those be?... and where did you come by that information?

The extraordinary proof some atheists require is something completely defying the known laws of Nature, like.... e.g. a constantly floating rock above a lake.... or an eternally burning bush... something extraordinary, something evidently extraordinary... that doesn't require drinking the kool aid, nor putting on the loony glasses.

First of all, millions of people claim to have such supernatural experiences and atheists simply write them off as mistaken perception, so why would it all of a sudden be a valid proof if those atheists experienced the same phenomena?

Because the experiences people claim to have can be simply mental concoctions... regardless of how genuinely those people believe that they have experienced something real... you know the saying: pics, or it didn't happen.
Unlike an eternally hovering stone or burning bush, which could be seen by everyone... and pics and vids could be all over the interwebz.

Secondly, you know as well as I do that atheists would simply postulate a naturalistic explanation for such events, or simply say there must be one that we do not understand yet. The proof for God’s existence is far more fundamental than that.

If the bugger would just stop hiding and tell everyone what's on his mind... instead, the guy just allows this eternal doubt to linger... While people argue and bicker about the guy's existence, about the guy's attributes... about the guy's name... This hiding of your god is one of the main causes of conflict on this planet.... go GOD!!

If you put the book aside and discount oral tradition as faulty, you have nothing, zero, didly squat, nada, niente.... well, you have the gaps

This assumes there is some neutral position a person can reason from in order to “put the Book aside” and then reason back to the Book being what it claims to be. There is no neutrality, you either have to assume that the Book is the word of God or you have to assume that it is not. You cannot say you are being any more rational by assuming it’s not the word of God than I am by assuming it is. The bigger question is; which view of reality is logically consistent and coherent and which one is not, and in that arena the Biblical view of reality trumps the anti-Biblical view in every which way, which means it must also be the true view of reality.

Aye, neutral position is the one you're born with... the same you see in all other animals: indifference, the desire to survive and breed.
I always come back to this question on the book.... 20 (or 30 or 40...) thousand years ago, there was no book. How did people get it? What happened?

Nowadays, there are millions of books, written by people.... some of those books are claimed, by some groups of people, to be divinely inspired, or the direct word of the deity they proclaim. Of these divinely inspired books, the divinity in one does not correspond to the divinity in another so one tends to exclude all the others.
Now, from a neutral position, what can I say about this myriad holy books? At most, one of them is correct. If it is correct, then that righteousness should be self evident... how else would the people who wrote them get the information?

Divine inspiration seems faulty... I mean, for example, the OT (sort of shared amongst jews, christians and muslims) claims that the deity talks directly to people... orders them to kill, to do this or that... what happened to the deity after the book was written? Did it loose that ability to interact with people? Or were those just voices in people's heads, just like what happens with some psychologically disturbed people we see nowadays? With this in mind, the OT is evidently based on stories from crazy people.


Also, the existence of large groups of people claiming their holy book is the correct one, shows that such self evident righteousness does not exist.... so the sensible conclusion is: all those holy books follow the pattern of all the other books we know of: man made.

If the book and its contents are man-made, then you follow a fictional tale of a fictional character, just like the Harry Potter stories (or any other story book). Straw man returns!