A friendly religious discussion with theists without any fallacies!

[ignoramus]

C'mon theists, let's leave ALL the science AND all the magic out of this thread.

So, what's left?

Boru

Sadly, I'm under the impression that since the Abrahamic religions are based on "sacred" texts, It all comes down to the validity of these texts.
There are many inconsistencies and contradictions in the eg: bible. Do we give it a waiver and assume it is "based" on divinity and flawed only by man's translation?
Or should we treat it as a flawed volume of work to begin with and make no assumptions about its divinity?
Then there are the Christians that go one step further and insist it is inerrant and can explain away the inconsistencies.

As an atheist, I see constantly moving goal posts. Not because they're intentionally (I'll give some the benefit of the doubt), trying to deceive, but more so because they are generally lost for explanations. I believe this is because most theists are cultural theists (as Khem says) and haven't really thought through to the core of their beliefs.

In the end I feel all theist/atheist discussions/debates are completely unproductive as one lot are speaking from the mind (logic), and the others are speaking from the heart.
So why are even bothering comparing apples to oranges. Both sides are wrong for even getting involved.

[RoadRunner79]

Seems like you guys are off to a piss poor start. You may want to read the OP a little slower this time.

Edit: well the title and OP anyway.

[ignoramus]

Sorry man ..."Bad start" isn't even the word.
We're just talking amongst ourselves ...
We don't even really know where or how to begin discussing theism in a friendly and productive way is seems.
As Rob said, we don't even know what it is we don't believe in because not even theists can describe it in any standardized meaningful way.

Where to from here? Dirty jokes and poop talk I s'pose
Care to help us out?

Sincerely.

[robvalue]

One of the biggest unsupported assertions I see is that a creator/manager of our section of reality would automatically be all-powerful in general, and not just in relation to our reality. Clearly that does not follow. If parts of a computer simulation I made became self-aware, I would be their "God". I could have near-total control over their environment, yet back in this environment I'm just your average schmuck.

I understand why this jump is made: "God" is meant to be some final answer, not a further mystery (or some random dickhead). But that doesn't justify the leap. Maybe this creator is in an environment that was, in turn, created; or maybe it's in an environment that "just is". In other words, it's the same situation again that we're in now, and it just pushes the question back one level.

[RoadRunner79]

Sorry man ..."Bad start" isn't even the word.
We're just talking amongst ourselves ...
We don't even really know where or how to begin discussing theism in a friendly and productive way is seems.
As Rob said, we don't even know what it is we don't believe in because not even theists can describe it in any standardized meaningful way.

Where to from here? Dirty jokes and poop talk I s'pose
Care to help us out?

Sincerely.

I always thought that the tactic of questioning the definition of God was an odd one.   Considering that all one has to do to counter it, is provide a definition which is coherent.  And this isn't difficult to do.   I like the following comments from Apologetics Press concerning this tactic and a debate with Dan Barker.

God is the uncaused, all-powerful, all-knowing, merciful, gracious, eternal Spirit whose personality and attributes are manifested in the pages of the Bible. Virtually every dictionary gives an understandable and reasonable definition of God, books that deal with difficult words omit God, and God has been the main subject of discussion and study of the vast majority of the most brilliant thinkers for millennia. The rhetorical tactic suggesting that God cannot be defined is nothing more than an assertion based on a materialistic philosophy that is unfounded. In truth, God can be clearly defined and delineated from all other entities to such an extent that Dan Barker and I can be involved in a formal debate and both know exactly what (or rather Who) we are discussing—God, the God of the Bible.

I don't see where playing dumb, would go that far, in a discussion with a thinking person, and that when it comes to complaining, the people who use this, all of the sudden seem to know what they are talking about.

As to your other suggestion.... I'm afraid, that all I know are clean poop jokes.

[Minimalist]

I don't see where playing dumb,

See?  I never thought any of you were "playing."

[Edwardo Piet]

If theists could do that then they wouldn't be theists.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Is Jesus Yahweh?

In the fairy tale Paul and Barnabas were considered to have been Gods.

---

So, what's left?

Boru

Sadly, I'm under the impression that since the Abrahamic religions are based on "sacred" texts, It all comes down to the validity of these texts.
There are many inconsistencies and contradictions in the eg: bible. Do we give it a waiver and assume it is "based" on divinity and flawed only by man's translation?
Or should we treat it as a flawed volume of work to begin with and make no assumptions about its divinity?
Then  there are the Christians that go one step further and insist it is inerrant and can explain away the inconsistencies.

As an atheist, I see constantly moving goal posts. Not because they're intentionally (I'll give some the benefit of the doubt), trying to deceive, but more so because they are generally lost for explanations. I believe this is because most theists are cultural theists (as Khem says) and haven't really thought through to the core of their beliefs.

In the end I feel all theist/atheist discussions/debates are completely unproductive as one lot are speaking from the mind (logic), and the others are speaking from the heart.
So why are even bothering comparing apples to oranges. Both sides are wrong for even getting involved.

Even the Bible says that people shouldn't believe Jewish fairy tales.

[Pat Mustard]

I think even the SeaBees would have to admit that you set too hard a goal even for them.

I remember killing Super Mutants to that song. Oh, to be a young man again, duct-taping my assault rifle together and braving the post apocalyptic wastes of America.