Debating an Atheist

[steve7150]

Well Truman you have convinced me of one thing which is that you are very opinionated. If being opinionated equated with being right i would have to acknowledge that my sister in law is the smartest person in the universe. Alas being very opinionated means only what it states which is that you are very opinionated.

[TrumanSmith]

Well Truman you have convinced me of one thing which is that you are very opinionated. If being opinionated equated with being right i would have to acknowledge that my sister in law is the smartest person in the universe. Alas being very opinionated means only what it states which is that you are very opinionated.

How about a discussion using logic rather than name calling?

[steve7150]

How about a discussion using logic rather than name calling?







I'm not a name caller but you do seem to think that telling us your opinion about numerous issues is impressive and persuasive evidence. For example your opinion about the fact the bible clearly means a worldwide flood is invaluable followed by science clearly disproves a worldwide flood, also more invaluable opinions
from you.
You bring extraneous issues which you clearly are not really interested in and when they are answered you just bop on to the next extraneous issue like a worldwide flood which i now won't bother answering.
If i'm not logical i'm not anything so using my God given logic, i'll move on.

[TrumanSmith]

How about a discussion using logic rather than name calling?

You bring extraneous issues which you clearly are not really interested in and when they are answered you just bop on to the next extraneous issue like a worldwide flood which i now won't bother answering.

I'll gladly talk on any issue you want to. Name it.

[backwoodsman]

Fuz Rana ... doesn't seem to have good answers to DNA arguments for evolution.

That's simply not true; anyone can verify that by listening to your talk with him at the Youtube link. He gave a very good answer on that point. (You, on the other hand, had nothing to offer except, basically, DNA proves evolution -- which, scientifically speaking, you can't possibly know.) I have no reason to doubt you believe what you said, but you make the same mistake as everyone else who decides what they want to believe first, then tries to make the facts fit: You either can't or won't (only you and God know which) see any evidence or interpretation that disagrees with your beliefs. That came out very clearly in your debates with Steve and Fuz, and much more so in this thread.

Another silly thing about RTB: They think Noah's flood was local, not worldwide. Why save birds that could easily fly away, if local?

Fuz answered that question very well also. Of course you may disagree if you wish, but calling RTB 'silly' gives away a lot more than you may realize about your attitude toward those with whom you disagree.

My initial impression during your debate with Steve was that you were humble and rational, but some cracks were starting to appear in that by the end of the debate. Your debate with Fuz Rana widened the cracks to gaping chasms, and this thread has pretty decisively obliterated that impression.

You've said several times that your Christianity was a delusion; based on what I've seen & heard of you, I'd go farther than that and say it's crystal clear you never were a Christian. Sure, you subscribed to a belief system based on a particular set of interpretations of the Bible, but that's a long way from being a follower of Jesus. So it seems you're spectacularly unqualified to comment on anyone else's Christianity or relationship with God -- after all, by your own admission you haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about. Yet you feel free to insist that no one else has a relationship with God that's not as much a delusion as yours was. That's not only completely illogical and irrational, but quite arrogant as well. If you really want to know why Steve & Steve have chosen not to communicate further with you, that would be a good place to start looking.

[CThomas]

Truman, I have no doubt whatsoever that you will talk anout any issues whatsoever. In fact, I have no doubt that you will do so ad nauseam. But there are other prerequisites to a fruitful discussion beyond willingness to send verbiage back and forth. If I responded to your postings by sending back excerpts from the telephone book and pronouncing myself the winnier of the debate you would quickly decide that the conversation was not worth having, and would not be moved by my indignant reply that I was more than happy to continue the conversation. I think you may want to seriously consider the unanimous view of this diverse group that you are not responding coherently to arguments in a way that is conducive to conversation. I routinely discuss Christianity with arheists and almost always enjoy doing so even though I strongly disaagree with them. That is unquestionably true of Steve Gregg and undoubtedly many others here. So this is not a case of closed-minded refusal to engage with opposing viewpoints, as you seem to believe.

CThomas

[backwoodsman]

You bring extraneous issues which you clearly are not really interested in and when they are answered you just bop on to the next extraneous issue like a worldwide flood which i now won't bother answering.

I'll gladly talk on any issue you want to. Name it.

Truman, stop and think for a minute about this exchange. Do you see anything there that you think someone trying to communicate with you might find frustrating, or that might make them think it's pointless to try to have a discussion with you?

[TrumanSmith]

I think you may want to seriously consider the unanimous view of this diverse group that you are not responding coherently to arguments in a way that is conducive to conversation. CThomas

Really- two or three people, you call that unanimous? I had no idea your group was so tiny.

[TrumanSmith]

Do you see anything there that you think someone trying to communicate with you might find frustrating, or that might make them think it's pointless to try to have a discussion with you?

Backwoodsman, it is typical for Christians to avoid engagement in hearty discussion. Nothing new here. Fazale Rana and Dennis Venema were having a great debate on evolution, both of them Christian, but they stopped because they were afraid it was getting too "divisive.' That's why Christianity is very weak, institutionally speaking. These different groups are afraid to hash things out, so take your pick on origins issues: young earth creationism, old earth creationism, and evolutionary creationism. Steven Gregg doesn't know enough to talk about it, so he just leans on experts. If you want to know, you have to study science, and learn what DNA and genomics is showing us. Here's an example teaching video from Christians that defend science and evolution:
"Lesson 11/16: Biological Systematics Part 1" (see the other parts too)
http://youtu.be/zsuIpSDXRAE

In the debate, Steve Gregg said DNA evidence didn't shed any more light on evolution than what we had with fossils. That is incredibly and horribly wrong. DNA (genomics) has refined evolutionary theory and species tremendously. Just one sample:
"New DNA evidence could explain what happened to the Neanderthals"
http://io9.com/5939148/new-dna-evidence ... anderthals

And yes- I know sometimes they (young earthers and old earthers) do debates... I've watched a number of them. But I think they are way too infrequent. And I don't think the evolutionary creationists got into any significant debates with either of them yet (beyond debates in print format.... I mean in-person debates are needed).

RE: Fuz Rana and the flood- what do you think his good answer is, as to why birds would be needed to be saved from a local flood? Please enlighten me. PS: I like Fuz, and I think we would consider each as friends of the other. I appreciate the RTB attitude of trying to present a model for creation... it is in stark contrast to the mindless Young Earth Creationist attitude of just "God dun it."

Most Christians don't know it, but there is a crisis in evangelical Christian academia over evolution. More and more are accepting evolution every year. How to integrate that into theology? I don't think any of them can. I think the best attempt was Prof. Denis Lamoureux with his book:
"Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution"
http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Crea ... 1556355815

[TrumanSmith]

Backwoodsman said: "You've said several times that your Christianity was a delusion; based on what I've seen & heard of you, I'd go farther than that and say it's crystal clear you never were a Christian."

I can say the same of you. You think you are a real Christian, but you aren't. See how ridiculous of a claim that is, when I use it on you as you do on me? That's why I'd never say such a thing; and can't understand why others would say it. Steve Gregg says he has some kind of personal relationship with God that no one else can know about; but when someone else claims the same thing he says they can't claim it... as if he can judge others but no one can judge him in the same way.

I know it bothers Christians to consider that they might be deluded, like one who says they escaped the delusion. But there's another way out that some Christians claim, other than saying I was not a true Christian. That is to say that I'm still a Christian, but just doubting and being a back-slider. Christians have also tried that to soothe their conscience about me. These are two ways to stay in denial.

The path you need to follow to free yourself from the God delusion:
Denial -> Anger -> Bargaining -> Depression - > Acceptance

Denial: God exists, no matter what others say
Anger: How dare you try to take my religion from me
Bargaining: Maybe God exists, even though all the religions are wrong
Depression: It's all nonsense and superstition
Acceptance: OK- how do I deal with this truth of no God. Existential philosophy is a good place to start looking.