Thanks. Left you a trackback to help your readers improve eye vision naturally….

[...]The information mentioned in the article are some of the best available [...]……

I had planned a long, detailed discussion about the points in trollman’s argument that are false or baseless. I was going to slam the Daniel argument with the “if i pray for rain and it does, it doesnt make me a prophet” angle. I was going to comment that while troll and zero make intelligent discussions, that really…the 3 questions that i had above was never answered. And likely, since they’ve been around as long as we have and there’s still no conclusion…

I’ve sat here for 20 minutes AFTER deleting about 2 pages worth of text…

After all that…I’ve decided its just not worth it. It’s not worth investing the time or energy into someone who believes they are correct, that we automatically agree with him and if we don’t we MUST be wrong, and who artfully dodges even the most basic of questions.

Troll, you seem educated and know your topic. But you’re not dealing with some knuckle-dragging moron who accepts what you say at face value. Having an open mind, and simply accepting what you are saying at face value with no statistical or scientific fact behind it, is (in my eyes) without merit.

It doesnt matter how many fairy tales you throw out, how many “prophecies” you can name…none of it really answers the questions i posed or gives anything more than…well, things that can in fact be dismissed with a wave of my hand. I’m dismissing a lack of REAL evidence. I’m dismissing an argument that we could go on forever having, and never really come to a conclusion.

troll, your faith is your own. and you can worship as you choose, as is your right. but just basically making the argument we all have to agree there is a god, and debate his virtues…doesnt work for me.

I’m not going to waste anymore energy on a discussion where someone cant address my concerns directly. I’ll be in emails with EQ. she at least is giving me some benefit of the doubt and answering questions methodically and without twisting the meaning of the verses she’s quoting.
I’ll not be checking this again. I thank you all for a somewhat good discussion, but i have no real desire to sit and debate something that I can easily dismiss as false (such as god), with someone who wont even give quarter enough to believe the other person is correct.

BTW…your interpretation of the Gospel pretty much goes against what most people are taught in churches these days, much less what i was taught when i was still in the pews. It would benefit you to know that (even intelligently) twisting scripture to suit your own purpose is something that the devil (again, provided he exists too) is capable of (The devil can quote scripture to suit his own purpose as my grandmother told me) and does on a regular basis.

When you can demonstrate god registers on one of the five senses, we’ll talk again. until then, you’ve simply failed to present anything of value.

Closed.

My rapid fire succession of posts demostrates that I put very little thought into my answers at this point. Feel free to think you are getting under my skin, you are not.

Your long winded replies are rationalizations. Have a nice day.

You really should do more research.
Carl Sagan’s “pale blue dot” reference is very famous.

Dawkins was borrowing from him in God Delusion.

The more you post the more you make yourself appear foolish.

If you had gone to Amazon.com and looked at the excerpt they had – which is how I knew Dawkins used the “pale blue dot” phrase, you would have seen what I saw:

Carl Sagan, in Pale Blue Dot, wrote:

So obviously I knew it was, in Dawkins’ book, a reference to Carl Sagan.

In fact, when I was typing up my previous post, I was going to include that little tidbit, but I then altered it. Perhaps zeroangel’s arrogance will take the bait and try to play the ignorance card on me. Kind of like earlier when I talked about Biblical faith with abstractmind. I fully expected him to go to Hebrews 11:1 (and/or John 20:29). In both cases, you both proved my point about being arrogant – with a vengeance!

zeroangel said:

Furthermore, in this thread alone I sought out, read from, and quoted Peter Kreeft.

Did you even know who Kreeft was, or had read any of his stuff before this thread? How many (entire) books have you read by Christian apologists?

Going to read a few brief excerpts or quotes does not display an openness of mind. You see, when I began studying about Islam, it was because I had heard some quotes from the Koran. I thought to myself, that can’t be right. That is obviously false; perhaps it was quoted out of context, or something else.

Rather than assuming those of another view were “beyond the reach of honest debate”, I gave Islam & Muslims the benefit of the doubt. Thus I took it upon myself to read the entire Koran. I then consulted what Islamic literature I had access to – books and articles – to try to find out if there were any solutions that could answer the problems I had detected. When I couldn’t find those answers, I then went to actual Muslims. But I have still not been able to come across an answer to the criticism towards Islam that I gave above.

By your rapid-fire succession of posts, it demonstrates that what I have said has gotten under your skin. Not just because of what I have said, but because what I have said is true. We tend to project our faults on to others, and when someone points out our hypocrisy, we hate it. You can either continue to lash out, or you can come clean and draw closer to the truth.

Ref the charge that I don’t read Christian apologists, non sequitur, for reasons that should be painfully obvious.

Furthermore, in this thread alone I sought out, read from, and quoted Peter Kreeft.

Dawkins was borrowing from him in God Delusion.

The more you post the more you make yourself appear foolish.

It just now occurred to me. I have read some of Richard Dawkins books (The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker), but it has been a few years. But your argument (you did finally admit it was an argument, right?) reminds me of Dawkins – his kind of points, manner of expression, and logical errors. Is that what inspired your earlier post?

To which, zeroangel responded with:

My points remind you of Dawkins in the same manner yours remind me of countless Christian apologists. Are they what inspired your posts?

I looked at an excerpt from Dawkins’ God Delusion on Amazon.com. Dawkins included a reference to something you said earlier – “pale blue dot.” Interesting word choice, no? So I take it I did strike home in my educated guess.

If I am not open to debate as you claim, then why have I at least a strong familiarity with the arguments (and even style of particular) atheists? And why couldn’t you single out a particular Christian apologist to compare me to, in return? I suspect because you aren’t actually familiar with the writings of Christian apologists – at least no where near as familiar as I am with atheist literature.

I think it is abundantly clear who is open-minded here – who studies all sides of an issue. It is also clear who is close-minded – who accepts anything that agrees with them, and automatically rejects anything that contradicts their already established views.

So you believe that ancient texts have foretold the future. You also believe that an almighty creator, that could have easily created the world in 7 days (or instantly), created the entire universe with its trillions of galaxies with trillions of stars each; complete with countless collapsed stars; failed star systems etc.. Then he dabbled for millennia with life on one particular world culminating in huge lizards, which he later destroyed, to pave the way for humans. How is this NOT a celestial Rube Goldberg machine? That’s exactly what is it.

My points remind you of Dawkins in the same manner yours remind me of countless Christian apologists. Are they what inspired your posts?

Abstractmind:
If you are still there, I think you can see my point. Now perhaps I should take my own advice.

I wasn’t dismissing anything, merely pointing out to Abstractmind (not you) the beliefs of those whom he is trying to debate with.

So all you’re doing is trying to explain Christians’ basic beliefs? When challenged that you were dismissing the evidence without first addressing it, you said:

What from my post to Abstractmind don’t you believe?

You believe ancient texts foretold the future, correct?

Well, yes, I do believe there are some ancient texts that foretold the future, but that isn’t what you had posted earlier. Let’s refresh our memories:

You are debating with people that believe “proof” of “God” existing amounts to an ancient text purporting to tell the future.

No, I do not believe the Bible purports to tell the future – a word that has a decidedly negative connotation.

And if a text tells the future, then that is indeed proof or evidence for special knowledge. That is precisely why it is so important for skeptical scholars to argue for later dates for the books of the Bible.

You believe God created the entire universe, correct?

Again, that is worded very differently than what you had said earlier:

They will want you to believe that this God is responsible for countless destroyed galaxies, collapsed stars, barren worlds, all to have one little blessed pale blue dot in a backwater section of a nondescript galaxy be inhabited with his creation.

Obviously, if God created the heavens and the earth, then He created collapsed stars, barren worlds, etc. But if all you were intending to do was to explain what Christians believe and not to put a prejudicial slant (a la argument from incredulity), then why such a strange presentation of the Christian’s basic belief?

It just now occurred to me. I have read some of Richard Dawkins books (The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker), but it has been a few years. But your argument (you did finally admit it was an argument, right?) reminds me of Dawkins – his kind of points, manner of expression, and logical errors. Is that what inspired your earlier post?

I was persuading Abstractmind that debate is impossible. I was also trying to politely bow out of this topic. You start with trying to portray my comparison as a formal logic argument, which it was not because I am not debating with you and you and I don’t share the same axioms. Then you shift gears and use equivocation to say I was making an “argument.” Which I was, but it certainly was not fallacious and it is better classified as a comparison. Then came the strawman arguments.

I have said (many times now) that hard-atheism is untenable. I can only conclude that you don’t understand what I am saying, you are purposely mischaracterizing what I am saying, or simply you didn’t read my previous posts.

No one is dancing. I have been clear with my POV from the start.

Secular Humanists also hold the belief that one should love their neighbor as themselves (among other things).

My beef is with fundamentalists. I really have no problem with Deists and progressive Christians (heck I’m married to one).

Any fair-minded reader (if there are any left still reading) should be able to see that plainly. They will also be able to see your prodigious use of ad hominem (with me and Abstractmind) as well as equivocation, strawman, and non sequitor. Finally, its no surprise the favorite tool of a sophist is semantics.

So how about it? Do you believe ANY of the aforementioned “silly” things? You dodged that one.

It was a comparison and it was directed at Abstractmind, not you.

I’m aware of that. What you posted was targeted towards someone who said they were agnostic and open to evidence towards believing in God. Which sets up the context that supports you were making an argument, trying to persuade him to your side. I don’t mind you trying to persuade people to your side, but I do mind people flat out lying.

zeroangel said:

If you take a comparison of the universe to a Rube Goldberg machine; followed by an admission that it IS a possibility; further followed by an assertion that perhaps it isn’t the only possibility; as an argument, I would say that is proof positive that discourse on the topic is impossible.

Whoa, wait a minute. Earlier, you said:

It was a comparison of the convictions of fundamentalists to a Rube Goldberg Machine. Nothing more.

Which is it? Is it some random comparison with no point, or was it a comparison that was meant to go somewhere (you know, to persuade someone)? If you were just saying “Christians’ beliefs are like a Rube Goldberg machine, then how does Occam’s razor fit into the comparison?

We both know the whole point of referring to Occam’s razor – to do away with the perceived need for God – and thus strengthening your position of atheism. I can’t understand why you feel the need to lie and try to cover that up. Could it be that you now realize that, as an argument, it was full of logical leaps? So rather than admitting your flawed logic, you decided to dance?

zeroangel said:

Goodness, I even admitted that I CANNOT scientifically rule out the existence of God!

So you are willing to admit that it is at least a logical possibility that some God some where might exist. That concedes virtually nothing – when it comes to what is logically possible, almost everything qualifies (except for those things involving an inherent logical contradiction).

zeroangel said:

You believe ancient texts foretold the future, correct?

You believe God created the entire universe, correct?

You believe God created all life on this Earth to include countless extinct species, correct?

You believe the son of God was born in Judaea, correct?

You believe Jesus died for our sins, correct?

If you believe all these things then my point to Abstractmind (not you) is well made.

Christians believe a lot of things, such as:
love your neighbor as yourself,
the good will ultimately be rewarded,
the bad will ultimately be punished,
that the universe makes sense and thus is open to rational inquiry & systematic study,
etc.

But you didn’t mention any of these things. Why is that? Could it be that you selectively chose certain beliefs, stringing them together, in order to make Christianity look “silly” as part of your fallacious argument?

“I was just typing up some random doctrines, compared it to a Rube Goldberg machine, and then, from out of no where, Occam’s razor just randomly came up.”

Even Hillary finally admitted she lied. Even Obama finally disowned Jeremiah Wright. But will zeroangel ever admit he made an unsound argument, and then lied about it so he wouldn’t have to admit his error?