Another serious reason why these conversations are futile

[Spock]

Stealing is always evil, unless what we have is something that another should already have.

“Should have”? By what decree? By whose opinion?

As to the bold, why should we expect God to drop a piano on everyone who fails to actively do as they ought all the time.

There are other, much more effective, and less “visible” ways and means to achieve the desired result.

There seems to be a loophole here that allows one to kill someone who is innocent to save someone else. I question that validity of that view. I could see instances when such could be the cases, but if the one to be killed for the sake of the others is atheist it must certainly not be allowed.

Under certain circumstances it could be justified. Note, I do not say “moral”, because “moral” is just another meaningless, “feels-good-buzzword”. Of course I have seen some posts, where the poster declared that intentionally taking away someone’s life can never be justified, even if the price would be the extinction of all humanity. But there are all sorts of weird pople with strange opinions.

 

[Spock]

Well, as a big fan of science, I think that at least in principle you can reduce chemistry to physics. Chemical reactions can be explained in terms of protons, neutrons and electroncs.

That is not the same. Eventually everything boils down to the atomic particles, that much is true. But the complexity of molecules is not a “material object”, it is the property of objects. And the properties are not the derivatives of the building material only. Just take three wooden sticks (of equal size) and arrange them to form a triangle. The sides and the angles are equal, but this property cannot be reduced to the sticks themselves, we must take into account their placement, which is not a material object itself. Or consider a bunch of bricks, beams, panels, wires, nails, etc… With proper arrangement they can be assembled into a house, but the house has a whole lot of properties, which cannot be reduced to the building materials.

Well these are examples of people using other methods to solve scientific problems.

Are they? Do those “methods” work?

Here’s an example of something I think is beyond science, but still is worthy of knowing: What lies beyond our universe. Are there other universes? Do you think this is a problem that science can solve? It seems to me more of a philosophical problem, yet some scientists seem to think its within their realm to speculate on what “must exist” outside our universe.

It is pure speculation. As a topic for a science-fiction story such a conjecture can be useful. But so can be the idea of time-travel. No, these questions do not belong to science, and will not be solved by science. There is nothing “outside” the universe, or “before” the universe.

 

[Spock]

It’s more than merely a sustained belief; it is belief that was held by the historically acknowledged brightest minds of each era. They were not quasi-intelligent people that died and passed on their legacies to lesser and lesser intelligent people, as time went on, like the perhaps the bumpkin astrologists. There’s no adequate comparison.

Yet, none of these elevate the status of such a belief system beyond pure, irrational speculation.

Hmmm. And, you think that there is no diminution of esteem or admiration by either party for the other because of the peculiarly disrespectful placement of organs during the event? It would be very interesting to put a thousand regular women (not prostitutes) in a hall, assure them that there are no males, and have other females ask pertinent questions about this. I think you’d find that you were considerably more than a tad wrong.

I doubt it. But this is not the point at all. There are some people, who willingly and joyfully engage in such practices, where there is no “pressure” to participate in them. They know what they are doing, and want to do it. Yet, according to the Church such behavior is “disordered”, and not permissible. That is what I am talking about. Whether the participants are of the same sex, or not, they have several things in common: they are willing, they are eager, they are filled with love for their partner.

You do realize the impossible conundrum of such a test project, don’t you?

What is there to test? Some people like big families, some like small ones. Some are happy alone.

The New Law of Spock?

Nope, I did not invent it. Take a father who beats up his child, and later offers a lollipop as a reward. The reward is unconnected to the previous deed. The reward will not make the prior injustice “justified”. Why do we have to go and talk about such obvious things?

But that’s us.

So? The principle that someone’s free execution of his his “will” is somehow “sacrosanct” is nonsense. If we can justifiably prevent a deed, so can God.

Up to and except for sin and evil. Those denote imperfection. Were they to be found in God they would be contradictions.

According to your definitions.

You refuse to understand evil. Evil is not a thing.

I never said anything otherwise. And have explained it many times in no uncertain terms.

You mentioned the child falling into a crevasse, in one of your earlier posts. Is the earth per se evil? Or, is what we deem to be evil the actuality of that which is missing? The crevasse is absent earth. It is correctly in this sense that one can say that the crevasse is bad.

Nonsense. The crevasse is not “good”, nor “bad”. I described an accident, and there is nothing “evil” in that. In the absence of a mind, which can see the event and has the ability to prevent, rectify it, there is nothing “evil” about it. The problem is that you describe God as all-knowing and all-powerful, so you paint yourself into a corner, when you say that such a being is somehow “exempt” from doing what needs to be done, and yet you wish to describe that being as “loving” and “caring”. That is the contradiction.

And, even though the earth inherently possesses the absence - which is the evil, so to speak - it remains the god of the materialists. The god of the positivists. And the insanity is that some will blame that absence of earth on the God-that-they-don’t-believe-in. That is what is absurd. Can’t you see that?

No. No sane atheist considers “matter” as some kind of a “god”. That is just your misconception. I do not blame “God” for anything, and have said it many times. I blame the believers for maintaining a contradiction when they speak of the God, they believe in. Doublethink, anyone?

 

[Spock]

Why doesn’t the Church define more?

The Church recognizes that there is a legitimate diversity of opinion in much in the Bible. There are Catholic annotated Bibles, but going verse-by-verse is irresponsible, more likely to muddy the waters than to clear them.

Muddy the waters, if the Holy Spirit guides the Church? Surely you jest. It would clarify which verse is literal and which is allegorical, and if allegorical, what does it mean? What it would do, is take away the loophole from the inconsistent apologists who are willing to argue either side of the case, depending on how the question is asked.

How can God be the source of all morality yet allow evil?

Theodicy, the problem of evil, always boils down to a discussion of what it means to to have free will. Knowing your distaste for a plethora of contradictory opinions from as many people, I submit to the explanation of Lewis, who is pretty much authoritative.

First of all, we do not only talk about “evil” in the sense of volitional actions. But let’s restrict the conversation to that kind of evil. The free will (which is not a Jolly Joker to explain everything problematic) does not lead to the actuality of evil, it only makes it possible. That is where the logical chain ends. It does not explain the fact that some humans choose to do evil acts.

Lewis speaks nonsense. A war, where the “good” side could win, but chooses not to? A war, which is invisible, yet everyone must take sides? A set of rules, which are not posted clearly and unambiguously, yet we must follow them? We must take sides, before we are given the evidence of what is going on? And as soon as we are presented the evidence, so we can make an informed decision, the game is over, and we are not allowed to make our choice then? What kind of a nonsense is that?

If Lewis is the “best” or the “authoritative” expert in this question, then you guys are in deep trouble. An old Calvin and Hobbes cartoon comes to mind, where Hobbes says: “The surest sign that there is intelligent life in the Universe is the fact that they never tried to contact us”. Which I translate into: “The surest sign that there is no God, is the fact that he never came down and kick the living daylight out of the apologists who are a disgrace to the concept they preach about”.

On a positive side, I like your pen-name. But you had better sit down with R. Daneel Olivaw for a conversation.

 

[tonyrey]

The “serious reason” why these conversations are futile is refuted by the fact that Spock continues to converse - unless it reflects his belief in the futility of life!

 

[Spock]

The “serious reason” why these conversations are futile is refuted by the fact that Spock continues to converse - unless it reflects his belief in the futility of life!

Only according to your lack of understanding.

There is a great book, its title is “May it Please the Court”. It contains the verbatim trascripts of the most important and most controversial Supreme Court cases, along with the copy of the tapes. Obviously, cases like these are divisive, one either strongly agrees with one side, or strongly disagrees with it. So it was for me, too. But even when I strongly disagreed with one side, I had to agree that their reasoning was solid and their arguments were good arguments, even if I disagreed with them and their conclusions. In other words, they were not bull…ing. This is what I am missing here from the overwhelming majority of the posts. Fortunately there are a few exceptions, very few, indeed. I have rarely ever seen a reasonable set of arguments, logically introduced, something that would make me think that it is more than just a haphazard, wishful thinking, completely contradicted by reality.

Your current post is a sad example of the meaningless observations, which are without merit, which make absolutely no constructive contribution to the topic.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Spock, your inability to Comprehend something is not the same as something being evidently irrational. Its evident to anybody who wishes to engage in rational thought that in-order to maintain a belief that all reality is a physical evolving universe, they have to believe that the universe, one way or another, came out of absolutely nothing by itself without any cause. You are not in a position to arrogantly put down others that present arguments you cannot understand, and you are certainly not in a position to pretend that the belief that all is physical is rational. You are certainly not more rational than the theist if by rational we mean reasonable thought devoid of contradictions. Your are just blowing out hot air.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

On a positive side, I like your pen-name. But you had better sit down with R. Daneel Olivaw for a conversation.

He always did have a lot to learn from me.

You do speak a bit of truth, I think. Atheists, in the worship of simple reason unencumbered by warmth, argue like a robot. As Lewis would have it, like “men without chests.” So cold it is, a life without God.

Another minor observation: Christians and atheists are well-matched. The atheist because he is often trained how to attack theism, and the Christian because he has loved God, which, although the smallest scrap of insight into how God works, is enough of an insight to defeat all misrepresentations of His Truth.

Muddy the waters, if the Holy Spirit guides the Church? Surely you jest. It would clarify which verse is literal and which is allegorical, and if allegorical, what does it mean? What it would do, is take away the loophole from the inconsistent apologists who are willing to argue either side of the case, depending on how the question is asked.

If apologists do argue either side of the question in order to deceive, I condemn it in the strongest possible terms. Their hypothetical method to confuse souls damages necessarily the witness of the Church, driving all involved only further away from the Truth.

Catholics have learned not to test God, as such a verse-by-verse translation you would require would test Him. Moreover, if you accept the premise that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and further that the teaching on the Bible is guided by the Church, it must follow that the current understanding of the Bible which allows a legitimate diversity of opinion is perfectly valid.

First of all, we do not only talk about “evil” in the sense of volitional actions.

Volitional actions which are evil are the most practical way to address the problem of evil, and surely the only instance where we can make a difference by arguing about it.

The free will (which is not a Jolly Joker to explain everything problematic) does not lead to the actuality of evil, it only makes it possible. That is where the logical chain ends. It does not explain the fact that some humans choose to do evil acts.

Agreed. Logic cannot explain any further why men do evil acts. Fortunately, theology does explain this.

Lewis speaks nonsense. A war, where the “good” side could win, but chooses not to?

The choice was, is, and will be made — God exists outside time — and it is only His hope/love/knowledge of us — our free choice to choose Him — which prevents him from turning the minds of all evil men to butter.

A set of rules, which are not posted clearly and unambiguously, yet we must follow them?

The rules are written on the heart of every man, and proclaimed every day by the faithful, and inscribed in several courthouses around the country and in the pages of a book in every hotel room in the world.

We must take sides, before we are given the evidence of what is going on?

The evidence is going on. It is all around us. The failure of the City of Man to become the City of God is the very essence of this evidence!

And as soon as we are presented the evidence, so we can make an informed decision, the game is over, and we are not allowed to make our choice then?

As near as we can figure out, God does not want simply kind of people who see what is in front of their noses, but those who allow Him to draw themselves towards Him by faith.

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.

Pope John Paul II​

A war, which is invisible, yet everyone must take sides? … What kind of a nonsense is that?

Watch television with your eyes closed and you will hear nonsense then, too.

If Lewis is the “best” or the “authoritative” expert in this question, then you guys are in deep trouble.

Lewis is authoritative for saying things every Christian immediately understands, not for saying everything perfectly, and in modern English the West can readily understand. Chesterton would be more authoritative — meat for men, where Lewis is milk for children — but people can’t get around his language easily. I have a feeling that Mere Christianity is better for Christians who love God than for anyone who denies him, a sketch for all arguments rather than an argument itself.

The best, fullest atheism: Nietszche and Sartre, insanity and depression. The best, fullest theism: saints and martyrs, the selfless and joyful.

An old Calvin and Hobbes cartoon comes to mind, where Hobbes says: “The surest sign that there is intelligent life in the Universe is the fact that they never tried to contact us”. Which I translate into: “The surest sign that there is no God, is the fact that he never came down and kick the living daylight out of the apologists who are a disgrace to the concept they preach about”.

Understand God as a loving, living Father, and you’ll see why he lets us live, sinning. What kind of Father would he be if he swatted us on the bottom for every minor transgression? We would hardly grow into our own.

It always takes spectacular, sustained depraved sin before God even warns a particular people of the coming judgment, and he always gives fair warning.

 

[tonyrey]

Only according to your lack of understanding.

There is a great book, its title is “May it Please the Court”. It contains the verbatim transcripts of the most important and most controversial Supreme Court cases, along with the copy of the tapes. Obviously, cases like these are divisive, one either strongly agrees with one side, or strongly disagrees with it. So it was for me, too. But even when I strongly disagreed with one side, I had to agree that their reasoning was solid and their arguments were good arguments, even if I disagreed with them and their conclusions. In other words, they were not bull…ing. This is what I am missing here from the overwhelming majority of the posts. Fortunately there are a few exceptions, very few, indeed. I have rarely ever seen a reasonable set of arguments, logically introduced, something that would make me think that it is more than just a haphazard, wishful thinking, completely contradicted by reality.

Your current post is a sad example of the meaningless observations, which are without merit, which make absolutely no constructive contribution to the topic.

As I have pointed out, the supreme reason why these conversations are futile is that you ignore the posts which contain statements you cannot refute, such as:

1. Your nitpicking approach to the Old Testament reveals your unawareness that its main purpose was give basic moral laws to a primitive tribe which would foreshadow and prepare the Chosen People for the coming of the Messiah with His message of love and hope for everyone, not just the select few.

The Church did not do its duty to separate the wheat from the chaff - if there is any wheat in it at all.

If you reject the wheat what are you left with? Your own parochial, fallible notions of what is good and evil - assuming you even accept that distinction!

Somehow the Holy Spirit did not do a good job of “inspiring” or “guiding”.

The fact that the Bible has inspired countless human beings to heroic lives of service and love for others is ample evidence that it contains moral and spiritual truths which are the basis of modern civilisation. What is your source of guidance and inspiration?

It “neglected” to inform the authors that the circumference of the circle in not 3 times its diameter - even though the contemporaries already knew it better.

Your example of “neglect” merely underlines the absurdity of your argument with its implication that the Bible is defective because it is not an encyclopaedia which contains all scientific and mathematical truths!

Since you maintain that the code is not applicable to God himself, it is obviously not universal and not absolute.

A non sequitur, given that the nature of God is absolute…

It is not such a difficult concept to understand: any code or rule, which has exceptions is not universal and not absolute…

It should not be too difficult to understand that the Source of morality is not an exception but the Model on which all rules are based.

To parody your OP: I don’t think this post will change your mind. As before, these attempts to rational discourse with you are futile. If you would start to think about it, it would be great. But I don’t hold my breath!

 

[Spock]

Spock, your inability to Comprehend something is not the same as something being evidently irrational. Its evident to anybody who wishes to engage in rational thought that in-order to maintain a belief that all reality is a physical evolving universe, they have to believe that the universe, one way or another, came out of absolutely nothing by itself without any cause.

We have to believe? Do you really think that you can tell me what I have to believe? If that is not arrogant, I don’t know what is! If you would have read several posts by me and other atheists, you might have noticed that we do not believe that. Our stance is that the Universe simply exists, nothing more, nothing less. There is no “before” the Universe, there is no “outside” the Universe. The Universe has no cause, it just exists.

As a matter of fact, we say exactly the same thing about the Universe what you say about God. You maintain that God exists, without any cause. You don’t say that God came from “nothing”. There is one major difference, of course. The Universe clearly exist, visible, tangible, observable. That is not true about God.

You are not in a position to arrogantly put down others that present arguments you cannot understand, and you are certainly not in a position to pretend that the belief that all is physical is rational. You are certainly not more rational than the theist if by rational we mean reasonable thought devoid of contradictions. Your are just blowing out hot air.

Where are your “so-called contradictions” here? Yes, I understand everything you say, the only thing I do not understand how can you say it? The Universe is not “good”, it is not “evil”, it is what it is. It does not promise eternal happiness for worshipping, nor does it threaten with eternal suffering for simple “disobedience”.

If you wish to criticize, at the very least try to understand what we actually say. It is clear that you do not understand anything, since you keep on maintaining that we have to believe something we do not believe. The very question: “how did the Universe come to existence?” is sheer nonsense, it is exactly like to ask: “what exists to the north from the North Pole?”.

 

[Spock]

You do speak a bit of truth, I think. Atheists, in the worship of simple reason unencumbered by warmth, argue like a robot.

Where did you get one from? We acknowledge feelings, emotions, just like you do.

If apologists do argue either side of the question in order to deceive, I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.

But I did not say, nor do I believe that they do it out of the desire to deceive. They honestly believe what they say. They are just confused about their own teaching.

Catholics have learned not to test God, as such a verse-by-verse translation you would require would test Him.

Why would it need “testing”?

Agreed. Logic cannot explain any further why men do evil acts. Fortunately, theology does explain this.

Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant. The point is that the existence of “free will” does not explain the actuality of human evil. And you say, clearly, that theology is not logical. There we actually agree.

The rules are written on the heart of every man, and proclaimed every day by the faithful, and inscribed in several courthouses around the country and in the pages of a book in every hotel room in the world.

Nonsense. Even as a metaphor it makes no sense. Nowhere it is written “on our heart” that expressing love toward someone else must be accompanied by the “openness” to procreation. Oh, and by the way, that book is not in “every” hotel room in the world.

The evidence is going on. It is all around us. The failure of the City of Man to become the City of God is the very essence of this evidence!

Not an “evidence” by any stretch of imagination.

As near as we can figure out, God does not want simply kind of people who see what is in front of their noses, but those who allow Him to draw themselves towards Him by faith.

To know something is infinitely better than the wishful thinking called: “faith” (the thing what is hoped for).

Understand God as a loving, living Father, and you’ll see why he lets us live, sinning. What kind of Father would he be if he swatted us on the bottom for every minor transgression? We would hardly grow into our own.

Actually, God did precisely that - according to Genesis. One strike, and you are out! And since the Church never fulfilled the duty to teach if that passage is to taken literally or figuretively, you can easily say that it is not to accepted verbatim, it is some allegory. The allegory of what?

 

[Spock]

As I have pointed out, the supreme reason why these conversations are futile is that you ignore the posts which contain statements you cannot refute, such as:

Those posts have been refuted many times. I cannot be bothered to do it again and again, and again…

 

[tonyrey]

Those posts have been refuted many times. I cannot be bothered to do it again and again, and again…

Hubris, self-deception or both? The devil is in the details…

You’re certainly right about one thing: with you these conversations are indeed futile…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

We have to believe? Do you really think that you can tell me what I have to believe? If that is not arrogant, I don’t know what is!

The context is evident; yet you chose to bend it and warp it into a straw-man. It may not be evident to others debating you but its obvious to me that you, for all you supposed rationality, just want to hurt peoples feelings while disguising it as honest enquiry.

You have to believe by force of logic. Its got nothing to do with arrogance.

If you would have read several posts by me and other atheists, you might have noticed that we do not believe that. Our stance is that the Universe simply exists, nothing more, nothing less.

The universe evidently doesn’t just simply exist; but rather it is an evolving universe; it is constantly evolving into being.

There is no “before” the Universe, there is no “outside” the Universe. The Universe has no cause, it just exists.

That’s what you want to believe. This doesn’t change the fact that an evolving universe, which proceeds potentially into being, requires a cause for its existence.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

As a matter of fact, we say exactly the same thing about the Universe what you say about God.

No we do not. That is a straw-man. Philosophically speaking, we logically infer a being that must have certain attributes in-order to ultimately explain the existence of an evolving universe. Such a being is required in order to explain potential reality. This beings attributes is the same as what we understand when we talk about the nature of God.

You maintain that God exists, without any cause.

We maintain that there has to be timeless transcendent perfect reality; having within its own nature the reason for its own existence. This transcendent reality has to have certain attributes; these attributes are the same attributes that God has. Those attributes cannot be found in a physical potential universe.

You don’t say that God came from “nothing”.

Of course not. That would be irrational.

There is one major difference, of course. The Universe clearly exist, visible, tangible, observable.

That doesn’t make the universes existence any more plausible or rational if one cannot posit a cause for its potential nature or existence. If you want to entertain the belief that potential reality came out of nothing, you are free to. Surely such a belief doesn’t require you to come on to these forums and speak as if you have a rational understanding of things.

That is not true about God.

It doesn’t need to be true. Gods nature is as such that I would not expect to see God; God is not a finite structure, and thus I cannot possibly see any definable limitations which would allow me to perceive Gods nature directly. But I can know about Gods existence indirectly through created things.

Where are your “so-called contradictions” here? Yes, I understand everything you say, the only thing I do not understand how can you say it? The Universe is not “good”, it is not “evil”, it is what it is. It does not promise eternal happiness for worshipping, nor does it threaten with eternal suffering for simple “disobedience”.

I don’t want to go to hell either. Some people feel that life would be so much easier if we could ignore any notion of objective moral realism and divine judgement. But it is self evident to me that there is such a thing as a right and wrong which transcends mere subjective human taste or opinion, and so I cannot follow you in your campaign against God.

If you wish to criticize, at the very least try to understand what we actually say.

Why don’t you try doing the same?

It is clear that you do not understand anything, since you keep on maintaining that we have to believe something we do not believe. The very question: “how did the Universe come to existence?” is sheer nonsense, it is exactly like to ask: “what exists to the north from the North Pole?”.

I cannot understand why you feel the need to come on to these forums with your self-righteous attitude dictating to us what we must believe. Straw-men aside, I will never understand why somebody cannot understand that the Universe cannot create its self out of potential nothingness. That we cannot speak of a “before time” is irrelevant to the fact we are talking about a potentially real thing, and it is potentially real in that it has a beginning, and the beginning of time and potentiality cannot be explained by that which is in time, as in, after the fact of change. Your pretence of rationality on this point amounts to nothing more than a play or words; the contradiction you claim to be evident is purely linguistic in nature. We still have to explain why time exists because there was evidently no time in existence beyond a certain point (since there was no beyond), so why should it exist now. To say that it just exists would be to say that the potentiality or change which we find in existence came out of absolutely nothing. But change cannot be the cause of its self, and there is no such thing as absolutely nothing. So you cannot say that potentiality and change exists because potentiality and change exists; since you still have to explain potentiality and thus change. We certainly cannot speak of a physical cause, since as you so rightly pointed out there is no before, there was no time in existence; thus there must be a cause that transcends the finite definitions and limitations of physical time and space. There must be a non-physical timeless cause. Before and after would not be a meaningful limitation for such a being.

 

[Spock]

Hubris, self-deception or both? The devil is in the details…

The details were given, several times.

You’re certainly right about one thing: with you these conversations are indeed futile…

So why do you answer my posts? Just ignore me. I can have a decent conversation with others.

 

[Spock]

I cannot understand why you feel the need to come on to these forums with your self-righteous attitude dictating to us what we must believe.

I am not trying to tell you what you must believe.

Straw-men aside, I will never understand why somebody cannot understand that the Universe cannot create its self out of potential nothingness.

I did not say that the Universe “created itself”. You still misrepresent what I am saying.

That we cannot speak of a “before time” is irrelevant to the fact we are talking about a potentially real thing, and it is potentially real in that it has a beginning, and the beginning of time and potentiality cannot be explained by that which is in time, as in, after the fact of change.

The phrase “potentially real thing” is meaningless.

We still have to explain why time exists because there was evidently no time in existence beyond a certain point (since there was no beyond), so why should it exist now.

No, we do not “have to explain” it. Explanations cannot go into infinity, there is some point where the explanations stop. For you this stopping point is God, for the atheists it is the Universe. Both unexplained, both unexplainable, respectively. The only difference, as I already pointed out is that the Universe is clearly there, while there is no sign of God.

I wish to emphasize something. Just like my view is logically coherent, so is yours! No, there is no logical contradiction in your view (just like there is no contradiction in mine, your assertion notwithstanding), and I do not try to browbeat you, unlike you do. I simply find your extra “step” unnecessary and without explanatory value. After all to say that there is “unknowable being, who used unknowable means made this whole shebang somehow happen” - is not an explanation.

There is no logical problem with your presented view at all (which is not the whole picture). You merely talk about the “deistic god”, a faceless creator. The problem comes when you wish to “flesh out” this skeleton “creator”. When you start to talk about the other attributes of this creator. That is when you run into your contradictions, that is when the hide-and-seek game starts. And that is when you leave the realm of logic, and enter into the realm of “faith”, of wishful thinking.

 

[Spock]

It may not be evident to others debating you but its obvious to me that you, for all you supposed rationality, just want to hurt peoples feelings while disguising it as honest enquiry.

Well, this does require a response of its own. I most emphatically reject that characterization. If that is “evident” or “obvious” to you, then I really feel sorry for you. Besides, you should trust the moderators, who diligently weed out those posters whose posts do not adhere to the forum’s rules. A simple apology will suffice.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

You know, Spock, I think I’m way out of my depth here. I don’t think it is a personal weakness — cleverness is no virtue — but a lack of formal training. Truth be told, my sole experience in apologetics has been on forums like these, and I know only just enough sometimes to follow the more technical conversations on here. I think I’m content for the time being to be a fly on the wall. I tend to speak in images when I get excited, and this is no help in an argument like this.

I really would be interested to see what response you have to this observation, more on-topic than any post has been for a while.

Christians and atheists are well-matched. The atheist because he is trained how to attack theism, and the Christian because he has loved God.

Christians who love God don’t bother with training in defending him, which is the real reason why atheists seem to knock Christians dead in informal debates like these. Most Christians today are not trained in logic because most people aren’t trained in logic these days. Apologetics is no substitute, either, because apologetics by definition includes a personal dimension that the cold logic of philosophy does not, and often emphasizes that personal dimension — see “aesthetic argument for God,” et al.

This is what I meant when I said atheists argue like robots — their arguments have all the seeming of philosophy, no soft squishy center. It was no insult, at least not one intended.

As my parting request, consider please responding to my questionnaire. I really do want to scope out the mind of individual atheists, those without a book contract.

 

[tonyrey]

The details were given, several times.

More self-deception! Precisely which posts contain answers to my questions?

I can have a decent conversation with others.

That remains to be seen… Your track record indicates otherwise.