How I became a theist.

[elliebean]

LOL! As far as lunatics go, I fit the description quite well. I'm just not a religious lunatic.

While I don't think you're a lunatic, this brings up a good point, which I took to be implied in your previous post: It's useless to try to debate lunatics, regardless of their stance on religion. For example, try debating with Fininho or Hvargas.  

[Sophus]

I'm inclined to clap, but not only for the post entirely, but about the debate thing.  I find it so funny that Dawkins will not debate Craig on the supposed point that Dawkins doesn't even know who Craig is (I'd call a lie for that) and that Dawkins simply "doesn't have time"...  If Craig is a nobody and easily dealt with, why not get it out of the way?  Why not run him over with the steam roller that Dawkins is?

On another thread I mentioned that Dawkins has said he will not debate Creationists of any kind. Can't say I blame him. It's a huge waste of time trying to get someone to understand science who doesn't even want to. Plus, by even debating them you're inadvertently attributing some sort of credibility to them they've not earned.

Of course this means Christians absolutely cannot be scientists, or doctors, or anything of any intelligence.  I get it.  Now I understand why Dawkins will not debate Craig.

Craig is not a biologist. What's worse still is that most other creationists that would be in these debates are just ministers or reverends. There's a reason you won't see any of their names on a peer reviewed paper in a publisher like Nature: they're not biologists.

Credibility is Atheism, Atheism is Credibility.  Gotcha.

No need to put words in my mouth.
Also, surely you know, belief in evolution does not equate to atheism.

On another thread I mentioned that Dawkins has said he will not debate Creationists of any kind.

Which is interesting considering his latest book...

The book was about evidence. The evidence is and so are the results. There is no debate. Would you debate a flat earther? If so, why? I guarantee you they'll have they same stubbornness toward evidence as a creationist.

[Whitney]

SANDWICH:

Please resize the bullshit images a little. Scrolling through the already long thread is something of a pain without half a meter of pictures  

yes, like only using them once and having them be like 300px wide would be sufficient.

(keep in mind it is only okay to use those images since you are responding to a troll)

[Whitney]

Of course this means Christians absolutely cannot be scientists, or doctors, or anything of any intelligence.  I get it.  Now I understand why Dawkins will not debate Craig.

Craig is not a biologist. What's worse still is that most other creationists that would be in these debates are just ministers or reverends. There's a reason you won't see any of their names on a peer reviewed paper in a publisher like Nature: they're not biologists.

It would be more appropriate to ask why Dawkins has not debated Behe since Behe is actually a scientist (biochemist).  But I'm pretty sure the reason he hasn't is because irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance...we can't know how this could be more simple therefore something supernatural is going on; that's not a scientific position.  If I remember correctly Behe thinks god kick started evolution and doesn't actually deny the process.

here is some guy I've never heard of debating Behe:

[youtube:uifwd3qm]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtP020hXiAU[/youtube:uifwd3qm]

[Asmodean]

While I don't think you're a lunatic, this brings up a good point, which I took to be implied in your previous post: It's useless to try to debate lunatics, regardless of their stance on religion. For example, try debating with Fininho or Hvargas.  

[AnimatedDirt]

Stop taking everything personally. Are you a religious lunatic? No? then he wasn't referring to you. If he has said "religious people, who are all lunatics, every one, without exception", then I'd be defending you right now, instead of him. If we thought you were a lunatic, most of us wouldn't bother to debate you either. See, what you took as an insult was actually a compliment!  

Thanks.  I appreciate that.  However, in light of what I do hold as belief, this forum as a whole would say I'm foolish/deluded at best and a lunatic at worst.  Well, I find I don't like either option as acceptable.  A fool able to convey his/her thoughts or beliefs in a sensible manner makes him no less a fool or lunatic that holds the same ideas.

Example:
Lunatic--  "You are all going to Hell because God hates you Atheist sinners!"

Fool--  "Anyone that chooses death is going to Hell, but God would rather you choose Him and not go to hell.  In fact, there is no way to avoid hell no matter how good one is.  The crime demands a punishment and death is that punishment.  However, God has made it legally possible to be a sinner, avoid hell, and still gain that which is reserved only for the good/perfect/righteous...and it's a gift!  It's free.

Now...which are you more likely to engage (granted if at all) in dialogue rather than a reply of, "You, sir, are an idiot!"?  Anyway, I hope you understand my point, while I really do understand yours and appreciate the compliment.

No, sorry, the dude is being extremely specific with regards to the reason for his de-conversion.

If you are correct, then it is much like someone who loves NASCAR racing but because one person doesn't win a race (not even necessarily their favorite driver/team) this person gives up or rather rallies and speaks against racing all together.  This is quite silly and the logical end to what you seem to be promoting as the correct interpretation.

Since this is complete and utter nonsense, to rally against NASCAR for that specific reason, I reject that your interpretation of those words mean exactly as you take them to mean...rather I interpret them that these specifics were points among other points, among personal research, investigation.  It can go either way...Atheist --> Christian or Christian --> Atheist.

AD: I was talking about religious lunatics. If you lump yourself into that cathegory of your own free will, it's your choice. I, however, was not looking at you when I made my statement.

Thanks for not looking specifically at me, however while I may not hold ALL the same ideas of a "religious lunatic", the basics seem to be well in common.  God and Afterlife.  The ground level contention Atheist/Atheists hold in opposition to religion.

Anyway, idk where lying is specifically condemned in the Bible. There's a commandment not to "bear false witness", which I take to mean commiting perjury, or literally bringing a false testimony against someone in a court of law, and even then only "against thy neighbor", which I take to mean other Jews,[...]

If bearing false witness is not "also" simply lying...
thefreedictionary.com - False Witness

[LegendarySandwich]

A fool able to convey his/her thoughts or beliefs in a sensible manner makes him no less a fool or lunatic that holds the same ideas.

I disagree.

[elliebean]

A fool able to convey his/her thoughts or beliefs in a sensible manner makes him no less a fool or lunatic that holds the same ideas.

Example:
Lunatic--  "You are all going to Hell because God hates you Atheist sinners!"

Fool--  "Anyone that chooses death is going to Hell, but God would rather you choose Him and not go to hell.  In fact, there is no way to avoid hell no matter how good one is.  The crime demands a punishment and death is that punishment.  However, God has made it legally possible to be a sinner, avoid hell, and still gain that which is reserved only for the good/perfect/righteous...and it's a gift!  It's free.

I wouldn't necessarily describe that person as a fool, depending upon how they presented their case. At worst, until proven otherwise, I'd desribe them as someone who holds some arguably foolish ideas with which I disagree.

Anyway, idk where lying is specifically condemned in the Bible. There's a commandment not to "bear false witness", which I take to mean commiting perjury, or literally bringing a false testimony against someone in a court of law, and even then only "against thy neighbor", which I take to mean other Jews,[...]

If bearing false witness is not "also" simply lying...
thefreedictionary.com - False Witness

Well that's a modern definition of a phrase appearing in a 17th century translation of an earlier translation of... at this point, one must ask: was that even an accepted definition (let alone the intended one) at the time it was written, or did popular misinterpretations of it later on give rise to that usage over time? I'm not saying I know, I'm just saying it's a question and I don't feel like digging up the answer right now.  

[Stevil]

This is quite silly and the logical end to what you seem to be promoting as the correct interpretation.

Agreed, very silly. Bubblepot is a known troll. He is on a forum where atheists (and non atheists) debate. He has made a silly statement that no atheists are good debaters, aimed to provoke an emotional response. Pure and simple troll dome. Your attempt to see the best in him and to interprete a more sensible meaning to bubble's words comes with good intent but I don't think any interpretation is necessary. Bubblepot is a troll and is simply attempting to provoke. He must be very bored and gets his kicks from this trash. Waste of space and waste of time if you ask me.

[Achronos]

Dr. Craig actually recently had a debate with Dawkins, although not in a one vs one debate, but a group debate. Craig discusses his encounter here, in a Part 1 segment: http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/R ... _Craig.mp3

[Whitney]

Dr. Craig actually recently had a debate with Dawkins, although not in a one vs one debate, but a group debate. Craig discusses his encounter here, in a Part 1 segment: http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/R ... _Craig.mp3

Is there not a recording of the whole debate?

[Achronos]

Dr. Craig actually recently had a debate with Dawkins, although not in a one vs one debate, but a group debate. Craig discusses his encounter here, in a Part 1 segment: http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/R ... _Craig.mp3

Is there not a recording of the whole debate?

Not that I know of (it's not on his site), am looking forward to it.

[Achronos]

The ground level contention Atheist/Atheists hold in opposition to religion.

Atheists never outgrew their childhood naivete that caused them to believe the magician was actually pulling the rabit out of the hat from thin air. The rest of us, Christians, have come to realize that something actually does not come from nothing. But I can sympathize with the atheists, because it's fun to believe in magic.

[Whitney]

The ground level contention Atheist/Atheists hold in opposition to religion.

Atheists never outgrew their childhood naivete that caused them to believe the magician was actually pulling the rabit out of the hat from thin air. The rest of us, Christians, have come to realize that something actually does not come from nothing. But I can sympathize with the atheists, because it's fun to believe in magic. :verysad:

[Achronos]

LOL