A Christian response to atheism

[McQ]

mcQ - please, show me which one of a to e is supposed to be an argument?

saukhasi, here's a better idea:

YOU respond directly to my previous post. Every point, a through e. I never claimed any of them were an argument. That would be an attempt to create a  straw man on your part. If I were you, I'd get cracking on it. You're about to get a new avatar, unless I'm gravely mistaken.

Unlike you, I am actually trying to see where it is you are coming from in an effort to try to have a rational discussion now. You can work with me on it, or not. I don't care.

[saukhasi]

actually, it's not ahrd to see who's "sticking her fingers in her ears and saying, "I CAN'T HEEEEAAAR YOOOU!" "

Just let me ask you this: when are you going to give an argument that is relevant and supported?

[McQ]

actually, it's not ahrd to see who's "sticking her fingers in her ears and saying, "I CAN'T HEEEEAAAR YOOOU!" "

Just let me ask you this: when are you going to give an argument that is relevant and supported?

Last chance saukhasi. I've tried to reopen dialogue. Here it is one last time:

saukhasi, here's a better idea:

YOU respond directly to my previous post. Every point, a through e. I never claimed any of them were an argument[/color]. That would be an attempt to create a  straw man on your part. If I were you, I'd get cracking on it. You're about to get a new avatar, unless I'm gravely mistaken.

Unlike you, I am actually trying to see where it is you are coming from in an effort to try to have a rational discussion now. You can work with me on it, or not. I don't care.

That's your option. Take it or leave it.

[saukhasi]

"I've tried to reopen dialogue"

- you have never opened dialogue. you do not want to present logical arguments; you do not want to respond to logical arguments. The only one you've come up with I've answered in detail (on reading in "context), and you replied with "any one could see I didn't do that". So you can start giving arguments relevant to the discussion; if that's not what you want to do it's not hard to see who's avoiding arguments. By the way, I still haven't seen you supported counter argument to the one I made.

[McQ]

"I've tried to reopen dialogue"

- you have never opened dialogue. you do not want to present logical arguments; you do not want to respond to logical arguments. The only one you've come up with I've answered in detail (on reading in "context), and you replied with "any one could see I didn't do that". So you can start giving arguments relevant to the discussion; if that's not what you want to do it's not hard to see who's avoiding arguments. By the way, I still haven't seen you supported counter argument to the one I made.

I'll take your response as the pitiful copout that it is. You are an ignorant troll and deserve whatever comes your way. And I repeat that you are a sad example of xtianity. You do nothing to emulate your lord and saviour.

Have fun trying to get anyone else to listen to you, troll.

[Big Mac]

Troll! Troll! Troll! Troll! Troll! Troll! Troll! Where's that first stone when you need it?

[Court]

Wow. I'm sorry I missed this train wreck. I just wanted to mention something from the first page said by this cute fuzzy troll: You should read the Bible assuming it is right (as opposed to assuming it is wrong). That's a false dichotomy (you can look that up on Wikipedia), because I don't read ANY books assuming they are true or false. I've found very few books that are wholly one of the other. I enter all books assuming nothing about them, except what I can gather from the title, author, and jacket. That's your problem with reading the bible. I've read it sparcely assuming it was right when I was a Christian, then I read it mostly through without assuming anything. Guess what happened? I became an atheist. That's how most people do, a thorough reading of the Bible WITHOUT assuming anything at all.

I know I probably won't get an intelligible answer to this, but I had to say it anyhow.

[Whitney]

Eh, if you get a response it will probably be along the lines that since the Bible is the word of God it gets special treatment in that it has to be read as if it is true.  But, that would mean we'd have to do the same for any other book that is claimed to have holy origins.

[saukhasi]

No, my response is: then try coming up with evidence that God is evil from the Bible WITHOUT any reference to Africans - God never said He agreed with those white masters and WITHOUT going - you're just evil blah blah blah because though I may be that still does not prove the BIblical God is evil.

[McQ]

I know I probably won't get an intelligible answer to this, but I had to say it anyhow.

Wow, Court! You were clairvoyant!  

(BTW, nice to see you back posting again!)

[Faylen]

saukhasi's reaching maximum density, I think.  Watch out for an explosion.  So many people are disagreeing with her, she's confusing them with each other (I know she flung accusations at me for stuff that was never said by me - that's where quoting comes in handy, for future reference!)

Saukhasi, I'm not going to quote 40-something pages of arguments to support the fact that the same thing is going on in at least 4 different atheist forums.  You post a supposition that the bible is true.  People point out evidence that it is not.  You claim that the question was not answered.  People answer your question.  You claim the question was misinterpreted and ask a question of your own that is a non-sequitur at best.  You overcome logical arguments by ignoring them, and refute disgreements with your statements with redefinitions of words and phrases.  

I can understand the frustration at finding yourself universally opposed everywhere you've attempted to garner support.  However - a logical, rational person under these circumstances would assume one of two things.  First, "perhaps I am wasting my time here and should move on." this is an easy way out, but it solves the problem of your frustration as well as removing yourself from future irritation.  Second, "perhaps the fact that I have found not a single person who agrees with me indicates that my position is fallible?"  This is the more difficult of the two, since it involves some serious thinking, deep self-analysis, and an ability to process criticism and come out from it a better person.  It is, however, a good practice if you want to learn to be a truly open-minded person, willing to improve yourself, listen to new ideas, and be good society in general.

Or you can continue in the same course.  That's cutting off your nose to spite your face, but. . .whatever.

[Theist]

mcQ, you mentioned earlier that the two accounts of Judas' deaths were contradicting each other. Indeed, it is true that they are different but perhaps you aren't seeing the whole picture? In Matthew it says that Judas hung himself, in Acts it says that he fell and his intestines fell out. But maybe these aren't so different. Perhaps it is as it says in Matthew, that he hung himself, and then at some point, could be several days later. Judas's weight makes the rope break, causing him to FALL, and causing his intestines to fall out.

[Theist]

(yes I am aware I misspelled my name, supposed to be "theist" my bad)

[McQ]

mcQ, you mentioned earlier that the two accounts of Judas' deaths were contradicting each other. Indeed, it is true that they are different but perhaps you aren't seeing the whole picture? In Matthew it says that Judas hung himself, in Acts it says that he fell and his intestines fell out. But maybe these aren't so different. Perhaps it is as it says in Matthew, that he hung himself, and then at some point, could be several days later. Judas's weight makes the rope break, causing him to FALL, and causing his intestines to fall out.

Hello Thiest. Welcome. I appreciate your comment. I have definitely been over this ground before though, and know that I'm not missing the big picture here. When I was still a fundamentalist xtian in a southern baptist church, I went round and round with this topic and others.
 
There is nothing in the bible to suggest that both the hanging and the broken branch theory happened. Why would the authors create a seeming contradiction? So people could surmise that they meant something else? No, I'm afraid that it simply is a contradiction. If what you suggest had happened had actually happened, then it is much more likely that both authors would have stated it that way. Even so, it would be a highly unusual form of death, to hang yourself from a tree branch over a field, have the rope break and your bowels gush out.

In this case it is clear that it is a contradiction. The theory that the authors knew what each would write and didn't want to sound redundant by writing the same thing is fallacious too, if you go there. It would be out of character with much of the rest of scripture anyway.

Hope this clears up where I am on this.

[McQ]

No, my response is: then try coming up with evidence that God is evil from the Bible WITHOUT any reference to Africans - God never said He agreed with those white masters and WITHOUT going - you're just evil blah blah blah because though I may be that still does not prove the BIblical God is evil.

Here you go. Right from the bible, without any reference to Africans:

Judges 21:10-24 NLT
Numbers 31:7-18 NLT
Judges 11:29-40 NLT
Exodus 21:15 NAB
Leviticus 20:9 NLT
Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT
Deuteronomy  22:20-21 NAB
Hosea 9:11-16 NLT

People in this forum have been over this before, and naturally, you won't put the time or mental effort into a cogent answer. But I thought I'd give you that anyway, since I had a few rare minutes of spare time.