|
All you atheists/secularists/etc in this thread are going about the debate all wrong, you realize. I mean, occrider and MisterOpus sort of have the right idea with these conflicting bible quotes, but the logic is simple here...
You let the argument progress too far by posing questions to her about religion, who goes to heaven and hell, etc. Even if you can expose contradictions, which she'll never accept, you're still missing the point, which is that by arguing with her "later" terms, you are accepting her initial terms!
It follows something like this:
Atheist: "How do you know God exists?"
Theist: "He just does, I know it."
Atheist: "Prove it."
Theist: "Well, you accept that God is all-powerful"
Atheist: "No..."
Theist: "And you accept that he is all-knowing"
Atheist: "...no?"
Theist: "And the Bible is God's word. And if you interpret the Bible in such and such a way it seems to have predicted some event that happened in ."
Atheist: "Now wait a minute, that's just one interpretation and there's no evidence to support that it's actually related to this event..."
Or something like that. But the problem is, as soon as you argue about the interpretation of the bible, you've essentially accepted the Theist's initial terms for the debate: that there is a God, he is all-powerful, all-knowing, the Bible is God's word, etc. Even if you don't believe this, you have let the issue slide in the debate and you are now stuck arguing on their terms.
It really should go more like:
Atheist: "Prove that there is a God."
Theist: "Well, you accept that God is all-powerful"
Atheist: "No, if there is no God at all, there cannot be an all-powerful God."
Theist: "And you accept that he is all-knowing"
Atheist: "No, I don't accept that he exists at all."
Theist: "And the Bible is God's word. And if you interpret the Bible in such and such a way it seems to have predicted some event that happened in ."
Atheist: "The Bible cannot be God's word if there is no God, it does not matter how you interpret it."
Are we seeing the difference here? You are all letting the theistic arguments get out of hand because you allow them to build up. But if the argument progresses like version (2), then the Atheist can be just as stubborn as the Theist without looking stupid and without having to gather more proof: "No, I do not accept this argument, because the validity of this argument depends on you proving your hypothesis that there is a God, which you haven't done. Go back to the beginning and prove it." That's it, that's all there is to it - they can ramble on and on all they want and to each successive post you need only say, "This is wrong because there is no God. Prove that there is a God and we'll take it from there."
I don't know why you try so hard to refute Theistic points that are based on unacceptable initial conditions to begin with. If you just deny the initial conditions, there is no need to try so hard to form a cogent logical attack against their obviously illogical points. Instead you provoke Nellie and let her fly off the handle with her ridiculous posts - just don't give her fodder in the first place.
___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here
|