How do we know Santa Claus doesn't exist?

[drich0150]

Does a picture of Jesus that is obviously made up prove that Jesus doesn't exist?

sorry doesn't work that way bruh.. The picture of Santa from coca cola was the first appearance of "Santa Clause" ever. it shows a point of origin. do you understand the implication? If you do, then I do not need to tell you he was never born but created for advertising a soft drink. Picture of Christ do not mean anything either as the were mostly painted 1000 years after the fact. Christ's is cemented in history because he was the single most recorded and documented person of his time. To doubt Christ is to doubt any other figure in that time period because again more was written about him than the emperor of rome at the time.

The only thing written about santa besides the poems and bed time stories was he was a creation of CCC Coca Cola Company.

If it were possible, if we could trace who came up with the first portrait/drawing/etc... of Jesus, if it could be shown that the person just painted themselves or their relatives, would you accept that Jesus is wholly made up?

perhaps. But again I never said a picture of christ proved anything. All the picture proves for santa was his origins because that picture or advertisment/painting was the only reason for him to exist. Christ existed to die and be born again for the salvation of our sins. and as such has a documented pedigree greater than any other man who lived at that time.

Maybe the artist was supernaturally inspired by the real Santa.

sorry bud you are moving the goal posts/ going out side of cannon to try and avoid apoint you can not otherwise shake.

You see, Santa works in mysterious ways.

actually he doesn't has he is a fictional character who has been ascribed or given his abilities. we know he is a work of fiction because these are his origins.

Sort of like Jesus.

actually no. Santa never claimed those ablities but you are forcing them on to the story of santa clause to try and make a poorly thought out point that is not consistent with anything written about santa or christ..

With Jesus, he is an eternal God, but decided to show up only 2,000 years ago.

actually if you read your bible you would have known he has shown up several times throughout history. At the beginning as all of chapter 2 is the creation of his own doing. in or as the high priest melchizedek

Same with Santa.

do you not see your own dishonesty here? or is it you do not care? Santa no where in the books or literature has ever claimed to be immortal. At best his origins stretch back to saint nicholas, but even then if you read the works of saint nick verse what santa is known for then you can see it is not the same being.

If you are going to try and play this game you have to be honest with the source material. Santa never claims to be immortal in fact there are several movies in fact that says santas rotate out.

He had his own reasons for remaining silent and unknown but then decided to inspire the artist who drew his likeness.

book chapter and verse please (do you see how this works?) As santa is not open ended source material. He does have limits and boundaries in well accepted source material.

Maybe the artist was Santa's son?

neighbor. the model of santa was first the neighbor then himself. The idea of santa came from advertising department as they wanted to sell coke in the winter months as well as the summer (cold drinks were not popular in cold months)

Again sport if you are going to make a childish assertion about santa please provide reference material like any christian would when asked about the canonical nature of your statement. Otherwise know you are not mocking or parodying christians you are outright slanderously misrepresenting them to try and make them fit a model of your own choosing.

Come on, why let go of one's belief when there could always be reasons for keeping it?

because despite what you and your buddy think Christian are indeed objective. just look how I dissected your whole thread and discerned your true intentions and manuerve you into a place where you are moving goal posts (literally having to recreate santa our side of anything he is known for) like a noob in an effort try and keep up. Have you ever considered for a moment that some of us found God with the same objectivity you claim to have and use to mock him?

Try and be honest here.. Do I display the blind faith you are trying to pretend christians have with your santa thread? Again if I can take this apart and objectively discover reason not to follow you line or understanding how much more easy would it have been to do the same with a 2000 year old religion, and 30K+ denominations??? yet I have found truth in a common thread. Because I can follow instructions and have sense enough to wait on God.

At best, may be I should modify what we know about Santa but to throw out the whole belief? That's just too much.

oh the irony! That is EXACTLY what you did when you started changing canonical santa for one who forces people to paint his disembodied spirit!

Come on, think about it. How can Santa be imaginary if Christmas makes absolutely no sense without him.

put down the social media break away from only getting your information from pop culture sources and pick up a book about the origins of christmas and it will make perfect sense.
No one who knows the origins of christmas (the pagan holiday) has any trouble work with or without the tradition of santa. in fact until recently santa was a westernized icon only. There are people alive today who still never heard of santa, why? because they did not grow up with access to coke products and marketing.


Do you see the only way to out maneuver me here is to start calling me names or for you to make up more about santa. So you are reduced to Ad hoc attack or Moving the goal post both logical fallacies has you forfeit an intellectually honest discussion. So how do you want to proceed?

 

[drich0150]

Excuse me, Drich. going to bed now. I will be happy to answer you tomorrow.
Perhaps in the meantime you might want to reread your post and...clear up a few bits? Including the bad language, I'm sorry to say.

I'm sorry what curse word?

The only thing close is the word assumed.. while it starts out as a 3 lettered word it does not finish out that way..

As far as my comment about your basic intelligence failing you is concerned I was describing a very specific instance where you failed to identify where I was using the sound logic facts and history you said was absent from all christian reasoning processes.

I wasn't calling you stupid in general I was saying in that specific point you failed to apply knowledge of the skill I demonstrated to counter your hypothesis that says; christians are lead around by blind faith.

While not speaking highly of your observation I was speaking to the fact you defaulted to your position that all christian were stupid rather than observe and or consider the effort that has been put into this thread not only by me but others as well.

While i am being critical of your work this is not "bad language..." so again I am at a loss

 

[BigV]

sorry doesn't work that way bruh.. The picture of Santa from coca cola was the first appearance of "Santa Clause" ever. it shows a point of origin. do you understand the implication? If you do, then I do not need to tell you he was never born but created for advertising a soft drink. Picture of Christ do not mean anything either as the were mostly painted 1000 years after the fact. Christ's is cemented in history because he was the single most recorded and documented person of his time. To doubt Christ is to doubt any other figure in that time period because again more was written about him than the emperor of rome at the time.

The only thing written about santa besides the poems and bed time stories was he was a creation of CCC Coca Cola Company.

It works exactly like that. Jesus is an eternal God but we only learned of him 2000 years ago? So the fact that information about Jesus appears way after Jesus exists doesn’t disprove anything, right?

Information about Jesus is written by anonymous sources. And what figure of history was considered a resurrected contemporary, similar to Jesus being considered resurrected John the Baptist?

there are arguments about first gospel dating, but no one doubts Pauline letters being written before the Gospels. Paul is hallucinating information about Jesus. But that too does not disprove Jesus?

and you have a problem with Santa?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I'm sorry what curse word?

"You are doing a very ______ job". Don't you consider that to be bad language?

you are doing a very crappy job of it as nothing confronting Jesus or God is so absolute as being able to point to nov of 1933 to an advertising department creation, more specifically to a man who painted his neighbor in company colors. Then later himself. As being the source of santa clause.

(shrug). Well, it's been explained to you already. The fact that someone created an advertising campaign proves nothing more than this was the first instance of Santa Claus as we know him today. It certainly doesn't prove that he didn't exist before then.

what's more the man/artist/company never claimed santa was real. He/artist clearly did not assume the role and yet he later on represented himself in the role.

So? You're just nitpicking. No true Santaist would be disturbed by this for a moment.

What you fail to understand is this is a very poor analogy in trying to troll mock and or feign christian response. This is indicated by the fact you are having to constantly move the goal posts to try and stay ahead of the narrative. You might claim christians do the same, but when and if they do it has to be with in the cannon of Christianity. they can't just add story to the religion because there backs are against the wall like you've done here; santa influenced the artist."

Troll? Mock? Not at all. Satirise. Just making a point. And one which seems to have agitated you, I'm sorry to see. Makes me think we've touched a nerve here, and perhaps you really are starting to see the similarities, and this show of indignation is you trying to distract yourself.

I mean, (to pull another old chestnut from Christian apologetics, which I've literally seen too many times to count):
I don't see why you're being so vehement here. If you really don't think Santa exists, why are you protesting so much?

Nothing in canon ever suggests that santa had this power. in fact history shows santa was not considered to even be human till the late 19th century.
you are moving the goal posts and stepping out side of the cannon of the story to do so!

Not at all. Just making reasonable assumptions. Something that Christians do about Jesus and God all the time.

or more specifically how can we know the truth. That was the challenge. The truth in this case can be known through verified documented historical fact. And what is written about santa for instance nothing in the mythos says santa was omnipresent, meaning nothing says he existed or influenced anyone before he was born.

First, it's an unwarranted assumption to say that Santa was "born" with a coca-cola campaign. It's like saying that a baby didn't exist before its first photograph. A little logic shows that this is nonsense.
Second, you seem to have forgotten the well-known stories about Santa: he knows exactly who is naughty and who is nice. Therefore, it's quite simple to extrapolate that he might have other extra-sensory perceptions. Santa can fly, manipulate time and (or possible, move at super speed) and read the hearts of people. All of this is, as you put it, "canon".

But what you have done is claim that santa had powers before... he was created. show me a canonical source that supports this assertion... IE give me book chapter and verse please.

We don't need to, any more than you can point to a verse in the Bible which tells us why God exists.

otherwise know what you are doing here is not even close to what christians do when providing exegetical support for their beliefs. (by working with in the confines of scripture)

Obviously there are differences between Jesus and Santa, but your mistake is in assuming that all differences are important. Jesus is thin, Santa is fat; Jesus prays to God, Santa rides on a reindeer; Jesus has a Bible, Santa has stories about him. So what?
I have to tell you, we Santaists just see this as quibbling.

doing your victory lap a little prematurely aren't you? You've got a gaping hole in the side of your battleship and I cant see a way out for you here beside trying to destroy the messenger rather than try and fix your broken message in that you had to make up your own narrative/move the goal posts to make your intellectually dishonest point.

Be fair, Drich. I said "this thread is starting to work". Which it is!

Furthermore you claim Christian obtusely an blindly defend God in the way you are trying to defend santa... here's the biggest problem with that. I am a christian and I took apart your whole argument in the way you pretend only a non christian mind can work. But again I am Christian and I used all of the tools you claim to have, yet I still believe.

Here's the problem: you didn't. And that, my friend, is you being premature with a victory lap.

This is where basic intelligence fails you and your proud assumption that only people such as yourselves has the only rights to objective thinking. I and many others have and can demonstrate the objectivity you mockingly claim is absent from Christianity. yet we believe and you can not grasp why... Perhaps for some of us who can objectively scrutinise data have spent the last 20 or 25 years combing over the bible with this gift, and have found what the scriptures promised.

Pride goes before a fall, Drich.

sorry doesn't work that way bruh.. The picture of Santa from coca cola was the first appearance of "Santa Clause" ever. it shows a point of origin. do you understand the implication? If you do, then I do not need to tell you he was never born but created for advertising a soft drink.

You've told us that, but you haven't demonstrated it. It's just an unsupported assertion.

Picture of Christ do not mean anything either as the were mostly painted 1000 years after the fact. Christ's is cemented in history because he was the single most recorded and documented person of his time. To doubt Christ is to doubt any other figure in that time period because again more was written about him than the emperor of rome at the time.

"The single most recorded and documented person of his time"? Of course he wasn't. You're confusing the accuracy of a record with its popularity.

actually no. Santa never claimed those ablities but you are forcing them on to the story of santa clause to try and make a poorly thought out point that is not consistent with anything written about santa or christ..

Again, a reasonable assumption based on the evidence we have, and contradicted by none of it.

do you not see your own dishonesty here? or is it you do not care? Santa no where in the books or literature has ever claimed to be immortal. At best his origins stretch back to saint nicholas, but even then if you read the works of saint nick verse what santa is known for then you can see it is not the same being.

Who said that Santa is immortal? @BigV , as far as I can tell, was just making the point that, just as Jesus existed prior to the stories about him, so may Santa have.

If you are going to try and play this game you have to be honest with the source material. Santa never claims to be immortal in fact there are several movies in fact that says santas rotate out.

Movies? Hehe.

book chapter and verse please (do you see how this works?) As santa is not open ended source material. He does have limits and boundaries in well accepted source material.

Sure. And we haven't crossed them. Just made some reasonable assumptions based on them.

Again sport if you are going to make a childish assertion about santa please provide reference material like any christian would when asked about the canonical nature of your statement. Otherwise know you are not mocking or parodying christians you are outright slanderously misrepresenting them to try and make them fit a model of your own choosing.

You do realise we don't have a book about Santa, don't you? And why should we need one? Your argument simply falls apart.

because despite what you and your buddy think Christian are indeed objective. just look how I dissected your whole thread and discerned your true intentions and manuerve you into a place where you are moving goal posts (literally having to recreate santa our side of anything he is known for) like a noob in an effort try and keep up. Have you ever considered for a moment that some of us found God with the same objectivity you claim to have and use to mock him?

I did look at it! It was an exceptional experience. The thread is the better for having you here.

Try and be honest here.. Do I display the blind faith you are trying to pretend christians have with your santa thread? Again if I can take this apart and objectively discover reason not to follow you line or understanding how much more easy would it have been to do the same with a 2000 year old religion, and 30K+ denominations??? yet I have found truth in a common thread. Because I can follow instructions and have sense enough to wait on God.

You ask if you display blind faith and then, in the next breath, say that you can "follow instructions and wait for an explanation". That was an extremely quick and effective own goal!

Do you see the only way to out maneuver me here is to start calling me names or for you to make up more about santa. So you are reduced to Ad hoc attack or Moving the goal post both logical fallacies has you forfeit an intellectually honest discussion. So how do you want to proceed?

Nobody's called you names, Drich. You're the one getting all excited.

 

[Silmarien]

You just misunderstood me, that's all.
Back at How do we know Santa Claus doesn't exist?
you said:
"I don't know what you think you're demonstrating. If someone really approached me with this sort of argument, I'd do the same thing I do with the Flat Earthers: walk away."
And I asked you why you'd walk away. Here I am, a person who says they believe in Santa, asking why you think I'm wrong. To "just walk away" from me implies you think I'm acting in bad faith, that I'm not sincere in my clearly stated desire to know the truth, as I have said that I am several times in this thread. I'm sure you wouldn't do anything so dishonourable, Silmarien!

Why would you think that? I'm a former Sartrean existentialist, so wandering around accusing people of bad faith is kind of my modus operandi.

That said, walking away doesn't necessarily imply that I think someone is acting in bad faith. Just that I don't see the point in arguing with them. For example, I would assume that Flat Earthers genuinely believe that the earth is flat, but that doesn't mean that I'm interested in following them down their rabbit hole of bizarre conspiracy theories.

I'm going to explain myself carefully here, because I don't want you to misunderstand.
Silmarien, I am playing the part on this thread of a person who believes in Santa Claus. It's not a secret, nor a trick. I've announced several times that I'm just roleplaying.
Now, in character as a person who believes in Santa Claus, how much do you think your history of Santa impresses me? Thinking on my past experiences of creationists presented with evidence about evolution, for example, or trying to persuade Christians that God is no more real than any other deity neither of us believe in, the answer is obvious:
"Thank you for your website," I would say. "It's a very interesting account of how people think about Santa Claus and how they "worship" him in popular culture (please don't miss the quotation marks). But I don't see any evidence at all in there that the real Santa doesn't exist."
That's how Christians talk. And that's how we "Santaists" talk as well.

I've been thinking about my past experience with Creationists as well. That is another group that I would generally walk away from, since I find that Creationism flies in the face of reason and I don't see much point in going around in circles with its proponents.

Creationism is not a tenet of the Christian faith, however, so I don't see the relevance. You would need to provide historical evidence that the development of Christianity is comparable to the development of the Santa Claus myth before you could say that a Christian and a "Santaist" were arguing in a similar manner.

Reread the last couple of pages, and you may see the similarities we've been highlighting.

Nope, I'm afraid not. You guys just come across as really confused.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

That said, walking away doesn't necessarily imply that I think someone is acting in bad faith. Just that I don't see the point in arguing with them. For example, I would assume that Flat Earthers genuinely believe that the earth is flat, but that doesn't mean that I'm interested in following them down their rabbit hole of bizarre conspiracy theories.

Well, since I'm asking you to explain to me why I'm wrong, I'll just have to assume that you can't. Because it's one thing to not want to discuss something, and other to turn down a request for assistance.
Unless you're not equipped to help, of course. Then I would understand.

Creationism is not a tenet of the Christian faith, however, so I don't see the relevance. You would need to provide historical evidence that the development of Christianity is comparable to the development of the Santa Claus myth before you could say that a Christian and a "Santaist" were arguing in a similar manner.

Creationists might argue with you about that. and I'm not sure that they'd be wrong. Nonetheless, while creationism may not be a mandatory part of being a Christian, it'd certainly a popular one, and the arguments use by you and Creationists are fairly similar to each other, just at different levels - and also similar to the arguments of Santaists.

Nope, I'm afraid not. You guys just come across as really confused.

Well, since you've been unable to refute any of our points, I won't take that evaluation too seriously.

 

[Silmarien]

Well, since I'm asking you to explain to me why I'm wrong, I'll just have to assume that you can't. Because it's one thing to not want to discuss something, and other to turn down a request for assistance.
Unless you're not equipped to help, of course. Then I would understand.

Why you're wrong about Santa Claus? I have already explained why we know that Santa Claus is a fictional character, as have many other people in this thread. We have very clear documentation of the cult of Saint Nicholas and how in certain countries this devotion eventually led to the figure of Santa Claus. If someone were genuinely confused about how the Santa Claus legend came into existence and mistook it for reality, then yes, I would be happy to point them in the right direction.

However, if they then doubled down with irrational arguments as to why the historical analysis is irrelevant, I would walk away. I don't know how to argue against irrationalism.

Creationists might argue with you about that. and I'm not sure that they'd be wrong. Nonetheless, while creationism may not be a mandatory part of being a Christian, it'd certainly a popular one, and the arguments use by you and Creationists are fairly similar to each other, just at different levels - and also similar to the arguments of Santaists.

How so?

Well, since you've been unable to refute any of our points, I won't take that evaluation too seriously.

What points?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

How so?

Science-accepting Christians may agree with atheists that Creationists are wrong, but they still use the same tools of special pleading, appeal to ignorance and strawmanning that their Creationist cousins use.

Why you're wrong about Santa Claus? I have already explained why we know that Santa Claus is a fictional character, as have many other people in this thread. We have very clear documentation of the cult of Saint Nicholas and how in certain countries this devotion eventually led to the figure of Santa Claus. If someone were genuinely confused about how the Santa Claus legend came into existence and mistook it for reality, then yes, I would be happy to point them in the right direction.

However, if they then doubled down with irrational arguments as to why the historical analysis is irrelevant, I would walk away. I don't know how to argue against irrationalism.

Thank you, Silmarien. You've just won the thread.
Because what you've described is exactly how atheists behave with Christians.
We are happy to explain to them how religions work. How people believe what they want to believe. How you should believe things if there is good evidence for them, and how there isn't good evidence for Jesus being the son of God. How Christianity is just another of thousands of religions, none of which either of us believe in. If someone were genuinely encountering Christianity and wanting to know whether it was true or not, I would be happy to explain the arguments, present what evidence there is - and isn't - and point them in the right direction.
However, if they then doubled down with irrational arguments, I would walk away. I don't know how to argue against irrationalism.

And so, as a Santaist, I have to say that your evidence is plausible, interesting and makes a good case. But it doesn't matter to me in the slightest. Because, you see, I know that Santa is real.

Sound familiar now? Seeing the similarities between Jesus and Santa?
Well, maybe Christians aren't used to hearing it back at them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Science-accepting Christians may agree with atheists that Creationists are wrong, but they still use the same tools of special pleading, appeal to ignorance and strawmanning that their Creationist cousins use.

I find this statement of yours to be obfuscating and a little offensive, really.

 

[Silmarien]

Science-accepting Christians may agree with atheists that Creationists are wrong, but they still use the same tools of special pleading, appeal to ignorance and strawmanning that their Creationist cousins use.

You would need to actually demonstrate this. It doesn't become true just because you proclaim it true.

Thank you, Silmarien. You've just won the thread.
Because what you've described is exactly how atheists behave with Christians.
We are happy to explain to them how religions work. How people believe what they want to believe. How you should believe things if there is good evidence for them, and how there isn't good evidence for Jesus being the son of God. How Christianity is just another of thousands of religions, none of which either of us believe in. If someone were genuinely encountering Christianity and wanting to know whether it was true or not, I would be happy to explain the arguments, present what evidence there is - and isn't - and point them in the right direction.
However, if they then doubled down with irrational arguments, I would walk away. I don't know how to argue against irrationalism.

So... basically, atheists are happy to condescend to people who might actually know far more about the history of religion than they themselves, make sweeping comments about epistemology despite never having studied the topic, and then weigh in on historical questions that they're not qualified to discuss?

Yeah, unfortunately that does sound a lot like how many atheists behave with Christians.

And so, as a Santaist, I have to say that your evidence is plausible, interesting and makes a good case. But it doesn't matter to me in the slightest. Because, you see, I know that Santa is real.

Sound familiar now? Seeing the similarities between Jesus and Santa?
Well, maybe Christians aren't used to hearing it back at them.

Nope, I still don't see the similarities. I've never actually seen a good case made for atheism.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Nope, I still don't see the similarities. I've never actually seen a good case made for atheism.

And you won't. Because the "case for atheism" is that there is no case for theism.
Still, we know what to do with people who just refuse to see reason, don't we? It was put very neatly, not so long ago...

However, if they then doubled down with irrational arguments...I would walk away. I don't know how to argue against irrationalism.

Silmarien, you've just proven our point, so thank you.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I find this statement of yours to be obfuscating and a little offensive, really.

Are you surprised to hear me say that apologetics arguments are invariably based on logical fallacies?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You would need to actually demonstrate this. It doesn't become true just because you proclaim it true.

I'm not trying to demonstrate it. I'm just pleased that you now understand what the argument is.

So... basically, atheists are happy to condescend to people who might actually know far more about the history of religion than they themselves, make sweeping comments about epistemology despite never having studied the topic, and then weigh in on historical questions that they're not qualified to discuss?

First, your presupposition that apologists know more than atheists is an unjustified assumption. Second...it can be quite like talking to a professor of English literature who actually believes that Gandalf is real.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Yes - thinking about this, Silmarien, I can see you've hit the nail on the head. The following is exactly how atheists feel trying to explain things to Christians.

Why you're wrong about Santa Claus? I have already explained why we know that Santa Claus is a fictional character, as have many other people in this thread. We have very clear documentation of the cult of Saint Nicholas and how in certain countries this devotion eventually led to the figure of Santa Claus.

If someone were genuinely confused about how the Santa Claus legend came into existence and mistook it for reality, then yes, I would be happy to point them in the right direction.

However, if they then doubled down with irrational arguments as to why the historical analysis is irrelevant, I would walk away. I don't know how to argue against irrationalism.

You don't have to admit it. In fact, according to the roles we're playing here, with me as the Santaist and you as the aSantaist, I'd expect you not to. After all, we Santaists are used to people trying to disprove our beliefs and giving up, frustrated, but unable to see the truth.
And now, the final thing that Christians resort to (and I've seen it often). What to say instead of "I'll pray for you"?
I know. As a Santaist, I'll say:
"I'll write to Santa about you, asking him to take you off his Naughty list. Maybe you'll get a surprise this Christmas!"

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you surprised to hear me say that apologetics arguments are invariably based on logical fallacies?

Of course I'm not surprised to hear you say this, just as I'm not often surprised when some skeptics barrage Christians with repeated questioning but have little intention of actually fully engaging whatever answers could be offered.

 

[BigV]

All right. Anyone ready for supreme Santa Apologetics? Here it goes...

Those of you who do not believe Santa exists are just close minded. You are not REALLY interested to know whether Santa exists if you are honest with yourselves. You have never really given Santa the chance. All you want are reasons to disbelieve and disrpove his existence, al the while Santa is waiting for you to "see" him.

Santa will not bow down to your logic. Sure, you may think he is figment of Coca Cola imagination, but in reality that's just an excuse you give to yourself to avoid believing in him.

Santa is waiting for a relationship, folks. And he will not be mocked.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

All right. Anyone ready for supreme Santa Apologetics? Here it goes...

Those of you who do not believe Santa exists are just close minded. You are not REALLY interested to know whether Santa exists if you are honest with yourselves. You have never really given Santa the chance. All you want are reasons to disbelieve and disrpove his existence, al the while Santa is waiting for you to "see" him.

Santa will not bow down to your logic. Sure, you may think he is figment of Coca Cola imagination, but in reality that's just an excuse you give to yourself to avoid believing in him.

Santa is waiting for a relationship, folks. And he will not be mocked.

BigV, I bow to you. You caught the tone perfectly of a certain type of Christian.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Of course I'm not surprised to hear you say this, just as I'm not often surprised when some skeptics barrage Christians with repeated questioning but have little intention of actually fully engaging whatever answers could be offered.

Actually, that's how I've felt in this thread. It took a long time for Christians to step up and actually address the questions with a straightforward answer. This was probably wise of them, because whenever they did it was easy to point out their mistakes.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Actually, that's how I've felt in this thread. It took a long time for Christians to step up and actually address the questions with a straightforward answer. This was probably wise of them, because whenever they did it was easy to point out their mistakes.

In your estimation, have I ever made a good point that you thought was right-on or even useful?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

In your estimation, have I ever made a good point that you thought was right-on or even useful?

You certainly have, on more than one occasion, including several times in this thread.