Why would an atheist come to Christ, if not to avoid hell?

[JGG]

Another.

Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.

I think that is 14 different fallacies you have openly committed recently in this conversation.

Only fourteen? What else is there? I'm sure you can squeeze in 15.

 

[ElijahW]

Only fourteen? What else is there? I'm sure you can squeeze in 15.

I think fourteen is pretty impressive for one conversation. The whole conversation itself is a red herring since it has nothing to do with the original subject, but was moved to an area that you were more comfortable defending with the prove-it game.

If you wanted to see all the fallacies you have in your thinking, we could look at the logic of your actual position, if you felt like providing it for examination. Instead of the "I don't have a position" schtick.

 

[JGG]

I think fourteen is pretty impressive for one conversation. The whole conversation itself is a red herring since it has nothing to do with the original subject, but was moved to an area that you were more comfortable defending with the prove-it game.

I know, of course it would be considerably less if you understood what you were talking about.

If you wanted to see all the fallacies you have in your thinking, we could look at the logic of your actual position, if you felt like providing it for examination. Instead of the "I don't have a position" schtick.

I'm sure it would be amusing to lend your particular brand of "logic" to this, I've already told you my position, more times than I've been counting. But an atheist who doesn't hate God just doesn't fit into your worldview, does it?

Anyway, if you actually want to discuss how rational God is, without taking personal shots at me, I'm still here. However, you've made it clear that you have no interest in that.

 

[ElijahW]

I know, of course it would be considerably less if you understood what you were talking about.

Surprising. Usually when you point out someone is committing a fallacy they usually recognize it right away and correct the behavior.

I'm sure it would be amusing to lend your particular brand of "logic" to this, I've already told you my position, more times than I've been counting. But an atheist who doesn't hate God just doesn't fit into your worldview, does it?

Anyway, if you actually want to discuss how rational God is, without taking personal shots at me, I'm still here. However, you've made it clear that you have no interest in that.

Still with that hating God stuff? What a ridiculous assumption of Christians you have.

Asking you to put your logic forward isn't a personal shot anymore then pointing at the fallacies you are committing after you asked me to. If you can put any logic forward then do so, if you can't then be able to admit it instead of playing victim.

 

[JGG]

Surprising. Usually when you point out someone is committing a fallacy they usually recognize it right away and correct the behavior.

Again, it would help immensely if you understood how those fallacies work, and what they mean. Particularly shifting the burden of proof.

Still with that hating God stuff? What a ridiculous assumption of Christians you have.

So, why do you continue to claim that I have an opinion other than the one I have put forth? Besides, that's what the True Christians(tm) preach about atheists.

Asking you to put your logic forward isn't a personal shot anymore then pointing at the fallacies you are committing after you asked me to. If you can put any logic forward then do so, if you can't then be able to admit it instead of playing victim.

That's not what I meant, actually. I'm actually waiting for you to put forth some sort of logic.

 

[ElijahW]

Again, it would help immensely if you understood how those fallacies work, and what they mean. Particularly shifting the burden of proof.

It doesn't matter if you disclose your position or not. I'm sorry that you have seen other atheists play this game and thought it would be fun to play as well but it isn't rational, nor is it productive. I'm not making a claim. I'm defending the theist position in a debate that is thousands of years old, and you are defending the materialist's position. You are just choosing to defend it by acting like you don't have to defend it because you are uninformed about your position.

So, why do you continue to claim that I have an opinion other than the one I have put forth? Besides, that's what the True Christians(tm) preach about atheists.

Because you have a bias towards it. It doesn't matter if you understand the subject any more than someone who votes republican understands what their platform is about.

That's not what I meant, actually. I'm actually waiting for you to put forth some sort of logic.

You are the one who claims to be good at logic, not me. I promise whatever you put forward I will have to Google. But that is of course if we are going with the story that you can put your position forward logically, or that you don't have a position because you don't understand it fully?

 

[JGG]

It doesn't matter if you disclose your position or not.

But I did disclose my position. Several times now.

I'm sorry that you have seen other atheists play this game and thought it would be fun to play as well but it isn't rational, nor is it productive.

How do you know what I have seen?

I'm not making a claim. I'm defending the theist position in a debate that is thousands of years old, and you are defending the materialist's position.

Firstly, the theist side is the one that makes the claim "There is a deity, or deities."

Secondly, I am not, and have not been defending the materialist side. I am merely evaluating your position that God can be understood rationally. If I am defending anything it is my position of "I don't know."

You are just choosing to defend it by acting like you don't have to defend it because you are uninformed about your position.

I'm not defending it. I'm just as skeptical of the materialist side. Either one requires that we know something that we have no way of knowing.

Because you have a bias towards it. It doesn't matter if you understand the subject any more than someone who votes republican understands what their platform is about.

Why do you assume that I'm a materialist?

You are the one who claims to be good at logic, not me. I promise whatever you put forward I will have to Google.

You will Google it?

But that is of course if we are going with the story that you can put your position forward logically, or that you don't have a position because you don't understand it fully?

My position is fairly simple: I don't know. You just refuse to accept that.

 

[ElijahW]

Why do you assume that I'm a materialist?

It is an either or deal. Either the universe is wholly material or the universe is not wholly material.

My position is fairly simple: I don't know. You just refuse to accept that.

Nobody knows. The question is can you support your opinion you have a bias towards reasonably? Or are you going look for excuses not to put your position forward, and then have the audacity to ask for impossible evidence, so that it looks like your side has validity? You may not know that you are supporting materialism, but regardless you are still supporting the materialist position by asking for evidence that can only support a materialist worldview.

 

[oi_antz]

So, there's an excuse?

No it is not meant to be an excuse. I am just saying that it could very well answer your question about why Christians often don't behave in the manner Jesus prescribed. I'm surprised you think I support Ronald's action.

Maybe, but that's equally true for me. I still don't have to take personal shots at people.

Do you think I need to apologise for something I've said?

Then you should all spend your time getting angry and condemning your God, not me.

No I cannot condemn God just because He has chosen not to save you yet, just as I can't condemn you for not having loved Him yet. You each obviously have a different plan, yet I do have opinions and I do think your opinion of Christianity is flawed. That's why I take an interest in you.

I believe I said that I have to consider that you may be deluding yourself. I also believed you called me the antichrist. So, let's call it even.

It sounds unlikely that I would have called you the antichrist, it must have been your misunderstanding.

Because your experience is your experience, not mine. I can only experience my experience. Yours might be wrong, you may use selective reasoning, selective observation. You may be deluding yourself, or suffer from some undiagnosed mental illness for all I know. Furthermore, why should I believe that your experience is more valid than that of a Hindu man whose subjective testimony is completely different from yours? In the end, your experience is subjective, and neither of us can confirm it.

Interesting choice of words. Don't you think though that for someone to go from hating Christianity to calling himself Christian literally in one moment, there must have been some pretty substantial disclosure of information?

 

[JGG]

It is an either or deal. Either the universe is wholly material or the universe is not wholly material.

Or wholly not material. That's one of those other idealist points of view. However, I don't believe any of those, because I honestly don't know.

Nobody knows.

The question is can you support your opinion you have a bias towards reasonably?

Yes. I don't know. Nobody knows. And look up there, you agree with me. My argument must be pretty convincing.

Or are you going look for excuses not to put your position forward, and then have the audacity to ask for impossible evidence, so that it looks like your side has validity?

You misunderstand, I'm not asking so that "my side" has validity. As I keep pointing out, your argument having a complete lack of evidence or logic does not lend any validity to any other argument. I ask for evidence so that your argument might have some validity. A lack of evidence shows a lack of validity.

You may not know that you are supporting materialism, but regardless you are still supporting the materialist position by asking for evidence that can only support a materialist worldview.

I'm questioning the argument you have presented. I will point out yet again. Just because your argument is poor: that in itself does not strengthen the counter argument. That counter argument has to be assessed on its own merit.

 

[JGG]

No it is not meant to be an excuse. I am just saying that it could very well answer your question about why Christians often don't behave in the manner Jesus prescribed. I'm surprised you think I support Ronald's action.

Didn't you?

Do you think I need to apologise for something I've said?

No, my point is that it's what Christians do.

No I cannot condemn God just because He has chosen not to save you yet, just as I can't condemn you for not having loved Him yet. You each obviously have a different plan, yet I do have opinions and I do think your opinion of Christianity is flawed. That's why I take an interest in you.

Not a day goes by, just on CF, where that opinion is not reinforced.

It sounds unlikely that I would have called you the antichrist, it must have been your misunderstanding.

Perhaps, but I've let it go.

Interesting choice of words. Don't you think though that for someone to go from hating Christianity to calling himself Christian literally in one moment, there must have been some pretty substantial disclosure of information?

Perhaps, but I am unaware of what you're discussing, or what information was disclosed, so I'm not prepared to weigh in. Afterall, for all I know that information was "You'll burn in hell" as it so often is.

 

[ElijahW]

I'm questioning the argument you have presented. I will point out yet again. Just because your argument is poor: that in itself does not strengthen the counter argument. That counter argument has to be assessed on its own merit.

Yes, you are questioning the argument I have presented but you haven't put forward any rational or logical objections. Just repeatedly committing fallacies by asking for evidence you know isn't possible available and acting like that is somehow making a point.

 

[JGG]

Yes, you are questioning the argument I have presented but you haven't put forward any rational or logical objections. Just repeatedly committing fallacies by asking for evidence you know isn't possible available and acting like that is somehow making a point.

Okay, so explain to me what logos is, how we know what it does, and how we know it exists.

Explain to me what spirit actually is, what it does, how we know that it is unchanging, and how we know that it exists. Your logic on is far from sound so far. It needs some major cleanup and lots of explanation.

Explain to me how God can be unchanging and yet have knowledge of a universe that changes? Explain how we know that God is unchanging. Simply explaining that Plato claimed is not explanation, but just forwarding someone else's claim. Explain how we know that it exists.

I will further challenge that my theory of "William Shatner did it" is currently more rational, and has more evidence in its favour than yours:

 

[ElijahW]

Okay, so explain to me what logos is, how we know what it does, and how we know it exists.

Explain to me what spirit actually is, what it does, how we know that it is unchanging, and how we know that it exists. Your logic on is far from sound so far. It needs some major cleanup and lots of explanation.

Explain to me how God can be unchanging and yet have knowledge of a universe that changes? Explain how we know that God is unchanging. Simply explaining that Plato claimed is not explanation, but just forwarding someone else's claim. Explain how we know that it exists.

I will further challenge that my theory of "William Shatner did it" is currently more rational, and has more evidence in its favour than yours:

Naa, that part of the conversation is over. If you need to go back and reread, then do so. The question is do you have any rational objections to the theist position, or do you have a bunch of questions that attempt to prove your previously held worldview, that this is beyond out ability to understand?

I don't need you to ask me more questions, I need you to be able to articulate a rational objection to the theist position. You are trying to do two things with acting like you have a rational objection to the position and also that you don't understand the position. Which is it? Do you think that Shatner did it is more rational because you understand the subject, or is that just meant as humor, because you truthful don't know if the theist position is rational or not, because you don't have any understanding of it?

If you do understand the position then please put forward your reasoning to think the position isn't rational.

 

[oi_antz]

Didn't you?

No, I said his statement was correct but you were right that he should have been more patient. There is a subtle but important difference. I think Ronald needs to reflect upon his contribution to your attitude.

No, my point is that it's what Christians do.

Certainly some Christians do, and probably only sometimes. How about the founders of Christianity, do you think that is a fair statement to make about them?

Not a day goes by, just on CF, where that opinion is not reinforced.

That is because you refuse to exercise discretion.

Perhaps, but I've let it go.

Glad to hear it. I'd like to know where that seed was sown, could you spend a few minutes to do a an advanced site search with my username looking for that keyword?

Perhaps, but I am unaware of what you're discussing, or what information was disclosed, so I'm not prepared to weigh in. Afterall, for all I know that information was "You'll burn in hell" as it so often is.

You do know what that information was because I told you right upfront when our relationship commenced: http://www.christianforums.com/t7513189/#post56110954. Burning in hell was definitely a topic of interest, but not in the manner you describe.

 

[JGG]

Naa, that part of the conversation is over. If you need to go back and reread, then do so. The question is do you have any rational objections to the theist position, or do you have a bunch of questions that attempt to prove your previously held worldview, that this is beyond out ability to understand?

I don't need you to ask me more questions, I need you to be able to articulate a rational objection to the theist position. You are trying to do two things with acting like you have a rational objection to the position and also that you don't understand the position.

Again, you misunderstand what I'm saying, and you yourself said so earlier: Nobody knows. It's not simply that I don't know, it's that none of us do. Those that think they do, have simply made conclusions without figuring out how they got there. I just accept that I/we don't know.

Which is it? Do you think that Shatner did it is more rational because you understand the subject, or is that just meant as humor, because you truthful don't know if the theist position is rational or not, because you don't have any understanding of it?

No, "Shatner-did-it" is more rational because we have physical evidence of William Shatner. We all agree that William Shatner exists. We know that we didn't invent William Shatner, or dream him up, or imagine him. And if I bring a picture (or better yet Bill himself) to a Star Trek convention, I can get hundreds of people to independently verify who or what they're looking at. We can talk to Shatner, we can watch his movies and television shows, or interviews. That's more than we can say for logos, or spirit, or even this unchanging God, none of which we can identify at all. I'm not saying that this "Shatner-did-it" theory is rational. Far from it. But it's closer to it than what you've put forth because we can actually confirm some aspect of this theory.

 

[JGG]

No, I said his statement was correct but you were right that he should have been more patient. There is a subtle but important difference. I think Ronald needs to reflect upon his contribution to your attitude.

Do you honestly think he would? I mean, realistically?

Certainly some Christians do, and probably only sometimes. How about the founders of Christianity, do you think that is a fair statement to make about them?

I don't know. I wasn't there. I don't assume it isn't.

That is because you refuse to exercise discretion.

I shouldn't read what Christians say about atheists in the Christians-Only section?

Glad to hear it. I'd like to know where that seed was sown, could you spend a few minutes to do a an advanced site search with my username looking for that keyword?

Peppered throughout this thread.

You do know what that information was because I told you right upfront when our relationship commenced: http://www.christianforums.com/t7513189/#post56110954. Burning in hell was definitely a topic of interest, but not in the manner you describe.

Ironically the same thread. To be fair your description was a little vague by comparison, and differs somewhat from the explanation in the thread. I just read the same information, and I didn't exactly find it compelling.

 

[ElijahW]

Again, you misunderstand what I'm saying, and you yourself said so earlier: Nobody knows. It's not simply that I don't know, it's that none of us do. Those that think they do, have simply made conclusions without figuring out how they got there. I just accept that I/we don't know.

So you have no rational objection to the theist position then? Nobody over here is claiming knowledge about this, we are only looking to see if your skepticism is warranted with any type of reason at all.

No, "Shatner-did-it" is more rational because we have physical evidence of William Shatner. We all agree that William Shatner exists. We know that we didn't invent William Shatner, or dream him up, or imagine him. And if I bring a picture (or better yet Bill himself) to a Star Trek convention, I can get hundreds of people to independently verify who or what they're looking at. We can talk to Shatner, we can watch his movies and television shows, or interviews. That's more than we can say for logos, or spirit, or even this unchanging God, none of which we can identify at all. I'm not saying that this "Shatner-did-it" theory is rational. Far from it. But it's closer to it than what you've put forth because we can actually confirm some aspect of this theory.

There is no point discussing a theory you already realize is far from rational. It is only going to serve as an example that a theory that rests on empirical evidence isn't necessarily rational, which is the premise you are trying to suppose with your request of empirical evidence for God.

Again, you have put forward no rational objection to the theist position.

 

[JGG]

So you have no rational objection to the theist position then? Nobody over here is claiming knowledge about this, we are only looking to see if your skepticism is warranted with any type of reason at all.

You're not claiming knowledge, therefore you don't know. I specifically say that I don't know. That seems to be just about the best case scenario for skepticism.

There is no point discussing a theory you already realize is far from rational. It is only going to serve as an example that a theory that rests on empirical evidence isn't necessarily rational, which is the premise you are trying to suppose with your request of empirical evidence for God.

No, I never said that empirical evidence necessarily made a rational argument, I said that a rational argument would eventually require some empirical evidence. However, I should point out again that it's still more rational than yours.

Again, you have put forward no rational objection to the theist position.

The theist position has not presented any evidence to object to. I just don't believe in it.

 

[ElijahW]

You're not claiming knowledge, therefore you don't know. I specifically say that I don't know. That seems to be just about the best case scenario for skepticism.

Yeah, that is why the whole emphasis on faith in Christianity, because knowledge is known to be impossible. Because it is known to be impossible, it isn't considered to be a reason for skepticism when it isn't achieved.

No, I never said that empirical evidence necessarily made a rational argument, I said that a rational argument would eventually require some empirical evidence. However, I should point out again that it's still more rational than yours.

We just never saw the evidence behind that belief of yours.

You think that a theory, that seems to violate the law of identity with it's only premise, is more rational them theism because it doesn't provide physical evidence, when the theory says it shouldn't? Or did you have some actual rational objection to the position?

The theist position has not presented any evidence to object to. I just don't believe in it.

Cool. I was under the impression that you had an actual objection to the position. My bad.