And you have a vested interested in seeing that they are trounced.
No, I have a vested interest in the truth. If some religion is factually true in it's claims, then it deserves to win but it has to be able to demonstrate that it actually does. So far, none have managed it.
It's got nothing to do with what I'd like to call them; it has everything to do with what they are. There are apologists, and there are theologians. I was speaking of theologians (which are different from apologists) presenting logical arguments, and you counter with apologists?? You pull some yayhoo apologist out of your butt and trot him out in front of us as an example of how theologians don't present logical arguments? That's precisely like presenting the Flat Earthers as serious scientists -- which we all know they're not. You made the accusation -- you find several theologians who haven't presented logical arguments and give me the list. Hint: A list that's made up of ilk like John Hagee and Joel Osteen isn't what we're looking for.
You still haven't presented any of those logical arguments. Who are you claiming has actually done this, specifically? Let's examine those arguments in detail. Go ahead and present what you consider to be the best argument out there.
Ya just gotta be right, don't ya? OK. I'll give you that one, if it'll pacify you. But it seems like one who's so intent on precise argument would want to be precise in the facts.
This isn't a dick-waving contest, this is a debate and the whole point of a debate is to present the best evidence you have to support the points you're making, while at the same time challenging and disproving your opponent's points with contradictory evidence.
The fact is, there are lots of names of God in the Bible. Most Christians have adopted "God" as a de facto name by which they refer to their deity. It's silly to claim that your preferred name is the only name, not only because it's demonstrably false, but because it's not even particularly popular. Besides, it isn't like you checked God's driver's license, you are just taking a guess and using something you like.
No, they're not "just electro-chemical reactions," because they carry meaning for us. Just like we are greater than the sum of our constituent parts, our emotions are greater than the sum of the reactions that comprise them. And that meaning isn't measurable or provable. That's the point. But I guess given the fact that you seem not to understand anything else about reality, failing to comprehend the whole human experience (including faith) is no surprise.
But that meaning is just an electro-chemical reaction too! You have an emotional reaction that makes you want to be more than the sum of the parts but you can't demonstrate it, you can just stand there and shout it indignantly. We keep getting back to that point, you don't want to accept what is because it doesn't make you feel good, you want to feel special, even though there's no evidence that you actually are. You're just a smart sack of mostly water, to paraphrase Star Trek. Screaming and crying about it doesn't make it any less true.
So, now you're arguing that God exists?? What stream did you change that horse in the middle of???
How is telling you that you're welcome to your delusions arguing that God exists? Delusions, by definition, are not real.
Did I mention magic? Funny... I don't remember mentioning magic. Or maybe you just like making things up as you go along in some feeble attempt to look good.
The supernatural is very much magic by definition. You believe in the supernatural. Do the math.
Belief in Santa Claus is justifiable, too. Santa Claus brings joy and fosters a sense of the spirit of giving. Faith is, likewise, beneficial in many ways to the human spirit. And, if beneficial, then justifiable.
It's just not true, which is the point. There's a useful parallel here that, unfortunately, you won't recognize because of your biases. Santa Claus isn't real, it's a fantasy story told to children who believe because they think doing so brings them more presents. However, we expect these children to grow up. Believing in Santa Claus at age 6 is acceptable. Believing in Santa Claus at age 60 is not. Religion is pretty much the same way except we don't expect believers to grow up. The whole idea that something that makes people feel good is automatically good is absurd. Nazism made the German people, people who were downtrodden and depressed after WWI, feel better. It gave them a purpose. It made them feel worthwhile. I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that makes National Socialism a good thing.
Does the fact that Santa Claus isn't a tangible person make him any less of an expression of the joy of Christmas? Is a Mozart symphony any less beautiful if Mozart is dead?
Unless you're arguing that God is just an expression of joy, you have said nothing here. Santa Claus isn't just intangible, Santa Claus is non-existent. The big fat guy in the red suit riding in a sleigh pulled by nine flying reindeer (if you count Rudolph) isn't real and never has been. You keep arguing for the effect of God, I'm arguing over the existence of God. No matter how God or Santa Claus or a Mozart symphony makes you feel, that is entirely separate from the actual existence of these things in the real world. Every time I point that direction, you desperately run away.
