How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

[CG Didymus]

How? What special senses or neural circuits do you think they possess to detect the deity? What do you think that they are they experiencing that tells them they have detected a god rather than imagining one?

This "messenger/manifestation" thing has so many problems. It's the "evidence" but some of the people that Baha'is say were manifestations contradict what Baha'is believe about their God. Like Krishna and Buddha, probably Zoroaster too. And Jesus believed in Satan. Something that Baha'is don't believe in. So, they are evidence of what? That each religion has different beliefs? Many of which contradict the beliefs held by other religions?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I do have to admit that sometimes I do it for my entertainment.

Well, you certainly have enough to read that will keep you entertained for a long time to come.

Though occasionally I do find a valid thread to debate in. I may have killed @sun rise 's latest thread. But it was a claim that I remembered being shown to be bogus and I think that I have done so.

Personally, I only consider a debate valid when the person you're debating acts their age and doesn't act like a unruly juvenile or a verbally abusive spouse.

 

[dybmh]

Projection again. I saw that in another tread people were pointing out the same errors of yours that I have pointed oujt.

You seem to think that you are more intelligent than others. Have you ever considered trying to use rational arguments supported by evidence? If you opponents can do so then it should be a snap for you.

Nah, it's not projection. I am smart. denying it would be a lie. Am I smarter than others? Of course. Everyone's smarter then someone. Are people cowardly whining about me? Probably. But why should I care?

 

[dybmh]

Personally, I only consider a debate valid when the person you're debating acts their age and doesn't act like an unruly juvenile or an abusive spouse.

no one's acting like an abusive spouse you are over-reacting.

 

[CG Didymus]

Same goes for Santa and the Tooth Fairy. How can we know they don’t exist?

And we've seen evidence of Santa and the tooth fairy. Every Christmas, there's presents under the tree. And in the morning, after losing a tooth, there's money under the pillow. How did it get there? According to people we trust, our parents, it was the tooth fairy. Very similar to what happens when people trust their religious leaders. We ask, "How did all this come to be?" And the answer we get is, "Well, an invisible God made it all."

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

And we've seen evidence of Santa and the tooth fairy. Every Christman, there's presents under the tree. And in the morning, after losing a tooth, there's money under the pillow. How did it get there? According to people we trust, our parents, it was the tooth fairy. Very similar to what happens when people trust their religious leaders. We ask, "How did all this come to be?" And the answer we get is, "Well, an invisible God made it all."

I've always thought it was wrong for Christian parents to lie to their children about Santa, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy, all of whom they couldn't see, while simultaneously telling them to believe in God, who they also couldn't see. My oldest son once asked me, "If Christian parents purposefully lie to their children about Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy, why should their children believe their parents told them the truth about God?"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nah, it's not projection. I am smart. denying it would be a lie. Am I smarter than others? Of course. Everyone's smarter then someone. Are people cowardly whining about me? Probably. But why should I care?

You may be. But you seriously do not look that way when you debate. An intelligent person should be able to debate properly using verifiable evidence.

 

[dybmh]

You may be. But you seriously do not look that way when you debate. An intelligent person should be able to debate properly using verifiable evidence.

The debate was a hypothetical. You repeated it over and over. No "evidence" is needed. And you kept defeating yourself by flip-flopping.

It's a typical con, a bait and switch. Typical faux-atheism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The debate was a hypothetical. You repeated it over and over. No "evidence" is needed. And you kept defeating yourself by flip-flopping.

It's a typical con, a bait and switch. Typical faux-atheism.

No, and once again even though you claim to be "smart" you show that the concept of "hypothetical" is beyond. You. It was a correction as to behavior. That was all. You do not seem to understand when evidence is required and when it is not.

 

[dybmh]

No, and once again even though you claim to be "smart" you show that the concept of "hypothetical" is beyond. You. It was a correction as to behavior. That was all. You do not seem to understand when evidence is required and when it is not.

I know what a hypothetical is. And I know what a presumption is. I also know what a bait and switch is.

 

[CG Didymus]

I've always thought it was wrong for Christian parents to lie to their children about Santa, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy, all of whom they couldn't see, while simultaneously telling them to believe in God, who they also couldn't see. My oldest son once asked me, "If Christian parents purposefully lie to their children about Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy, why should their children believe their parents told them the truth about God?"

Yes, and both Santa and God are used to get kids to be good. "Be good little kids and Santa will bring you a present." "Be good little kids and God will reward you when you go to heaven." But then there's God's ultimate punishment for being bad, burning in hell. Is that God real?

It's just too easy for that God to have been invented by people. And once that God gets rejected, it gets harder for religious people to convince people that there is a kind and loving God out there. And most of the time, even that God has a lot strings attached.

 

[dybmh]

even that God has a lot strings attached.

what strings are those? according to whom?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know what a hypothetical is. And I know what a presumption is. I also know what a bait and switch is.

No, your posts tell us otherwise. Or are you admitting to attempting a bait and switch? No one fell for it maybe that is why you are so mad.

 

[dybmh]

No, your posts tell us otherwise. Or are you admitting to attempting a bait and switch? No one fell for it maybe that is why you are so mad.

Not mad at all. I really don't care. It's just a typical faux-atheist debate tactic that fails:

Faux- Atheist -"God cannot be moral."
Theist - "Well you see God..."

Faux-Atheist - "Stop! God doesn't exist. Gotcha"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not mad at all. I really don't care. It's just a typical faux-atheist debate tactic that fails:

Faux- Atheist -"God cannot be moral."
Theist - "Well you see God..."

Faux-Atheist - "Stop! God doesn't exist. Gotcha"

NIce strawman argument. No one claimed that. You keep refuting your earlier claim.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Try stopping believing in gravity and acting accordingly.

Try re-imagining gravity. As Einstein did, long after Newton had comprehensively defined it.

 

[Trailblazer]

She was getting back into her old ways and I was merely warning her about it.

But what was her response? It was merely denial.

Old ways of doing what? You cannot even say what they are.
I deny ever being evasive and not answering peoples' questions since that is a patently false accusation.
Of course I am going to deny false accusations, accusations presented with no evidence.

Now I have shown her in the past how she was guilty of exactly what I said that she was guilty of. But all she had then was more denial

You have never shown anything. All you do is talk and hurl accusations. If you had ANY evidence all you would have to do is cite one post showing me doing what you are accusing me of. But not one post has ever been cited.

I just want her to try to debate properly

Who do you think you are telling me how I should debate? Do I tell you how to debate?

My claim was confirmed by others too. That was the compromise that I offered. If I quoted her posts back at her she would merely deny her past actions again. I know that that would be futile.

Confirmed by others HOW? By their personal opinions of me? No evidence anywhere. Not even ONE POST.

If you quoted the posts back to me then I could defend myself, and that's why you won't quote them back to me.
You just want to get everyone thinking I did what I never did and since they are atheists even though they never saw me doing it they side with you even though they have never even seen the posts you are referring to! This is a pathetic case of injustice.

 

[Trailblazer]

None was needed for a correction.

But evidence is needed when you hurl accusations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Old ways of doing what? You cannot even say what they are.
I deny ever being evasive and not answering peoples' questions since that is a patently false accusation.
Of course I am going to deny false accusations, accusations presented with no evidence.

You have never shown anything. All you do is talk and hurl accusations. If you had ANY evidence all you would have to do is cite one post showing me doing what you are accusing me of. But not one post has ever been cited.

Who do you think you are telling me how I should debate? Do I tell you how to debate?

Confirmed by others HOW? By their personal opinions of me? No evidence anywhere. Not even ONE POST.

If you quoted the posts back to me then I could defend myself, and that's why you won't quote them back to me.
You just want to get everyone thinking I did what I never did and since they are atheists even though they never saw me doing it they side with you even though they have never even seen the posts you are referring to! This is a pathetic case of injustice.

No,, we have been over this countless times. Others agreed.

Here is an honest offer. Find some way to get me $20. Maybe you can get it back from God. If I cannot find any evidence you get it back. And an apology. If II find evidence the $20 pays me for the time I should not have had to waste.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The universe that we live in appears to be the source. Did you seriously need that question answered?

The universe itself is the source of the laws which apparently govern it? Or is that the other way around? And if the laws of nature are emergent, from what guiding principle do they emerge? Why is there order in the universe, and form? Why are there processes seemingly comprehensible to the minds of man? Humans seem to need these questions answered, though there are those who prefer not even to hear them asked.