You offer a very good two cents. There was sarcasm in my suggestion for an intellectual review of what I had written. From what has been handed out by the atheist selots on this forum, it was surprising to receive an intelligent reply. You are very correct that a debate leading to who lies is headed for a continual circle where no body wins.
Your sarcaisum was very well taken also. The GadFly does appear to be better in this debate than the selots that oppose God. The first error you make is in a seemingly truthful statement you make that most fair minded people would accept: " No belief is perfect and christianity is no exception." Well said. This is true about all world religions. We give you this point. GadFly does not know of a perfect religion. Our debate, however, is not about religion - it's the God Factor. Welcome to your first introduction to atheistic logic. By changing your premise to religion instead of God, you do change the subject of debate. Is this what you meant by butchering things up?
We do agree here:" It's pointless to try and get someone to believe in something they don't want to." Why do atheist bother to argue the point there is no God? Theist argue because Christians do not want people to overlook that there is a God. Atheist can not state a valid reason to not believe, yet, they do not believe. Now, Mr. LOgic, how logical is that? That is a question that only atheistic logic can answer.
The GadFly will not form an opinion of you yet. but, I hope it was the truth and not an untruth that you hoped that I have better things to do with my life than be trapped in a circle. The atheist and me, around and around, trapped for life. Perhaps you will share some truth with us that will help break the circle of unbelief?The problem here is that atheist don't believe in truth, but thanks for sharing.
GadFly
First, why do you talk in 3rd person?
I cannot speak for all atheists, and so, I won't try. I'll speak for myself on this though. Depending on who you talk to, different people will have different reasons for believing or not believing. Atheists can argue for the same reason you can - freedom of speech.
As to address why they choose to argue there is no god is simple. They believe there is no god. If a christian can state their belief, then it is only fair for an atheist to do the same. You may not agree, however, that would not be a valid reason for them to refrain from speaking.
I must say, however, some atheists are determined to go against christianity just to prove that there is no god. This can be seen as a possible retaliation if christians "preached" to them, the atheist will do the same in return. As for why they may say such things even when not in a debate I cannot say. I find it to be pointless and my best answer would be to ask one who does that.
Any "truth" that I say will most likely be subjective and yours may be too. You'll find a circle of disbelief/belief almost anywhere you go for nearly every topic, such as rap vs metal, evolution vs creation, meat pizza vs vege pizza. There will be these endless circles anywhere you go. We can witness these circles, however, once one enters, it can be hard (sometimes) to leave. If I provide my "truth", then I simply add to even more chaos in this circle of disbelief/belief. I'd rather not.
"an atheist cannot state a valid reason to not believe". This may be true for some, however, I do have my reasons and they're not based on "the bible is nonsense" or such pointless remarks. Perhaps the other atheists who you conversed with may have had no reason, as some indeed have no valid reason. However, I say this: does it matter if their reason is valid to you? If they have formulated a reason, it probably satisfies them and is made to satisfy them. If it happens to satisfy others, so be it, however, it is likely not meant to. So, it being a "valid" reason, I'm assuming means you do not consider it valid. You can form opinions, I'm not denying that, however, if they seem to lack intelligence, then why bother with them in the first place? A possible reason I could see is to make them believe your idea of the "truth". If that was the case, then you have gone against what you said:
We do agree here:" It's pointless to try and get someone to believe in something they don't want to."
I say your idea of the truth, as it is your belief. Whether it is correct or valid to myself or anyone else for that matter is irrelevant. We all have our versions of the "truth". Some may not agree, however, debating on that leads to this never-ending circle.
As for the "butchering things up", on that, I did make a mistake in my wording. You caught me red-handed and there's nothing I can do to change that except for compliment you on that.
You stated you haven't formed an opinion yet. However, whether you disclose it or not, to me is irrelevant. It is irrelevant to this debate. Perhaps in another discussion it would be more suitable but here, it is not. You may provide it all you want, however, bear in mind, it will have no purpose in this debate. It will not provide you with any advantage over me, nor will it provide you with a disadvantage. An objective discussion is not one to involve opinions of others. This will lead to debate the debater and not the debate.
