Vinnie

This reasoning is fallacious. Why can I say that a religion was invented 20 years ago but not 2000? On what grounds is this cutoff determined here?

Bathrone

You claim that your relationship to this Christain God you believe in, comes from your heart, mind and soul.

Lets focus on your mind.

1. Prove to me your God exists
2. Prove to me why the thousands of other Gods other religions claim exists, do not not exist, and yours is the one true God.

Im eagerly awaiting your enlightenment

Sue Sponte

And thus is it not the inspired word of God, the very premise upon which Christianity rests. If parts of the bible have been proven to be an error, on what basis do you accept the remainder as inspired? How does one choose which parts to believe are morally correct?

By admitting that the bible is flawed, you distance yourself from the entire point of Christianity, which is to follow the bible as the word of god. It isn't, so you shouldn't.

Vinnie

That is a very naive form of inspiration. There is a whole other world outside of "fundamentalism that you seem to know little about. My thoughts on the Bible are layed out here:

http://www.acfaith.com/qualitative.html

Bathrone, your schooling will begin later

Vinnie

Asha'man

But isn’t your God supposed to love me?

I abandoned Christianity because of the obvious inconsistencies and errors and vagueness of the Bible. According to your theology, my soul is now damned to eternal hellfire because of the crappy quality of God’s message. Isn’t that God’s fault? If he had been just a little less lazy or apathetic, he could have produced a clear, contradiction-free book, and I would be going to heaven when I die. Does your god not care about that? Or is producing a clear message beyond his ability?

I can almost predict that you will bring up the evasion of “Free Will.” I don’t accept that for a second. You don’t preserve someone’s free will by lying to or confusing them. You give them the straight facts, everything they need to know, and then let them make an honest decision. Trying to force a decision with incomplete information is manipulation, which is the exact opposite of free will.

Kosh

Yes, Vinnie has a point. The "Sunday Mornin' Social Club" (tm) at your local liberal mega-church should not be underestimated! The sheer power of the networking opportunities there are unmatched by any other social gathering (with the exception of a good H.O.G. (Harley Owners Group) ride where you can hobnob with CEOs pretending to be rough in their leathers.

In fact, just yesterday I was weeding out resumes for the position I need to hire, and when I asked how one resume, with no qualificatons, got in there, my boss told me it came from a guy at his church.

Then there was the dot-bomb I worked at that was run by a group of Promise Keepers (tm). They only hired management from the PKers. I expect them to go completely out of business any day now....

The point being, despite Sue's rather on-the-spot reasoning, which is undeniable to a rational person, Xians will continue to liberalize the religion so that they can keep on "believing", simply because it's become a social thing to them.

Greg2003

Vinnie,

Why should anyone care about the "hope" or emotional state that the apologist has. If he is using flawed reasoning to justify a false hope, why can't people call him on it? Why can't we consider confronting people about irrational beliefs doing a public good since it since it's at least an attempt to teach critical thinking skills and rational judgement?

Shouldn't we at least try to take away the hope of the Heaven's Gates types or the Koreshians or the snake handling pentecostals? By the same token can't we challenge all irrational beliefs?

copernicus

Most atheists nowadays seem to make the tactical error of buying too strongly into the "lack of belief", as opposed to "belief of lack", side of the debate. The idea is to put the relgious believer in the position of having to justify religion, thus removing all responsibility from the atheist of having to attack religion. While technically correct, this approach seldom gets anywhere with believers. Those theists who engage in religious debates have already gotten around that argument in their own heads. That is why we often get bogged down in arguments over burden of proof. It is like two people who refuse to enter a room first. "No, no. After YOU, Alfonse!"

We need arguments with traction. The religion/atheism debate isn't about where the burden of proof lies. It isn't about "proof" at all. It is about plausibility. You need to give positive arguments for why religion is probably wrong, even given the defender's willingness to take the idea on faith. It is interesting that Vinnie, a theist, came up with the most effective reply to the apologist: This reasoning is fallacious. Why can I say that a religion was invented 20 years ago but not 2000? On what grounds is this cutoff determined here? If you want to win an argument against theists, bring Vinnie along. I'd love to see him get into a real debate with himself. So far, the religious Vinnie seems to be winning--at least in public. But the price he pays is the dilution of religion to the point where it begins to lose its anthropomorphic attraction to most believers. If God isn't an angry old Daddy or a loving nourishing Mommy, then what is the point of putting up with him/her/it/them?

Anyway, that's my basic advice. If you want to win religious debates, then study the arguments that theists use to put their own beliefs down. They are atheists, too, except when it comes to the "true religion" that opposes all those other religions. The only way to salvage religion is to talk yourself into a kind of nebulous pantheism.

Vinnie

Copernicus--the voice of reason

I like the way this thread is starting to turn. I'll be back later after work tonight to defend my Christian heresy (tm)

Vinnie

Sue Sponte

Believing in the bible as the word of god is "naive"? Interesting position from a christian, one subject to a wealth of internal inconsistency.

There is no "world outside of fundamentalism", at least not logically. If the bible isn't accurate or inspired, any belief in christianity is illogical. How is a view of christianity which recognizes flaws in its foundation somehow superior to fundamentalism? In many ways, the fundamentalist position is at least more honest (if not logical) then "liberal" forms of christianity, because they believe the bible is inspired. Those who accept that the writings of the bible are flawed, yet still subscribe to a belief in christianity, are an odd intellectual group, on the one hand conceding that the foundation for their beliefs is lacking, while at the same time stating that this concession somehow makes their view more reasonable.

Face it, Vinnie. The reason that you are not a fundamentalist is that you know, deep down, that the bible is not inspired but merely the scribblings of flawed humans. At least you appear to be heading in the right direction.