Vorkosigan

What's so wrong about having a Christian on this forum who stands by what he believes?

I think it's great. But you have to remember, you are now in a society that is the opposite of the one all of us normally inhabit -- in a society composed almost entirely of people who think Christianity is nonsense. For most atheists that's a welcome relief, for many of us have to hide our atheism in our extremely (85%) Christian society, because discrimination against non-Christians is so pervasive outside of a few cities, and of course universities and other institutions inhabited by educated and tolerant people. We let our hair down here. The inevitable consquence is abuse of ideas you hold dear.

The other way this society differs from your own is that people here have read up on the Christian myth-system, are literate in it, and are cognizant of its many problems.

Consider the statement you made below:

• I say prove it, because you're contradicting the bible who had any opinion about Jesus, first.

This is a non-argument in this or any serious forum. Nobody cares about contradicting the Bible here; indeed, we do it every day whether we need to or not, just for the sheer joy of it

I have never heard any logical argument that was based on who said what first. Since both you and Rimstalker are making the assertions, the burden of proof rests on you both. You must show why your particular savior is true, and all other saviors are mythic. Recall that your position and Rimstalker's are separated by precisely one savior; you would agree with him that other saviors are all myths. That one savior a razor-thin margin for you to balance an argument on, never mind a whole lifestyle.

So educate us. Why should we accept your savior in lieu of any other?

Michael

Bree

Sorry to make a "generalised" statement about Christians, but here goes:

Christians are taught not to question the Bible. The Bible is inerrant. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. It isn't a question of "proof" to Christians - it's a question of faith. If a Christian starts questioning, looking for "proof" - then his faith is starting to weaken. Since faith is the foundation upon which Christianity stands (since there is no "proof") a questioning mind is a dangerous thing indeed.

So - if you are indeed a strong Christian who stands by what he/she believes, stop questioning. If you do - you are in grave danger of becoming one of us.

Asha'man

Actually, Reactor is quite correct in one sense, ReasonableDoubt, and you are wrong. If we are asking him to change his mind, then we are obligated to show him evidence, or at least our chain of reasoning. This is how things work in conversation, not debate. Usually, the Christians are here telling us we must change our mind, so the burden of proof (conversationally) fall on them.

In a debate, however, the atheist position is (and should be) different, and with a fairly simple reason. The standard quote is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Despite the fact that many people accept the claims made by Christianity, it is an extraordinary claim.

Reactor, I welcomed you originally, and I wish to welcome you again. I would apologize for some of the attacks you have received, but that would mean nothing coming from me. I hope you continue to hang around and ask questions and express doubt, and I hope some of the more rabid attackers will get the point and tone it down a bit.

If not, well, just ignore the lunkheads and respond only to the reasonable postings. Maybe we (meaning you and I, for once) can show them how to conduct a polite conversation.

GunnerJ

Aw, poor Reactor, the fine Xian soldier finds his illogic and presuppositions do not work on a rational crowd, and he lashes out against it. Poor, poor little child.

You should be aware that "cut and quote" is a common style on this board, and I use it because it makes it easier to do point-and-counterpoint debating.

Straw man. No one objects to holding convictions, but this is a debate forum, and if your reasons for believing something do not stand up to skeptical scrutiny, they will be ripped apart. Further, standing by convictions is fine, but openly admitting that you are unwilling to change your mind is an invitation for attack. If you're so hell-bent on not changing your mind, why post on a debate forum? Why should I bother with you?

This should come as no surprise to you, as this is a public debate forum. I take issue with your "anti-Christianity zealot" remark, but otherwise, if you go on a forum, start objecting to people's arguments without actually dealing with their counter-arguments and as much as admitting that you are unwilling to examine evidence that contradicts your ideas, you get what you deserve.

I failed to see any humor in anything you said. I saw plenty of vitrolic sarcasm based on an actual straw man argument, though. Joke or not, misrepresenting an opponent's position to score easy rhetorical points is a no-no.

Um, yes, esepecially if they refuse to consider any reasons why they should. I don't see why you're surprised by this. It bothers me in the extreme that you think you can go around sarcastically mocking everyone's arguments without even so much as dealing with their reasoning, and than admitting that you won't change your mind. It is a waste of bandwidth and my time.

Despite this claim to open-mindedness your constant refusal to deal with people's evidence, and your immature handling of it with sarcasm, suggests otherwise. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and suggest that if you are going to consider the possibility that you're wrong, you act like it on this forum.

More vitrol. If you look closely at all your posts on the mythic hero thread, you will see that your evasions of counter-arguments with peurile sarcasm gave us no reason to assume that you are anything other than a close-minded troll, and so your "humorous" response above is unwaranted.

More sarcastic straw men. Do you honestly think anyone finds this type of crap funny? Grow up. You can "compete" with us by using logic and reasoning, and you will gain our respect by actually dealing with people's counter-arguments in a more mature way than, say, sarcastically distorting them with straw man misrepresentations.

Yet anohter straw man. You have shown your inability to deal with evidence and logical arguments and your inability to admit the possibilty that your beliefs are wrong on the myhtic hero thread, and so you deserve the title of close-minded. Don't engage in the usual cult practice of accusing your enemies of what you are guilty. Frankly, if "all the Christians" display the same lack of argumentative skill as you, I'm glad they're gone. There are many theistic debaters who I have respect for here. Albert, Tercel, Kenny, hell, even Metacrock has actually considered people's arguments and attempted to respond to them in a logical way.

You posted this incendiary and insulting screed on a public forum, so don't be surprised at how many people want to rip you a new asshole. Let me ask you something: why do you claim open-mindedness if you make fun of people's desire to respond to you? It seems like what you want is a one-way space to dictate your beliefs to a captive and silent audience. Get a web page or a church if you want that, don't waste our time here.

If there's a point to this statement, I'd like tos ee it.

You call this logic?

"Also, try this logic Reactor. Dune says Paul Atredies is the Messiah of Arrakis. You say he's a mythic hero. I say prove it, because you're contradicting the novel Dune who had any opinion about Paul, first."

If you can't grasp the concept of burden of proof by your next post, then I see no reason to waste my time responding to you. I don't care who said anything about Jesus first. We do not have to presuppose someone's mythical, fantastical account of a supposed messiah just because he got here first. Again, you have to apply this standard unilaterally. Do we hold the Oddessy as an accurate account of the King of Ithica's life just because Homer said it first? You prove that Jesus existed, and then prove that the Gospels are an accurate account of his life, then we'll have somehting to talk about.

Horseshit. Why do theists always assume that their myths are innocent until proven guilty, and fail to give other myths the same courtessy?

If you think this childish bullshit is funny, you better start packing. "More solid than that?" I don't even think Jesus was a real person; I have no obligation to prove he was so I can show that he wasn't what the Gospels say he is! Can you not see how illogical this is? You give me a more solid reason than that as to why Paul Atredies is not the real Messiah of the Planet Arrakis, so I can study it. You can't even do that, can you? Pretty please with a cherry on top.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Bree: Sorry to make a "generalised" statement about Christians, but here goes: Christians are taught not to question the Bible. The Bible is inerrant. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. It isn't a question of "proof" to Christians - it's a question of faith. If a Christian starts questioning, looking for "proof" - then his faith is starting to weaken. Since faith is the foundation upon which Christianity stands (since there is no "proof") a questioning mind is a dangerous thing indeed. So - if you are indeed a strong Christian who stands by what he/she believes, stop questioning. If you do - you are in grave danger of becoming one of us.

What you say is very true for one segment of Christianity, and very false for other portions of Christendom. I only wish more people would stop focusing on the one and look at the others.

Jayhawker Soule

And I asked him to do this where?