Meh_Gerbil

I'm a Christian.
I don't debate the existence of G_d(1).
I could make up all kinds of reasons as to why I don't debate.

ATHEISTS ARE TOO STUPID
I could claim atheists are too stupid or stubborn to make it worth my valuable time. I could whip out the "fools" verse in Proverbs to show that even though I regret the fact atheists are fools it isn't my assessment, it's G_d's assessment. The problem with that pretentious reason is that I waste tons of time every day doing other dumb things so that really doesn't seem to be an honest answer.

I'M TERRIBLY AFRAID
I could go with the reasons some atheists want to hear, for example, some of them like to believe I'm afraid to debate the existence of G_d. Those are exactly the kind of people that aren't worth talking to about the weather, much less debate topics. I put them in the same folder as a Christian who claims atheists are atheists because they like to eat babies. Let's be honest, does anyone really care if people that arrogant go to hell?(2)

THE REAL REASONS
I've three reasons for not debating the existence of G_d:

First, I doubt it has any effect whatsoever. If you take the Gospels as historical accounts (3) than you would believe that the skeptics of Jesus' day actually saw miracles and still didn't believe. What am I supposed to make of that? I find those stories to be very believable - face it, the power to deny is unmatched by the power to persuade. If Jesus could raise a person from the dead and still be called a fraud what trick could I pull outta my hat to match that?

HINT FOR CHRISTIANS: I don't care if you do think the Bible is the Sword of G_d - Jesus was the living Word Incarnate and He was so convincing they killed Him. You've no power to persuade, get over yourself.

Second, the skeptic embraces empiricism as his only tool of truth detection. That means by definition that the tools I embrace (empiricism, divine revelation, personal experience, aesthetics) mean absolutely nothing to him. Most of my tools mean nothing to the skeptic - its like bringing a butter knife to a gun fight.

Third, one of the most convincing evidences for G_d of which I'm aware is the Mongolian Gerbil. No joke. Other Christians think I'm a lunatic for that one so there is no way I'd wanna spring that on a skeptic. I can see G_d in a gerbil and that is something I cannot help or change about myself. Yes, I can hear people laughing in the back.

SUMMARY
So those are my reasons.
No, I'm not debating them.





__________________________________________________ ____________
NOTES
1: I spell it that way because I'm trying to show respect. I don't care how you spell it, no I'm not Jewish, really it is for my benefit only.

2: The first person to point out that such a statement isn't very Christian earns...oh I dunno... a weekend with LakeGeorgeMan.

3: I do take them as historical accounts. I realize you've got about 100 reasons why you don't - but this is MY THREAD and MY REASONS. Go get yer own dang thread if you wanna fuss about it.

Biff the unclean

Then why did y_u come to this board? (1)
I spell it that way because I'm making fun of your pretense

His Noodly Appendage

Right then.

Good for you.

You get 2 cookies with teh whipped cream.

Steve Schlicht

That's really good stuff, Meh.

Have you met Boro Nut?

windsofchange

Meh Gerbil, you've made some interesting points. But this is a discussion board. If you have no intention of debating the points you've posted, then your thread will probably be closed in fairly short order. Would you consider changing your mind?

Gooch's dad

Damn, someone beat me to it!

I agree with Steve, that's a fun read, Meh!

steamer

Hey Gerbil,

I don't debate the existence of god either. I do however challenge theists to show that god is something more than a description in a book and something they imagine. So far no theist has ever been able to show that god isn't just another thing they imagine, like unicorns or leprachauns.

If you aren't willing to assert that god is something more than just a thing you imagine (and back up that assertion) then at least we can agree that god can be imagined. Things that can be imagined but aren't known to exist are called imaginary. I think we can agree thus far that god is something you imagine and he is also something that isn't known to exist.

So there we have it. We are in complete agreement that you imagine god and we have no need for any debate.

Mythra

You do realize that God, G_d, or Gawd isn't really the name of the god of the bible? Right?

But, hell with it. No need for debate.

Call him G_D if it makes you feel holy. I'm sure he greatly admires your piety.

Yahzi

Thanks for the insult. I realize that you have not made a public committment to being reasonable, and hence have no particular impetus to be so; but many of us have made it a matter of record that we would change our minds given sufficient fact.

By saying it won't have any effect, you are calling us liars.

You make of it the same thing you make of the fact that people claim to have seen Elvis and yet you still disbelieve.

I.E., perhaps the reports of said miracles are no more valid than the reports of Benny Hinn's miracles.

Maybe it's the Bible that got it wrong, not the skeptics.

Most of your tools mean absolutely nothing to you; at least, when they are employed by someone else. You find Muslim revelation to be every bit as uncompelling as we do.

Perhaps you would like to comment on why it's ok for you to employ a tool, but not ok for someone else. Because from over here, it looks like simple unfairness.

You got us there.

I would suggest you go away and stop wasting our time, but I see WoC has already done that.

Venus de Milo

This thread inspired me to go to a baseball game and tell all the people there why I don't want to watch baseball.