Milton

I am not able to debate with someone who refuses to accept his own error. If anything, one should be honest in everything he does. You refuse to accept you were wrong by saying that I dodge the question, then you add words to my own, and then claim victory before even allowing me to respond.

From what I have gathered from our previous exchanges, you don't seem to be ever wrong. That makes any real debate with you pointless.

Doctor X

Which means the individual is unable to debate with himself. I had thought he was a master debater in that fashion, at least. . . .

Ipse dixit and wrong as noted above.

The individual not only dodged the question--an understandable reaction actually--he now compounds his error with dishonesty.

I have quoted the individual's own words. If he dislikes what they reveal about him that remains his error. Perhaps he should think about them a bit more responsibly before posting.

I will note that the individual has dodged the conclusions from his position.

When the individual flees the field he rather leaves the other side in the position to declare victory if not rout.

Quod erat demonstrandum indeed.

That I am apparently never wrong with the individual does not mean I am never wrong. Indeed, a slightly responsible review of some of my exchanges on the BC&H forum would reveal that.

I consider it a signal honor to serve as inspiration for the individual. My best recommendation for his improvement is not these tactics:

since the individual's insists on failing to back his own words and can only, it seems, fall back on petulence, he has, as yet, to engage in "real debate."

As stated above, AJ113 performed the hard work of thrashing the individual about the field. I merely became impatient and scattered him.

I would sincerely recommend that the individual better consider his words and approach debate with a sense of honesty. In that way he may learn something more useful than how to flee and throw a tantrum.

--J.D.

Rational BAC

Lonely Road of Faith-----------

This really is a good place for you. You will learn more about Christianity here than anyplace else (oddly enough).

Of course you must realize that "liberal" Christians are not tolerated much better than fundies here. You will find yourself constantly being "converted" into atheism. Hang in there with your Christianity as long as you can.

If you truly have faith, none of the atheist arguments will matter. I think an inner faith, based on essential irrationality is something quite foreign to atheists------something they only vaguely understand.

Something that believers understand very easily but cannot explain rationally.

It is apples and oranges here.

Biff the unclean

Wow! If one of we Atheists had written that the Mods would send us a PM telling us to ease off.
But LRF he's right. If your faith is irrational none of our arguments should matter in the least to you.

Rational BAC

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Biff the unclean
[B]Wow! If one of we Atheists had written that the Mods would send us a PM telling us to ease off.

You were joking about that part, Biff, nicht Wahr? The Mods are very easy on you guys. Would have gone completely unnoticed.

And the mods are not that harsh on believers either to be honest about it.

Biff the unclean

No, the mods keep an eye on things. They don't want us to scare "believers" away.

AJ113

For Milton:
You have stated that you are a Fundementalist, what is your definition of the term, as applied to yourself?

HelenM

I think it's more that the moderators don't want anyone to insult, mock and ridicule believers until they leave in disgust. Insulting, mocking or ridiculing any other poster is against the rules, so it's appropriate that the mods intervene if it's happening.

Feel free to try to scare me all you want

Helen

Milton

Simply put, I believe that the best source for my beliefs are the Scriptures--not what a pastor tells me, or what is believed merely out of tradition. In that, my fundamentalism is that I look at the founder(s) of the religion, and see if there is any validity in the teachings today that are compatible with the teachings in Scripture.

But I am different from most known fundamentalists in that, while I take the Scriptures to be literal, I don't believe every single line is accurately the WORD out of God's mouth. I will accept that there are some obvious typos or misprints in the Scriptures, but these happen to have nothing to do with the fundamental teachings of the religion--they happen to be mainly in the historical areas of the Scriptures. All other apparent errors or mistakes can be clearly explained.

For example, in OT times, many did not believe in the afterlife, some of them expressed these views in Scripture. But that was only because further revelation was not yet given to them. Daniel and Isaiah speak of the ressurection.

That some people thought that the earth was flat does not have anything to do with my fundamental religious beliefs, because whether the earth is flat, round, square, or merely an illusion has nothing to do with my salvation. Unless the Scripture told me, you must believe that the earth is flat, I can't see why I am expected to share in the belief with those who concluded so.

Just because Job did not know that there was an afterlife, it doesn't mean that I can't know or believe that there is an afterlife.

Biff the unclean

Doesn't it? Because the same story that says that the world is flat, and the sky is a solid dome, and light was an effect the preceeded it's own cause, and people are made from piles of dust that have been blown on with magic breath, and snakes can talk...that's the same story that told you that you needed salvation to begin with.
If god made all of these things and the author of the story doesn't even know what the Earth, the sky and the stars actually are that should tell you that god was not in contact with the author.
So why believe him?
If he didn't get the things that you can check right why should you trust him about the things that you cannot?