Debating an Atheist

[CThomas]

Truman, trust ne on this. Steve has been extraordinarily charitable in dealing with you. I promise his decision to end was not because you stumped him. In all sincerity, your arguments, such as they are, are all obvious -- nobody could possibly be a Christian withiut having thought more deeply about these issues than you have. And worse, they are wrong. It's bad enough that they are wrong and that you exhibit no capacity to understand that. But it's frustrating, to me at least, that despite repeatedly being instructed on some of the basic responses to these things you act in a weirdly condescending way about it. In any event I actually think this exchange has been useful, not in developing the arguments over atheism, but in a kind of anthropological way in terms of developing insights into the mindset of a certain kind of person.

CThomas

[Ian]

I agree with all the above post except:

nobody could possibly be a Christian without having thought more deeply about these issues than you have.

I know you`re agitated by him. I am too. But you don`t really know that. You can think deeply about something and still be wrong.

[CThomas]

You're right and I stand corrected. I should have said that most thinking Christians have given far more thought, etc.

CThomas

[jriccitelli]

Truman, I can understand why Steve is done, maybe because your interpretation of Christianity is ‘completely’ different from what Christians generally understand and believe, and it would be a long discussion to go over all the multiple doctrines you have touched on. But I wanted to make one note still; In the debate you said you had a relationship (or similar words) with Jesus at one time, is that right?

[TrumanSmith]

Steve Gregg said: "Feel free to conclude whatever helps you sleep, my friend. I am under orders from the High Command (Matthew 7:6). I have not been impressed by your open-mindedness, by your reasoning skills, nor by your honesty. What can I say?"

So I answer your questions, but you refuse to answer mine. Oh so now you won't can't talk to me because it is like throwing pearls before swine. I guess I'm more of a missionary to Christians than you are a missionary to atheists. You might reply "I'm not a missionary to atheists." I agree. When I was a Christian, I would try to witness to anyone who was willing to listen. I'm willing to listen to your ideas. I'm sorry you can't handle my own opinions. That means you are intolerant. When I say that I worshiped and knew Jesus as you do now, only now I see it as a delusion; I'm not mocking or making fun of your belief, just sharing how I now see reality. Seems like you can't handle a different opinion and can't talk reasonably about it, so you give up.

You say you are not impressed by my reasoning, etc. That means in order to have a conversation with someone of a different viewpoint, you have to be impressed by them? I'm not impressed by your logic either, but I'm reaching out, in an effort to understand you better. Your response is to clam-up.

[TrumanSmith]

Truman... But I wanted to make one note still; In the debate you said you had a relationship (or similar words) with Jesus at one time, is that right?

Correct. I had a personal relationship with Jesus just as major ministry leaders assert today. I now see it as a delusion.

It would be interesting to probe how that is any different from Steve Gregg's assertion, but he's unwilling to discuss.

I don't know why he would even debate an atheist to begin with, since he's now so concerned about throwing pearls before swine. He knew my position going into the debate.

[TrumanSmith]

You're right and I stand corrected. I should have said that most thinking Christians have given far more thought, etc.
CThomas

That's just a form of name-calling, like saying "You are dumb." Why don't you try to engage me on my actual points?

[Ian]

Truman, for an alternative viewpoint to Steve on origins have you checked out this site?:

http://www.reasons.org/explore/topic/design

[CThomas]

Truman, I indicated in the message itself (and consistent with a previous message of mine) that I id not intend that email as a substantive argument but rather as a note of conclusion. Whatever your practice was when you called yourself a Christian I don't see any obligation or benefit to engage in pointless arguments. Life is too short, and one needs to prioritize one's activities in a manner that makes the most sense given limited resources.

CThomas

[TrumanSmith]

Truman, for an alternative viewpoint to Steve on origins have you checked out this site?:

http://www.reasons.org/explore/topic/design

Hi Ian- yes, very familiar with RTB. Fuz Rana is a very smart man in biology. He doesn't accept human evolution, and he knows more about biology than me. But he is very rare. And he doesn't seem to have good answers to DNA arguments for evolution. He was in a debate with evolutionary creationist and scientist Dennis Venema (who fully accepts evolution), but they dropped it. I tried to reignite it with a chat with Dr. Rana, seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tteo6jp6UQ

Another silly thing about RTB: They think Noah's flood was local, not worldwide. Why save birds that could easily fly away, if local? The Genesis story was meant to be taken literally, but RTB is on the right track at least in acknowledging that science disproves a literal worldwide flood. Unfortunately, they are still trying to save the story (saying it happened only in a local area), but it is still destroyed by science and logic. It is also wrong for them to think all humans were gathered in one spot so they could be wiped-out. Humans love to roam and stake-out new territory, just like all other animals.

Here's some of the debate over evolution between Dr. Rana with Christians that accept evolution:
http://tnrtb.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/p ... ema-part6/

Steve Gregg thinks a worldwide flood is a possibility. I think that shows his lack of scientific understanding. This is a very easy thing to disprove using science and reason.