Why Holding's Argument is pretty weak

[YourMaster]

Yep. It's made reading threads a lot faster.

Obviously it's much quicker not to have to try and tackle arguments that show the logical absurdity of your position

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Whoa! Did anybody feel a gust of wind blow now?! That might have even been strong enough to blow off DJ's hat!

[YourMaster]

I don't even understand the prescientific metaphysical gibberish I'm trying to sell ... so I'll make it stop by crawling back in the cave, closing my ears, and shutting my eyes

[MWM958]

There it is again.

[little_monkey]

There it is again.

Yep, as the logo says. "We debate theology... seriously" by putting non-believers on ignore, after ignoring any of their arguments.

Atta boy...

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Yep, as the logo says. "We debate theology... seriously" by putting non-believers on ignore, after ignoring any of their arguments.

Atta boy...

No. After we've pounded their arguments into the ground so much that all they have left is mockery.

I save myself for serious opponents.

[little_monkey]

No. After we've pounded their arguments into the ground so much that all they have left is mockery.

I save myself for serious opponents.

I already know about your snobbery. You don't need to flaunt it

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I already know about your snobbery. You don't need to flaunt it

Not snobbery. Just hard truth. The real snobbery lies in the side that thinks all religion is emotional and there's no sense intelligently discussing it so let's just stick to Wikipedia.

If you want to know that these arguments have been addressed, feel free to go to the advanced debate section and find that myself and JPH have debated on these issues a number of times.

You haven't brought forward anything we haven't seen before. Neither has YM.

[Rational Gaze]

I already know about your snobbery. You don't need to flaunt it

Yup, becuase pointing out someone's monumental ignorance and stupidity is "snobbery".

[little_monkey]

Not snobbery. Just hard truth. The real snobbery lies in the side that thinks all religion is emotional and there's no sense intelligently discussing it so let's just stick to Wikipedia.

Well, there is an emotional component to religious beliefs. I hope you're not denying that. But even acknowledging that reality, if you say there's no sense to intelligently discuss, then one would need to re-examime the purpose of this forum, why allow non-believers at all if nothing constructive can come out?

If you want to know that these arguments have been addressed, feel free to go to the advanced debate section and find that myself and JPH have debated on these issues a number of times.

Sorry, I'm not interested in reading old threads. Most of them degenerate into name-calling, spam, mockery and irrelevant issues.

Here's one that happened just yesterday.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...1&postcount=98

You haven't brought forward anything we haven't seen before. Neither has YM.

Exactly my point, you have dismissed me even before your fingers had touched the keyboard in writing this post.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Well, there is an emotional component to religious beliefs. I hope you're not denying that. But even acknowledging that reality, if you say there's no sense to intelligently discuss, then one would need to re-examime the purpose of this forum, why allow non-believers at all if nothing constructive can come out?

Of course there is an emotional component, but that is on the experiential level. It is not on the level of determining if the beliefs are true.

And non-believers are welcome. Just as not all Christians are alike and many of them have no business doing apologetics, and I have as much problem with them as I do with non-Christians doing apologetics for their worldview, so not all non-believers are alike. I can easily dialogue with a number of atheists and skeptics here because while they disagree with the Christian worldview, they don't cast it aside as nonsense a priori.

Sorry, I'm not interested in reading old threads. Most of them degenerate into name-calling, spam, mockery and irrelevant issues.

Here's one that happened just yesterday.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...1&postcount=98

In other words, you've made an assertion and you're not interested in finding counter-examples to that assertion. You wonder why some of us get tired of your nonsense then.

Btw, you're the one who began this by referring to my snobbery as you called it. So it's okay for you to do it but no one else.

Exactly my point, you have dismissed me even before your fingers had touched the keyboard in writing this post.

Based on prior evidence. You've shown no understanding whatsoever of Christian doctrine or history and are unfamiliar with the arguments put forward. You see, unlike an atheist, I base my beliefs on evidence, including my beliefs of the mindset of the people I deal with.

[jpholding]

Whoa! Did anybody feel a gust of wind blow now?! That might have even been strong enough to blow off DJ's hat!

That didn't SMELL like wind.

But there's another breeze, and it smells like little bananas....

[little_monkey]

Of course there is an emotional component, but that is on the experiential level. It is not on the level of determining if the beliefs are true.

It might not be in your case, but in many theists, there is nothing else but their emotional attachment to their religious beliefs. It is fair game to point that out.

And non-believers are welcome. Just as not all Christians are alike and many of them have no business doing apologetics, and I have as much problem with them as I do with non-Christians doing apologetics for their worldview, so not all non-believers are alike.
I can easily dialogue with a number of atheists and skeptics here because while they disagree with the Christian worldview, they don't cast it aside as nonsense a priori.

You've said that before, and you have named names of atheists, but since that, I haven't seen you debating with many atheists on a constructive level. So forgive if I am skeptical of that claim you are making here.

In other words, you've made an assertion and you're not interested in finding counter-examples to that assertion. You wonder why some of us get tired of your nonsense then.

Was I supposed to give you an exhaustive list of threads that end in nonsense? I gave you that particular example because it happened yesterday and was fresh in my mind. But there is no shortage of these threads ending in the kind of nonsense I pointed out, and I won't bother digging them out.

And now you are already tired of my nonsense. So soon?

Btw, you're the one who began this by referring to my snobbery as you called it. So it's okay for you to do it but no one else.

I was refreshing you of your main weakness. The least you could do is be appreciative of that.

Based on prior evidence. You've shown no understanding whatsoever of Christian doctrine or history and are unfamiliar with the arguments put forward.

I'm going to remind you of your own words: " while they disagree with the Christian worldview, they don't cast it aside as nonsense a priori." We had a tiff about using wikipedia. You've decided I know nothing about Christian doctrine. I've already admitted I'm not an expert, but from our exchanges, it is quite evident that you too are not. The difference is that you have casted yourself on a high chair. Now prove yourself that you deserve the high chair.

You see, unlike an atheist, I base my beliefs on evidence, including my beliefs of the mindset of the people I deal with.

It doesn't look like you can make a convincing case. Perhaps you have to the choir. See if you can do with people who are skeptical of your claims. Otherwise, you are grasping at straws.

[MWM958]

It might not be in your case, but in many theists, there is nothing else but their emotional attachment to their religious beliefs. It is fair game to point that out.

Uhhhh okay? There's emotional attachment to some atheists' metaphysical views too. So what?

[little_monkey]

Uhhhh okay? There's emotional attachment to some atheists' metaphysical views too. So what?

Sure, if that's the only attachment that atheists have to their belief, it's fair game to point it out. In my experience, very few atheists fall into that category. But there are some. Those in particular who rebel against their parents, and renounce their religious beliefs, it might be just pure emotions. But for most, atheists reach their conclusions after debating deliberately the pros and cons of their religious beliefs, and they've made a conscious decision to reject them.