You probably need to learn how to be less vague when you are losing an argument.

“Actually…AM READING. As in currently. Which means I’m not finished yet, but will be when I get to the last page. Perhaps you are able to pick up a book and internalize it instantly? I’m not. I have to read it.”

So you haven’t actually read an entire atheist book. That’s what I said.

“Once again, you make assumptions about me and what I know.”

Perhaps I give you too much credit.

You missed this one: What do you mean by “explanitory power” and how does theism provide this?

You probably need to learn to read.

“or having almost read an atheist book.”

Actually…AM READING. As in currently. Which means I’m not finished yet, but will be when I get to the last page. Perhaps you are able to pick up a book and internalize it instantly? I’m not. I have to read it.

“Semantics. It was a snap-on parenthesis and you know what I meant by it.”

Once again, you make assumptions about me and what I know.

So just asserting things without having to back them up gives you satisfaction? Fair enough. Though I seem to be your only reader, or at least the only person who comments around here.

Personally it would worry me if I had a faith that I couldn’t back up at all outside of my particular niche of people, because it would tell me my arguments were very weak. And if my arguments were weak, I’d start to wonder whether what I believed was true.

I mean, if you can’t defend your beliefs in a conversation among adults, then you have two problems: either you believe something false, or you (or Ken Ham, etc) are not intelligent enough for the job.

“I resent the accusation…”

You have proved that you do not understand the basics of the previously mentioned sciences (and the method), so if you indeed read what you say you have read, then you have a very poor memory, indeed.

If you argue like you don’t know the issues at hand, then you will have to excuse me for assuming that you haven’t listened to the occasional podcast, or having almost read an atheist book.

“In fact, as I mentioned before, I feel I would have to accept MORE on faith to accept the premise of evolution as I don’t see it having nearly the explanitory power as theism.”

Now this is interesting. What do you mean by “explanitory power” and how does theism provide this?

“Here, unless I’m mistaken, you seem to be asserting that one can lie and not be aware of it. I’m fairly certain that such a claim runs completely contrary to lying, by definition.”

Semantics. It was a snap-on parenthesis and you know what I meant by it.

“But if you claim things like “my god is real, while that other god over there is not” then you have to provide proof that can survive outside of the Christian faith bubble.”

I disagree with this, but only based on the context in which I originally wrote. That is, my writing was targeted to people who have the same (or VERY similar) core beliefs…in other words, the target demographic was “Christians.” Therefore, the argument of “my God is real, while that other god over there is not” is out of the scope of this writing as I’m not addressing another faith. Since I’m addressing people who already believe in the Christian God, I see no reason or need to provide proof of such a being.

“This is a blatant lie, or you are deluded. I have seen you disregard evidence before. Not only that, but you have made it very clear that you do not do your research on both sides of the argument, you stick to pages like AIG.”

I resent the accusation and it shows that you do not have all the facts. While I do use resources such as AiG, I also subscribe to other podcasts such as “The Atheist Experience” and “No Gods, No Guilt.” I’m also in the process of reading “The God Delusion” and still have Victor Stenger’s “God: The Failed Hypothesis” on my list of “to-read.”

Therefore, your claims that I only use pro-theist resources is completely unfounded. I just remain unconvinced in such things as evolution because I simply don’t feel that the evidence is all that compelling. In fact, as I mentioned before, I feel I would have to accept MORE on faith to accept the premise of evolution as I don’t see it having nearly the explanitory power as theism. And it would seem that people like Anthony Flew would agree with me on that.

“So there, now I have shown you how you can prove to yourself that you just told a lie (be it deliberate or not)”

Here, unless I’m mistaken, you seem to be asserting that one can lie and not be aware of it. I’m fairly certain that such a claim runs completely contrary to lying, by definition.

We agree there. But if you claim things like “my god is real, while that other god over there is not” then you have to provide proof that can survive outside of the Christian faith bubble.

Like I said before: you have not done so.

“At least I will accept the fact that if the evidence proves me wrong, I will accept that and change my stance”

This is a blatant lie, or you are deluded. I have seen you disregard evidence before. Not only that, but you have made it very clear that you do not do your research on both sides of the argument, you stick to pages like AIG.

You don’t even understand the most basic principles of geology or biology for Darwin’s sake! Heck, you don’t even grasp the scientific method.

So there, now I have shown you how you can prove to yourself that you just told a lie (be it deliberate or not), and if you are true to your word I expect you have changed your stance by the end of the year.

“But, I simply don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. There are more holes, gaps, assertions based on nothing more than “faith” in the evolutionary camp than there is in the theist camp.”

Clearly you don’t even have a clue what atheism means. Want me to explain it to you or will you look up a definition yourself for a change?

At least I will accept the fact that if the evidence proves me wrong, I will accept that and change my stance. But, I simply don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. There are more holes, gaps, assertions based on nothing more than “faith” in the evolutionary camp than there is in the theist camp.

You’re in a glass house, so you should probably be a little more careful.

If it comes down to “read the bible with an open heart” then I’d say your religion is on equal terms with all the others out there.

And then you assert that people that don’t agree with your point of view do it because they are uncomfortable with certain parts of the bible (as well they should be), etc. But that’s not a real argument, as anyone could tell you.

This was a particularly vacuous post that didn’t contain anything but emotional pleadings and poor rhetoric.