So, did you go to church regularly? I thought you said you only went on Easter and Christmas. 

Were they devoutly religious?

Wrong about what?

That's pretty vague.

It would be helpful if there were no 'gaps' in our dialogue.

Saying things like 'stuff' was not 'right', is kinda mumbo jumbo, you know?

How did you 'know' he was wrong? Where's the disctinction for you, between a belief, and a knowledge?

So, you concluded he was wrong, based in instinct?

Please clarify what 'specifically' you are referring to.

You mean establishing a personal dialogue with a god? Or some kind of 2 way street interaction with a god?

With all due respect, there seems to be contradictions from the start in just 'how' prevalent religion was in your life, from your parents.

So, is this like you are talking to a god, that may/may not be there? You are asking for a god to give you personal signs of his existence?

I'm having trouble following this. It seems to contradictory. You fully believed and accepted God, though when you were young you catergorized God as a legend like Santa or the Easter Bunny?

What does this mean? That 'it' was likely all false understandings? What is 'it'?

And BTW, 'false understandings' is religious rhetoric. The correct term is 'misunderstanding', or 'misinterpretation'.

Explain how you felt absolutely certain that it was not simply by chance. What made the distinction for you?

You're being too vague, for any useful dialogue. Continually referring to 'it', without a qualifier of what 'it' is, is just being rhetorical.

Everytime I see an 'it', it's no better than saying (x). 

You mean to say, that you have somehow concluded that scripture was a method of certifying the veracity of the natural world?

That's not very objective.

It sounds like you simply believed in your personal God, and wanted to see if everyone else's personal God was based in less personal reasoning than what you had done. 

It sounds like scripture is something you personally decided was factual. I can't see how you'd arrive at that conclusion objectively.

That's a non sequitur.

You're openly contradicting yourself. You say you don't question the existence of you God, in one instant, then say you're open to looking at reasons to question your beliefs.

In that case, it sounds like God is a working hypothesis for you, in which case, I don't understand the value of adding the 'belief', that may/may not turn out to be real.

It becomes quite superfluous (in my mind), and kinda like an 'I can take it, or leave it' proposition.

You're being vague again. Correct understanding? Of what? Correct understanding of (x) again?

How can a god be real, without any physical evidence?

I think you've gotten way ahead of yourself, in this 1 on 1 dialogue.

I don't see any evidence of a god, and you are talking to me about something as if it exists and I cannot see it.

Where can I see evidence of god as well? 

So, you still have doubts, from time to time?

I just want clarification.

Do you still question the existence of God?

Ummm,....there isn't any 'atheist position' that I alluded to. I'm telling you that theists can't seem to agree on the bible itself. They contradict themselves all the time, when they talk of the bible, to me.

Some will tell me that the story of Adam and Eve, and Noah's Ark are metaphorical, and then I see on TV that there are explorers looking for Noah's Ark somewhere in some high mountaintops.

There shouldn't be. They've had 2000 yrs to translate this stuff, and cull the pertinent data.

Just tell me specifically which parts are to be taken literally.

Is the book of Genesis to be taken literally?

I don't know what your definition of ancient history is, but mine, is that the accounts written in ancient history are highly suspect.

Well, I've recently found out that there are lifetime theologians and theists, who now have realized that the legend of the Jesus character, is not even grounded in the ancient scriptures around the supposed time of his life.

Guys like Bart Ehrman and Tom Harpur have studied, written, and debated extensively on the subject.

I know for a fact, that there are no contemporaneous accounts of the birth of the Jesus character, or his supposed virgin birth, and that it appears that the legend only 'arguably' begins to have vague mentions of a Jesus character, somewhere between 70-200 yrs after the supposed Jesus crucifixion.

4 days and counting...

oh yea, I forgot to mention something to you.  i have a life outside this website... and you might find due to the fact that I have a full time job, family, friends, hobbies and children that I could take up to 2 weeks at times to respond.  You're going to have to be patient.  

Also, if you ask me something that i actually have to research or look into before responding, then again, you might have to be patient.  

 I've given redneF and his debate opponents access into the One on One debate forum.  Sorry I didn't get to it sooner.  Typical users aren't able to post in this forum, only people who have been granted entry.  This will help eliminate any future moderation issues in these threads.  

I went to post, and lost my response.

I'll rewrite it at a later date.

Alright Dude, it's been over a month.  You've taken time to argue with me on other threads, but can't seem to get back to this one despite you telling me you needed time to repost.  I get it, but this is ridiculous.  

What exactly did you want to debate me on?  

What drivel, you asked me for my history, then you labeled me a garden variety Christian without diving into what I believe now.  

who told you?  no one is suppose to know we exist!

I'm curious on how you've come to that conclusion be it that "reasonable" conversation has not happened between the 2 of us yet.  I thought we were getting there when you wanted to know a little bit of my history, but then I realized you only were looking for excuses to justify yourself and not a debate.

I follow the lead of others, in this case i was following your lead.  If it is ever fragmented or babble, it's not my fault.  I will focus when you choose to be focused.  Why don't you explore my other threads or other threads Im' involved in, then tell me the same thing.

we haven't talked about anything yet other than what i believed as a kid.  Where do you think I was trying to convince you of anything on this thread at this point?  other than the fact that you dropped what you told everyone was going to be a debate.  Even got the mods to set up a special thread just for us.  I feel like you've wasted everyone's time.

I don't place myself above anyone else.  Do you think you're any more special than the rest?  c'mon, excuses are fun and all, but when it comes down to it, you're really just avoiding.  if you're so sure of yourself, then let's go, we set up this thread for a reason, bring it.

I claim I believe in the existence of God through the reasoning of many avenues and I expect that atheists will challenge my belief... that way if I'm wrong, I will find out, if I'm right, they will only further confirm my understanding.  

Again, your excuses only give you a window to walk away.  Walk it if you're so sure.

You've read that whole thread from day 1?!!! wow, i think you're the only one

stupid excuse

you chose to come onto MY thread and challenge me! you have every right and the freedom to stop taking to me at any time.  Do you want this... heh... debate to be over?  just say i don't want to debate you.  I'll drop it and again, as I've said before we even started, yet another claimed debate with no winner.  If you can even call this a debate.

wow, you know me better than I know myself! how long have you been spying on me and who are you really?

You don't care to hear it.  The truth cannot be told to you unless you're willing to hear it.  I don't know about the discussions you've had with other theists, but it's been nothing but excuses and lack of focus since day 1 with you.

actually, I got that rebuttal from the atheists on this site.

So you're finally getting it.  your approch is going to get us nowhere, so let's take a different approach shall we?

and you have reasoning behind this conclusion right?

why is history an epic fail to you?  This is proven in history.  Whether the scrolls hold the truth is what's in debate, not whether they were interpreted by specially trained persons.  You're so against this belief that you're willing to call even proven facts epic fails.  That's pretty sad

yea, this is going to be a fun debate.  

Not compared to mine.

Not even close.

And I outlined why, earlier.

 redneF wrote:No.The claim of

 

No.

The claim of an 'immaterial brain' is nonsensical.

 

Caposkia Wrote:

 

Anything that one might not understand or believe is nonsensical to them.  It's a subjective stance.  

 

His claim is infinitely more compatible with reality, than the opposite.

Unless you can debunk his claim, you've failed to do anything but take up bandwidth trying to intelligently rebuke the claim.

Caposkia Wrote:

 

What claim?  A brain with no brain being nonsense?  He has yet to rationally support that claim.  It'd be like me trying to prove you don't have a dog and you claiming you do but refusing to show me.   It's useless to pursue.  Anyone can claim anything and not support it... and if enough people agree, suddenly it's rational.  

His best argument for his claim is the same that you and others are trying to accuse me of using, which is rationale without basis.  If your'e going to buy his, why shouldn't I just claim something and expect you to believe it?  BTW I'm not, but as far as Brain's concerned, that's all I need to do with him.   That's all he's expecting me to buy.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Lack of evidence has never been an excuse to conclude anything.....

 

redneF wrote:

That's endorsing gullibility over skepticism.

Caposkia Wrote:

 

skepticism is fine, but a good skeptic has reasoning behind their skepticism.  skepticism without basis has another term associated with it... it's called ignorance.  

 

So, you've come to the firm conclusion that science doesn't have a more plausible explanation for how the universe formed? Or how life evolved, than ancient scripture??

 

 Caposkia Wrote:

I have come to the firm conclusion that science and scripture support each other.  Where there is no support, there's a lack of information to claim anything on either side.

Not claiming here that the Bible is a scientific document.  Only that most of what's written in scripture can be supported scientifically.  What can't we don't have enough information about... this woudl include claimed miracles.   They sound amazing, but we weren't there and of course science has nothing to reference to as far as miracles are concerned... if it did, they wouldn't be miracles.  

 

While that is a personal choice, it is impractical, foolish, and dangerous to give equal consideration to things that are merely 'claimed', and not shown to be unequivocally true.

 

caposkia wrote:

 

interesting perspective be it that in order for us to give less consideration to things claimed, we'd have to not discover.

 

redneF wrote:

Better try and reword that response....it makes no sense whatsoever...

 

 Caposkia Wrote:

then you're getting too deep for yourself.  You said "it's impractical, foolish, and dangerous to give equal consideration to things taht are merely 'claimed'."  Assuming that the claimed things were always proven... or so it seems... so I responded that in order for us to give less consideration to things claimed, we'd have to not discover.  Basically what I'm saying is everything proven started off as a claim.  In order for those claims to be considered true or false, you'd have to give those claims 'equal consideration' to all other claims.  Otherwise, you're just as reasonable as any religious sect out there only accepting what you want to be true and not necessarily what is true.  

 

I think you've got that backwards.

If you know your history (you keep claiming to be thorough in your 'investigation'), you'd know that the church used to burn people at the stake for attempting to 'prove' the claims of the church were wrong.

They lost their grip on being the 'purveyors' of 'truth' a long time ago, and the power to rule the people went along with it.

You people will never have that power again.

 

 Caposkia Wrote:

This in reference to all truths started as a claim.  Are you saying we knew the truth before something was claimed to be?  I know my history and I know what the churches did... if you did your homework, you'd also see the claims that the church was tryign to protect had no basis scripturally or scientifically.    There are sects today that still make false claims and try to base it on scripture, any educated person can easily see they're wrong.  Some of these sects have pretty serious consequences for their patrons that go against them... unfortunately for them, fortunately for us they have some serious laws to obide by and can no longer burn people for opposing views.  

 

 

Caposkia Wrote::

 

my point was that it was an associative conclusion.  He and you have no basis to associate my God with all other gods. 

 

That's an incredibly stupid special pleading for 'your god'.

The Egyptians attempted monotheism more than once, and there were other 'Jesus' type 'Miracle Man' myths before. 

 

 Caposkia Wrote:

You say this and have no basis for your claim.  I can claim the same about you, but it's going to get us nowhere... YOur'e back talking to me again even though you gave up on a debate that you ran from.  Are you saying you want to debate after all?  

 

I gave you my reasons, very clearly.

You're 'all show', and 'no go'.

You had the spotlight, and this is the best case you can make?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29079#comment-335407

 

The reasons where that you started to go downhill real quick with your responses. There was nothing detailed or compelling in your response, as to how you concluded that 'God' exists, or even why it's plausible to even entertain the thought.

If there is anything in that thread that you want to quote to prove that I overlooked some compelling evidence, by all means, do so.

 

 Caposkia Wrote:

hmmm... maybe the part about how I started doing research and concluded from researching a number of valid and accepted avenues such as science, history, archeology etc. that I found the truth... I didn't yet go into detail about any of those because the focus at the point was my history and not what I had researched... AND without even inquiring about what I might have found though valid avenues, you concluded that due to my history of faith being false, despite my turning from that, that anything I researched must have been false.  This without any reference or claim yet made.  

There's a reason why i claimed you wasted people's time.  If your goal during that debate was to disprove my understanding through my history, then you should have said that.  I would have told you strait up that my history has nothing to do with what I believe today... though I'm pretty sure I told you that as well... I may have forgot to mention that, though I figured it was pretty clear in my writeup.  

 

That's punting to God.

People have been doing that for millenia.

It's getting old...

 

 Caposkia Wrote:

Then find a miracle and empirically disprove it.  I mean a valid one.  Valid being that the Vatican has claimed it to be officially a miracle.  Oh, i'm sorry, was that too much to ask?

 

A reason why anyone should be convinced (as you are), that the folklore of the Christian god, and Jesus are actually real.

 

 Caposkia Wrote:

where shall we start... this is the point where I'm lookign for you to pick a specific valid direction.  From there, I might ask you to get more specific with where you want to go, but that's not me ignoring, that's just me making sure we're focused.  

 

 

caposkia wrote:

 

Don't cower away either by claiming i ignored your challenge.  I gave you what you asked as specific as you asked it.  If you want something more, ask directly, don't beat around the bush. 

redneF wrote:

 

Stop posturing.

WTF would I cower away from someone who can't do anything but duck and weave?

 

 Caposkia Wrote:

Dude, where are you getting this from?  as far as a conversation between you and I go, I haven't claimed anything and you've ran from anything you've challenged me to do, so what exactly am I ducking and weaving from?

 

There's no good reason that I've ever heard, that makes me even stop and question my skepticism.

Here's your chance.

You claim to be a true 'Christian'.

According to other 'true Christians' I've talked to, it's part of their duty to help others come to 'God'.

You've got a forum full of reasonable people.

So, give us some good reasons...

 

 Caposkia Wrote:

Start reading the branched forums from this one.  The history forum with JPTC, the forum started with Baker.  etc.  Those are more focused and get into what you're claiming to look for.  just a suggestion.  they are focused and flowing... don't respond in those unless you have something substantial to share.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

but i'm not going to sit here and spin off years of research and study just to get 100 posts back talking about every random aspect of it.  There's no way i can focus on that, so what "focus" is it exactly that you feel I can't state my logical reasoning for?  This is the most redundant question on this site. 

redneF wrote:

 

That's a complete intellectually dishonest strawman.

 

 Caposkia Wrote:

Red, the question wasn't rhetorical.  You're claiming strawman before any reasoning was put forth.  Your'e also ignoring the question.  even still with the new responses... yes you're looking for 1 good reason.  I could give you one good reason to like icecream, but if you're not a fan of chocolate or coffee, then my case that the coffee chocolate chip icecream is all the reasoning in the world is going to mean nothing to you.   Stop ignoring the question.

 

 

Caposkia Wrote:

 

 

You have yet to be specific enough to discuss anything.  

 

redneF wrote:

Ummm, no.

I even set up a thread for you to bring whatever big guns you felt would be compelling reasons to believe in god, and all I seem to see are:

 

caposkia wrote:

to make a long story short...

 

 

caposkia wrote:

 

I started questioning the whole thing. (yes there are gaps in my story, but I'm trying to make a long story short.)

 

 

you never got to the big guns section... you asked me a specific question.. I only got to answering it.  which was what my history was.

 

redneF wrote:

 

 So, that's a 'True Christian', huh?

 

 

Caposkia Wrote:

um... no... that's the testimony of one of many paths to becoming a true Christian and a good example of what a true Christian isnt'.  Dude, stop speculating and start confronting it.  YOu have nothing and you're trying to make a case out of it.  STOP IGNORING THE QUESTION.

 

 

 

Caposkia Wrote:

 

That's because they're leading the conversation.  I'm letting you lead.  if its weak, you have yourself to blame. 

redneF wrote:

 

No.

You're just trying to shift the burden.

 

 

Caposkia Wrote:

Dude, most good debators would find it dangerous to allow the opposing side to take control.  It would mean they would have to have a better defense and reasoning than they.  You on the other hand decide to conclude that this approach is "shifting the burden" and is weaker on my side.  Interesting.  Does that mean you're case really is that weak?

 

redneF wrote:

 

I'm not only giving you the 'lead', I'm directly asking you to give me 'good', 'strong' reasons to be convinced (as you purport to be) that 'God' "obviously" exists.

I'll even lower the bar some more. Give me 'good', 'strong' reasons to even consider that Jesus actually existed and was put here by 'God'.

 

 

Caposkia Wrote:

right, and I've given you one question so that I may start.  I need a focus.  ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE ME A FOCUS?

Here's one.  Statistically  over 80% of the worlds population accepts the fact that there is a metaphysical existence.  I know many arguments against this as a claim to believe, but you wanted one.  Now if this means nothing to you, which I think it won't, then I need you to pick a frikken focus, or all your'e going to get is more claims that you may not accept.  some would accept statistics as extreme as these as reason to consider further.  You I have a feeling won't... which is fine, but what would get you to consider further?  What specifically?  At least Brain gave me a specific... it's an irrational specific and I told him why, but it was a specific.  You can't even do that.  

 

redneF wrote:

 

You've got to be kidding me?

This thread is a criticism of the 'poor job' done in the debate between the RRS and Ray Ray and Kirk 'Crocoduck', and you respond "Because he exists!" as an answer to the question of 'Why I should believe the Christian god is not a myth?'

 

 

Caposkia Wrote:

finally I think you're seeing how broad you're allowing this to be... I answered your question as specifically as you asked it.  You should follow up with what reasoning do you have to support that question... then I will propose the question I've been asking you again... where do you want to start (FOCUS) remember????  This... this is where we've hit a wall.

 

redneF wrote:

 

The same thing I've been asking you all along...

To give compelling reasons why I should believe that the Christian god is not merely a myth.

Give me the best reasons.

List them.

 

Caposkia Wrote:

 

as vague as you asked??? ok

scientific reasoning

history

Archeology

Geology

Vatican research and claims of miracles as supported and backed up by their modified years of research.

personal experiences with this God

spiritual encounters, some personal, some from other reliable sources.

congruency with happenings and claims scripturally

um... I may have forgotten a few... that's a start though.

now I haven't given you anything to go on yet, only avenues of support... why do I get the feeling that you're going to claim I claimed something and try to claim a strawman?

 

 

redneF wrote:

 

Which doesn't even make sense, since I didn't ask any 'vague' questions. They were very 'pointed' questions.

 

 

Caposkia Wrote:

pointed?  sure... but then you claim the answers are vague despite the response that was just as pointed as the question. e.g... why should I believe?  Because God exists.  It's like why should I accept that the Earth revolves around the sun?  The most direct answer to that question is because it does.  Now of cousre I want reasoning behind it, but your astrological maps and books aren't credible to me, so where to from there?  you might actually need to ask me what I might want to look at as a focus or what it is that would convince me then.  You then might find that simply looking through a telescope and seeing the stars change through the seasons would convince me of yoru claim... therefore you would have taken so much time to give me all the research in the world that would not convince me when all I needed was a first hand experience that you could show me.  

this is why I ask you for a focus.  I'm not going to spin off years of research for you to tell me they're not credible sources and/or whatever else... or just run away.  iwant to know what really would interest you.. .what focus.  Your question is vague despite how pointed you think it is.. it opens up the forum to anything and everything... some of it you might not accept and I want to avoid wasting time on those focuses.   Are you up for that challenge?  '

I usually don't have a problem with quoting and I think it really came down to the fact that I had trouble following it.  In other words, you were all over the place and if you want a legitimate and functional debate, we need to be more focused... if there's something I took out that you really want to focus on, just bring it back up.  I'll respond to it.  

...so are we going to debate about something or are you just going to ham it up a bit more while still ignoring what I've been asking you since day 1.  

You're so concerned about my "posturing about the enormous scope of research" I've done.  You have the floor, why don't you challenge me on that.  Why don't you pick a focus and talk about your reasoning for your take on that focus.  this is how a normal debate would work.    Are you capable of doing this without a mediator?

There's that 'word' again. Focus.

Focus, focus, focus.

ok, prove me wrong again.. what did you focus on in that response?   I was unable to figure it out.

I responded, the next morning, I reread it and it was way way too long and unfocused.  Do you really want our debate to be about how I edited my reply?  

What is it that you're so concerned I ignored?  If nothing, then let's move on

Where's your "on point" response to "what focus would be of interest to you?"?  Give me your best is not telling me what would be of interest to you. 

So what was so compelling to ME specifically?  The personal experiences with this God, the conversations, the prayers answered, "god sightings" if you will which are observed miracles that include seeing Michael in the clouds, fire consuming every house but a friends who prayed for protection, the spirit speaking through me to someone I didn't even know telling them exactly what they needed to hear to resolve an issue they've been having, etc.  

The problem with these compelling evidences is they won't work for anyone but me and those who were involved... why?  because they were "PERSONAL" experiences to those who were involved and myself.  If someone told me this same thing, I could think of 1000 reasons why I shouldn't believe them logically, but because of my personal experiences, I would be more likely to believe they've had those experiences.  

I don't expect you to buy this.  Why would I?  You weren't there... this brings no progress to the debate, but this is compelling evidence to me because I was there.  I experienced it.  

Now, what would be compelling to you?

why are you so concerned about what I think?  You're convinced I'm crazy.  A debate should be more about universal reasons and not my reasons.   

Apparently this one's about my reasons so sure, that's one avenue I'll get behind along with my personal experiences... let's throw in quantum leaps and see where that goes.

which is why one persons compelling evidence is not anothers.  An argumentum ad populum fallacy is what most people groups base life on.. including atheists and American citizens in general.  

Ok, I'll get behind Quantum Leaps.

Ok, I'll get behind archeology

no I get the point.. what I want you to do is pull out what you would need whether you think the angle exists or not.  We can then discuss whether it's a reasonable avenue to pursue for God.  It's possible that it could be.  it's possible it'd be irrational.  Either way, we could discuss it.

Ok... you mean legitimately analyze? or just give a 1 sentence response in an attempt to make it look irrational without basis.  e.g. Argumentum ad populum fallacy.  Good start, but if you're going to "analyze" you would then need to go into detail as to how this invalidates that avenue as reasoning for God.  This would result in a discussion/debate.  

you asked for a link to a definition of what a miracle is.  if you go to dictionary.com and at the top of the page type in "miracle" and hit enter, what should come up is a dictionary list of definitions for the word.  

Do I feel that the dictionary definition of miracle is a powerful reason to believe in the Christian God existing?  well, miracle is not what God is, therefore... no.

AH!!!! COULD THIS BE A FOCUS!!!!  ooh, this might be something... let's see.

This would depend on how deep you look... do you look back to the immediate religion it stemmed from or from the origin?  There are millions of religions around the world.  There are thousands of branches off of branches for those religions.  The trunk so far seems to have a judeo-christian core.   It's not unusual that numerous historians, theologians and ex theists found the opposite, but it doesn't mean the origin wasn't judeo-Christian.  It's kind of like the game telephone, the message at the end of the chain ends up being something completely different after being passed through many avenues.  Just look back to the 2nd to last person and you won't find the original message, you'd likely have to go more than half way back to the beginning to find out.  

yea, I should read that.  I haven't yet

From debates I've seen of Erhman so far, not impressed.  he will tell you half the history, but not the other half that might contradict his point of view.  Either way, he studied under Bruce Metzger.  I like Metzger's work from what i've seen so far.  TGBaker referred him.  

You can ask people who've talked to me for a long time.  They will tell you if anything, i'm honest.  I may be mistaken at times, but I'm honest.  

If I can see that I was wrong, I will always admit that.  Maybe you're starting to see that I'm not here for ego.

in reference to "accepted and valid"  I can see with you I don't need to do that and will try to avoid that in the future.  

This in reference to the "investigation" in the vatican miracle claim.  

Because the key is the process of deciding miracles, not so much the miracles themselves... i asked you to find one so that you would literally investigate so that you could tear their reasoning apart if at all possible.  Anyone can throw words out like you have... it takes time and thought to actually investigate and debunk.  If you can, you personally could discredit this entity for many around the world who still hold to it's claims.  

The problem is you're concluding on a summary... 

it's like you telling me that I can't make a pen disappear.  My summary is that I can make a pen disappear.  You cry fallacy.  If you read the meat of the process you might find I simply throw it in my pocket.  Suddenly it's a very logical claim.  

it is stupid and irrational to call something false without looking at the process.