#1 Evolution isn't a default position, it's a well-supported scientific theory. You've presented a false dichotomy there. Creationism lacks evidence because it's not a based on evidence at all. It's a model of the world in search of justification. It's not a matter of popularity or authority. If creationism were argued by a respected biologist, he or she would still be expected to come up with evidence to support his case. If Rook outlines his position and sources in his book, his claims will be subject to scrutiny just like everything else. You're free to ignore him if you don't think he's got the breeding papers to do proper research, but that would be an ad hom.#2, #3 There are a lot of theories about the origins of the universe, but really, you're just setting up a god of the gaps with this one. It's not really necessary to have an explanation just to positively exclude the possibility of one deity or another. There's no evidence for a deity, period.
#4 Not this "problem of induction" shit again. Do a search for a rebuttal. I can't stomach it.#5 Neither exist. Both are just mythical concepts. There are things that are good and things that are bad. One act can be both if taken from different perspectives (i.e. the fisherman and the fish). Most people feel empathy for each other, and many for animals as well, and seek to reduce the suffering they perceive. Religion was probably invented to coerce the brutish and ignorant to behave themselves.
#6 There is such a term as "agnostic-atheist" or "weak atheist." That is, no positive claim is made, but it's safe to assume (all) deities are mythical until shown otherwise.#7 There are objective morals for nobody. "Evil" is meaningless as a facet of a "spiritual" argument, which is also meaningless. There are things that are unappealing, harmful to individuals, detrimental to society, that all normal humans innately object to on a basic emotional level. The "laws" of religions don't create morality: the "laws" are articulations of concepts that resonate with whoever wrote them. Which is why you also have information in your magic book on beating slaves and sending your daughter to be raped. There wasn't objective morality then (in the iron age), and there isn't now. In a world where stonings and genital mutilation are still justified by it, religion's probably not the best source for "objective" morality. The best we can do is act with compassion and humanity, both concepts which are constantly being refined by us non-sociopaths.

What the hell is an evolutionist?  I mean I believe that the Theory of Evolution provides a compelling, fact based - yet currently incomplete - explanation for the development of species but 'evolutionist'?  Sheesh. 

That'll come as news to quite a few people.

I think their lack of credentials is precisely why they're derided by the mainstream. 

And not all of us believe it either.  What's your point here? 

It's his opinion.  The point is that there are arguments supported on both sides which muddy the waters.  Creationism on the other hand has absolutely no credible evidence at all.

So, apples and oranges. 

It would be if people actually did.  Fortunately they don't. 

Dunno.  Ask a physicist, not my area of expertise.

Dunno. Ask Hawking.  That's without an 's'. 

Last time I looked the brain was a physical object.  You could try constructing a logical argument without using it but I'm not going to wager on the odds of success.

You're kind of missing the point of a paradox here. 

You're confusing belief and knowledge.  We are all agnostic as far as God goes since no-one can currently prove absolutely that he exists or not. 

Yes there are.  We call them 'laws' and they're pretty objective to the society that abides by them.  

Possibly because the vast majority of legal codes view genocide, murder, rape and torture as wrong?  

Wait for you to come up with something original? 

Are you baiting them?

Clever >_> 

Is it just me or is it funnier when you say it, rather than type it (since the spelling is 'Hay'.)?

Agreed. I think you have the right approach to this, Captain. 

Hi BGH,

I just wanted to say, in your Avatar picture, you look really worried about that lump of silver above you falling on your head.

Just sayin'. 

The reality is that you've demonstrated that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about on a wide variety of subjects!

Want to debate me, so I can demosntrate this to you?

Let's debate your claims about immateriality and logic.

This coming from the guy who started his post with these words:

Man, if I had a dime for every time one of my points flew over your guy's heads, I'd have at least a baker's dozen.

 The good captain was giving you sound advice: you don't know what you're talking about.

PS The Captain's not an atheist.  

I wouldn't take his comments seriously, anyway, seeing as he has no problem tossing insults himself.

I saw your words as a kindness, if he debates you on cosmology, he'll only end up feeilng foolish.

1) You were wrong on many of these supposed clarifications anyway, merely repeating the same flawed claims.

2) There's no need to add in the mockery if you have an argument.

3) Your behavior is still hypocritical: everyone thinks that their use of insults is justified.

Your posts prove that you are ill informed on every matter you've attempted to discuss. I'd need weeks to point out every error.

We can do it one on one, here, or in an audio chat, available through the site.

That's mainly because your posts contain too many errors, I'd have to give you a course in basic cosmology and basic physics. It's painfully obvious that you've never read a thing in cosmology.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions

http://www.rationalresponders.com/lies_damn_lies_and_false_beliefs_about_ex_nihilo_aka_how_to_pretend_you_know_cosmology_without_really_trying

 
http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_absurdity_of_the_cosmological_argument

You ask if it is irrational to hold to evolution (I assume meaning to believe that evolution is a true description of the means by which the varied life we see around us has come to be) for the same reason that one would deny the Christ Myth theory (meaning the theory that there is no actual individual to which one can historically attribute the acts many attribute to Jesus Christ)?

I can hardly make sense of what it is you are trying to ask. It is such a non-sequitur as to be nearly incoherent.

Claims, theories, histories, stand or fall by the weight of the evidence supporting them. Appeals to authority or majority are irrelevant in discerning truth fromfiction. Surely you know this. Why ask such a ridiculous question?

I have the feeling that with this start the possibility of intelligent educated discourse is slim to nada. That of course is just my initial impression based on the evidence encountered thus far.

I personally do not hold to an infinitely old universe, simply an eternal one.

From nothing comes nothing? Thanks for that vacuous tidbit.

There is no why existence. There is only existence. When you ask non-sensical questions you can not expect reasonable answers. Well, you probably can, but you shouldn't. 

If time did not exist before the big bang then before the big bang is incoherent and thus any question based in an assumption of a pre-universe state (which all cosmological arguments necessarilly do) are non-sensical.

There is no reason to assume either a pre-universe state or an infinitely old universe. If you think there is a reason then you need to show such a reason is required.

Please provide you definition of logic as it seems you have no idea what logic is. Logic is basically the study of argument or inference. Explain how either of these require an absolute mind. Explain how an infinite mind can for account for them without being subject to them. Explain why it is you think you actually should be arguiong these things when you, obviously, are ill prepared. You have lots of splainin' to do.

The first bit where you say that if the problem of evil is legitimate then evil can not exist, this is incoherent and can not be responded to as you have presented it. 

As for your claim that the atheist must defend the assertion of a universal negative, this might be true if we were discussing a non-omnipotent deity. In the case of an omnipotent detiy, however, such is not the case.

Omnipotence implies that moral justification for evil is unecessary as any identical instance could be brought about by an omnipotent deity sans the evil.

Must evil exist in all possible worlds? Must children be raped in all possible worlds where people are to be judged? Must holocausts occur in all possible worlds where god desires to bring about event x?  

Why do you need to draw these lines of distinction? A lack of a belief is a lack of a belief. Whether or not one wishes to quantify it as strong or weak or knowledge based or lack of knowledge based is really irrelevant.  

Explain how the theist has any claim to an objective morality that is not accesible to the atheist. In other words, think of why or how your god is moral then consider why you need posit your god to posit the existence of this morality.

Many atheists do claim an objective morality. That you have never encountered this shows that you lack any significant interaction with atheists.

Well, what you should do first is study some of these topics before bringing them up in a discussion forum like this. Your questions are farily basic and not much of a challenge to anyone who has given any thought to these subjects.  

This is a special plead fallacy... it seems silly to point out just one of the many fallacies in his post, but this one struck me as particularly inept.

Hey, let's employ his logic... farmer, you owe me 1 million dollars. How can you possibly prove that my claim isn't true in some way that you could never know? 

If todangst is too scary, you could always debate with me - I don't have a profile pic as scary as he does, and I don't consider myself an atheist(though I have no doubt I could argue their views well)

Or, if you don't want to argue todangst, I will debate him for you - I'll take up the role of the uninformed theist and argue much better than I believe you could.

BTW, I'm not being sarcastic or mean.  Not totally.  I just think that if you debate him, we are going to have a twenty page long thread where nothing really gets resolved. 

I'm a Theist and I'll debate.

If you had any formal education in physics, cosmology, philosophy, biology, and evolutionary mechanisms, which you, judging by your prose, do not, these comments would still carry no weight given that you haven't actually backed anything you have said thus far. A laughable ad nauseam fallacy, and a pathetic projectionist attempt to disguise the fact that all of them shot so far over your head you couldn't see the contrails.

And a quick laugh? Some of those were over 10,000 words long. I am starting to suspect that you didn't even bother to read them.

In a formal debate, if you responded to scientific articles with the post "I laughed", and that's it, you would be banned straight away. I imagine that most of the concepts presented within flew over your head the way a space shuttle flies over an ant.

I actually doubt you even read them.

Could you please tell me what the relationship between probability entropy mechanics and the Boltzmann constant is?

Could you tell me what the percentage difference between the human and potted pea plant Eukaryotic genetic mechanism sequestering octomer is in terms of amino acid divergence?

Could you tell me what the formulae for acceleration with reference to Hubble's constant differentiated is?

could you tell me the rate of acceleration of Guthian inflation is?

Could you tell me the formulae which governs microstate system dynamics in any ideal gas system as per Boltzmann's equations?

If not, then you didn't read the articles!

If you have genuine technical objections to any of the articles, then by all means take the time to present them in a quote-response fashion. But what you have just done is beyond immature. It is the behaivour I would expect from a deluded schizophrenic. If you cannot have a genuine argument, then why are you here?

And please, if your "objection" turns out to be what is essentially a misunderstanding of scientific concepts, all I will do, as will todangst, is point you to a book. Perhaps a nicely decorated book with big letters and small words. It can even have lots of nice pictures. 

If he didn't read what we gave him, what makes you think that he will read what you gave him? Seriously, I just checked the "counter", which ticks off all the reads for all of my articles, and I was right, he didn't read them. Don't you think you are being rather overly hopeful to have thought that he may be interested in genuine debate with people who know what they are talking about (such as the three of us, all of whom have scientific qualifications).

The counter is only for authored papers. Forum threads, unfortunately, do not have them. Although I wish they did, it would make life easier.

Exactly. Quite honestly, when I link my articles to responses, I don't expect them to be read, and by checking the counter, it turns out that I am nearly always correct. People don't bother. The only reason I put them out there is that there is no excuse for saying that a point is as of yet unanswered. Welcome to the world of debating online. 

I did in fact check the logs.  He didn't read them. 

That's great.  I never said I was a creationist, so I don't get why you're telling me any of this. 

Good to hear. But it doesn't affect your argument in the least.

My point is that creationism is considered invalid for the same reasons the Jesus Myth should be considered invalid.  If it were a matter of evidence, then at least the most liberal of CREDENTIALED scholars should hold the position.  Creationism has more credentials behind it than Jesus Mythicism does.

Now you're appealing to authority and popularity, which is not what the creation v. evolution "debate" is about. Although evolution is popular with respected biologists, that has no bearing on whether it's true or not. It's considered true because evidence bears it out. Again, there is no evidence for creation because creationism isn't founded on evidence. It's founded on ad hoc conjecture in support of presupposition. Rook may or may not be correct in his position, but it is only evidence that will bear that out.

I'm free to point out what I think are facts.  I never claimed that Rook's specific arguments are false, just that the general theory is unreasonable, and Rook, like pretty much all of the proponents of the Jesus Myth, has no solid credentials. 

That's an ad hom. You don't like the idea, too bad.

It might be a god of the gaps argument, if I were actually trying to argue FOR God's existence.  But I'm not.  I'm asking questions about atheism.  Believe it or not, despite feirce resistance, atheists can be on the defensive every once in a while.  It won't kill 'em.

Atheism suggests one idea, doesn't address universal origins, evolution, or anything else.

I'm glad you're willing to admit that Hitler wasn't objectively wrong.  That's one of the first honest responses I've gotten from an atheist in a while.

Godwin, awesome. What Hitler did is almost universally reviled for biological and social reasons, which sounds glib compared to a magic man in the sky condemning the actions, by what can you do.

As for your last statement, I presume you have proof for that assertion?

It's an opinion based on informal observation, nothing more. A fake reward/punishment scheme is good for encouraging stupid people to do the right thing when the reasons to do so aren't self-evident.

Well, I won't get into that here.  Though, I really don't see how that seperates them from an agnostic, or how it makes a distinction worthwhile.

The shifts in terminology date back to the early nineties. Personally, I think it's weird to have a blanket negative term that's different in various cultural contexts. As Dawkins pointed out, believers tend to be atheists to all but one deity; atheists believing in one less 'god.'

This statement begs a question:  are those things wrong?  If you say yes, then you're conceding the existence of absolute morality, if you say no, then what's your point?

They're wrong by pretty common social standards. I can feel they're wrong on a visceral level, and I'm sure psychology has loads to say about its impact on the individual and the community as a whole. Do we have to pretend society's moral standard doesn't exist, and our personal moral standards don't exist, because they're not attributed to some superstitious bogeyman?

Where does the idea of an ideal "best" come from?  You're contradicting your own beliefs.

That which is least offensive to the common morality. We will prove to be wrong on certain things as time wears on, but most of us are trying to promote a moral and humane society.

Man, talk about personal attacks.  Why would you even object to my pointing out the lack of education on the part of Rook, when you're willing to call me a sociopath?

I was referring to actual sociopaths who feel no empathy or obligation to society. The rest of us are compulsively moral.

I can't be sure if he opened the pages or not.

As for him actually reading them, while it's painfully obvious that time alone precludes him from doing so (let alone his violent ignorance of the topics already revealed in his posts) we don't need to puzzle that out ourselves... we can do precisely as you have done: challenge him to answer some questions answered within our posts. I somehow get the feel that he'll avoid answering....

I'll prepare some questions too.

He's already searching for excuses to allow him to run from my debate challenge - citing 'format problems'. I suppose 'the dog ate my homework' seemed too transparent an excuse even for him...

What was originally meant as doing a favor for IrishFarmer (a guy closely associated with someone who we'll be suing for libel, wank falton) in allowing him time on our show turned out to be putting too much on our plate during a week in which we had a busy schedule. The week ncluded several nights in which both Rook and Kelly had to work at real jobs (but we're freeloaders).
Nevertheless we were interested in allowing IrishFarmer on the show, and then we read his blog. So there you have it... his compulsion, ended his chance, the story was written, and since we can reasonably expect he wont change his story when the evidence shows him to be wrong, I saw no reason to continue pursuing his appearance, something we originally only entertained because he was an obnoxious ignorant arrogant prick who would make for good radio.

IrishFarmer was given every indication that we were interested including an apology for missing our first recording session which we had miscommunicated the time to record. Since we were't able to answer Irishfarmers compulsive immature give it to me now or give it to me never attitude in his alloted short attention span, he proceeded to write the blog painting a false picture of the situation. You can read his first post here in which much of our conversations are outlined.

Nevertheless, I don't care much about his blog, it'll likely get more views from me linking to it, than he already had. I simply wanted to get the folks in this thread a little more aquainted with the background here.

In summation, IrishFarmer, you are clinically insane if you literally believe we are scared of anything you'd say to us. You are insane if you think we are not willing to host people on the show who would be considere good defenders of the faith. And you're violently ignorant if you believe that we haven't had people on the show who could defend their faith worlds better than you can. Seek mental help young man.

I'm looking forward to see how you squirm out of your dishonesty in this thread as noted previously, please address it, and remember I have logs to see where you've actually been on our site.

Perhaps, though I have no intention of actually succeeding.  I don't think they will debate me after this.  Brian hasn't deemed it worth his time to answer any of my quesitons, instead he'd rather argue over whether or not I read some articles on his site.  Typical.

Seriously, will you please stop defending evolution.  I never argued against it.  You atheists need to quit being so uptight.

Again, get off the fixation with evolution.  I'm saying that Jesus Mythicism is a good parallel to creationism. 

No, I'm comparing the lack of credible support for both theories, as well as the lack of good arguments, the abundance of ignorance by proponents, and the use of either outdated or faulty scholarship.

This is now the third time I've been told that I know nothing, yet I haven't heard anyone explain how they know this. 

I suppose writing a post that doesn't actually contain a lick of intelligence would wear anyone out. 

Yes.  Not that they're all uniform, some people disagree on certain points, but in general I do.

No, I used Rook Hawkins as an example, but when I derided the theory I attacked it in general terms.  Besides, Rook Hawkins hasn't said anything new THAT I'VE SEEN.  So I admit that he could have some groundbreaking research that he isn't just rehashing from previous works.

What's your point, exactly?

I wasn't going to argue the Jesus Myth.  It doesn't need to be.  It would be like arguing over whether or not evolution happened...what's the point?

Feel free to use this argument in any debate we might have.

Why?

If we can arbitrarily define anything as evil, then I can disprove God by the existence of 'evil' protons.  Feel free to debate this point with me, because I will thoroughly enjoy thrashing you. 

That makes number four.

I would do it, but I don't think that would be as interesting for you.  My point in bringing it up was what the atheist answer was.  You provided the article which, as far as I can tell implies that logic does not violate materialism because it is a product of properties of the universe. 

Very well, but I didn't say I was coming here as an apologist.  I gave questions, and atheists responded by attacking arguments I never made like the cosmological argument. 

The only reason I would need to elaborate is if you didn't understand the question.  But I hear you're not an atheist, so its not for you.

I'm only dishing out what I've gotten here from the first moment I posted and I was personally attacked for absolutely no good reason.  If you can't take what your squad of "rationalists" dish out, then you're a hypocrite.

Ok, whatever, we'll figure it out if we ever debate.  Feel free to get a hold of me at my e-mail.  [email protected]

And so this doesn't apply to your fellow squad members?

Including, and especially, Mr. Sapient.

I don't care if they're justified or not.  I'm just tired of hearing you guys complain since I've gotten more insults than content from the majority of you.  Which is typical, even when I'm not asking questions on this forum.

We'll see about that.  You don't need to pick apart my post.  We can just pick a good topic to debate on.

I'm not doing an audio chat because I'll admit right out that you're obviously more educated than I am in the sciences.  However, if we were to do a strictly philosophical debate then I might consider it.  Something like the problem of evil.  Though I'm sure I'll get mocked for admitting that I'm not as learned on certain subjects as you, I'm at least man enough to admit that much.  It would have to be one-on-one because I'm not going to have atheists jumping in with irrelevant snide comments every two seconds.  Nor do I think you need any help.  Even if you're misguided on certain issues, you're intelligent enough to hold your own. 

I'm not doing it on these forums for reasons I've already stated. 

And you get that from me asking how an atheist explains how the universe emerged from nothing?

I suppose that makes several prominent physicists who have said similar things completely ill-informed as well?

I appreciate you linking me to the articles.  Despite your assurance from Brian, I did check a few of them out, namely the most relevant ones.  If you linked me to an intelligent design or evolution article I probably didn't read it because I have no interest in discussing the validity of evolution.  Certain other ones I didn't click because I didn't feel like sitting down and reading for ten hours straight.  The ones I did click, I read through the entirety of the majority of them, but some I did not read. 

Several people will cry a river about this later, and Brian will lie about it as well, but I don't remember signing a waiver saying that I had to click every single link and read every word in them before I could say they were chuckle-inducing.

Since there appears to be some sort of reading comprehension problem with atheists I'll restate what I've already said:  This post is mainly directed towards the RRS members Brian and or Kelly.  If anyone else wants to answer them, fine.  However, if you don't hold a position that I call into question, then don't answer.  Its that simple.

Yes, I read your article in which you make the common mistake of merely pushing the problem back...but we can get to that in a more appropriate thread or venue.

Of course, the mental function is grasping logic, and I never claimed that grasping logic was an immaterial process. 

I'd ask if you need me to spell it out for you, but by the nature of typing I already have. 

Yes, which is why the theory remains on the fringes of "scholarship". 

Elaborate.  What does it mean to be eternal but not infinitely old?

Oh, well in that case there is no "why God?" there is only "God."

Its logically impossible to have a time before the big bang, but I didn't think it would be that hard for you guys to grasp what I meant. 

Please quote me where I actually formulated the cosmological argument on these forums.  You won't be able to because I haven't.  I simply asked a question.

When did I say that the infinite mind wasn't, in a loose sense, bound by logic?

In fact, since when did I even make an argument for you to attack?  I didn't.  This is yet another example where I asked a question and was attacked for arguments I didn't make, instead of actually receiving an answer.

You mean its too hard for you to grasp?  Let's lay it out.

1).  If God doesn't exist, then true objective evil does not exist.

2). The argument from evil disproves the existence of God.

3).  Therefore there is no true, objective evil.

I'm claiming there's a problem when you contrast premiss 2 and 3.

No, that makes no difference.  Atheists made the claim that suffering is senseless, meaningless, purposeless, and morally unjustifiable for God.  That's the assertion of a lot of universal negatives.  Just because God is somewhere in there, doesn't shift the burden of proof.

That in no way circumvents my argument against the argument from evil, since I'm claiming you have no way of determining what "evil" is in the first place.

Again, these are all interesting little rabbit trails we could get into.  Otherwise you could actually respond to what I've already stated about the problem.

I'm not claiming that, I'm claiming that atheism entails a lack of objective moral values.  That's all.

You guys are great at dodging and trying to put me back on the defensive.  Its interesting watching this.

I have encountered this.  If they want to excercise their right to be wrong, that's fine with me.  But every time I've asked an atheist to justify objective morals, they haven't been able to, or they simply tried to dress us subjective morals as objective.

Which makes it all the more puzzling to wonder why you had to constantly try and shift the attack back in my direction. 

And why you weren't able to comprehend some pretty basic points I made.

You're the one making an assertion. 

ROFL.  Todangst isn't scary.  I can tell he's an educated, intelligent fellow, but all that means is that he'd actually be a challenge as opposed to the usual drivel atheists serve up.  Like say, arguments that male nipples disprove God. 

No, I suppose not because Todangst also strikes me as posessing the qualities of arrogance and intellectual snobbery.  So I suppose that even if I did completely destroy him in a debate, I would just be mocked until I felt it necessary to cease beating a dead horse.  If he won, I would admit defeat, though I don't think it would be on the strength of his position, so much as my lack of knowledge.  However, I don't have any evidence that my knowledge is too limited to debate todangst on any mentioned subject so far with only a couple of exceptions (I would argue evolution because I'm an "agnostic" when it comes to evolution).

This whole time everyone has been telling me that I know absolutely nothing.  But now Todangst is going to team up with you to take me on?  Seems a bit like overkill, don't you think? 

But honestly, no thanks.  I suppose I can't stop you from e-mailing him suggestions, but I don't think he needs a partner.

Mind reading?!  That must be a useful ability.

No, I didn't read ALL of them.  Some of them were irrelevant, and some I read most of, or skimmed over portions that had no relevance.

Wow.  Thanks for the tip, I'll keep that in mind.

You've got quite an imagination.  Actually, the math in a couple of the articles was beyond my grasp.  Though it didn't stop me from comprehending the point of the article.  In fact, it seemed that many of the articles, being geared towards laymen, could have made the same exact point without the technical details.  Though I'm sure it makes the authors feel a lot better about themselves intellectually.

All of my objections would be philosophical or logical, not scientific.  The science was sound as far as I could tell from what I read.

I quite doubt that.  I can tell you that deluded schizophrenics would behave differently.  Perhaps a manic-depressive in a manic high, but not a deluded schizophrenic.  Thanks, by the way, for the always helpful insults. 

I haven't had anything to argue yet.  The only one or two people who actually answered my questions (by linking to articles) want to have a focused debate.  Everyone else just tried to mock me and attack arguments I never made.

An interesting article, but I don't get what your point was supposed to be.

For your benefit, and for Brian's benefit who has falsely called me a liar and now owes me a sincere apology, I will go over all the links and list off each one that is highlighted as a previously visited link. 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_absurdity_of_the_cosmological_argument

http://www.rationalresponders.com/vitalism_immaterialism_and_christian_dualism_have_long_since_been_debunked_response

http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_materialist_account_for_abstractions_or_how_theists_misplace_the_universe

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_argument_from_ignorance_and_its_uses_and_abuses

Those are all the articles that I, as of this moment, have clicked.  It doesn't mean I read every word in every article, but I at least read enough to get the point.  For most of them, I read the entire article.

I don't know if your counter is screwed up, or if Brian's site isn't working for him either, or you're just lying about me.  Either way, I want an apology at least from Brian for falsely accusing me. 

You might complain that I did not read them all, or read every word of every one that I clicked, however here's what I said, for your benefit, and for Todangst's and Brian's as well.

"As a quick side note, I loved those articles you guys linked me to.  They were good for a quick laugh.  "

Obviously a snarky comment.  I can see where you thought I was implying that I read them all, though I don't see how that would be possible.  I didn't realize that my point would be this hard to understand.  Allow me to amend that statement so as to "idiot proof" it if you will.

I loved the articles you guys linked me to.  From the few I've read, they're good for a quick laugh.    I apologize for not reading all of them word-for-word.  I did not realize this was required in order to say that I found the logic in some of them to be absurd.

...

ROFL.  Brian, you would get rolled by Matt Slick in a debate. 

How convenient for you.

Whenever you want to give me that apology, I'll be ready for it. 

Its an insult to point out that he has no credentials?  Then perhaps you'll chastise your fellow atheists for accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about when we have yet to actually have a discussion.

Nice red herring, but I don't see how this is an appropriate response to what I've stated.  If it makes you uncomfortable to believe what you believe, that's fine, but if you don't have a point then I'm curious as to why you bothered informing me that a lot of people disagree with Hitler.  I already knew that.

Oh, I thought it was being stated as fact, nevermind then.

All of those things are subjective justifications for the morality, that is all I'm saying.

Why is that an objective ideal best?  Or is it just what we want? 

Indeed.

I'm running out of patience.  However, out of respect I will refrain from posting what I would really like to post on this. 

Todangst, where in my post did I say I wasn't going to debate?  Apparently, "I'm not going to debate here" is the same thing as saying, "I'm not going to debate, period."

Try and pay attention.

A projection of my own fears?  It was a list of questions.  You'll have to explain how questions imply fear. 

Actually, don't.  I'm tired of hearing these sorts of comments from you guys.  The attitude I'm getting from all of you is starting to wear thin.

Two mind readers on the same forum?!  Crazy.

ROFL.  I'm glad you're proud of your intelligence, but I wouldn't go speaking too quickly.

Running away from a debate by telling you that I'll debate you?  What is so unreasonable about asking that the debate be held on a functional forum?

Seriously, dude, if this is the sort of mentality you're going to bring into a debate, I'm going to cream you.  Believe me, I'm looking forward to putting you to shame, I'm just not going to do it on a forum that is inconvenient.  What's so hard about going to a different forum?

Brian, I started this post by asking questions.  Which almost no one answered.  Wherein the process of asking questions do I have to defend my position? 

 I'll thank you to retract your "lying fraud" statement now.

No, I'm sure they'll notice that all you did was ridicule me, then falsely accuse me of a wrong that I didn't commit.

Why do I have to defend my position by default?  If I point out what I believe is a fallacious argument from an atheist, they're the ones who (having made the argument) must defend the argument.

I suppose I could make it happen.  But if this forum is good enough for a debate, then so is any other forum.  Its not like I'm asking him to take on 100 christians at once on a private forum where we can edit the discussion in our favor.

Brian, just remember.  If it ever comes down to it, you will look like a downright fool.

I never lied!  I simply said the articles were good for a laugh.  Never in that statement did I say I read every article down to the last word.  I didn't think I had to be that detailed.  It was just a quick, snarky comment based on the articles that I had read at that point. 

Furthermore, I've arleady accepted the debate.  I just said I'd prefer a more user-friendly forum. 

This is the internet, and you have 100s of members.  You have nothing but time. 

You, personally won't debate me.  Instead you're going to have todangst, who is clearly more intelligent than you could ever hope to be, debate me because I think you don't want to do it yourself.  It has nothing to do with whether or not you can. 

So your logic goes something like this?

1). Irishfarmer does not want to hold a debate on these forums.

2). Therefore Irishfarmer does not want to post on these forums at all.

3). Therefore I will ban Irishfarmer, because he does not wish to post here anymore.

 The non-sequitors just keep stacking up. 

Judging by the unwarranted hostility, it seems that you're projecting your own purposes onto me.  But I could be wrong.

Closely associated with him?  We have links to each other's blogs on our own blogs.  And we've conversed over e-mail...twice or perhaps three times. 

Yes.

The night in question involved no work, and it was stated that you would call me, as soon as the kids were in bed.  You left me hanging.  Its one thing to not be able to have the debate.  I can understand that, but to set one up, and then cancel without so much as a notice, an e-mail, a phone call, or anything is ridiculous.  I sat waiting in front of my computer for hours, for absolutely no reason just staring at the screen or going over my notes expecting a phone call at any moment.

You seem to have conveniently left that part out.  That's why I was complaining.  Not because you "ducked out", but because you wouldn't grant me a one-on-one (which is what we call a fair debate), you constantly left me with vague deadlines before rescheduling, and then on the day of, you're a no-show.  I was peeved.  I'll admit it.  I'm sure I wrote something that offended you, but then after that I changed my mind and expressed interest in renewing the challenge at which point you never responded again.

Actually, up until that point I had been little more than a punk, but was generally friendly in our e-mail discourse.  I jokingly implied that Kelly would lose the debate in my OP, but...I mean, I put a smiley face and everything, so...Obviously it was meant in good fun. 

You told me that you had a problem getting rid of the kids, not that it had anything to do with a miscommunication on the time.  In fact, in that very thread you link to I pointed this out to you, and you didn't contradict this, you simply stated that it wouldn't have worked that night. 

In your e-mail you were pretty explicit about the day, though the time was rather vague "sometime after 11".

Not quite.  It has about 3000 hits since July 25th, and I doubt your demographic is interested in what I have to say.

I don't think you're scared.  There are various reasons I could give for why you wouldn't take me on, and at this point I would assume its because you're apparently convinced I'm a liar, that I'm stupid/chistarded, or something along those lines - and as such not worth your valuable time. 

I simply think you'd get creamed.  Though whether you would see it coming or not, is a whole other question.

I have no problem with a defense, but why should I be on the defense the entire conversation.  You may not know this, but you believe some things to that can be argued against.

I'm sure.  I don't know from experience because I don't subscribe to your radio show, but from what I hear when an intelligent Christian comes on your show you just constantly interrupt them (it is 5 on 1 after all) and then eventually hang up on them. 

I hope so.  Check the log of those pages I linked to, and when you do you can officially apologize to me on this forum, or you can do it through e-mail.  Either way. 

Todangst.  Since it seems you're putting on some kind of a show for your fellow militant atheists, why don't you e-mail me about the debate.  That way you won't feel the need to make baseless accusations about me dodging anything, and you can feel free to actually talk to me with a bit of honesty.

We've posted many essays on the subject, ones you claimed to have read!

So it would appear that you were lying when you declared that you read them, wouldn't it?

Please demonstrate this rather than just assert it. I doubt you know what you're talking about. I doubt you know much of anything about Rook's arguments.

I cut out the rest of your response, because the only word that matters here is the 'no'.

You've not read Rook's arguments.

Yet you think you can comment on them?

That there are NO records of any contemporary accounts for Yeshua Bar Joseph.

You failed to deal with the points I made here. I pointed out why your argument is irrational.

I'll be asking you to demonstrate how anything can be immaterial.

Because you are claiming that there are immaterial entities! So you need to provide an ontology for your theory. You do know that that is required, don't you?

The definition given above is not arbitrary, it is inter-subjective. (Not subjective). So the rest of your quote here is a non sequitur.

Four of your lies, that is, seeing as you claimed to have read our essays on cosmology which provide this information.

What I find humorous is that you're going to assert that you read them, but your comments here PROVE that you didn't.

You've been caught in a lie.

So you're going to run away from my challenge? Again?

What's the point of coming here to make a challenge if you're just going to run away when it's accepted?!

Please stop your lying: you posted first. Your first post contained attacks. You sowed this discord with your post.

I'm right here, right now. Let's go.

Thanks for admitting that.

We already have.

How many excuses do you have?

You complain that you weren't on the show, which is audio in format.

But now you don't want to debate me in audio?!

Yep. That and many other blunders you've posted.

If you did, then why did you say this:

Either you read them, and you got your answers, which makes this comment from you a lie:

Or you didn't read them, which makes your claim that you read them a lie.

Which is the lie? One of them has to be a lie.

No, the problem is clearly on your side. Quit blaming the world for your own problems.

If you are referring to my essays, or DG's essays, your claim is simply false. You don't even bother to back up your claim, or show where 'the problem is pushed back' so I can't take your claim seriously to begin with.

Yet all you do is come up with excuses as to why you won't debate.

You're the one putting on a show. You asked for debate, here I am. Quit trying to find excuses that allow you to run away.

Everyone's calm enough. I've challenged him to debate, he seems to know that it's dangerous to accept the challenge and is looking for any way at all to run from it.

Which is pretty hilarious, seeing as he came here to complain about not getting a chance to go on the show, live, to debate.