I genuinely enjoy debates. Sure, they can get a bit tedious at times, particularly when your opponent is frustratingly incompetent or evasive, but on the whole I think debates are a good way to test your beliefs and make any adjustments as needed should someone poke a hole or two in your views. I’ve collected dozens of debates over the past several years that I’ve been in and I will post many of them on occasion just for fun. And who knows, maybe you might learn something new?
This first one I’m posting today is a recent debate I had with David Marshall, author of The Truth Behind the New Atheism, and a Christian apologist who is prominently featured in many of my reviews.
The following discussion took place from May 12, 2013 through May 14, 2013.
Below, I commented on a blog post of his where he decides to comment on a few of the negative Amazon.com reviews of his book and he took time to throw in a little paragraph about yours truly. I took all of my reviews down, including the one about Marshall’s book on Amazon.com a little over a year ago out of protest at the censorship of atheists on their forums and because I was tired of the immature Christians who continuously trolled the forums, comment sections, and did nothing but insult me, all the while refusing to back up their claims with any facts.
This is the paragraph where he mentions me:
But the kinds of arguments in this thread seem to have attained a kind of viral status on a microcosmic level. I am sometimes confronted with their like, often attributed to a fellow calling himself Arizona Atheist, who is also fond of trying to debunk The Truth Behind the New Atheism. There is a thought out there that AA has succeeded in some way. It is not a thought I find it easy to lend credit to, because when I read AA’s arguments, I seldom find even an accurate summary of my arguments, let alone anything resembling good reasons for rejecting them.
This was my initial reply to his comment:
Arizona Atheist:
Hi David,
I happened to wander over here this afternoon and I got a kick out of your “review” of Grayling’s newest book The God Argument and this post in particular, especially when you reference me. I’m dumbfounded why you continually mention me but fail -always- to seriously address my responses to your arguments. Yes, you’ve made several half-assed attempts (such as here and here) but you always fail to do your homework and when I point out your errors you deny them, run off, and declare yourself the victor in said debate. Very strange behavior if you ask me. I would appreciate a serious, thought out response at some point if you ever feel you’re capable. It would be interesting reading.
Maybe I can explain something to you. The reason there is a “thought out there” that I’ve refuted your book is because I have. I have quoted you accurately and explained your arguments accurately, and I have offered detailed reasons why your arguments fail. I’m sorry, but the reason so many believe I’ve refuted your book is plainly because I have. You just refuse to acknowledge it.
Thanks.
David Marshall:
Ken: I don’t know why you find my mentioning you “strange behavior.” You’re probably written more words in response to this book, than are contained in the book itself. And you’ve posted them all over heaven.
I mention several of my more extreme and silly critics in the OP. You’re kind of on the edge of that pack — not as vitriolic as Beazley, for instance. But I also explain why I have only rarely responded to your many arguments:
“When I read AA’s arguments, I seldom find even an accurate summary of my arguments, let alone anything resembling good reasons for rejecting them.”
Which is also why I have only read a small fraction of them.
Also, there’s your ridiculous conceit that I’m the one “campaigning” against you, as if a few mentions here and there were the cause, and your actual campaign against me – which started earlier, and involved maybe 50 times as much typing — were the effect.
And finally, you almost never seem to admit even the most blatant error. Readers can scan my previous post rebutting your patently false claims about Justin Martyr on this site:
http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2011/07/arizona-atheist-richard-carrier-and.html
Note the accurate comments of JS Allen:
“I have to say, this is pretty surreal. David just gave comprehensive evidence that Christians (including Justin) rely on many other sources besides blind faith. Additionally, David conclusively shows that Justin relies on sources other than scripture.
“You have a really weird style of apologetic. If you were just going to ignore the facts, and accuse him of being “crazy” and “deluded”, why did you even bother writing your 44,000 rambling and semi-coherent words in the first place?”
Despite the patently obvious fact that Justin Martyr does in fact appeal to many forms of evidence besides Scripture — to the extent that he appeals to that at all — you declare total victory and stalk off, saying you won’t debate the point any more.
Well why should I want to? I only enjoy talking with people who care about truth. If you insist on standing by such nonsense (and Tim McGrew and I will be publishing more on Justin shortly), then what’s there to talk about? Whether the moon is made of blue cheese or cheddar?
Arizona Atheist:
Hi David,
Interesting response…. It appears your reading comprehension has once again failed you (just as it has with your quoting of various Christians about faith and regarding Richard Dawkins). Let me see what I have to correct here…
Ken: I don’t know why you find my mentioning you “strange behavior.” You’re probably written more words in response to this book, than are contained in the book itself. And you’ve posted them all over heaven.
Sorry, but you misread me. The fact that you mentioned me isn’t what made me scratch my head. It’s what you said. As I said in my previous comment: “you always fail to do your homework and when I point out your errors you deny them, run off, and declare yourself the victor in said debate. Very strange behavior if you ask me.” I don’t understand your unwillingness or your strange inability (I’m not sure which it is) to admit when you’ve been proven wrong. Really, it’s the only way people learn and there’s no shame in it. But, despite this unforgiving denial of your wrongness, you continue to claim that neither I, or anyone else, has successfully responded to your points. Then, despite being proven wrong you write on your blog and around the web how you were somehow victorious, when it was clear that wasn’t the case, like your debate with Carrier for instance (or me on I don’t know how many occasions).
“When I read AA’s arguments, I seldom find even an accurate summary of my arguments, let alone anything resembling good reasons for rejecting them.”
Which is also why I have only read a small fraction of them.
This is an interesting ploy you have, but not uncommon among the less talented debaters. When shown wrong, rather than admit your error, you play the following game: you claim (against all rationality) that you’ve somehow been taken out of context. I’m sorry, but I’ve quoted you extensively and I know your arguments probably better than anyone, having read your book numerous times, debated with you on several occasions, and written and thought a lot about your arguments. Even more than that, you have failed to demonstrate that I don’t understand. You never point to any examples, which makes it obvious what your plan really is. Avoid the discussion and move on to something else out of fear that your argument will be found out to be fallacious.
Also, there’s your ridiculous conceit that I’m the one “campaigning” against you, as if a few mentions here and there were the cause, and your actual campaign against me – which started earlier, and involved maybe 50 times as much typing — were the effect.
I never started a campaign against you. All I ever asked was for a straight up, honest debate without any of your snarky comments and insults and discrediting campaigns. I never got one. After taking such abuse, I did eventually write a lot exposing your behavior to clear my name of your bogus charges, but that happened much later, after I was on the receiving end of your personal attacks. I’d rather not rehash old nonsense though. I know what happened, and I’d rather put that behind us and stick to the discussion at hand.
And finally, you almost never seem to admit even the most blatant error. Readers can scan my previous post rebutting your patently false claims about Justin Martyr on this site:
http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2011/07/arizona-atheist-richard-carrier-and.html
I’m sorry, but it is you who is in error, which I tried in vein to convince you, but once again, either you are being willfully ignorant or you don’t understand the passages that you’re reading and the arguments of the New Atheists.
Note the accurate comments of JS Allen:
“I have to say, this is pretty surreal. David just gave comprehensive evidence that Christians (including Justin) rely on many other sources besides blind faith. Additionally, David conclusively shows that Justin relies on sources other than scripture.
“You have a really weird style of apologetic. If you were just going to ignore the facts, and accuse him of being “crazy” and “deluded”, why did you even bother writing your 44,000 rambling and semi-coherent words in the first place?”
This is hilarious. Neither you or Allan seemed to understand anything in that discussion and it was clearly you who were in error. Allow me to quote my response to Allan’s nonsense. I said, “Let’s try this again shall we?
JS,
I didn’t agree with David in the least. Like him, you also don’t understand the New Atheists’ argument about faith. It’s not that Christians never rely on evidence in their daily lives, but do not rely on evidence for their religious beliefs. Even Sam Harris says exactly this:
“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.”
Therefore, I’m not wrong in the slightest. You and Marshall are. Just as Harris stated, Christians do often demand evidence in their daily lives just as Justin demanded evidence for crimes of Christians but didn’t cite anything except the bible when referencing his religious beliefs. Got it? I hope so…”
What’s surreal is this odd disconnect of so many Christians.
Despite the patently obvious fact that Justin Martyr does in fact appeal to many forms of evidence besides Scripture — to the extent that he appeals to that at all — you declare total victory and stalk off, saying you won’t debate the point any more.
Sorry, no. It’s actually the other way around. I left simply because I was unable to stand the insanity any longer.
Well why should I want to? I only enjoy talking with people who care about truth. If you insist on standing by such nonsense (and Tim McGrew and I will be publishing more on Justin shortly), then what’s there to talk about? Whether the moon is made of blue cheese or cheddar?
Truth? Truth??? I think you really need to think hard about that word. Truth means corresponding to reality. Most of your views (about Justin Martyr for example) definitely do not correspond to reality.
Maybe I can try one more time.
You appealed to Justin Martyr as a man who admitted of relying on evidence for his religious beliefs. Correct? Yes or no? This argument was brought out against Richard Dawkins’ and the New Atheists’ claim that Christians have “blind faith,” that they don’t bother with evidence. Is this accurate?
Here is your argument for Justin verbatim:
“Here’s the bit I cited:
“Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honor and love only what is true, declining to follow traditional opinions.”
What is he talking about? What methodology is he pushing, here? Read the Bible, and see? No:
“For we have come, not to flatter you by this writing, nor please you by our address, but to beg that you pass judgement, after an accurate and searching investigation, not flattered by prejudice or by a desire of pleasing superstitious men, nor induced by irrational impulse or evil rumors which have long been prevalent, to give a decision which will prove to be against yourselves. For as for us, we reckon that no evil can be done us, unless we be convicted as evil-doers or be proved to be wicked men; and you, you can kill, but not hurt us.”
The inquiry here is judicial and historical. The question is whether Christians are “evil men,” whether they in fact commit the crimes they are accused of. (Much like the claim that a certain Norwegian mass-murderer really was a “fundamentalist Christian,” as often alleged.)
“Do the investigation!” Justin is saying. His address is to the emperor (chapter 1), and he is asking for a JUDICIAL review, not a Bible study. In fact, he has not even mentioned the Bible, yet.
In the next chapter, he makes the nature of the inquiry, and of Christian reason, even more clear:
“We demand that the charges against the Christians be investigated, and that, if these be substantiated, they be punished as they deserve . . . But if no one can convict us of anything, true reason forbids you, for the sake of a wicked rumor, to wrong blameless men, and indeed rather yourselves, who think fit to direct affairs, not by judgement, but by passion.”
This is a direct quote from your response to my blog post. Now, what’s wrong with this argument? First, what do the New Atheists argue? Allow me to quote Sam Harris.
He’s written, “Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.”
What is he talking about here? He is referring specifically to religious beliefs. He’s arguing that in every day life Christians do often utilize evidence in their own lives. However, they often do not do this when it comes to their religious beliefs. How is this relevant to your argument? It’s very simple.
What evidence did you cite that Justin used? Let me quote you so I’m not once again falsely accused of not understanding your arguments. You said, “What is he talking about? What methodology is he pushing, here? Read the Bible, and see? No:
“For we have come, not to flatter you by this writing, nor please you by our address, but to beg that you pass judgement, after an accurate and searching investigation, not flattered by prejudice or by a desire of pleasing superstitious men, nor induced by irrational impulse or evil rumors which have long been prevalent, to give a decision which will prove to be against yourselves. For as for us, we reckon that no evil can be done us, unless we be convicted as evil-doers or be proved to be wicked men; and you, you can kill, but not hurt us.”
The inquiry here is judicial and historical. The question is whether Christians are “evil men,” whether they in fact commit the crimes they are accused of. (Much like the claim that a certain Norwegian mass-murderer really was a “fundamentalist Christian,” as often alleged.)”
You’re appealing to Justin’s letter to Emperor Antoninus Pius asking that Christians not be persecuted solely for their faith. He was asking them to appeal to reason and evidence and see that what they were doing was wrong. Would you agree this is what the passage you cited is discussing? Yes or no?
Why is this not an argument against the charge of blind faith? Because, Justin isn’t even discussing his religious beliefs! He’s discussing issues that are pertaining to the real world, in society. This has nothing to do with providing or demanding evidence for his religious beliefs, which is the issue under discussion by you and the New Atheists. Do you not understand this? Am I getting through this time? I don’t know how much clearer I have to be. Maybe I can use pictures next time?
As I’ve demonstrated (hopefully for the last time), you have horribly taken Justin out of context.
But, alas, I’m still waiting for that knock-down response Marshall has been telling me he’s going to write about my review for the last several years. The only response I’ve received so far is a critique of about 3 or 4 pages, and that wasn’t even the slightest bit factual.
David Marshall:
Ken: We’ve NEVER “debated,” in any meaningful sense of the word. I’ve taken time to correct a few of your errors, and you often repaid me with curses and silly insults. It is not a chore I much enjoy, so you could be right about me not reading your remarks all that carefully.
Here’s your claim about Justin Martyr, again:
“Throughout his Apology the only ‘proof’ he cites is scripture. Justin Martyr’s argument summed up is not one of inquiry and evidence, but one of blind faith that the scriptures are true, and that’s what he used as ‘evidence,’ when he never checked the reliability of such writings to begin with. According to Richard Carrier:
“You can read Justin’s two apologies back to front and never once find any other methodological principle or source of his faith [other than the scripture].”
This is manifest nonsense, as I showed.
Your answer? Justin was not appealing to evidence for his “religious beliefs,” just for daily matters.
Even if that were true, so what? You said the only proof Justin cited was Scripture — you didn’t say, the only proof for religious beliefs. Carrier said, read Justin back to front, and you find no other methological principle OR source of faith (than scripture).”
The word “or” here indicates that one only has to find EITHER such a principle, OR such a source of faith, to falsify the claim.
Clearly, then, it is falsified. One finds other “methodological principles” all through the book, as proven by my quotes.
If you were wise, you would at least admit sloppy wording, here. It is obviously far easier to read your claim in this broader sense: that’s all you say in the paragraph’s thesis sentence, most of its other sentences, and is implied by the Carrier quote.
Nor is the other side of the “or” accurate. In fact, Justin does not always or even usually argue FROM Scripture, assuming in blind faith that it is true. In fact, he argues TO Scripture, on grounds assumed to be held in common with his audience.
There is hardly a scrap of anything that can sensibly be called “blind faith” in the entire book. Your interpretation, egged on by Carrier, is complete baloney.
For instance: “It is yours to make accurate inquiry, and ascertain up to whose time the Jews had a lawgiver and king of their own.” (First Apology 32)
And again:
“And the prophecy, “He shall be the expectation of the nations,” signified that there would be some of all nations who should look for Him to come again. And this indeed you can see for yourselves, and be convinced of by fact. For of all races of men there are some who look for Him who was crucified in Judaea, and after whose crucifixion the land was straightway surrendered to you as spoil of war.” (First Apology 32)
What methodological principle is Justin appealing to here to support Christian faith? History. Sociological survey. Look around, pagans, and see if this has come to pass.
Anyone who can’t see this, doesn’t read well.
In chapter 47 he quotes Isaiah 1:7 as a prophecy of the future desolation of Judea, then reminds his Roman readers that they fulfilled that prophecy: “And that it is guarded by you lest any one dwell in it, and that death is decreed against a Jew apprehended entering it, you know very well.”
What principle, again? “Read the Bible and accept it by blind faith?” Baloney. History. Demographic research.
If you can’t admit such an obvious error, what’s the point of chatting? I have better things to do with my breath.
Arizona Atheist:
David,
Ken: We’ve NEVER “debated,” in any meaningful sense of the word. I’ve taken time to correct a few of your errors, and you often repaid me with curses and silly insults. It is not a chore I much enjoy, so you could be right about me not reading your remarks all that carefully.
I’m sorry but the fact is it is you who began with the petty insults.
Here’s your claim about Justin Martyr, again:
“Throughout his Apology the only ‘proof’ he cites is scripture. Justin Martyr’s argument summed up is not one of inquiry and evidence, but one of blind faith that the scriptures are true, and that’s what he used as ‘evidence,’ when he never checked the reliability of such writings to begin with. According to Richard Carrier:
“You can read Justin’s two apologies back to front and never once find any other methodological principle or source of his faith [other than the scripture].”
This is manifest nonsense, as I showed.
Your answer? Justin was not appealing to evidence for his “religious beliefs,” just for daily matters.
Even if that were true, so what? You said the only proof Justin cited was Scripture — you didn’t say, the only proof for religious beliefs. Carrier said, read Justin back to front, and you find no other methological principle OR source of faith (than scripture).”
So what??? It makes a huge amount of difference what Justin is referring to since there is a specific subject that demands evidence for it, namely the religious beliefs of Christians (which is also what Carrier was discussing). Anything else is pointless.
This is the entire point. You have failed to demonstrate that Justin utilized anything but the bible in support of his religious beliefs. I should note too that you never quoted the passages below. I can only argue against what you give me and your argument made no sense for the reason I’ve explained in great detail.
Now, let’s take a look at your “new” quotes:
“It is yours to make accurate inquiry, and ascertain up to whose time the Jews had a lawgiver and king of their own.” (First Apology 32)
You’ve once again taken Justin out of context. What does he use for his source for this statement? The bible! He’s citing what he learned from scripture about what Moses allegedly said abut Jesus.
“And the prophecy, “He shall be the expectation of the nations,” signified that there would be some of all nations who should look for Him to come again. And this indeed you can see for yourselves, and be convinced of by fact. For of all races of men there are some who look for Him who was crucified in Judaea, and after whose crucifixion the land was straightway surrendered to you as spoil of war.” (First Apology 32)
Once again Justin is citing the bible, just as Carrier said. Thus far, the only quotes of Justin you’ve been able to provide are 1) a quote about legal matters that have nothing to do with his religious beliefs, and 2) quotes from the bible. Now, where were those principles of “History” and “Demographic research” again? Prophesy isn’t history. You do realize that no prophesy from the bible was ever fulfilled right? And the fact that you believe prophesy is a form of evidence amazes me. I’m sorry, but it’s not in the least. And you’ve once again failed to prove your case. If only you could see that.
Then I responded a second time to clarify myself and attempt to put this debate in its proper context:
David,
It looks to me that should this discussion continue we need to take a step back and discuss what we both view as good evidence. Obviously, you believe that Justin’s reliance on the bible (and it’s “human testimony” to use your words) are a reliable form of evidence. I think the opposite, which is why we’re looking at the same words and coming to opposing conclusions. Would you say this is accurate?
Let me explain why I don’t view the bible as a reliable form of evidence (of course, had you ever read my review of your book I cover this topic in some detail). First, let’s define what evidence is. My dictionary defines evidence as “something that is a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something.” I think that’s pretty straight forward.
Why don’t I believe that the bible is a a reliable form of proof of the stories it tells? I think it’s pretty simple. The fact is, the bible isn’t the most reliable document as archeology and science have shown us. So many stories in the bible have been found to be at the least exaggerations and at most complete fabrications. Because of this, I think it’s a good idea to hold judgment about the validity of any story in the bible that hasn’t been at least partially verified through archeology or logic. For instance, it’s well known that the Exodus never happened and that many of the people in the bible are just figments of the writers’ imaginations.
Had Justin cited certain historical documents, letters, etc. that we have reason to believe are real (or even better we’ve found them through archeological digs) then I’d say that’s a good form of evidence that what he said actually happened. Unfortunately, he does nothing like this. He only cites the bible. That’s it. So, why should I view this as a form of seeking evidence for his faith, when it’s not? He’s simply reading his bible and taking it at face value without doing any real digging to find out whether or not it’s true. All ancient Christians did this (unlike what you commonly argue).
To put another way, let me use the example of the resurrection of Jesus. Why do Christians believe it? Because it’s reported in the bible, but there isn’t a shred of evidence this ever happened, and this is besides the fact that it’s an extremely improbable event and I think doubt should be the preferred attitude until we see an man rise from being dead as a door nail. But I don’t see that happening. Therefore, it’s highly doubtful anything like that happened in the past either.
Yes, my bar for the evidence I will accept is set much, much (!) higher than yours, but when we’re dealing with texts that have such problems I think it’s the best course of action. That’s what skepticism is all about. Have doubt until proven otherwise. Sadly, no Christians do this.
David Marshall:
Ken: You’re imagining things. I have pointed out repeatedly, quoting Justin directly, that Justin does NOT just “rely on Scripture,” either to argue in general, or to argue for faith, as you and Carrier so sweepingly claim. That is not just false, it is manifestly false, on many counts.
Also, it would be irrelevant even if it were true. The issue isn’t what your premises are, or whether Justin is right to rely on the Bible when he does, it is what Justin’s premises are, and whether relying on the Bible would be “blind faith” from his perspective. Whether grounds are given for faith, and whether those grounds are solid, are two completely different questions. Until you grasp and take account of that difference, you are going to continue making the same stupid mistake Gnus almost always make.
You will, in fact, continue to “believe not only without evidence, but against the evidence.”
As for why I believe, that’s another issue again. Where do you get off claiming that I believe in Christianity by blind trust in the Bible? That is moronic, for someone who has supposedly spent so much time reading my arguments. In fact, I not only do not usually argue that way, so far as I can recall, I NEVER argue from an assumed trust in the Bible to the truth of Christianity. Nor do I think that way. Considering how much time you’ve spent pouring over at least one of my books, and some of my on-line stuff, the fact that you misrepresent my thinking so badly, represents a remarkable victory over a priori dogma over evident reality, and shows why your “critique” of my book is not very valuable, even after all the work you’ve put into it. You really don’t seem to understand my arguments very well.
Arizona Atheist:
David,I understand your arguments just fine, thank you. Justin doesn’t “just” rely on scripture??? Of course he does! As I noted earlier what were his sources of information that you’ve so far cited? A letter for legal redress (which doesn’t even address the issue at hand, which is justifications for Christian belief) and two appeals to stories from the bible. I think it’s you who is imagining things.
I believe you’re very wrong. It does matter what your premises are because those premises can either lead you closer to the truth, or farther from it. One set of premises is based on reality, another on falsehood. If I began with a premise for an daily regimen of eating with the premise that saturated fats are good for me, I’m going to be in big trouble. I’ve got to base my premises on facts, which is that saturated fats cause arteries to clog, which is obviously bad. This same idea applies to all other areas of life, including philosophy and religion.
You say, “it is what Justin’s premises are, and whether relying on the Bible would be “blind faith” from his perspective.”
I’m sorry but this is very wrong-headed. As I just explained, it doesn’t matter what a person believes to be true. What matters is what the facts are, and Justin did not appeal to any form of empirical evidence for his faith whatsoever. On the contrary, I understand the different perfectly, but it’s a very faulty form of reasoning as I just explained.
As for your final paragraph I was not speaking about you. I was using the issue of the resurrection to make a point, which obviously went way over your head.
Until you rethink your premises I’m afraid you’re going to be stuck in this bubble of delusion. Like I said, premises matter. A lot.
David Marshall:
Ken: Let me explain this yet again. Lord knows I’ve tried already.
(a) One of the chief premises of the New Atheists is that by “faith,” Christians mean “believing not only without evidence, but in the teeth of the evidence.”
(b) That premise is distinct from the claim that the grounds for faith are in fact not intellectually viable.
I agree that (b) is more important than (a). But New Atheists claim (a), as have you, and as does Carrier. And (a) is the issue we were arguing about Justin Martyr over, not (b).
If you can’t separate these two issues in your mind and argue about (a) without confusing it with (b), you’d probably be better not trying to discuss ultimate issues in public, frankly.
Arizona Atheist:
David,
Rather than these cheap evasions I think it would be helpful for you to stay on the topic at hand. Yes, I’m perfectly aware of these distinctions. I’m also aware that this rhetorical game of yours is pointless, because as I’ve said already, it doesn’t matter what someone believes regarding their premises, what matters is whether or not the facts justify those premises. You would rather argue “Well, that’s not what Christians mean by faith!” than argue about premises because I think you know you’ll lose that debate.
Would you like to know why the New Atheists make this argument? Because they, like myself, also dismiss claims of the supernatural and biblical verses being given as evidence for the reasons I’ve already discussed. I’m simply taking the discussion back a few steps because 1) it’s a logical starting point and 2) I know you can’t argue for your premises so you are desperately trying to shift the topic of the discussion, which I believe is intellectually dishonest.
It does not matter what Christians mean by faith, what matters are their starting premises they bring to the table and the facts they use to support said premises. This is what the debate is really about. And you say I don’t understand your arguments. I know you better than you think. You’re a slick apologist, but you’re incapable of creating a logical argument because you always fail to start from a solid premise. If you worked at it, maybe your debating skills would also improve. Just a little tip there.
Allow me to clarify. The reason I think discussing premises is the most reasonable course is because we were both going back and forth arguing about Justin, “Yes he does point to evidence!” “No, he doesn’t.” “Yes he does!” “No he doesn’t!” with no end in sight. Therefore I decided to shift the discussion in an attempt to resolve the debate and get to the heart of the matter and why the New Atheists say what they do about faith. But it seems to me that you’d rather continue going around in a circle because then you don’t have to face the elephant sitting in the room: Christians have nothing they can point to; no facts they can legitimately point to, and say, “Here, god exists.” “Jesus rose from the dead.” Therefore, if this discussion is to move forward it must start here, discussing premises.
David Marshall:
Ken: Sorry, changing the subject does not help. If you can’t admit the most obvious fact about Justin Martyr’s arguments — that he appeals to other lines of reasoning besides “the Bible says it, and I believe it for no rational reason!”, in fact that he does not say that at all — there is no sense in “debating” any other issue with you.
Having denied manifestly evident reality in one case, you are certain to do so in other cases, as well. And I think that’s already been shown. Zebras don’t easily change their stripes, but until they do, they can’t enter the Kentucky Derby.
Arizona Atheist:
David,
I see you’re bowing out of discussions. Pity. But I don’t blame you. Given your lack of factual premises upon which your views about Justin and his faith are based, I can see why you wouldn’t want to open that can of worms. The fact is that Justin only appeals to the bible when it comes to his religious beliefs, as I’ve noted several times. You’ve been unable to distinguish between asking for evidence for his religious beliefs, versus asking for evidence in other matters. You’ve also badly distorted the meaning of evidence by placing the bible in the same category as any other historical document that has been confirmed. As I also explained, the bible should be treated with skepticism due to its lack of factual information. Therefore, it’s only logical to be weary in believing everything the bible says until other forms of evidence can corroborate a certain passage.
Reality? I’m sorry, but until you reexamine your premises you are stuck denying reality, just as I’ve been trying to explain to you.
Thanks.
This was the entirety of the discussion at the time I copied it for this post. As of this posting he still has not responded. As I noted above, I can’t blame him, since any discussion about his premises leads him into a dead end and he doesn’t want to admit that.
