Nope, you’re trying to box him in so that your argument stands above… this is very predictable… don’t be predictable please. You want your argument to win and trying to bough down others in The weeds… stop it! 
Hi Mark, any response to my historical strength rating scale?
Hi Gary, yes I have you in mind to answer all your queries. Had a night date last night. Out and about biking today…. But will respond later fosho
And I want to take my time because your questions require as much!
Excellent. Take your time. I look forward to the discussion!
That’s just yet another excuse for not providing anything for scrutiny.
1 Like
100% agreed, and right to ask. Personally, I have read scripture front to back 5 times, with this time, I started reading deeply and began to write my “Division in Creation” book series. Book one soon to come and book 2 transcripts complete. So far from the first singularity, and through Deuteronomy, there is a thread of meaning, of purpose, and intent. This is the time I think my voice needed to come out. I just wasn’t ready before as I am today. I did not approach this using scripture to preach here, no, I approached scripture through the lens of science… both hold strong. Maybe now ask me a question from what we’ve uncovered in science through observation and ask your question how scripture can be seen or interpreted through the lens of science… could be interesting 
Scientifically speaking, scripture is a category of ancient texts that are studied as cultural, historical, linguistic, and psychological artifacts—not as sources of empirical data or scientific law. They are analyzed for their influence on human behavior, cognition, and societal development.
GPT 4
That is your belief. You cannot force that upon me anymore than I can enforce my religious beliefs onto you.
Again that is you projecting onto me. I criticise Evolution, but not even that in totality. (so your reasoning about all science fails)
Not me.
It would not apply even if ToE could be proven. (which it can’t)
If God chose to create using Evolution, who am I to argue? it changes nothing about reality, nor does it affect the Gospel and my Christian beliefs.
Why can’t you (et al) see that evolution is not that important. My criticism is based on my view of God, granted, but if God did use it then that view was wrong then it is no different from the stories of God in the Old Testament. I cannot judge his decisions on how to create and/or sustain life. In the mean time, there is no way on this earth for ToE to be proven, any more than science can prove the existence of God, so it matters not what you or anyone lese thinks or believes on the subject.
I offer criticisms but scientists here do not answer them, they just dismiss them. Dismissal will never convince anyone of anything. Likewise, claiming that irreducibility does not exist or is a valid criticism will not either. The result is stalemate, not a victory for either view. If you feel superior and dismissive of me, fine, but that does not give you the right to try and belittle me, or insult me and my beliefs. (sanity, objectivity etc)
I do not impose my view of God onto you, kindly grant me the same courtesy about evolution and keep your morose fatalism to yourself. Wallow in your own time, not mine.
Richard
Just curious, Richard, why do we need a Savior if evolution is true?
I would agree that whether the incidents @Remiel-Wise alludes to are factual is an issue.
I think a larger issue is that these incidents, factual or not, fail to clearly juxtapose “unbelief” with “fear of God”.
The worst example is the first:
I’m sorry Mark, but not only does this incident fail to clearly indicate unbelief, it presents a scenario where unbelief is impossible – as Adam and Eve knew (not simply believed) that God exists – as they had met him. To suggest their “unbelief” in God is as absurd as suggesting somebody has unbelief in their dentist.
This leads me to the following:
Counter-claim: Fear requires belief. We cannot fear what we lack any belief in.
I do not fear the God of Christianity, because I have no belief in him, and would not even contemplate the idea of fearing him, outside discussions like this. And as I didn’t encounter the funhouse-mirror world of Christian apologetics until long after I ceased to be a Christian, fearing God never even crossed my mind at the time.
This is a substantial part of why I previously suggested that the OP claim is divorced from the actual experience of actual unbelievers. It appears more a believer’s projection of their own fears onto unbelievers.
It is not blind faith. It is not blind to believe something you cannot see. It is only blind when you don’t see something you should – often because you simply choose not to see it. But when it is simply something nobody can see, that is something quite different. Then your faith can be quite reasonable, such as the faith upon which science rests, the belief that there are no invisible powerful entities arranging all the evidence to deceive us.
Faith can be rational and often is. No it does not mean you can prove it true any more than you can prove what science discovers is true. But it can still be something you believe with your eyes, ears, and mind wide open to see everything. Failure to understand this will tend to create atheists who depend on blind faith themselves.
You fear the consequence that there is a greater work in our reality, so the instincts becomes disbelief to relieve your subconscious fear of “That Greater”. In this case, change perception that there is no God or judgement to fear. It’s reductive, I understand it, it’s much simpler… faith is so heavy, demanding, and sloppy at times
Yes, but in your thinking, what ever your thinking and ideals are, they dye with you. And against the backdrop of this universe, that’s a pretty pathetic existence for a guy like myself.., and many others I suspect. I lean heavy on Ecclesiastes in this case. It’s all meaningless unless there’s a transcendent meaning giver. You can rebuttal, but it’ll just be arguing who’s is bigger I guess LOL
And here the smug insufferable arrogance of the Christian apologist is apparent.
Rather than engage my arguments, he arrogantly tells me what I am thinking or feeling.
You are not talking with me Mark, you are talking at me.
You know nothing about unbelievers Mark – only about your own beliefs.
These beliefs have rendered you hermetically sealed from the actual experiences of actual unbelievers. All that you can do is tell them that they cannot be thinking or feeling what they know they are thinking and feeling. Which renders you utterly irrelevant and superfluos.
1 Like
No… That’s human psychology. but you love inscribing Christian on the arrow don’t you?… its as if I pushed your button LOL… I actually visualized your reaction, seething as you were typing that LOL
The “Christian” God was “the God that I had been taught to believe in throughout my childhood”, so of course it was the first God I admitted to myself didn’t exist. Thereafter I also rejected Islam, Wicca, Buddhism, and possibly Judaism. Taoism stuck around for a while, but even that eventually faded.
There’s really nothing special about Christianity – except for the facts that (i) it was the religion I was brought up in, and (ii) most of the arrogant, ignorant, sophistry-spouting apologists I encounter tend to be Christians.
Yes Mark, I took it personally – because you made it personal.
Instead of attacking my argument, or defending your own, you saw fit to take the low road, to simply deny my personal experiences. I regard this as a form of ad hominem attack.
This denial also renders you incapable of having a meaningful discussion with any unbeliever. You are unable to admit their experiences, and they will be unwilling to let you tell them how they think or feel.
Nothing you have said here Mark has been “heavy” – it has been thoroughly light-weight – vacuously so.
This is perhaps why, instead of engaging in reasoned debate, you have instead chosen to deny the thoughts and feelings of others.
The metaphor “pigeon chess” comes to mind:
… rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
This metaphor is typically applied to Creationists, but Creationism is a form of apologetics.
No they do not. That is the superiority of human communication over genetics. What we say and do has no effect on our DNA and thus biologically there is no inheritance of acquired characteristics. But human communication changes this both in what we write and what is remembered by those who come after us. Thus the human mind and civilization founded upon it changes so much faster than biology and evolution.
Yes, I remember. I only seek meaning in learning from my experiences while you want some assurance that what you do has meaningful impact on things.
No it is not all meaningless, even if most of it is vanity. It is not all vanity and real goodness and meaning is not only possible but everywhere. But if like the philosopher you despair of meaning then you can find it in a relationship with God. But while I think an infinite God is needed for meaning in the context of external existence, and I even suspect that much of the meaning we find in our lives began with communication from God, it is nevertheless demonstrable that people do find meaning in their lives even when they do not believe there is any God.
Let’s set the record straight, what’s happening here isn’t dialogue; it’s reductionism. I see your ways and patterns.
A full argument is presented, a long arc, a connected thread, and instead of engaging it as a whole, it’s cut apart, spliced into fragments, and replied to piece by piece. Each quote becomes its own isolated skirmish, and the larger meaning gets lost in the noise. That’s not debate; that’s dissection. And it’s a tactic, one that’s been taught, refined, and repeated across academic and ideological circles for decades.
When you can’t confront a complete idea, you atomize it. When you can’t refute the architecture, you attack the bricks. When the message is too large to manage, you parse it until it fits your comfort zone, and in doing so, you kill the context that gives it life.
So here’s my rule going forward: if you want a reply from me, engage the whole argument. Don’t cherry-pick lines, don’t copy and paste snippets. Read the entire claim, grasp its full structure, and answer it in kind. Give me your big arc, and I’ll give you mine.
I think it is worth reminding @Remiel-Wise of all the other things that apologists have told unbelievers they must think of feel, without a shred of supporting evidence:
-
We are apparently “angry at God” (which runs into the exact same problem – you cannot be angry at something you lack any belief in, any more than you can fear it).
-
Our lives lack “meaning” so we are very depressed.
-
All the natural suffering makes us very depressed.
I’m sure there are others, but those are the ones that immediately come to mind.
Most of the time we simply laugh them off as ‘dumb things apologists say’ (similar to Ray Comfort’s infamous ‘banana’ argument). But occasionally, an apologist, like Mark, gets in our face about it and makes it personal.