@dshipp17: Edit your responses down to a few sentences of relevant debating. I'm done sifting through your immaterial rhetoric. Thanks in advance.
How can we debate if you wont even educate yourself, by, for example, reading the replies correcting you, and, then, following the advice and going back to educate yourself about the evidence supporting Christians for their confidence in Christianity? Everything that I wrote is just about as material as you wrote, as it was mostly spent correcting you and directing you away from your red herrings and back to the discussion at hand. Essentially, based on your most recent writing, I'd say that we can discuss expanding upon your clearly limited knowledge base about the reasons that Christians remain Christians, even in this information age, as well as why you should consider expanding your knowledge base about Christianity. That's honestly the only way a constructive discussion can occur.
As is apparent, based on the wording of your responses, at times, it seems that you're under some type of impression that you're both telling me things that I haven't heard before or providing me with knowledge that I don't already know about science and that, if I knew what you knew, I'd be dissuaded from Christianity and then reach your conclusions, even after a back and forth with me, at which point, you should know better. However, your assumptions are not correct, as I do have a science background and secondly, I can tell that both you have a limited understanding of the Bible and that you think that you already know enough about the Bible; clearly, one thing I can conclude is that your information is from a very antagonistic source and that you're unwilling to simply approach people who are actually knowledgeable of Christianity for an explanation from those people; in otherwards, you want to spread your propaganda and misinformation as opposed to learning something that you clearly already don't know. So, with that said, what are you hoping to accomplish?
Given your approach so far, there's just no likelihood of your pulling me towards your views; for one, to be frank with you, I consider it disrespectful and off putting for someone to summarily disregard what I have to say and instead, just push their opinion on me, particularly in a way where those opinions assumes that I actually need knowledge that I'm already quite familiar with; what you're doing actually has the opposite effect with a person like me; trust me, if we were in person or on the phone and you were taking this approach, by 10 minutes in, I would not be someone that you could talk with and we would not have made it this far, mostly likely, even though I'm working on that part of me, as it would just be a heated argument taking place, at best (e.g. not just me, but you'd probably want to come to blows); and, secondly, you refuse to go and equip yourself with enough knowledge that would be necessary to convince me that perhaps I've made mistakes somewhere and need to reconsider my conclusions, except you'd have to start by treating me that I have already have more scientific knowledge than you could ever express (e.g. now, I was debating with a college professor here; in that case, I could start to reverting to learning mode, except he's similar to you, as a negative); essentially, I've so far fruitlessly told you how to actually be able to have any hope of changing my mind; nobody usually does that for someone in this type of context; of course, what you say would still have to be logical and make sense, except to a cosmic level, if you're debating me on my plain; but, the only way there is by simply listening to what I suggest that you do, first; without doing that, the odds are very small that you'll be able to convince me.
Log in to comment