At an earlier debate it was intimated by Jar that we of faith finally give up debating because according to him we simply can't hang. As I demonstrated in my thread on design, that is simply not the case, his accusation is unwarrented.
While I don't see the need to maintain constant forever debate, I think there are two general topics that demonstrate that at a certain point no further discussion is necessary because the Humanists cannot grasp his error in these basic topics
Those being, the design argument and the question of morality.
So we simply step aside knowing this problem
IOWS I've never really seen the need to involve myself in interpretations of scripture with someone that doesn't even believe it to be the Word of God, unless those scriptures relate to those 2 topics and say a person wants to attack the character of God in general. Then maybe further investigation and discussion is warrented
Now don't misunderstand me, I would encourage and skeptic to read it, because it's the Word that converts men's hearts, not arguments. For instance read the book of John, the Gospel and listen to the words and magnificent claims by Jesus himself
But someone says, Jesus didn't say those things, someone else did in his name.
Then we are back to square one , correct?
But as in any endeavor, discussions and argumentation need to have fundamental principles. That, I purpose to demonstrate in and on the morality question. By doing this we can demonstrate truth of our position and at the same time, show that believers are not, indeed afraid of any confrontations, we welcome it. It's simply that, at least on this topic the Secular fundamental Humanist is at a sad disadvantage.
But in an ironic kind of way, I believe these two topics should be the very close limits of to much discusssion with a non-believer
Just finished watching the Craig-Harris debate again, on this topic. While I'll admit Harris has a certain eloquence and Craig is a masterful Theologian, philosopher and apologist, there are too many things left unsaid in that short of time.
Harris doesn't understand basic rules of argumentation, namely establishing fundamental principles before moving on to other points or examples. He represents his position as if he's actually given a reason for having a morality
So I purpose, with Percival's high and mighty, god like permission, to discuss the proposition, that notwithstanding Harris contention, that the idea that to avoid the maximum amount of misery for all individuals as a moral, does not and cannot establish any kind of morality for an Atheist or Secular Fundamental Humanist, or nonbeliever.
There are far to many fundamental problems, for the Atheist, in a logical, realistic manner, from the standpoint of reality, before he even formulates a so-called ethic.
Yes I am aware of the obvious irorny, of continuing discussions while pointing out why, at the same time, we do not stick around to continue debating, before anyone points that out.. haha
And finally, I am aware that most of the debaters here do not have either the skills or stamina to keep up with my line of reasoning and critical thinking skills, but give it a try anyway
What do you say Percival, Ole boy
Dawn Bertot