Convincing Athiests

At 6/14/2012 8:39:34 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 8:30:38 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 8:09:29 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/13/2012 9:38:15 PM, jharry wrote:

If I re read the conversation your statement could still be about several different things, that is why I was asking for clarification. Believe what? That I convinced you? That I believe passing laws will stop you from sinning? That I believe teaching evolution will lead people to Hell?

No what you do is back out of the conversation by trying to imply that I'm not following along or keeping up with the conversation. That is the same exact experience I had with you the last time we talked. I wish I had remembered your username before I replied.

ME: "If you believe my soul hangs in the balance, yes."
YOU: "Cool, that is one more atheists convinced. Thanks for talking with me."
ME: "The problem is, I'm not convinced you actually believe that."

Does that make it more clear?

Yes, thank you.

The question is, then, why it wasn't clear before. All I did was repeat those three lines, as they appear in the conversation. I didn't make any modifications or provided for any emphasis. That was literally the last three lines of the conversation at that point before you came down with a case of temporary amnesia.

Don't you see why I would be a little frustrated at this claim of yours that you didn't know what I was talking about?

Unlike before you were replying to my request to clarify in the bold response above.

That is an aspect of this conversation that can not be resolved, you can not read my mind so you can never know. But I'm perfectly fine with "yes".

At 6/14/2012 9:25:04 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 8:39:34 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 8:30:38 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 8:09:29 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/13/2012 9:38:15 PM, jharry wrote:

If I re read the conversation your statement could still be about several different things, that is why I was asking for clarification. Believe what? That I convinced you? That I believe passing laws will stop you from sinning? That I believe teaching evolution will lead people to Hell?

No what you do is back out of the conversation by trying to imply that I'm not following along or keeping up with the conversation. That is the same exact experience I had with you the last time we talked. I wish I had remembered your username before I replied.

ME: "If you believe my soul hangs in the balance, yes."
YOU: "Cool, that is one more atheists convinced. Thanks for talking with me."
ME: "The problem is, I'm not convinced you actually believe that."

Does that make it more clear?

Yes, thank you.

The question is, then, why it wasn't clear before. All I did was repeat those three lines, as they appear in the conversation. I didn't make any modifications or provided for any emphasis. That was literally the last three lines of the conversation at that point before you came down with a case of temporary amnesia.

Don't you see why I would be a little frustrated at this claim of yours that you didn't know what I was talking about?

Unlike before you were replying to my request to clarify in the bold response above.

There was nothing to clarify. I didn't do anything to clarify it. I just repeated it as it appeared in the conversation. All you had to do was look up three lines.

That is an aspect of this conversation that can not be resolved, you can not read my mind so you can never know. But I'm perfectly fine with "yes".

At 6/14/2012 9:22:44 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:14:24 AM, jharry wrote:

I have read arguments for God.
People have discussed God with me.
I neither woke up one day and said "I am an atheist" nor did I become an atheist based upon studying arguments against God. I was born an atheist and nothing I have experienced has resulted in me changing my position.

I can study an argument for God and be utterly convinced but you can read it and not be. What more can I do?

Not give up.

Who says anyone is giving up?

I did. Though "giving up" is not really accurate. "Not even trying" is more suited to this topic.

So posting an argument for God is "not even trying"?

Should I stalk you until you die?

Not necessarily me specifically.

Then what are you saying? It seems to me that if I don't stalk you specifically until you die then I have not met the degree of action that you would expect a Christian to take if I thought your soul was in danger.

You are avoiding reality to suit your argument or beliefs, which ever is your motive.

Did you even read the OP? Do you think I made that quote up?

I did read the OP. I say one key part of it that you have been leaving out. "prove".

Beg you to believe? For me dealing with atheists is like dealing with my children. I can tell them a thousand times something they need to know but they do not take it to heart. I was the same way. It wasn't until I was older that I realized my parents were not complete idiots. I came to this realization through experience and I had to learn the hard way and for myself, no amount of discussion would have changed my path at that time.

In this regard we are not afforded the luxury of learning from our mistakes, are we? That's a game changer. In dealing with children you can argue and argue and teach them, but if they don't accept it, you can rely on them learning "the hard way."

That doesn't apply here, because non-believers aren't afforded that opportunity. Either we have to accept only the arguments, or that's it. We can't see for ourselves like children can and go, "Oh! You were right!"

Given that extreme difference, don't you think a change in strategies is warranted?

Not an extreme difference. You can learn from your mistake in 20 minutes or 20 years. You could Believe in the next 20 seconds, that is the same with children too. My children could learn at any point in time. Shoot, I know 30 somethings that are still children in their actions and teenagers far beyond their years in wisdom.

Right, but in the case of hell, I am not afforded the opportunity to learn from my mistake, EVER. Hence the extreme difference.

You have been afforded every second of your life. If you live to be 90 that is a lot longer then most children need to learn. The point that I'm trying to make is the fact that I can tell my children the truth and then can and do reject it, the comment about them realizing it was just a tongue in cheek jab at atheists in general. But you seem to be focusing in on it to avoid the simple fact that humans can deny the truth no matter what degree of "convincing" others may try.

The difference between the blind man, children and atheists is I can stop the blind man from walking off the cliff. Children and atheists are totally different.

We've already addressed this. It's not about being successful. It's about the how and to what degree you try. If you were physically restrained from saving the person, at what point would you give up on him?

You are still trying to compare two totally different things. If I could physically stop you from going to Hell I would in a second, but to do that I would have to take away your mind and will. I would have to upload my beliefs into you mind turning you into this laptop I'm tying this post on. And then you would not go to Hell ,but it wouldn't matter anyway because you would be a machine and you wouldn't know the difference.

You keep going back to physical actions and I keep trying to remove it. It isn't about being able to physical stop me.

Then the blind man and the cliff is even less relevant. If we are just looking at the degree of "convincing" what more can a person tell a blind person that there is a cliff in front of them besides tell them? If I establish that the blind man can hear and has a brain then telling them their is a cliff in front of them should do the trick.

Drafter, you seem intelligent enough to understand that I'm telling you that you will go to Hell if you do not believe. You can "hear" me because you are responding to my posts. You are blind because you can not see the cliff, but what else can I do?

One of my daughters friends got caught sneaking out a few weeks ago and that got my wife thinking we needed bars on the windows and changing the passcode on our security system to stop our children from sneaking out. I explained to her that there was absolutely nothing we could do to 100% stop our children from making bad decisions, all we could do is teach them the right way and punish them when we caught them so they learned that actions have consequences. I could lock my children in a cell and monitor them 24/7 and they would be safe. but then what would I have? A pet? I have pets, I want children, human beings that do as I say because the love and trust me. I want them to become good honest, respectable, honorable, compassionate humans one day. But I understand the reality of the human experience and I know I can not force them to be that.......

honestly, if I thought I could I'd either be a damned fool or lying to myself.

Which are you?

Oh. I agree with you regarding children. But that's not the situation non-believers are in. The entire point of punishing your children is to teach them the consequences of their actions so that they modify their behavior and don't commit the same mistakes in the future.

The sole purpose of Hell is to separate, it is the souls there that makes it "Hell".A lot like prison but on a final level.

And as I said above, you could convert in a matter of seconds. Neither of us know for certain what the future has in store.

One of my children could make a bad choice tonight and end their life early, I assume even you would consider this a negative for my child and all that are connected. Would you fault me for not going to the furthest degree to stop them from making that choice by locking them away?

If you believe there was a guarantee of death, yes, I would fault you.

Just like with you I do not know that when we finish the conversation you will not come to the realization that you are wrong. All I can do is tell you and then hope it sinks in.

All I (or any of us) can do is try our best to explain why these choices can have a negative result, after that it is up to each of us to make the choice and live with the outcome. No one can hold me or anyone else accountable if someone refusing counsel and turns away, that is just the reality of this life we live.

"Explaining why" to me goes into the act of convincing me that you are telling the truth. That is not what the OP is about. The OP says that Christians are to just inform atheists, not convince them.

The statement in the OP states that it is not our responsibility to prove it to you, and that if you reject our evidence then it is on you.

At 6/14/2012 9:30:08 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:25:04 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 8:39:34 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 8:30:38 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 8:09:29 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/13/2012 9:38:15 PM, jharry wrote:

If I re read the conversation your statement could still be about several different things, that is why I was asking for clarification. Believe what? That I convinced you? That I believe passing laws will stop you from sinning? That I believe teaching evolution will lead people to Hell?

No what you do is back out of the conversation by trying to imply that I'm not following along or keeping up with the conversation. That is the same exact experience I had with you the last time we talked. I wish I had remembered your username before I replied.

ME: "If you believe my soul hangs in the balance, yes."
YOU: "Cool, that is one more atheists convinced. Thanks for talking with me."
ME: "The problem is, I'm not convinced you actually believe that."

Does that make it more clear?

Yes, thank you.

The question is, then, why it wasn't clear before. All I did was repeat those three lines, as they appear in the conversation. I didn't make any modifications or provided for any emphasis. That was literally the last three lines of the conversation at that point before you came down with a case of temporary amnesia.

Don't you see why I would be a little frustrated at this claim of yours that you didn't know what I was talking about?

Unlike before you were replying to my request to clarify in the bold response above.

There was nothing to clarify. I didn't do anything to clarify it. I just repeated it as it appeared in the conversation. All you had to do was look up three lines.

You posted those three lines in a direct response to my request for clarification. You could have just as easily replied with three different lines from the same posts.

It's like we are walking through the forest and you are saying "that tree" as you point at it "is what I wanted you to look at". And then accusing me of temporary amnesia because I couldn't guess which tree you were talking about in the forest.

At 6/14/2012 9:23:13 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:21:55 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 8:44:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
Also, jharry, let's look at this in the context of this thread.

There is a difference between simply providing information and convincing someone that the information is true, correct?

The quote at the beginning of the thread states that all Christians can do is provide information, not convince, and several others have supported this notion. Furthermore, my experience has been that many others hold this position and even those that do enter the realm of trying to convince, their stamina is rather weak.

Applying this to the cliff scenario, then, we see the difference between merely informing the man that the cliff is there and he is in danger of walking off of it, and convincing him of that fact!

The notion here, is that a Christian can, or should, only inform him of the fact, and not try and convince him of its truth.

I bring it up because I would guarantee that, in such a position, a Christian would do everything in their power to convince them of that fact, even if they could do nothing to actually save the man.

Hence the dichotomy.

How many arguments for God have you seen here?

Plenty

How many convincing arguments against God have you seen here?

0, obviously.

That's not what this thread is about.

You have never seen a convincing argument against God?

At 6/14/2012 9:53:49 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:30:08 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:25:04 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 8:39:34 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 8:30:38 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 8:09:29 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/13/2012 9:38:15 PM, jharry wrote:

If I re read the conversation your statement could still be about several different things, that is why I was asking for clarification. Believe what? That I convinced you? That I believe passing laws will stop you from sinning? That I believe teaching evolution will lead people to Hell?

No what you do is back out of the conversation by trying to imply that I'm not following along or keeping up with the conversation. That is the same exact experience I had with you the last time we talked. I wish I had remembered your username before I replied.

ME: "If you believe my soul hangs in the balance, yes."
YOU: "Cool, that is one more atheists convinced. Thanks for talking with me."
ME: "The problem is, I'm not convinced you actually believe that."

Does that make it more clear?

Yes, thank you.

The question is, then, why it wasn't clear before. All I did was repeat those three lines, as they appear in the conversation. I didn't make any modifications or provided for any emphasis. That was literally the last three lines of the conversation at that point before you came down with a case of temporary amnesia.

Don't you see why I would be a little frustrated at this claim of yours that you didn't know what I was talking about?

Unlike before you were replying to my request to clarify in the bold response above.

There was nothing to clarify. I didn't do anything to clarify it. I just repeated it as it appeared in the conversation. All you had to do was look up three lines.

You posted those three lines in a direct response to my request for clarification. You could have just as easily replied with three different lines from the same posts.

It's like we are walking through the forest and you are saying "that tree" as you point at it "is what I wanted you to look at". And then accusing me of temporary amnesia because I couldn't guess which tree you were talking about in the forest.

Except you're ignoring the fact that we were just talking about that tree!

A more accurate representation would be:

ME: I'll give you $100 if you climb that tree *points at tree*
YOU: Ok, you're on. Do you have the money?
ME: No, but I don't believe you can do it.
YOU: Do what? What are you talking about?

That's pretty much literally how this went down.

At 6/14/2012 9:55:56 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:23:13 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:21:55 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 8:44:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
Also, jharry, let's look at this in the context of this thread.

There is a difference between simply providing information and convincing someone that the information is true, correct?

The quote at the beginning of the thread states that all Christians can do is provide information, not convince, and several others have supported this notion. Furthermore, my experience has been that many others hold this position and even those that do enter the realm of trying to convince, their stamina is rather weak.

Applying this to the cliff scenario, then, we see the difference between merely informing the man that the cliff is there and he is in danger of walking off of it, and convincing him of that fact!

The notion here, is that a Christian can, or should, only inform him of the fact, and not try and convince him of its truth.

I bring it up because I would guarantee that, in such a position, a Christian would do everything in their power to convince them of that fact, even if they could do nothing to actually save the man.

Hence the dichotomy.

How many arguments for God have you seen here?

Plenty

How many convincing arguments against God have you seen here?

0, obviously.

That's not what this thread is about.

You have never seen a convincing argument against God?

Sorry, I misread. "Plenty" is the answer for both.

At 6/14/2012 9:49:11 AM, jharry wrote:

So posting an argument for God is "not even trying"?

It's not trying to convince me, which is the topic here CONVINCING atheists.

Should I stalk you until you die?

Not necessarily me specifically.

Then what are you saying? It seems to me that if I don't stalk you specifically until you die then I have not met the degree of action that you would expect a Christian to take if I thought your soul was in danger.

I'm not the only non-Christian in existence, thus I'm not the only one in danger here.

You are avoiding reality to suit your argument or beliefs, which ever is your motive.

Did you even read the OP? Do you think I made that quote up?

I did read the OP. I say one key part of it that you have been leaving out. "prove".

Because I never asked for proof. The author of the quote presented it as a fictitious requirement as a form of self-sabotage. If he pretends that I'm asking for proof, and he can't provide proof, then he's absolved of responsibility for even trying to convince me of anything because I have set unreasonable standards.

Right, but in the case of hell, I am not afforded the opportunity to learn from my mistake, EVER. Hence the extreme difference.

You have been afforded every second of your life. If you live to be 90 that is a lot longer then most children need to learn. The point that I'm trying to make is the fact that I can tell my children the truth and then can and do reject it, the comment about them realizing it was just a tongue in cheek jab at atheists in general. But you seem to be focusing in on it to avoid the simple fact that humans can deny the truth no matter what degree of "convincing" others may try.

I'm not avoiding that at all. As I said, and will repeat, AGAIN,

The issue here is not whether or not you are successful, the issue is the effort put into trying

I don't recommend responding until you read, acknowledge, and accept this.

You keep going back to physical actions and I keep trying to remove it. It isn't about being able to physical stop me.

Then the blind man and the cliff is even less relevant. If we are just looking at the degree of "convincing" what more can a person tell a blind person that there is a cliff in front of them besides tell them?

You tell me. This is the question and scenario I'm posing to you. You are tied to a tree facing a cliff. You see a blind man walking toward it, and believe he will walk off and die unless warned.

What do you do?

Do you simply say, "Hey, there is a cliff." And that's it? Is that an accurate representation of the level of effort you'd put in here? He can either take it and leave it and you wipe your hands of the consequences?

That's the question. That's always been the question. And not a SINGLE person has bothered to answer it. You're the only person that has either bothered to respond to it, but all you've done is whine about how it's possible for you to try and not succeed, despite my repeated insistence that it isn't a question of how you can succeed, but a measure of how you will try.

If I establish that the blind man can hear and has a brain then telling them their is a cliff in front of them should do the trick.

And if he says that he doesn't believe you? What then? You just shrug your shoulders and stop trying?

Drafter, you seem intelligent enough to understand that I'm telling you that you will go to Hell if you do not believe. You can "hear" me because you are responding to my posts. You are blind because you can not see the cliff, but what else can I do?

Try to convince me. I've asked previously if you understand that there is a difference between "informing" and "convincing." Do you?

"Explaining why" to me goes into the act of convincing me that you are telling the truth. That is not what the OP is about. The OP says that Christians are to just inform atheists, not convince them.

The statement in the OP states that it is not our responsibility to prove it to you, and that if you reject our evidence then it is on you.

So, you're in agreement with the OP, then? That Christians should just "inform" atheists and not bother trying to "convince" them?

At 6/14/2012 9:56:20 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:53:49 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:30:08 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:25:04 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 8:39:34 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 8:30:38 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 8:09:29 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/13/2012 9:38:15 PM, jharry wrote:

If I re read the conversation your statement could still be about several different things, that is why I was asking for clarification. Believe what? That I convinced you? That I believe passing laws will stop you from sinning? That I believe teaching evolution will lead people to Hell?

No what you do is back out of the conversation by trying to imply that I'm not following along or keeping up with the conversation. That is the same exact experience I had with you the last time we talked. I wish I had remembered your username before I replied.

ME: "If you believe my soul hangs in the balance, yes."
YOU: "Cool, that is one more atheists convinced. Thanks for talking with me."
ME: "The problem is, I'm not convinced you actually believe that."

Does that make it more clear?

Yes, thank you.

The question is, then, why it wasn't clear before. All I did was repeat those three lines, as they appear in the conversation. I didn't make any modifications or provided for any emphasis. That was literally the last three lines of the conversation at that point before you came down with a case of temporary amnesia.

Don't you see why I would be a little frustrated at this claim of yours that you didn't know what I was talking about?

Unlike before you were replying to my request to clarify in the bold response above.

There was nothing to clarify. I didn't do anything to clarify it. I just repeated it as it appeared in the conversation. All you had to do was look up three lines.

You posted those three lines in a direct response to my request for clarification. You could have just as easily replied with three different lines from the same posts.

It's like we are walking through the forest and you are saying "that tree" as you point at it "is what I wanted you to look at". And then accusing me of temporary amnesia because I couldn't guess which tree you were talking about in the forest.

Except you're ignoring the fact that we were just talking about that tree!

A more accurate representation would be:

ME: I'll give you $100 if you climb that tree *points at tree*
YOU: Ok, you're on. Do you have the money?
ME: No, but I don't believe you can do it.
YOU: Do what? What are you talking about?

That's pretty much literally how this went down.

We were talking about three trees. I made three separate statements in those posts you are referencing. You could have been talking about any of them.

just let in go bro, it will be ok.

At 6/14/2012 9:56:54 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:55:56 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:23:13 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:21:55 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 8:44:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
Also, jharry, let's look at this in the context of this thread.

There is a difference between simply providing information and convincing someone that the information is true, correct?

The quote at the beginning of the thread states that all Christians can do is provide information, not convince, and several others have supported this notion. Furthermore, my experience has been that many others hold this position and even those that do enter the realm of trying to convince, their stamina is rather weak.

Applying this to the cliff scenario, then, we see the difference between merely informing the man that the cliff is there and he is in danger of walking off of it, and convincing him of that fact!

The notion here, is that a Christian can, or should, only inform him of the fact, and not try and convince him of its truth.

I bring it up because I would guarantee that, in such a position, a Christian would do everything in their power to convince them of that fact, even if they could do nothing to actually save the man.

Hence the dichotomy.

How many arguments for God have you seen here?

Plenty

How many convincing arguments against God have you seen here?

0, obviously.

That's not what this thread is about.

You have never seen a convincing argument against God?

Sorry, I misread. "Plenty" is the answer for both.

Then why are there still theists here?

At 6/14/2012 10:12:46 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:56:54 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:55:56 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:23:13 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:21:55 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 8:44:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
Also, jharry, let's look at this in the context of this thread.

There is a difference between simply providing information and convincing someone that the information is true, correct?

The quote at the beginning of the thread states that all Christians can do is provide information, not convince, and several others have supported this notion. Furthermore, my experience has been that many others hold this position and even those that do enter the realm of trying to convince, their stamina is rather weak.

Applying this to the cliff scenario, then, we see the difference between merely informing the man that the cliff is there and he is in danger of walking off of it, and convincing him of that fact!

The notion here, is that a Christian can, or should, only inform him of the fact, and not try and convince him of its truth.

I bring it up because I would guarantee that, in such a position, a Christian would do everything in their power to convince them of that fact, even if they could do nothing to actually save the man.

Hence the dichotomy.

How many arguments for God have you seen here?

Plenty

How many convincing arguments against God have you seen here?

0, obviously.

That's not what this thread is about.

You have never seen a convincing argument against God?

Sorry, I misread. "Plenty" is the answer for both.

Then why are there still theists here?

Lack of awareness.
Lack of comprehension.
Lack of honesty.
Cognitive dissonance.

Probably many other reasons.

If you want specifics you'd probably have to talk to the theists.

At 6/14/2012 10:07:44 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:49:11 AM, jharry wrote:

So posting an argument for God is "not even trying"?

It's not trying to convince me, which is the topic here CONVINCING atheists.

In the OP you posted the statement about producing evidence, and explaining it. And then you go on to say Christians use the excuse that it is not their responsibility to convince atheists. In the statement you posted the author has done everything possible to try and convince you of the truth. I think you are either taking the statement out of context or misreading what the author is saying.

Should I stalk you until you die?

Not necessarily me specifically.

Then what are you saying? It seems to me that if I don't stalk you specifically until you die then I have not met the degree of action that you would expect a Christian to take if I thought your soul was in danger.

I'm not the only non-Christian in existence, thus I'm not the only one in danger here.

Irrelevant. You are the blind man walking towards the cliff. Should I stalk you until you fall off of it or turn around?

You are avoiding reality to suit your argument or beliefs, which ever is your motive.

Did you even read the OP? Do you think I made that quote up?

I did read the OP. I say one key part of it that you have been leaving out. "prove".

Because I never asked for proof. The author of the quote presented it as a fictitious requirement as a form of self-sabotage. If he pretends that I'm asking for proof, and he can't provide proof, then he's absolved of responsibility for even trying to convince me of anything because I have set unreasonable standards.

In the context of the statement the author has explained that he has produced arguments and evidence for his case. The person has rejected his pleading. He is saying that at this point it is no longer necessarily to continue pleading his case. The person has heard the case and has decided to continue walking forward. Should he keep pleading his case without end? Should he go askbob and find his facebook and email to send endless streams of data pleading his case?

Right, but in the case of hell, I am not afforded the opportunity to learn from my mistake, EVER. Hence the extreme difference.

You have been afforded every second of your life. If you live to be 90 that is a lot longer then most children need to learn. The point that I'm trying to make is the fact that I can tell my children the truth and then can and do reject it, the comment about them realizing it was just a tongue in cheek jab at atheists in general. But you seem to be focusing in on it to avoid the simple fact that humans can deny the truth no matter what degree of "convincing" others may try.

I'm not avoiding that at all. As I said, and will repeat, AGAIN,

The issue here is not whether or not you are successful, the issue is the effort put into trying

And again, should I stalk you until you convert or die?

I don't recommend responding until you read, acknowledge, and accept this.

Check, check and check.

You keep going back to physical actions and I keep trying to remove it. It isn't about being able to physical stop me.

Then the blind man and the cliff is even less relevant. If we are just looking at the degree of "convincing" what more can a person tell a blind person that there is a cliff in front of them besides tell them?

You tell me. This is the question and scenario I'm posing to you. You are tied to a tree facing a cliff. You see a blind man walking toward it, and believe he will walk off and die unless warned.

What do you do?

Do you simply say, "Hey, there is a cliff." And that's it? Is that an accurate representation of the level of effort you'd put in here? He can either take it and leave it and you wipe your hands of the consequences?

No, that is not an accurate representation of the statement you posted in the OP or the verse from which it comes from.

That's the question. That's always been the question. And not a SINGLE person has bothered to answer it. You're the only person that has either bothered to respond to it, but all you've done is whine about how it's possible for you to try and not succeed, despite my repeated insistence that it isn't a question of how you can succeed, but a measure of how you will try.

All you have done is duck every attempt I have made to discuss this with you.

If I establish that the blind man can hear and has a brain then telling them their is a cliff in front of them should do the trick.

And if he says that he doesn't believe you? What then? You just shrug your shoulders and stop trying?

If he refuses to believe me then what else can I do. I can tell you that if I was in that situation I might regret my convincing skills but I would know that did what I could to save him. The problem here is you are not honestly representing the statement you posted in the OP.

Drafter, you seem intelligent enough to understand that I'm telling you that you will go to Hell if you do not believe. You can "hear" me because you are responding to my posts. You are blind because you can not see the cliff, but what else can I do?

Try to convince me. I've asked previously if you understand that there is a difference between "informing" and "convincing." Do you?

I do not,please tell me.

"Explaining why" to me goes into the act of convincing me that you are telling the truth. That is not what the OP is about. The OP says that Christians are to just inform atheists, not convince them.

The statement in the OP states that it is not our responsibility to prove it to you, and that if you reject our evidence then it is on you.

So, you're in agreement with the OP, then? That Christians should just "inform" atheists and not bother trying to "convince" them?

We need to see your definitions of informing and convincing before we can move on.

At 6/14/2012 10:16:09 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 10:12:46 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:56:54 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:55:56 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:23:13 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:21:55 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 8:44:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
Also, jharry, let's look at this in the context of this thread.

There is a difference between simply providing information and convincing someone that the information is true, correct?

The quote at the beginning of the thread states that all Christians can do is provide information, not convince, and several others have supported this notion. Furthermore, my experience has been that many others hold this position and even those that do enter the realm of trying to convince, their stamina is rather weak.

Applying this to the cliff scenario, then, we see the difference between merely informing the man that the cliff is there and he is in danger of walking off of it, and convincing him of that fact!

The notion here, is that a Christian can, or should, only inform him of the fact, and not try and convince him of its truth.

I bring it up because I would guarantee that, in such a position, a Christian would do everything in their power to convince them of that fact, even if they could do nothing to actually save the man.

Hence the dichotomy.

How many arguments for God have you seen here?

Plenty

How many convincing arguments against God have you seen here?

0, obviously.

That's not what this thread is about.

You have never seen a convincing argument against God?

Sorry, I misread. "Plenty" is the answer for both.

Then why are there still theists here?

Lack of awareness.
Lack of comprehension.
Lack of honesty.
Cognitive dissonance.

Probably many other reasons.

If you want specifics you'd probably have to talk to the theists.

Wait a minute, you said they are convincing arguments. How is there anything that can stand in the way of that?

Had to snip for brevity

At 6/14/2012 10:29:30 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 10:07:44 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:49:11 AM, jharry wrote:

So posting an argument for God is "not even trying"?

It's not trying to convince me, which is the topic here CONVINCING atheists.

In the OP you posted the statement about producing evidence, and explaining it. And then you go on to say Christians use the excuse that it is not their responsibility to convince atheists. In the statement you posted the author has done everything possible to try and convince you of the truth. I think you are either taking the statement out of context or misreading what the author is saying.

Really? You interpret that as the author having done everything possible? I don't especially considering the author would later go one to say:

"You can't convince anyone of anything. It is absolutely impossible."

In the context of the statement the author has explained that he has produced arguments and evidence for his case. The person has rejected his pleading. He is saying that at this point it is no longer necessarily to continue pleading his case. The person has heard the case and has decided to continue walking forward. Should he keep pleading his case without end? Should he go askbob and find his facebook and email to send endless streams of data pleading his case?

Well, you see, an argument would be a form of convincing and the author eschews convincing in lieu of mere presentation. I really can't address this point further until we put the whole inform/convince issue to bed.

Right, but in the case of hell, I am not afforded the opportunity to learn from my mistake, EVER. Hence the extreme difference.

You have been afforded every second of your life. If you live to be 90 that is a lot longer then most children need to learn. The point that I'm trying to make is the fact that I can tell my children the truth and then can and do reject it, the comment about them realizing it was just a tongue in cheek jab at atheists in general. But you seem to be focusing in on it to avoid the simple fact that humans can deny the truth no matter what degree of "convincing" others may try.

I'm not avoiding that at all. As I said, and will repeat, AGAIN,

The issue here is not whether or not you are successful, the issue is the effort put into trying

And again, should I stalk you until you convert or die?

Since I'm not the atheist, I don't assert that you should focus specifically on me. I imagine some sort of triage method would be in order. But generally convincing atheists, by whatever methods, yes.

I don't recommend responding until you read, acknowledge, and accept this.

Check, check and check.

You keep going back to physical actions and I keep trying to remove it. It isn't about being able to physical stop me.

Then the blind man and the cliff is even less relevant. If we are just looking at the degree of "convincing" what more can a person tell a blind person that there is a cliff in front of them besides tell them?

You tell me. This is the question and scenario I'm posing to you. You are tied to a tree facing a cliff. You see a blind man walking toward it, and believe he will walk off and die unless warned.

What do you do?

Do you simply say, "Hey, there is a cliff." And that's it? Is that an accurate representation of the level of effort you'd put in here? He can either take it and leave it and you wipe your hands of the consequences?

No, that is not an accurate representation of the statement you posted in the OP or the verse from which it comes from.

It's an accurate representation of the scenario I invented myself. Which I note you still avoid answering.

That's the question. That's always been the question. And not a SINGLE person has bothered to answer it. You're the only person that has either bothered to respond to it, but all you've done is whine about how it's possible for you to try and not succeed, despite my repeated insistence that it isn't a question of how you can succeed, but a measure of how you will try.

All you have done is duck every attempt I have made to discuss this with you.

You're not attempting to discuss this with me. I've addressed all of your concerns with this scenario and you still refuse to answer the questions involved with it.

If I establish that the blind man can hear and has a brain then telling them their is a cliff in front of them should do the trick.

And if he says that he doesn't believe you? What then? You just shrug your shoulders and stop trying?

If he refuses to believe me then what else can I do. I can tell you that if I was in that situation I might regret my convincing skills but I would know that did what I could to save him.

Really? So, "Hey, you're about to walk off a clif" is the extent of your convincing skills?

The problem here is you are not honestly representing the statement you posted in the OP.

That's a pretty serious accusation. It's not just an accusation of inaccuracy (which merits its own burden) but that I am doing so knowingly and deliberately.

I'd be interested in hearing your case for this.

Drafter, you seem intelligent enough to understand that I'm telling you that you will go to Hell if you do not believe. You can "hear" me because you are responding to my posts. You are blind because you can not see the cliff, but what else can I do?

Try to convince me. I've asked previously if you understand that there is a difference between "informing" and "convincing." Do you?

I do not,please tell me.

Informing - to state that a fact is true.
Convincing - to explain why a fact is true in such a manner as to alter the target's disposition as to accept that the fact is true.

Relevant here are Aristotle's ethos (the disposition of the speaker to incite respect and trust in the audience); pathos (persuading the audience by appealing to emotion); logos (persuading the audience by appealing to reason).

I think it goes without saying that the mere presentation of a fact can alter the probability in which it is accepted.

If I show you a picture of my cat and then say "I am rich." you are probably less likely to accept that as true than if I showed you a picture of my stash of Gold Bars and then say "I am rich."

The author of the quote (which you say I am being dishonest about) has literally said that a presenter of information can do absolutely nothing to convince another person and has outright dismissed the concepts of ethos, pathos, and logos as invalid. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are the only relevant concepts in terms of persuasion, they are the concepts I am most familiar with.

Do you agree with this assessment, that whether or a person is convinced of a fact has absolutely nothing to do with how that fact is presented by another individual?

At 6/14/2012 10:30:33 AM, jharry wrote:

How many arguments for God have you seen here?

Plenty

How many convincing arguments against God have you seen here?

0, obviously.

That's not what this thread is about.

You have never seen a convincing argument against God?

Sorry, I misread. "Plenty" is the answer for both.

Then why are there still theists here?

Lack of awareness.
Lack of comprehension.
Lack of honesty.
Cognitive dissonance.

Probably many other reasons.

If you want specifics you'd probably have to talk to the theists.

Wait a minute, you said they are convincing arguments. How is there anything that can stand in the way of that?

I just explained why:
Lack of awareness.
Lack of comprehension.
Lack of honesty.
Cognitive dissonance.
Others.

Round and round we go....

You keep going back to there being no guarantee of success when I have already conceded that there is no guarnatee of success. How many times do you plan on bringing up this point?

At 6/14/2012 11:01:37 AM, drafterman wrote:
Had to snip for brevity

At 6/14/2012 10:29:30 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 10:07:44 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:49:11 AM, jharry wrote:

So posting an argument for God is "not even trying"?

It's not trying to convince me, which is the topic here CONVINCING atheists.

In the OP you posted the statement about producing evidence, and explaining it. And then you go on to say Christians use the excuse that it is not their responsibility to convince atheists. In the statement you posted the author has done everything possible to try and convince you of the truth. I think you are either taking the statement out of context or misreading what the author is saying.

Really? You interpret that as the author having done everything possible? I don't especially considering the author would later go one to say:

"You can't convince anyone of anything. It is absolutely impossible."

The author has detailed the responsibility.

In the context of the statement the author has explained that he has produced arguments and evidence for his case. The person has rejected his pleading. He is saying that at this point it is no longer necessarily to continue pleading his case. The person has heard the case and has decided to continue walking forward. Should he keep pleading his case without end? Should he go askbob and find his facebook and email to send endless streams of data pleading his case?

Well, you see, an argument would be a form of convincing and the author eschews convincing in lieu of mere presentation. I really can't address this point further until we put the whole inform/convince issue to bed.

Right, but in the case of hell, I am not afforded the opportunity to learn from my mistake, EVER. Hence the extreme difference.

You have been afforded every second of your life. If you live to be 90 that is a lot longer then most children need to learn. The point that I'm trying to make is the fact that I can tell my children the truth and then can and do reject it, the comment about them realizing it was just a tongue in cheek jab at atheists in general. But you seem to be focusing in on it to avoid the simple fact that humans can deny the truth no matter what degree of "convincing" others may try.

I'm not avoiding that at all. As I said, and will repeat, AGAIN,

The issue here is not whether or not you are successful, the issue is the effort put into trying

And again, should I stalk you until you convert or die?

Since I'm not the atheist, I don't assert that you should focus specifically on me. I imagine some sort of triage method would be in order. But generally convincing atheists, by whatever methods, yes.

Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Savior?

I don't recommend responding until you read, acknowledge, and accept this.

Check, check and check.

You keep going back to physical actions and I keep trying to remove it. It isn't about being able to physical stop me.

Then the blind man and the cliff is even less relevant. If we are just looking at the degree of "convincing" what more can a person tell a blind person that there is a cliff in front of them besides tell them?

You tell me. This is the question and scenario I'm posing to you. You are tied to a tree facing a cliff. You see a blind man walking toward it, and believe he will walk off and die unless warned.

What do you do?

Do you simply say, "Hey, there is a cliff." And that's it? Is that an accurate representation of the level of effort you'd put in here? He can either take it and leave it and you wipe your hands of the consequences?

No, that is not an accurate representation of the statement you posted in the OP or the verse from which it comes from.

It's an accurate representation of the scenario I invented myself. Which I note you still avoid answering.

I never stated that is all I would do, no one has. That is a strawman that you built.

That's the question. That's always been the question. And not a SINGLE person has bothered to answer it. You're the only person that has either bothered to respond to it, but all you've done is whine about how it's possible for you to try and not succeed, despite my repeated insistence that it isn't a question of how you can succeed, but a measure of how you will try.

All you have done is duck every attempt I have made to discuss this with you.

You're not attempting to discuss this with me. I've addressed all of your concerns with this scenario and you still refuse to answer the questions involved with it.

I've pointed out the flaws in your scenario, but you ignore them.

If I establish that the blind man can hear and has a brain then telling them their is a cliff in front of them should do the trick.

And if he says that he doesn't believe you? What then? You just shrug your shoulders and stop trying?

If he refuses to believe me then what else can I do. I can tell you that if I was in that situation I might regret my convincing skills but I would know that did what I could to save him.

Really? So, "Hey, you're about to walk off a clif" is the extent of your convincing skills?

I never stated the extent of my skills, that is and has been your fabrication.

The problem here is you are not honestly representing the statement you posted in the OP.

That's a pretty serious accusation. It's not just an accusation of inaccuracy (which merits its own burden) but that I am doing so knowingly and deliberately.

I'd be interested in hearing your case for this.

You turn the statement into nothing more then a one liner. "Hey, there is a cliff".

At 6/14/2012 11:21:17 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 11:01:37 AM, drafterman wrote:
Had to snip for brevity

At 6/14/2012 10:29:30 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 10:07:44 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:49:11 AM, jharry wrote:

So posting an argument for God is "not even trying"?

It's not trying to convince me, which is the topic here CONVINCING atheists.

In the OP you posted the statement about producing evidence, and explaining it. And then you go on to say Christians use the excuse that it is not their responsibility to convince atheists. In the statement you posted the author has done everything possible to try and convince you of the truth. I think you are either taking the statement out of context or misreading what the author is saying.

Really? You interpret that as the author having done everything possible? I don't especially considering the author would later go one to say:

"You can't convince anyone of anything. It is absolutely impossible."

The author has detailed the responsibility.

No, all the author did was detail a lack of responsibility. But it isn't a question of responsibility

In the context of the statement the author has explained that he has produced arguments and evidence for his case. The person has rejected his pleading. He is saying that at this point it is no longer necessarily to continue pleading his case. The person has heard the case and has decided to continue walking forward. Should he keep pleading his case without end? Should he go askbob and find his facebook and email to send endless streams of data pleading his case?

Well, you see, an argument would be a form of convincing and the author eschews convincing in lieu of mere presentation. I really can't address this point further until we put the whole inform/convince issue to bed.

Right, but in the case of hell, I am not afforded the opportunity to learn from my mistake, EVER. Hence the extreme difference.

You have been afforded every second of your life. If you live to be 90 that is a lot longer then most children need to learn. The point that I'm trying to make is the fact that I can tell my children the truth and then can and do reject it, the comment about them realizing it was just a tongue in cheek jab at atheists in general. But you seem to be focusing in on it to avoid the simple fact that humans can deny the truth no matter what degree of "convincing" others may try.

I'm not avoiding that at all. As I said, and will repeat, AGAIN,

The issue here is not whether or not you are successful, the issue is the effort put into trying

And again, should I stalk you until you convert or die?

Since I'm not the atheist, I don't assert that you should focus specifically on me. I imagine some sort of triage method would be in order. But generally convincing atheists, by whatever methods, yes.

Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Savior?

Savior for what?

I don't recommend responding until you read, acknowledge, and accept this.

Check, check and check.

You keep going back to physical actions and I keep trying to remove it. It isn't about being able to physical stop me.

Then the blind man and the cliff is even less relevant. If we are just looking at the degree of "convincing" what more can a person tell a blind person that there is a cliff in front of them besides tell them?

You tell me. This is the question and scenario I'm posing to you. You are tied to a tree facing a cliff. You see a blind man walking toward it, and believe he will walk off and die unless warned.

What do you do?

Do you simply say, "Hey, there is a cliff." And that's it? Is that an accurate representation of the level of effort you'd put in here? He can either take it and leave it and you wipe your hands of the consequences?

No, that is not an accurate representation of the statement you posted in the OP or the verse from which it comes from.

It's an accurate representation of the scenario I invented myself. Which I note you still avoid answering.

I never stated that is all I would do, no one has. That is a strawman that you built.

It's not a strawman because it's not a statement of fact, it's a quesiton to determine whether or not its true. A question which no one has answered, one way or the other. There is a lot you never stated. One of the things you haven't stated is your answer to the questions.

That's the question. That's always been the question. And not a SINGLE person has bothered to answer it. You're the only person that has either bothered to respond to it, but all you've done is whine about how it's possible for you to try and not succeed, despite my repeated insistence that it isn't a question of how you can succeed, but a measure of how you will try.

All you have done is duck every attempt I have made to discuss this with you.

You're not attempting to discuss this with me. I've addressed all of your concerns with this scenario and you still refuse to answer the questions involved with it.

I've pointed out the flaws in your scenario, but you ignore them.

No, I changed the scenario to incorporated them and noted them as irrelevant whent they were irrelevant. Name one "flaw" I ignored.

If I establish that the blind man can hear and has a brain then telling them their is a cliff in front of them should do the trick.

And if he says that he doesn't believe you? What then? You just shrug your shoulders and stop trying?

If he refuses to believe me then what else can I do. I can tell you that if I was in that situation I might regret my convincing skills but I would know that did what I could to save him.

Really? So, "Hey, you're about to walk off a clif" is the extent of your convincing skills?

I never stated the extent of my skills, that is and has been your fabrication.

I'm not fabricating anything. I'm asking questions.

The problem here is you are not honestly representing the statement you posted in the OP.

That's a pretty serious accusation. It's not just an accusation of inaccuracy (which merits its own burden) but that I am doing so knowingly and deliberately.

I'd be interested in hearing your case for this.

You turn the statement into nothing more then a one liner. "Hey, there is a cliff".

I think you're confusing the OP with my cliff scenario. "hey, there is a cliff." is part of my cliff scenario and appears no where in the OP.

At 6/14/2012 11:01:37 AM, drafterman wrote:

Informing - to state that a fact is true.
Convincing - to explain why a fact is true in such a manner as to alter the target's disposition as to accept that the fact is true.

Where did you get this definition? This is what I found.

satisfying or assuring by argument or proof

having power to convince of the truth, rightness, or reality of something : plausible <told a convincing story>

But still, in all definitions (even yours) there is success.

Relevant here are Aristotle's ethos (the disposition of the speaker to incite respect and trust in the audience); pathos (persuading the audience by appealing to emotion); logos (persuading the audience by appealing to reason).

I think it goes without saying that the mere presentation of a fact can alter the probability in which it is accepted.

If I show you a picture of my cat and then say "I am rich." you are probably less likely to accept that as true than if I showed you a picture of my stash of Gold Bars and then say "I am rich."

In this you have presented evidence. If I still reject the evidence are you no longer convincing me and the paradigm shifts to informing?

The author of the quote (which you say I am being dishonest about) has literally said that a presenter of information can do absolutely nothing to convince another person and has outright dismissed the concepts of ethos, pathos, and logos as invalid. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are the only relevant concepts in terms of persuasion, they are the concepts I am most familiar with.

No the statement in the OP states "it's our job to give you information which makes you capable of seeing God"

To me that is making an argument for God. If you reject you reject, if you accept you accept. That is on the target.

Do you agree with this assessment, that whether or a person is convinced of a fact has absolutely nothing to do with how that fact is presented by another individual?

I do not agree with your assessment of the statement in the OP.

You seem to be jumping back and forth between the one liner and whether or not someone can be convinced. Remember, all definitions you gave for convincing had to do with being successful.

At 6/14/2012 11:03:05 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 10:30:33 AM, jharry wrote:

How many arguments for God have you seen here?

Plenty

How many convincing arguments against God have you seen here?

0, obviously.

That's not what this thread is about.

You have never seen a convincing argument against God?

Sorry, I misread. "Plenty" is the answer for both.

Then why are there still theists here?

Lack of awareness.
Lack of comprehension.
Lack of honesty.
Cognitive dissonance.

Probably many other reasons.

If you want specifics you'd probably have to talk to the theists.

Wait a minute, you said they are convincing arguments. How is there anything that can stand in the way of that?

I just explained why:
Lack of awareness.
Lack of comprehension.
Lack of honesty.
Cognitive dissonance.
Others.

Round and round we go....

You keep going back to there being no guarantee of success when I have already conceded that there is no guarnatee of success. How many times do you plan on bringing up this point?

Because it is only relaying information until it is successful, then it shifts to convincing. But before that it is only information.

At 6/14/2012 11:36:31 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 11:03:05 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 10:30:33 AM, jharry wrote:

How many arguments for God have you seen here?

Plenty

How many convincing arguments against God have you seen here?

0, obviously.

That's not what this thread is about.

You have never seen a convincing argument against God?

Sorry, I misread. "Plenty" is the answer for both.

Then why are there still theists here?

Lack of awareness.
Lack of comprehension.
Lack of honesty.
Cognitive dissonance.

Probably many other reasons.

If you want specifics you'd probably have to talk to the theists.

Wait a minute, you said they are convincing arguments. How is there anything that can stand in the way of that?

I just explained why:
Lack of awareness.
Lack of comprehension.
Lack of honesty.
Cognitive dissonance.
Others.

Round and round we go....

You keep going back to there being no guarantee of success when I have already conceded that there is no guarnatee of success. How many times do you plan on bringing up this point?

Because it is only relaying information until it is successful, then it shifts to convincing. But before that it is only information.

Interesting. So, to you, the following are equal in terms of being convincing?

Speaker A:
"X is true"
"X is true"
"X is true"
"X is true"
(repeat until audience is convinced)

Speaker B:
"X is true..."
"... because of A ..."
"... because of B ..."
"... because of C ..."
(etc.)

You don't see a significant difference between merely presenting a fact and explainging why a fact is true?

At 6/14/2012 11:28:14 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 11:21:17 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 11:01:37 AM, drafterman wrote:
Had to snip for brevity

At 6/14/2012 10:29:30 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 10:07:44 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 9:49:11 AM, jharry wrote:

So posting an argument for God is "not even trying"?

It's not trying to convince me, which is the topic here CONVINCING atheists.

In the OP you posted the statement about producing evidence, and explaining it. And then you go on to say Christians use the excuse that it is not their responsibility to convince atheists. In the statement you posted the author has done everything possible to try and convince you of the truth. I think you are either taking the statement out of context or misreading what the author is saying.

Really? You interpret that as the author having done everything possible? I don't especially considering the author would later go one to say:

"You can't convince anyone of anything. It is absolutely impossible."

The author has detailed the responsibility.

No, all the author did was detail a lack of responsibility. But it isn't a question of responsibility

"it's our job to give you information which makes you capable of seeing God"

Responsibility and what is required.

In the context of the statement the author has explained that he has produced arguments and evidence for his case. The person has rejected his pleading. He is saying that at this point it is no longer necessarily to continue pleading his case. The person has heard the case and has decided to continue walking forward. Should he keep pleading his case without end? Should he go askbob and find his facebook and email to send endless streams of data pleading his case?

Well, you see, an argument would be a form of convincing and the author eschews convincing in lieu of mere presentation. I really can't address this point further until we put the whole inform/convince issue to bed.

Right, but in the case of hell, I am not afforded the opportunity to learn from my mistake, EVER. Hence the extreme difference.

You have been afforded every second of your life. If you live to be 90 that is a lot longer then most children need to learn. The point that I'm trying to make is the fact that I can tell my children the truth and then can and do reject it, the comment about them realizing it was just a tongue in cheek jab at atheists in general. But you seem to be focusing in on it to avoid the simple fact that humans can deny the truth no matter what degree of "convincing" others may try.

I'm not avoiding that at all. As I said, and will repeat, AGAIN,

The issue here is not whether or not you are successful, the issue is the effort put into trying

And again, should I stalk you until you convert or die?

Since I'm not the atheist, I don't assert that you should focus specifically on me. I imagine some sort of triage method would be in order. But generally convincing atheists, by whatever methods, yes.

Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Savior?

Savior for what?

Your Soul. Is this where you feign ignorance so you can avoid answering the question?

I don't recommend responding until you read, acknowledge, and accept this.

Check, check and check.

You keep going back to physical actions and I keep trying to remove it. It isn't about being able to physical stop me.

Then the blind man and the cliff is even less relevant. If we are just looking at the degree of "convincing" what more can a person tell a blind person that there is a cliff in front of them besides tell them?

You tell me. This is the question and scenario I'm posing to you. You are tied to a tree facing a cliff. You see a blind man walking toward it, and believe he will walk off and die unless warned.

What do you do?

Do you simply say, "Hey, there is a cliff." And that's it? Is that an accurate representation of the level of effort you'd put in here? He can either take it and leave it and you wipe your hands of the consequences?

No, that is not an accurate representation of the statement you posted in the OP or the verse from which it comes from.

It's an accurate representation of the scenario I invented myself. Which I note you still avoid answering.

I never stated that is all I would do, no one has. That is a strawman that you built.

It's not a strawman because it's not a statement of fact, it's a quesiton to determine whether or not its true. A question which no one has answered, one way or the other. There is a lot you never stated. One of the things you haven't stated is your answer to the questions.

You imply that all I would do is say "hey, there is a cliff". I have said many times I would talk to the blind man to try to keep him from walking off the cliff.

That's the question. That's always been the question. And not a SINGLE person has bothered to answer it. You're the only person that has either bothered to respond to it, but all you've done is whine about how it's possible for you to try and not succeed, despite my repeated insistence that it isn't a question of how you can succeed, but a measure of how you will try.

All you have done is duck every attempt I have made to discuss this with you.

You're not attempting to discuss this with me. I've addressed all of your concerns with this scenario and you still refuse to answer the questions involved with it.

I've pointed out the flaws in your scenario, but you ignore them.

No, I changed the scenario to incorporated them and noted them as irrelevant whent they were irrelevant. Name one "flaw" I ignored.

All of them. The fact that no one said the would just say, "hey, there is a cliff".

If I establish that the blind man can hear and has a brain then telling them their is a cliff in front of them should do the trick.

And if he says that he doesn't believe you? What then? You just shrug your shoulders and stop trying?

If he refuses to believe me then what else can I do. I can tell you that if I was in that situation I might regret my convincing skills but I would know that did what I could to save him.

Really? So, "Hey, you're about to walk off a clif" is the extent of your convincing skills?

I never stated the extent of my skills, that is and has been your fabrication.

I'm not fabricating anything. I'm asking questions.

Did I ever say my convincing skills was "Hey, you're about top walk off a cliff"?

The problem here is you are not honestly representing the statement you posted in the OP.

That's a pretty serious accusation. It's not just an accusation of inaccuracy (which merits its own burden) but that I am doing so knowingly and deliberately.

I'd be interested in hearing your case for this.

You turn the statement into nothing more then a one liner. "Hey, there is a cliff".

I think you're confusing the OP with my cliff scenario. "hey, there is a cliff." is part of my cliff scenario and appears no where in the OP.

I know, you substituted "it's our job to give you information which makes you capable of seeing God" with "hey, there is a cliff". That is a key ingredient of your

At 6/14/2012 11:41:21 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 11:36:31 AM, jharry wrote:

At 6/14/2012 11:03:05 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 6/14/2012 10:30:33 AM, jharry wrote:

How many arguments for God have you seen here?

Plenty

How many convincing arguments against God have you seen here?

0, obviously.

That's not what this thread is about.

You have never seen a convincing argument against God?

Sorry, I misread. "Plenty" is the answer for both.

Then why are there still theists here?

Lack of awareness.
Lack of comprehension.
Lack of honesty.
Cognitive dissonance.

Probably many other reasons.

If you want specifics you'd probably have to talk to the theists.

Wait a minute, you said they are convincing arguments. How is there anything that can stand in the way of that?

I just explained why:
Lack of awareness.
Lack of comprehension.
Lack of honesty.
Cognitive dissonance.
Others.

Round and round we go....

You keep going back to there being no guarantee of success when I have already conceded that there is no guarnatee of success. How many times do you plan on bringing up this point?

Because it is only relaying information until it is successful, then it shifts to convincing. But before that it is only information.

Interesting. So, to you, the following are equal in terms of being convincing?

Speaker A:
"X is true"
"X is true"
"X is true"
"X is true"
(repeat until audience is convinced)

Speaker B:
"X is true..."
"... because of A ..."
"... because of B ..."
"... because of C ..."
(etc.)

You don't see a significant difference between merely presenting a fact and explainging why a fact is true?

It has never been stated that speaker A was how it is done, that is your fabrication. Part of this strawman.

"it's our job to give you information which makes you capable of seeing God"

At 6/14/2012 11:43:49 AM, jharry wrote:

"You can't convince anyone of anything. It is absolutely impossible."

The author has detailed the responsibility.

No, all the author did was detail a lack of responsibility. But it isn't a question of responsibility

"it's our job to give you information which makes you capable of seeing God"

Responsibility and what is required.

Again, the context here is in terms of convincing. Of which the author has said there is no responsibility. In fact, he said it was impossible.

Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Savior?

Savior for what?

Your Soul. Is this where you feign ignorance so you can avoid answering the question?

If I am to treat this as a serious set of questions then this is where I take extra precaution to make sure you are explicit about what you are talking about so the conversation doesn't get bogged down by false accusations of dishonesty.

Why does my soul need saving?

I don't recommend responding until you read, acknowledge, and accept this.

Check, check and check.

You keep going back to physical actions and I keep trying to remove it. It isn't about being able to physical stop me.

Then the blind man and the cliff is even less relevant. If we are just looking at the degree of "convincing" what more can a person tell a blind person that there is a cliff in front of them besides tell them?

You tell me. This is the question and scenario I'm posing to you. You are tied to a tree facing a cliff. You see a blind man walking toward it, and believe he will walk off and die unless warned.

What do you do?

Do you simply say, "Hey, there is a cliff." And that's it? Is that an accurate representation of the level of effort you'd put in here? He can either take it and leave it and you wipe your hands of the consequences?

No, that is not an accurate representation of the statement you posted in the OP or the verse from which it comes from.

It's an accurate representation of the scenario I invented myself. Which I note you still avoid answering.

I never stated that is all I would do, no one has. That is a strawman that you built.

It's not a strawman because it's not a statement of fact, it's a quesiton to determine whether or not its true. A question which no one has answered, one way or the other. There is a lot you never stated. One of the things you haven't stated is your answer to the questions.

You imply that all I would do is say "hey, there is a cliff". I have said many times I would talk to the blind man to try to keep him from walking off the cliff.

I implied no such thing. I asked questions. Questions aren't implications.
Can you be more specific as to how you would talk to him?

That's the question. That's always been the question. And not a SINGLE person has bothered to answer it. You're the only person that has either bothered to respond to it, but all you've done is whine about how it's possible for you to try and not succeed, despite my repeated insistence that it isn't a question of how you can succeed, but a measure of how you will try.

All you have done is duck every attempt I have made to discuss this with you.

You're not attempting to discuss this with me. I've addressed all of your concerns with this scenario and you still refuse to answer the questions involved with it.

I've pointed out the flaws in your scenario, but you ignore them.

No, I changed the scenario to incorporated them and noted them as irrelevant whent they were irrelevant. Name one "flaw" I ignored.

All of them. The fact that no one said the would just say, "hey, there is a cliff".

Well, wrong. You noted the "flaw" about physical interaction making the analogy invalid. I altered the scenario to remove that discepancy. Did you miss this?

Also, yeah, no one said they would just say, "hey, there is a cliff" because no one is answering the questions or responding to the scenario but you.

If I establish that the blind man can hear and has a brain then telling them their is a cliff in front of them should do the trick.

And if he says that he doesn't believe you? What then? You just shrug your shoulders and stop trying?

If he refuses to believe me then what else can I do. I can tell you that if I was in that situation I might regret my convincing skills but I would know that did what I could to save him.

Really? So, "Hey, you're about to walk off a clif" is the extent of your convincing skills?

I never stated the extent of my skills, that is and has been your fabrication.

I'm not fabricating anything. I'm asking questions.

Did I ever say my convincing skills was "Hey, you're about top walk off a cliff"?

No. But you never stated otherwise, either. Hence my questions.