I'd Rather...

I'd rather debate a spiritually blind atheist than a brainwashed cult follower.

Why? Because an atheist is a clean slate, but a cultist is full of false doctrine.

It is easier to heal the blind than a meandering fool.

Originally posted by josephw
I'd rather debate a spiritually blind atheist than a brainwashed cult follower.

Why? Because an atheist is a clean slate, but a cultist is full of false doctrine.

It is easier to heal the blind than a meandering fool.

Your debate with the atheist would probably be more fruitful if you didn't start from the false premise that he was 'spiritually blind.' (Or that he suffered from a malady from which he needed to be healed).

From the atheist's point of view, it is not that he 'can't see' but rather that there is nothing to see in the first place. Hardly a diagnosis for blindness.

"I'd Rather..."

"... have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy."

Who coined this seems to depend on who you ask.

Originally posted by Suzianne
"I'd Rather..."

"... have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy."

Who coined this seems to depend on who you ask.

'...full bottle in front o' me than a full frontal lobotomy.'

Sounds better if you get it right.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Your debate with the atheist would probably be more fruitful if you didn't start from the false premise that he was 'spiritually blind.' (Or that he suffered from a malady from which he needed to be healed).

From the atheist's point of view, it is not that he 'can't see' but rather that there is nothing to see in the first place. Hardly a diagnosis for blindness.

So which would you rather be, a spiritually blind atheist, or a brainwashed cultist?

The premise isn't false. Strictly speaking, based on the Biblical model, if one is in denial of the truth, then one is spiritually blind.

Doesn't mean he's stupid. Right?

But a brainwashed cultist is full of false truths. He's a tougher nut to crack.

Originally posted by josephw
So which would you rather be, a spiritually blind atheist, or a brainwashed cultist?

The premise isn't false. Strictly speaking, based on the Biblical model, if one is in denial of the truth, then one is spiritually blind.

Doesn't mean he's stupid. Right?

But a brainwashed cultist is full of false truths. He's a tougher nut to crack.

How many nuts have you cracked, of either kind?

Originally posted by JS357
How many nuts have you cracked, of either kind?

Around here? Not a one. But that's beside the point.

Atheists are more fun to debate too. Cultists can't see the writing on the wall.

Which is better, to see it for what it is and not believe it, or think it means something other than what it says?

Getting my point yet?

Originally posted by josephw
So which would you rather be, a spiritually blind atheist, or a brainwashed cultist?

The premise isn't false. Strictly speaking, based on the Biblical model, if one is in denial of the truth, then one is spiritually blind.

Doesn't mean he's stupid. Right?

But a brainwashed cultist is full of false truths. He's a tougher nut to crack.

As I say, until you get your terminology right your question is moot. (Not to mention loaded). I am not in denial of the truth, just your version of truth. As you are in denial of mine.

It's like me asking you what would you rather be, a brainwashed cultist or a deluded Christian?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
As I say, until you get your terminology right your question is moot. (Not to mention loaded). I am not in denial of the truth, just your version of truth. As you are in denial of mine.

It's like me asking you what would you rather be, a brainwashed cultist or a deluded Christian?

"I am not in denial of the truth, just your version of truth."

My version of the truth? Don't be obtuse Ghost. The truth I believe is clearly delineated in the Bible. That's the truth you don't believe. You've already demonstrated you know what the Bible means by what it says. You're not stupid, and you're not brainwashed by false doctrine. You simply don't believe that what the Bible says is true. That's all there is to it.

I'm not loading any questions. I'm saying what I'm saying straight up.

"As you are in denial of mine."

What truth is that of yours I'm denying? The truth in question is the truth of the Bible of which you don't believe. Or to put it another way, you deny it's true, but I have as yet to hear your truth, except that you claim there is no God. The question is, upon what authority besides your own do you base that claim?

I base my claims of the truth on the authority of the Bible and the clear testimony of the existence of the universe.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"I am not in denial of the truth, just your version of truth."

My version of the truth? Don't be obtuse Ghost. The truth I believe is clearly delineated in the Bible. That's the truth you don't believe. You've already demonstrated you know what the Bible means by what it says. You're not stupid, and you're not brainwashed by false doctrine. You sim ...[text shortened]... he truth on the authority of the Bible and the clear testimony of the existence of the universe.[/b]

My truth, which you are denying, is the non existence of God. I don't recognise the bible as an authority on truth and therefore do not see your truth claim as valid.

I also do not believe the existence of the universe adds any weight to you theistic truth and that the link between the two is entirely your own and completely unproven. - As i've said before, no answer is sometimes better than the wrong answer.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
My truth, which you are denying, is the non existence of God. I don't recognise the bible as an authority on truth and therefore do not see your truth claim as valid.

I also do not believe the existence of the universe adds any weight to you theistic truth and that the link between the two is entirely your own and completely unproven. - As i've said before, no answer is sometimes better than the wrong answer.

"As i've said before, no answer is sometimes better than the wrong answer."

Then you shouldn't have said anything. 😉

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"As i've said before, no answer is sometimes better than the wrong answer."

Then you shouldn't have said anything. 😉[/b]

Bah humbugs.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
'...full bottle in front o' me than a full frontal lobotomy.'

Sounds better if you get it right.

The "full" adds nothing to the joke.

Try this:
"I'd rather have a FREE bottle in front of me than a PRE-frontal lobotomy."

As I said, the origin of this, as well as the wording, seems to depend on who you're asking.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Bah humbugs.

Surely one will do?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Surely one will do?

Atheists like to share.