This response from the same person, who still can't seem to get on the blog, so I'm copying his response together with my own to him.
"Ralph, Since you've already planned to 'blow me out of the water'(which I did, because I can) I really don't see a mind open for discussion".
Now there's an interesting statement. I'm all ready for debate, from any perspective he wants to use, and he accuses me of having a closed mind. Why?
"It is the same unpleasant mind of the True Believer I have engaged in the past".
True believer in what? Belief in the idea that there is a God? This is a strange position for one to take, since there is no proof in either case, that there is or is not a God. I'm accused of having a closed mind, yet he offers nothing, and CANNOT offer anything at all to demonstrate there is no God. Now, if he wants to demonstrate that there s no God, I will still show him why my conclusions are perfectly in accord with his statements, and why my statements would still be true in either case.
he finds it "unpleasant and irrational" because I stated quite simply that I would blow him out of the water in logical debate. Unpleasant, yes. irrational? Prove it.
"Besides, your very first statement of having belief in becoming God is simply open to challenge"
Of course! That's why I wrote it! Still no takers!
"The concept, however, is unproven, and cannot be"
Never, at any time have I said it was provable. What I HAVE said, repeatedly, with still nobody even capable of offering token arguments of any logic, is that the statements made by both Paul and Jesus ARE consistent with what we are now seeing as evidence.
Here's the one I like:
"Belief is not akin to truth".
Really? No kin at all? I'm wondering what certainty of knowledge demonstrates evidence that there is truly no God? Lack of scientific evidence, yes. But that's the problem. Scientific evidence is soooo dependent on axiomatic foundations and repeatable experiments for conclusions. It just can't ever claim completeness.
In fact, the certainty that no God exists is merely a belief. Belief based on evidence? No, a belief based on lack of evidence. The old argument that you can't prove a negative.
Here is the point: Truth is truth, whether there is a God or no God at all. If a statement is made that conforms to reality, and that statement is made about God, then it is quite logical, and quite rational, to believe in the possibility of God's existence, so belief IS akin to truth ONLY if the belief is founded in that which can be demonstrated by evidence.
"That concept is what drives your religion and all others".
My religion? What religion? I've stated before everyone, challenged everyone, looked for any response to show me wrong, that there is no decision procedure by which we may get from "here' to "God". Pray tell, how do I develop a religion based on that?
"I will simply not argue religion".
I don't recall anybody asking you to argue religion, since I don't believe in it myself. The statement is filled with preconceptions, misconceptions, and assumptions, yet it is I who am accused of having a closed mind. Amazing!
"I was frustrated that I was unable to publicly point out the confusion of your thinking".
I'm sitting here like an expectant virgin, waiting for that first experience. I seem to be surrounded by pubescent young men who can only brag, but still don't have the knowledge for doing.
This person also made reference to me calling him a "Randroid" because he followed Ayn Rand, and accused me of ad hominem. Hey, I follow Ayn Rand. I like Ayn Rand. I think she's brilliant. I merely referred to Randroids. I don't think I specifically called him a Randroid.
Unfortunately, for anyone who followed her life, her emphasis on the power of reason also established a kind of religion of "Randroids" who followed her around and copied her, even to carrying long cigarette holders and some even speaking with a Russian accent.
THAT is what I'm talking about, the fact that people have the tendency, even the need, to develop religious qualities even when following someone who claims to be an atheist.
All I'm seeing is presumption, a series of "cockroach terrorist" attacks, where somebody emerges from his rock just long enough to make a statement that proves nothing at all, and then retreats under the rock.
I've laid my case right out there. All I hear is complaints "about" what i say. There seems to be no capability of response to take me on.
I'm ready to take your best effort. And you folks accuse ME of being closed minded?