Re your first comment, I could not agree more. My point in step three is that one must understand the position or argument they wish to refute. I gave as an example an anti-religious argument forwarded by Mr. Dawkins. I see you are a much more cogent debater than is he.
Re your second comment, my point here is, I think, also in agreement with your position. One should seek to know the person and or group they are debating. Learn for yourself rather than generalizing is what I am going for.
Thanks for your comments.
p.s. what is with the god(s) thing? I do not understand this. It seems to me that if an athiest is refuting a monotheist he/she is arguing against a single god, and against multiple gods if arguing a politheist. So why is there a need for a vague term?
more » respond »
Burtworm I enjoyed reading your latest comment. I fully understand how other monotheistic religions must feel about the trinity. I will go one more step and say that Christians do not understand it either. Any Christian who claims to understand the trinity, by definition does not. (The trinity is a mystery and thus cannot be understood. The closest we can get is the St. Patrick example.)
more » respond »
Enthusiast
1906 Points
