Angry Christians

A Religious Apologist loses his temper with me for asking questions. It seems he thinks this is unfair because I don't "present or defend" my own perspective.  This is strange for two reasons: (a) I thought I did and (b) Even if I didn't, how does that validate the religious arguments provided by the Apologist?

This is how he puts it...

Religious Apologist 

Of course all JimC ever does is ask questions--he never offers to present or defend a perspective of his own without being subject to extreme duress on any given matter--and even then attempts to deflect the conversation away from any honest obligation on his part to either present or defend such! 

JimC  
Perhaps you could give me an example of an issue which you think I haven't provided a view on - then I'd be able to provide you with my view.

Religious Apologist  

Isn't this a perfect example of an agenda-driven response which would once again shift all the burden of the discussion onto others?   Sorry, Jim--this is getting more than tiresome! If you are willing to concede that you have no position of your own that you might present worthy of consideration and evaluation on the part of others--so be it! You thus admit that you play the role of Satan, which is always to accuse, and never to defend! I more than welcome your tacit admission that there is nothing worth defending in your perspective in the first place!

Anyway, I thought it would be a good idea to give everyone who subscribes to the discussion board an opportunity to ask me anything about my perspective. I mean, it's not everyday you get a chance to question Satan directly. I offered to award the best question with a token. 

And what did we get...?

Questioner	Question	Answer	Potential Token Winner?	Notes
Religious Apologist	Really, Jim--is this the best you can offer to the challenge to express and defend your perspective in all your posits?	Yes	No	Not related to religion or a higher power.
Religious Apologist	We're all aware of your admitted background in advertising--and as we all know from advertising, it is a one sided presentation of propaganda which neither expects nor acknowledges other expressed opinions on the matter.	I don't have a "background in advertising" (admitted or otherwise). Two years ago I stated that "I spent many years in the marketing and advertising business." but that's not my background. You then formed an opinion about what my role might have been - a very negative opinion for some reason. Even though I explained to you at the time that my background is not in advertising, you continue to repeat your ad hominem opinions. You shouldn't tar everyone who works or has worked in the advertising industry with the same brush, Many years ago you stated that you had a minor role in the movie industry, during a discussion on immorality, and you explained that your minor role had nevertheless given you an "insider" view. It would never occur to me to jump to a conclusion that the immorality you may have witnessed somehow reflects badly on you. Having said all that, it is true that during my exposure to the advertising world, the parallels and similarities with mainstream religion were striking. Finally I should point out that your assumption about how advertising works is not strictly accurate. There is propaganda but successful advertising relies on a deep understanding of the target audience, and advertising companies spend fortunes on researching and understanding people's opinions. Public opinion can demolish an advertising campaign, especially with the advent of social media.	No	Not a question. Not related to religion or a higher power
Religious Apologist	Again, you redirect responsibility for honest presentation of one's perspective onto others and pretend that this stunt of yours--where you remain in the driver's seat--reflects an honest exchange of views.	My impression was that you considered me to be in the "driving seat" when I was asking questions. Now you say I'm in the "driving seat" because I'm answering questions. Perhaps a better analogy would be that you are now in the driving seat, but you can't get the engine started.	No	Not a question. Not related to religion or a higher power
Religious Apologist	Here's my challenge--previously expressed: present and be willing to defend your views on whatever matter that you would expect others to do so! Thanks for understanding what a real give-and-take discussion (hopefully for the enlightenment of all parties) is all about!	As far as I can tell, I have presented and have been willing to defend my views on whatever matter that I would expect others to do so. This is your opportunity to refer to a view that you consider I have been unwilling to defend. In fact I've given you many such opportunities, but you are always unable to find a single example. In the absence of evidence your allegation remains unfounded. I do sometimes wonder if the constant appearance of this allegation is a way for you to avoid responding on topic when you've lost the argument  - ad hominem again	No	Not related to religion or a higher power.
Evangelical Christian	Have you no shame? Identify my "quoting the Gospels to demonstrate the Gospels are true." Date please?	I possess a full range of emotions, including shame. The quote was "JimC... continually confirms for me the wisdom of the Bible. --"The Gospel is foolishness to those who will not believe." and the date was 12 Dec 2013 at 5:53PM (UK time)	No	Not a question. Not related to religion or a higher power
Evangelical Christian	But who cares? I only care about the implication that I should have known your definition ["information received from other people which cannot be substantiated"] when it isn't even a recognized definition. Your so-called definition was not even in the dictionary. This is the kind of stupid junk… etc.	According to the Oxford English Dictionary, hearsay is "information received from other people which cannot be substantiated" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/hearsay I am making an assumption that the Oxford English Dictionary is not "stupid junk".	No	Not a question. Not related to religion or a higher power
Religious Apologist	Would you have us confuse the difference between eyewitness testimony and hearsay?	No I wouldn't. They are obviously different. Eyewitness testimony is an account given by people of an event they have witnessed. Hearsay is information received from other people which cannot be substantiated. People who claim the gospels are eye witness accounts are confusing eyewitness testimony with hearsay	No	Seems to be more of an accusation than a genuine question!
Deist	Do you believe god exists in any form and why?	If I was forced to answer only with a yes or no, I'd say "no" and the reason why is that I've yet to see any evidence to support the existence of a god or gods. A longer answer is that I consider the existence of a god or gods to be extremely unlikely because I've yet to see any evidence to support the existence of a god or gods, so I live my life on the assumption that there are no gods. However, I also believe that anything is possible in an infinite reality, so the existence of a god or gods is not impossible. There's an even longer answer which requires exploring what the word "god" actually means. Without a definition it's impossible to answer the question, so when I say the existence of a god is unlikely, I'm making unconscious assumptions about what a god is, which might be totally different to the concept of god that is in your mind when you ask the question.	Yes	-
Atheist	Who has more credibility, God or Piers Morgan?	In my opinion Piers Morgan has zero credibility, therefore God must have more credibility than Piers Morgan	Yes	-
Born Again Christian	What evidence would convince you that God exists?	There is a long answer but assuming it's the Christian God in this case, the short answer is that if I were to see Christians praying to Jesus for amputees' missing limbs to grow back, and the limbs grew back, then I would believe their God exists. (More precisely - my level of belief would shift from 5% to at least 95% which in my view qualifies as belief as I don't think anything can be 100% certain)	Yes	-
Pantheist	Which religion do you think has the best headgear and/or facial hair? do you feel this is a requirement for a credible religion?	For me, Sikhism wins the headgear/facial hair combo every time. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/13/article-0-16E8BEE0000005DC-20_634x948.jpg I think either headgear OR distinctive facial hair is a requirement for a credible religion, but not necessarily both.	Yes	-
Evangelical Christian	I invite JimC to tell us what parts [of the Bible] to which he refers as being false. Limit yourself to the alleged fairy tales and myths, etc, that actually matter to our Christian beliefs and faith - i.e., a Sovereign God and His plan for our Redemption.	I'm assuming this question relates to the stories of Jesus in the Gospels which demonstrate His divinity (virgin birth; resurrection; ascension). Short answer: The Gospels don't claim to be eye witness accounts of Jesus's life therefore we shouldn't assume they are. Longer answer: The Gospels are theological - they are not historical, they are not journalism. The original meaning of the word Gospel is "good news" and that's the context they should be kept in. They are stories by anonymous authors which include descriptions of supernatural events that the authors don't even claim to have witnessed. A story which says some people saw something, is hearsay. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/gospels.html	Yes	-