Point Refuted A Thousand Times (P.R.A.T.T.)

[bluegreenearth]

Regardless of your worldview, it is always frustrating and mentally exhausting when someone repeats an out-dated argument that has already been sufficiently refuted numerous times within the same or a different thread. Rather than having to remind the opposition of how the old argument they are attempting to use is demonstrably refuted, I propose we simply respond with the label "PRATT" along with the link to where the refutation was initially posted.

[Zzyzx]

.

Doctrines such as total depravity and substitutionary atonement are by no means universally held among Christians - and subject to a variety of nuances even among those who broadly do accept them - and yet these are apparently such good targets that acknowledging that this vitriolic diatribe applies to the beliefs of only a fraction of Christians is just too much to ask

Is this to say that Substitutionary atonement (Jesus died for us / our sins) applies to only 'a fraction of Christians'?

Of course " a 'fraction' can mean between 1% and 99%. I suspect acceptance of Substitutionary atonement among Christians is closer to the latter than the former.

Do modern Christians reject 1 Corinthians 15:3?

[Mithrae]

Doctrines such as total depravity and substitutionary atonement are by no means universally held among Christians - and subject to a variety of nuances even among those who broadly do accept them - and yet these are apparently such good targets that acknowledging that this vitriolic diatribe applies to the beliefs of only a fraction of Christians is just too much to ask

Is this to say that Substitutionary atonement (Jesus died for us / our sins) applies to only 'a fraction of Christians'?

Of course " a 'fraction' can mean between 1% and 99%. I suspect acceptance of Substitutionary atonement among Christians is closer to the latter than the former.

DI has made assertions that one "needs to" believe the theological caricature he created to be a Christian, that "no Christians" believe in Christianity and so on. If you want to support his claims, perhaps finding some relevant surveys would be appropriate? Your suspicions do not count as particularly weighty evidence I'm afraid: It's quite interesting that anyone who so frequently demands "verifiable evidence" from everyone saying things they don't like to hear would make such a blunder regarding claims to which they are more partial.

Do modern Christians reject 1 Corinthians 15:3?

I suspect that 99% of modern Christians acknowledge that Paul wrote those words and held that opinion. Elsewhere Paul also wrote (echoing Jeremiah, and similar to John) that God's 'new covenant' was one to be found in his people's hearts and minds, not in the written word, "for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life" (eg. Romans 7:6, 2 Cor. 3:3-6). Evangelical Christians and fundamentalist atheists alike seem to adopt an extreme special pleading attitude towards the Book, and struggle with the idea that like a whole host of other literature it may be merely a flawed but useful point of reference.

[bjs]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

If you have to repeat a refutation a thousand times, there is a fairly good chance that your refutation of an argument is not a strong as you think it is.

[Divine Insight]

If we're only allowed to refute the parts of Christianity that Christians all agree with, there will be nothing left to refute.

I didn't even remotely suggest that. But perhaps we could start by trying for some basic honesty and common decency, rather than posting and 'liking' vitriolic brazen falsehoods such as

Christianity is basically emotional masochism. You need to believe the worst about yourself in order to believe in the religion. Of course, as we all know, no Christians actually believe in Christianity. . . . That's how utterly twisted the theology truly is. Christians don't even accept the religion for what it is.

Or is that too much to ask?

The fact that some of our atheist members don't recognize how truly tedious and constantly-refuted these talking points and diatribes such as that in post #5 have become - and already were many years ago - possibly gives a little insight into why some of our Christian members have similar blind spots about their own talking points We all have a tendency to lke the things that we want to hear, without always thinking it through very well. Mantras such as "no evidence for X" or "no valid justification" - or indeed the very idea of a 'point refuted a thousand times,' despite sometimes actually being the case - can only serve to enhance those tendencies, because they reinforce our existing opinions rather than encouraging us to constantly challenge them anew.

My rebuttal to your objections would be that you are simply viewing the theology from a totally different perspective than I am.

You seem to allow that Christians can just make up anything they so desire and call that "Christianity".

My position is that I couldn't care less what individual Christians create in their own imagination. I go solely by what the original doctrines have to say. Period.

If Christians want to deny what their own Holy Book is saying that's fine, but I don't see how that's going to help the theology as a whole.

There are so many problems with your argument.

For one thing if I accept your argument, then I'm looking at an entirely different theology and religion from what's actually written in the Bible. And then there's the question of why I should give that theology any merit at all? From whence did it come? Certainly not from the Bible.

I can make up my own imaginary religions too. What purpose would that serve?

You say,

Doctrines such as total depravity and substitutionary atonement are by no means universally held among Christians

Why should I consider any form of Christianity that makes such a claim? That kind of claim simply isn't compatible with the Biblical stories.

Any Christian who claims that I don't need Jesus to be my penal substitute is also saying that I don't' need Jesus at all. What would I need Jesus for if I am capable of achieving my own salvation via my own merit.

These are forms of "Christianity" that have simply diverged from the original doctrines.

And besides, what would any of this have to do with things like the Canaanites being so stupid to have supposedly knowingly rejected a real God only to go off an attempt to appease a totally nonexistent God by sacrificing their very own babies to it?

Clearly the Biblical Doctrine already shot itself in its own foot long before Christianity even emerged. Even the story of Adam and Eve is an extreme contradiction in so many ways which I didn't even cover.

So your following argument is totally meaningless in this context.

Doctrines such as total depravity and substitutionary atonement are by no means universally held among Christians

All you are saying here is that there exist "Christians" who have already rejected Biblical Doctrine in favor of making up their own incompatible fantasies.

Those Christians are in no position to be supporting the Bible when they have already blatantly rejected it themselves.

Basically here's their argument:

"Oh don't pay any attention to what the Bible says, we've rejected that a long time ago. We now have created a new version of Christianity that totally contradicts the Biblical Narrative."

Why should I bother myself with such nonsense?

That's not a valid apology for Biblical Theology. It's a full-out rejection of Biblical Theology.

What would it even mean?

I don't need to believe in Yahweh and the Old Testament stories?

I don't need Jesus as my savior as I can merit my own salvation?

Why bother believing in this religion at all at that point?

I certainly don't need Jesus to teach me how to be a good person.

In fact, the greatest irony of all is that the so-called "Christians" that you refer to often argue that the teaching of Jesus are "Obviously Good". Well, duh? If they are obviously good, then his incarnation on planet earth was totally useless as humans supposedly already knew what's "Obviously Good", before Jesus ever showed up.

What you are suggesting simple doesn't work. It's already P.R.A.T.T.

In fact, this isn't even close to being the first time that I have refuted this very apologetic approach.

This may come as news to you, but your suggestion here is very OLD HAT.

It's already P.R.A.T.T. anyway. But here we are having to refute it yet again.

It's just a never-ending denial by theists that their apologies simply don't hold water.

It's basically the argument, "We don't think the Bible means what it says".

Well, there you go. Flat out rejection of the Bible. Period.

My position isn't against "Christians". My position is as follows:

The Bible cannot be true as it is written.

I have no need to argue with any so-called "Christians" who already agree with my position.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

If you have to repeat a refutation a thousand times, there is a fairly good chance that your refutation of an argument is not a strong as you think it is.

This doesn't work. Religions people are known to be in denial. That's a fact. If it wasn't a fact then all religious people would be on the same page, but they clearly are not. They aren't even on the same page within their own demoninations much less across the spectrum of the Abrahamic religions: Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, etc.

Also, your same argument must be applied to theists. If they can't even convince each other of their own apologies then their apologies must not be as strong as they think.

Finally, think of what you are suggesting here. It's not only atheists who consider religious apologies to be P.R.A.T.T. The theists themselves consider each others religious apologies to be P.R.A.T.T. as well.

So no, there isn't a "Good Chance" that having to repeat a refutation a thousand times implies that it's not a good refutation. All this means is that religious people are in extreme denial and cling to their own religious beliefs despite the fact that their apologies don't hold water. They can't even convince each other.

Their apologies are clearly weak and not compelling. We can see this even among the theists themselves. So that much is a given.

[amortalman]

Regardless of your worldview, it is always frustrating and mentally exhausting when someone repeats an out-dated argument that has already been sufficiently refuted numerous times within the same or a different thread. Rather than having to remind the opposition of how the old argument they are attempting to use is demonstrably refuted, I propose we simply respond with the label "PRATT" along with the link to where the refutation was initially posted.

From reading the back and forth so far I think PRATT is a useful acronym, at least in this thread. The problem would be getting it into widespread use so that it would not need to be constantly defined.

I like the term and intend to use it (along with the definition for a while) when appropriate. If it is worthy of use it will catch on. If not, it dies a peaceful death. This is what makes language so interesting, never static but always changing so that people may communicate more effectively.

[Zzyzx]

.

If you have to repeat a refutation a thousand times, there is a fairly good chance that your refutation of an argument is not a strong as you think it is.

As each new wave of Theists pass through the Forum the present the same well-refuted 'arguments' -- perhaps convinced they can 'slay the infidel' with their profound thinking. Even some who have been members for a long time still present failed arguments repeatedly.

A case in point: it is common for new (and some old) members to try to defend the worldwide flood 'to the tops of mountains' as literal truth in spite of being unable to provide ANY verifiable evidence -- only speculation from ancient tales.

[Elijah John]

This doesn't work. Religions people are known to be in denial. That's a fact. .

Moderator Comment

Not at all. This has not been established, and doubtful it can ever be. What your statement is, however, is a blanket statement, which is against forum rules. You've been here long enough to know better, and this could well have been a warning. However, I am erring on the side of generosity here.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[wiploc]

ANY of the thousands of gods proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist " awaiting verifiable evidence

You have overstated your case. It's simply not true that all gods are possible.

Consider, for example, a god who is all-powerful yet cannot defeat iron chariots. Or a god who is all-knowing but can't find the kids in the garden. Or who is both perfectly just and perfectly merciful. How about a god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, but who coexists with evil?

[Diagoras]

If you have to repeat a refutation a thousand times, there is a fairly good chance that your refutation of an argument is not as strong as you think it is.

A very good point, and one we should all take note of.

Id hope for an attempt (in debate) to refine the argument, rather than repeat it, although that obviously takes more time and thought. Were conditioned to respond to perceived threats quickly, so thats probably why its easier to just copy and paste, rather than tailor a more precise response.

Lets all keep that (and the number one rule here) in mind.