I have an idea! Since gods aren’t real let’s debate how the Christian gods are “universally reliable.” Shall we? After all, when a notion isn’t real, how does a charlatan best obscure that fact? Well, said charlatan debates the characteristics ascribed to it, in arguendo. As it relates to gods, one debates one of the traits a believer has assigned to his god deceptively leaving unstated the premise: for the sake of argument, assume this god, as defined, is real.
We could, for instance, debate the size of Thor’s hammer or how far Zeus could hurl a lightning bolt. Thor wasn’t real, but how big was his hammer? Zeus didn’t exist, but, whaddya think, he could throw lightning to the moon? Bible gods, Bible Jesuses, and Bible Holy Ghosts observably do not exist, so let’s work from the implicit assumption that they do exist while we debate how Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all the same, and, yet, all separate. Bible god doesn’t exist, so let’s debate how the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of god. Leaving the assumptions unstated leaves those credulous Christians thinking our debate concerns things that aren’t imaginary. So, by all means, do let’s use “debate” as a tool of deception in our discussion about the trait of being “universally reliable,” which at least one Christian uses to define his god.
…Gods don’t exist, so let’s “debate” why gods allow suffering. Damn. Religious deception at its best.
This is advice I could stand to take from time to time. I’ve got to try to remember to keep the dialog focused where it matters and not get led off on too many rabbit trails. Rabbit trails can be interesting, sure, but they’re bound to be frustrating if that’s where you spend most of your time.