[youtube] God fails to cure baby of blindness

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Akrasia,
There's a post by absolam somewhere above where absolam states that the logical contradiction between an all-knowing, all-powerful, benevolent deity and the existence of evil is "apparent." Absolam's such a tease. However, this does indicate absolam's school of thought. However, I'd probably avoid taking the bait from absolam: the feigned ignorance about the free will theodicy argument shows what you're in for if you try to engage.

To be fair, if it indicates anyone's school of thought, it's Akrasias. It was his choice of wording that I referred to.

Bristolscale7

Absolam wrote: »

To be fair, if it indicates anyone's school of thought, it's Akrasias. It was his choice of wording that I referred to.

What are you saying then? That you're as useful as a second rectum on my elbow?

robindch

Absolam wrote: »

On that we'll have to agree to disagree, for my part I like to think my prose is more revelatory than obfuscatory.

In that, I suspect you are in a minority of one. If any other poster wishes to add to that number, please do.

robindch

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

That you're as useful as a second rectum on my elbow?

Polite disagreement - day and night. Comparing one's fellow posters to bums - nope.

Thanking youze.

Akrasia

Absolam wrote: »

Indeed, it's exactly that sort of thing that I think would dissuade a Christian poster from discussing theodicy on A&A. Thank you for making the point.

So you agree with me, they're afraid of having their bubble burst, so they don't engage with people who might actually know what they're talking about.

Well... a theodicy isn't an argument for God, really, it's a defense of God, which obviously depends on the fact that God exists.

A theodicy is a justification or a defense of the character or moral nature of a god. You can discuss the moral nature of fictional characters without having to believe that they exist.

I'm afraid you have a different idea of the purpose of our conversation than I do.

Please tell me what the purpose of our conversation is then?

I'll be interested to see a theodicy presented by someone who believes it's defensible; I've no interest in finding one.

So you've admitted that you're interested in theodicy but by default, anything an atheist has to say on the matter is automatically irrelevant and you also refuse to even present an argument that you yourself find convincing.

Talk about closed minded..

You obviously are interested in at least finding something in them that you can use to demonstrate your ability to defeat Christian argument

'Christian argument' is that some special kind of logic that only applies to christians? I think I've actually come across it before...

my feeling is you're not demonstrating anything unless you're discussing it with someone who has set forth and is prepared to defend the position.

And that person is clearly not you. Maybe you can invite some other christian who could come over here and defend theodicy on this thread? Is there anyone on the christianity forum whose views and knowledge on the matter you respect?

So... now you do think it's up to atheists to present arguments in favour of god? That was a quick reversal!

It's not 'up to' atheists. That implies that it's our burden of proof. Just because we can volunteer arguments for the purpose of discussion doesn't mean it was 'up to' atheists to do so.

Samaris

Gooooing all the way back to the first page, because I only got through the first page before I was staring at the inside of my own skull due to eyerolling...even not being particularly religious, I can see a potential "reason" for God allowing babies to be born blind (*insert malady here*).

Due to our biological make-up (that the DNA of two humans match up to create a third human that is biologically different), as well as faulty genes getting eradicated, some faulty ones match up to other faulty ones and cause..er..faults. For the system to work (and continuously improve our ability to adapt to our surroundings), this also needs to happen from time to time. And secondly, if human existence was perfect and in no need of any improvement, humans would not develop our awesome ability to meet challenges and develop empathy either. There's two arguments for it off the bat and I'm not even blindly faithful. It's a bit lazy to assume "god does mean **** to babies" is a de facto and other Latin phrases a god-killer argument.

Although...is it really only me that feels it's weird that people go "God does this to BABIES" as if doing it to children, animals and adults is totally a-okay? I realise the word "babies" is particularly emotive, but the argument doesn't make a great deal of sense. Like, there's enough other arguments without bringing in moderately daft ones.


Edit to Absolam - well, anyone that deliberately comes onto A&A to advance arguments specifically for Christian theocracy does kinda deserve all they get.

Bristolscale7

Samaris wrote: »

Edit to Absolam - well, anyone that deliberately comes onto A&A to advance arguments specifically for Christian theocracy does kinda deserve all they get.

Absolam advances no arguments.

King Mob

Samaris wrote: »

Due to our biological make-up (that the DNA of two humans match up to create a third human that is biologically different), as well as faulty genes getting eradicated, some faulty ones match up to other faulty ones and cause..er..faults. For the system to work (and continuously improve our ability to adapt to our surroundings), this also needs to happen from time to time. And secondly, if human existence was perfect and in no need of any improvement, humans would not develop our awesome ability to meet challenges and develop empathy either. There's two arguments for it off the bat and I'm not even blindly faithful. It's a bit lazy to assume "god does mean **** to babies" is a de facto and other Latin phrases a god-killer argument.

Well there's simply no reason for god to do it like this.
If he is all powerful and all knowing, then he could have easily made it so the system doesn't produce faults. Or even failing that for some reason, he could easily just undo these as they happen and before it actually effects any humans.
Secondly, there's also no reason at all for why he couldn't just make us with our abilities already developed or set up a system where they could develop without untold suffering.

And then, it begs the question of why he started these systems in the first place? What possible reason for wanting us to develop our empathy would justify giving children cancer?

Would any person who gave a child an incurable disease ever have a justifiable reason for doing so? (Especially if they could have easily gotten the same outcome they wanted with a different, less cruel way?)
Any rational person knows that there isn't, which is why most theists who don't just ignore this contradiction say that god is somehow exempt or beyond our morality. Which is really an admission that he isn't good.

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

What are you saying then? That you're as useful as a second rectum on my elbow?

As I recall, I was saying that I couldn't think of a compelling reason why I would ever reflect on the problem of theodicy. I asked if perhaps you could explain your own preoccupation with it (rather than setting forth what you think are other peoples views in order to demonstrate your ability to argue against your own points), and suggested that if it had any merit then perhaps you'd pique my interest. You never did explain it though... you just decided to go for the ad hominem instead

Absolam

Akrasia wrote: »

So you agree with me, they're afraid of having their bubble burst, so they don't engage with people who might actually know what they're talking about.

Nope. I think they're more likely to feel that contributing to a discussion of theodicies is likely to degenerate into being required to prove the existence of God; whilst they may be interested in the former, they may be less interested in the latter.

Akrasia wrote: »

A theodicy is a justification or a defense of the character or moral nature of a god. You can discuss the moral nature of fictional characters without having to believe that they exist.

But if their character or nature is attacked on the basis that the foundation of that character, their existance, is unprovable, the discussion is curtailed; and you demonstrated your willingness to do just that with your paper mache and glitter comment.

Akrasia wrote: »

Please tell me what the purpose of our conversation is then?

To point out to you how ridiculous it is to present a half arsed version a theist argument, rebut it, and expect a theist to appear and defend it. Especially in an Atheist forum.

Akrasia wrote: »

So you've admitted that you're interested in theodicy but by default, anything an atheist has to say on the matter is automatically irrelevant and you also refuse to even present an argument that you yourself find convincing. Talk about closed minded..

I never said any such thing, you just totally made that up.

Akrasia wrote: »

'Christian argument' is that some special kind of logic that only applies to christians? I think I've actually come across it before...

Nope, it's an argument put forward on behalf of Christianity. Something that you've failed to encourage on the thread so far

Akrasia wrote: »

And that person is clearly not you. Maybe you can invite some other christian who could come over here and defend theodicy on this thread? Is there anyone on the christianity forum whose views and knowledge on the matter you respect?

It certainly isn't me, though I don't know why you'd imagine I'd want to pimp your argument for you? If you can't manage it by yourself, why would anyone else bother?

Akrasia wrote: »

It's not 'up to' atheists. That implies that it's our burden of proof. Just because we can volunteer arguments for the purpose of discussion doesn't mean it was 'up to' atheists to do so.

Can you make up your mind? First you say "It is not up to atheists to present arguments in favour of god.". Then you say "The problem is that theists are often either unable or unwilling to support their own position, that sometimes Atheists need to step in and play devils advocate for the purpose of discussion.". Now you're saying it's not up to atheists again? Or are you saying you want to provide the argument (as you have, for both sides) but you want someone else to provide the proof? That's a bit lazy in fairness...

Absolam

Samaris wrote: »

Edit to Absolam - well, anyone that deliberately comes onto A&A to advance arguments specifically for Christian theocracy does kinda deserve all they get.

Well, it was about theodicy, not theocracy, but I think you're close to the mark; my point is and has been that it's unlikely anyone would come onto A&A to advance arguments for Christian theodicies, because of all they'd get.

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Absolam advances no arguments.

Not in favour of theocracy (or theodicies) anyways....

Akrasia

Absolam wrote: »

Nope. I think they're more likely to feel that contributing to a discussion of theodicies is likely to degenerate into being required to prove the existence of God; whilst they may be interested in the former, they may be less interested in the latter.

Only if they're debating with you. The only person in this thread who has said that the existence of god is required to discuss theodicy is you.

I have said that an alternative (and better) explanation for natural evil is that god does not exist, but it's still perfectly possible to discuss the character of the christian god without going into whether or not he exists.

But if their character or nature is attacked on the basis that the foundation of that character, their existance, is unprovable, the discussion is curtailed; and you demonstrated your willingness to do just that with your paper mache and glitter comment.

It's possible to discuss the moral nature of a fictional character. Entire libraries are filled with analysis of the characters of shakespearean plays.

My paper mache and glitter comment was to do with the idea that some things are just plainly wrong, and you can pretend that they're not wrong, if you deliberately avoid talking to people who will point out how wrong you are.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy no matter what the topic is. You can't assume the conclusion in the premises. It is absurd if you argue that god exists, therefore god exists. God's existence is not the topic of this thread however, because as it has been repeatedly pointed out, we can discuss the character of the christian god as he is defined by christians without having to worry about how real he is. It's a separate debate.

Not debating theodicy with atheists because we don't believe in god, is as ludicrous as not discussing glitter and paper mache housing with engineers because they don't believe in the magical powers of glitter. Believing in magic glitter won't stop the house from falling down

To point out to you how ridiculous it is to present a half arsed version a theist argument, rebut it, and expect a theist to appear and defend it. Especially in an Atheist forum.

In that case, my has devolved into telling you how ridiculous it is to go into a topic telling someone how half arsed their arguments are without actually engaging with any of them.

I'd much rather engage with the arguments though

I never said any such thing, you just totally made that up.

Which part of that haven't you said? that you're interested in theodicy? because you said that, or that don't think anything an atheist has to say on the matter is relevant because they don't accept that god is real? because you've said that repeatedly.

Nope, it's an argument put forward on behalf of Christianity. Something that you've failed to encourage on the thread so far

I've been encouraging it, i've not even been subtle, I've repeatedly asked you to provide arguments on behalf of christianity, over and over again, and I'm doing it now again. How much encouragement do you need?

It certainly isn't me, though I don't know why you'd imagine I'd want to pimp your argument for you?

pimp my argument? huh? I'm just asking you to show me where I'm wrong.

If you can't manage it by yourself, why would anyone else bother?

pimp my argument? huh? I'm just asking you to show me where I'm wrong.

Because it's a discussion forum, and if someone brought to my attention a thread somewhere where a position i strongly believe in is being challenged and there is nobody defending it, I'd be more than happy to jump in and defend my views.

Can you make up your mind? First you say "It is not up to atheists to present arguments in favour of god.". Then you say "The problem is that theists are often either unable or unwilling to support their own position, that sometimes Atheists need to step in and play devils advocate for the purpose of discussion.". Now you're saying it's not up to atheists again? Or are you saying you want to provide the argument (as you have, for both sides) but you want someone else to provide the proof? That's a bit lazy in fairness...

for the purpose of discussion

Did you ever do debates at school? You're given a position that you might not agree with, and you are told to defend that position. The point is to have a debate, or discussion. On this thread, it was probably just going to be a bunch of atheists talking about how we've never seen a good defence for god's moral character, but then a couple of christians came in and you in particular have made a point that we're not qualified to have an opinion on theodicy, that our arguments are half arsed, but that you'll make no attempt to refute any of them (should be pretty easy given how half arsed they are)

Akrasia

Samaris wrote: »

Gooooing all the way back to the first page, because I only got through the first page before I was staring at the inside of my own skull due to eyerolling...even not being particularly religious, I can see a potential "reason" for God allowing babies to be born blind (*insert malady here*).

Due to our biological make-up (that the DNA of two humans match up to create a third human that is biologically different), as well as faulty genes getting eradicated, some faulty ones match up to other faulty ones and cause..er..faults. For the system to work (and continuously improve our ability to adapt to our surroundings), this also needs to happen from time to time. And secondly, if human existence was perfect and in no need of any improvement, humans would not develop our awesome ability to meet challenges and develop empathy either. There's two arguments for it off the bat and I'm not even blindly faithful. It's a bit lazy to assume "god does mean **** to babies" is a de facto and other Latin phrases a god-killer argument.

Although...is it really only me that feels it's weird that people go "God does this to BABIES" as if doing it to children, animals and adults is totally a-okay? I realise the word "babies" is particularly emotive, but the argument doesn't make a great deal of sense. Like, there's enough other arguments without bringing in moderately daft ones.


Edit to Absolam - well, anyone that deliberately comes onto A&A to advance arguments specifically for Christian theocracy does kinda deserve all they get.

There are loads of biological reasons why people get sick and suffer. But god is supposed to have the following 3 properties

All knowing (omniscience) which means he knows about all the suffering in the world

All Powerful (omnipotent) which means he can act to do anything he wants as long as it is logically possible (he can't create something too heavy for himself to lift, but he can intervene in the world, on scales anywhere from creating the entire universe out of nothing, to turning water into wine)

All loving (omnibenevolent) which means he loves everyone of us and would never do anything morally wrong.

So with these three properties in mind, why does god allow babies to be born with their brain outside of their skull. Encephalocele is almost always fatal, and when it is, a newborn baby, and it's parents, and their relatives and the staff at the hospital are all put through a horrible and traumatic ordeal that nobody would choose given their own free will.

These babies will die within hours of being born By any moral standard, how is either deliberatey causing or merely allowing this to occur morally good.?


If a human caused this, we would consider them monsters. If someone at a pharmaceutical company knew that the drug they were making would cause Encephalocele in babies but released the drug anyway, we would consider this person to be utterly immoral. Now imagine that this same human also has an antidote that could prevent it from happening in every case, but refuses to release it. Is that a moral person?

But if god creates a universe knowing that this kind of needless suffering would happen, when he can easily intervene to prevent it but chooses not to, Christians still describe him as 'perfectly good'


BTW, the reason babies are chosen for these arguments is because babies are innocent. Nobody can argue that a baby is being punished for something he might have done before (this is sometimes an argument given by apologists)
If an apologist decides to use the punishment argument, they have to say that god is punishing the baby for something it would have done in the future, and most people find that to be a ridiculously cruel argument, because you're telling parents that their dead baby was killed because it would have grown up to do something evil.
(not to mention all the other problems with that argument relating to free will and determinism)

Bristolscale7

If anyone is interested, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a fantastic resource. It provides what is probably the best on-line general overview:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

Absolam

Akrasia wrote: »

Only if they're debating with you. The only person in this thread who has said that the existence of god is required to discuss theodicy is you. I have said that an alternative (and better) explanation for natural evil is that god does not exist, but it's still perfectly possible to discuss the character of the christian god without going into whether or not he exists.

And yet a plethora of Christians aren't leaping to discuss it with you. I've told you why I think that is, but I suspect you're entertaining the notion that it's because no Christian can stand up to your illuminating wit nevertheless

Akrasia wrote: »

It's possible to discuss the moral nature of a fictional character. Entire libraries are filled with analysis of the characters of shakespearean plays. My paper mache and glitter comment was to do with the idea that some things are just plainly wrong, and you can pretend that they're not wrong, if you deliberately avoid talking to people who will point out how wrong you are.

Sure. And I imagine any Christian who had considered discussing theodicies here, on seeing a post like this is likely to decide that that's where your discussion is going to go....

Akrasia wrote: »

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy no matter what the topic is. You can't assume the conclusion in the premises. It is absurd if you argue that god exists, therefore god exists. God's existence is not the topic of this thread however, because as it has been repeatedly pointed out, we can discuss the character of the christian god as he is defined by christians without having to worry about how real he is. It's a separate debate.

Well, you say you could... but so far you're doing a great job of demonstrating that you won't.

Akrasia wrote: »

Not debating theodicy with atheists because we don't believe in god, is as ludicrous as not discussing glitter and paper mache housing with engineers because they don't believe in the magical powers of glitter. Believing in magic glitter won't stop the house from falling down

I think you ought to re-examine that metaphor to be honest.

Akrasia wrote: »

In that case, my has devolved into telling you how ridiculous it is to go into a topic telling someone how half arsed their arguments are without actually engaging with any of them. I'd much rather engage with the arguments though

Whilst it would be entertaining to see you give it a go, I have a feeling you're not going to get the opportunity here.

Akrasia wrote: »

Which part of that haven't you said? that you're interested in theodicy? because you said that, or that don't think anything an atheist has to say on the matter is relevant because they don't accept that god is real? because you've said that repeatedly.

I didn't say I didn't say a part of it, I said I didn't say any such thing.

Akrasia wrote: »

I've been encouraging it, i've not even been subtle, I've repeatedly asked you to provide arguments on behalf of christianity, over and over again, and I'm doing it now again. How much encouragement do you need?

I think you need to work on what you think is encouragement; you're obviously failing miserably to convince anyone to do what you want, so on reflection can you really say you've encouraged them?

Akrasia wrote: »

pimp my argument? huh? I'm just asking you to show me where I'm wrong.

Actually, you were asking me to invite some other christian who could come over here and defend theodicy on this thread.

Akrasia wrote: »

Because it's a discussion forum, and if someone brought to my attention a thread somewhere where a position i strongly believe in is being challenged and there is nobody defending it, I'd be more than happy to jump in and defend my views.

And yet... it's not happening. Interesting, eh?

Akrasia wrote: »

for the purpose of discussion Did you ever do debates at school? You're given a position that you might not agree with, and you are told to defend that position. The point is to have a debate, or discussion. On this thread, it was probably just going to be a bunch of atheists talking about how we've never seen a good defence for god's moral character, but then a couple of christians came in and you in particular have made a point that we're not qualified to have an opinion on theodicy, that our arguments are half arsed, but that you'll make no attempt to refute any of them (should be pretty easy given how half arsed they are)

Ah the heady days of school debates... so very very like life. Yes, we probably were going to a have a bunch of anti-theists talking about how they've never seen a good defence for god's moral character, but their rebuttals would totally rock anyone who tried. Ho hum. I'm sure some will still make the effort, and those who think they honestly do have a good argument will find somewhere they can honestly test it.

Akrasia

Absolam wrote: »

And yet a plethora of Christians aren't leaping to discuss it with you. I've told you why I think that is, but I suspect you're entertaining the notion that it's because no Christian can stand up to your illuminating wit nevertheless
Sure. And I imagine any Christian who had considered discussing theodicies here, on seeing a post like this is likely to decide that that's where your discussion is going to go....
Well, you say you could... but so far you're doing a great job of demonstrating that you won't.
I think you ought to re-examine that metaphor to be honest.
Whilst it would be entertaining to see you give it a go, I have a feeling you're not going to get the opportunity here.
I didn't say I didn't say a part of it, I said I didn't say any such thing.
I think you need to work on what you think is encouragement; you're obviously failing miserably to convince anyone to do what you want, so on reflection can you really say you've encouraged them?
Actually, you were asking me to invite some other christian who could come over here and defend theodicy on this thread.

And yet... it's not happening. Interesting, eh?

Ah the heady days of school debates... so very very like life. Yes, we probably were going to a have a bunch of anti-theists talking about how they've never seen a good defence for god's moral character, but their rebuttals would totally rock anyone who tried. Ho hum. I'm sure some will still make the effort, and those who think they honestly do have a good argument will find somewhere they can honestly test it.

And that's it. I'm officially bored of replying to you on this thread.

cowboyBuilder

Absolam wrote: »

Alternatively;

Anti-theist uses a cute video as a bit of an excuse to deride theism, secure in the feeling that such derision will receive approbation from peers.

:eek:

Yeah, in the Atheism forum .. good grief !!

One eyed Jack

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Yeah, in the Atheism forum .. good grief !!

It did appear to be a bit random in fairness, and the idea that theists must then step up and defend their beliefs In an internet "debate", in a forum where the debating teams aren't even numbers, and there's no pre-set format for the debate?


I may be religious, but I'm not completely stupid :pac:

Absolam

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Yeah, in the Atheism forum .. good grief !!

I know, right? I mean... what could possibly go wrong.

Akrasia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It did appear to be a bit random in fairness, and the idea that theists must then step up and defend their beliefs In an internet "debate", in a forum where the debating teams aren't even numbers, and there's no pre-set format for the debate?


I may be religious, but I'm not completely stupid :pac:

If you have good reasons for your beliefs, than you should comfortable in defending them, Maybe if you're outnumbered you might get tired of being bombarded with too many challenges to those beliefs, but that doesn't stop you from presenting an argument in the first instance.

If you're only able to defend your ideas when you're surrounded by people who agree with you, then that's a very strong indication that you don't have robust reasons for your belief.

lazygal

Akrasia wrote: »

If you have good reasons for your beliefs, than you should comfortable in defending them, Maybe if you're outnumbered you might get tired of being bombarded with too many challenges to those beliefs, but that doesn't stop you from presenting an argument in the first instance.

If you're only able to defend your ideas when you're surrounded by people who agree with you, then that's a very strong indication that you don't have robust reasons for your belief.

This reminds me of a friend of my parents who complained during the marriage equality debates that she felt those voting no constantly had to explain themselves. To which my parents replied they had no issue explaining their reasons for voting yes so they expected those voting no to be able to do the same.

padohaodha

what a pathetic,pathetic misuse of a good news story by the op.

MrPudding

padohaodha wrote: »

what a pathetic,pathetic misuse of a good news story by the op.

I guess it would be too much to ask for you to provide some reasoning for your view?

MrP

padohaodha

n

MrPudding wrote: »

I guess it would be too much to ask for you to provide some reasoning for your view?

MrP

not at all.a good news story of a child getting sight is being used to push an unrelated agenda imo.

One eyed Jack

Akrasia wrote: »

If you have good reasons for your beliefs, than you should comfortable in defending them, Maybe if you're outnumbered you might get tired of being bombarded with too many challenges to those beliefs, but that doesn't stop you from presenting an argument in the first instance.

I'm more comfortable in keeping my beliefs to myself though, that's why I don't feel any need to defend anything to other people. I'm vastly outnumbered by people who scoff about religion daily. I'm not bothered by the fact that those people are non-religious. What makes me wonder is why they feel a need to have everyone else know they're anti-religious. I don't challenge them on why they are anti-religious because I simply don't care enough that they are. I keep my beliefs to myself, it'd be nice if others kept their anti-religious sentiments to themselves, but I don't expect they will any time soon. I'd consider their anti-religious waffling a symptom of crippling insecurity and immaturity tbh.

Those people who are comfortable in their absence/lack of belief, or their belief, they don't feel a need to defend anything to anyone. That's the reason why I feel no reason to present an argument in the first place.

If you're only able to defend your ideas when you're surrounded by people who agree with you, then that's a very strong indication that you don't have robust reasons for your belief.

Nope, it's a very strong indication that I don't get into an argument with someone who's opinion I know already isn't for changing, because it's not only mentally, but physically exhausting. The fact that I would be vastly outnumbered multiplies that mental and physical drainage to the point where it would be detrimental to my mental health to continue.

That's not what I come to A&A for. I enjoy the forum because I don't have to argue about my personal religious beliefs. If I wanted to do that, I'd hang out in the Christianity forum. It's not the being outnumbered that bothers me at all, it's the fact that I'm being challenged to argue when I don't feel a need to argue. If people are looking for an argument about something related to Christianity, then the Christianity forum is a better place for it, rather than the A&A forum where they expect Christians should have to come to argue with them!

That's the height of arrogance IMO.

MrPudding

padohaodha wrote: »

n
not at all.a good news story of a child getting sight is being used to push an unrelated agenda imo.

Meh, you call it pushing an agenda I call it introducing an interesting question.

good contributions to the thread, by the way. You have really added to the sum total of our knowledge. Well done.

MrP

Bristolscale7

So sorry to have troubled your dogmatic slumber padohaodha.

padohaodha

Ha ha ye can't argue the point so ye attack the man.very mature.well done.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If people are looking for an argument about something related to Christianity, then the Christianity forum is a better place for it

Really? A forum where christianity is assumed to be true and 'attacking belief' is a bannable offence. I can see why you'd want the discussion to take place there, all right.