Is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit a unique benefit?

[Intrepidman]

I have been having a 'conversation' with an Atheist from Great Britain (I think). I'm getting really frustrated because he keeps trying to turn it into a formal debate. I am not a master debater by any stretch of the imagination. I would like some help, and perhaps a ruling.

The things he said are in brackets and bold

Him
[2. That your claim that Christianity does is supported merely by anecdote and hear-say "evidence" and thus is as valid as the claims from FSM and a near infinite number of just-as-plausable belief systems all of which are "supported" merely by anecdote and hear-say.]

1) Guilt by Association (Pastafarians)

Guilt by Association is the attempt to discredit an idea based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it. This is the reverse of an Appeal to Misleading Authority, and might be justly called "Appeal to Anti-Authority". An argument to authority argues in favor of an idea based upon associating an authority figure with the idea, whereas Guilt by Association argues against an idea based upon associating it with disreputable people or groups.

IE, You are attempting to associate Christianity with Pastafarians.

2) The use of quotes is a Appeal to Ridicule

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."

3) False Premise "infinite number of just-as-plausable belief systems". I think even you agree that not all belief systems exactly equally plausible.

And, to the original question:

Him

[Perhaps you are now realizing that merely asserting the "holy spirit" is unique and then admitting that every manifesting characteristic of the holy spirit is *not* unique is inherently contradictory. Is that so?]

Me
NO, I would not admit that any more than admitting that my brand new Honda CBR600RR ABS is not unique even though they are cranked out by a factory. It is physically identical to 100s (1000s?) of others. Yet it is special, unique, and irreplaceable (emotionally) to me. If it got stolen, and the insurance company bought me another one I would have an identical bike, but it just wouldn't be the same.

[byofrcs]

I have been having a 'conversation' with an Atheist from Great Britain (I think). I'm getting really frustrated because he keeps trying to turn it into a formal debate. I am not a master debater by any stretch of the imagination. I would like some help, and perhaps a ruling.

Learn to recognise the types of fallacies and what formal debate is. Formal debate has very precise rules of engagement which few forums use. Pointing out a fallacy is not formal debate but just plain common sense.

The things he said are in brackets and bold

Him
[2. That your claim that Christianity does is supported merely by anecdote and hear-say "evidence" and thus is as valid as the claims from FSM and a near infinite number of just-as-plausable belief systems all of which are "supported" merely by anecdote and hear-say.]

1) Guilt by Association (Pastafarians)

Guilt by Association is the attempt to discredit an idea based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it. This is the reverse of an Appeal to Misleading Authority, and might be justly called "Appeal to Anti-Authority". An argument to authority argues in favor of an idea based upon associating an authority figure with the idea, whereas Guilt by Association argues against an idea based upon associating it with disreputable people or groups.

IE, You are attempting to associate Christianity with Pastafarians.

*only* if he used FSM. He didn't, he placed Christianity in the same boat as every religion. The FSM was created to show the absurdity and it is valid to use it. The onus is on you to provide the "USP" - unique selling point of what you propose that allows the audience to differentiate the religions.

2) The use of quotes is a Appeal to Ridicule

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."

Only if quoted out of context - usually referred to a "Quote-mine". I use *this* to highlight that "this" is being used in a special way.

By using a word in quotes the person is saying that what is presented as that thing deviates from an acceptable definition.

With theists, the "evidence" is usually poor, unsubstantiated, unreasonable, and consisting mostly of special pleading.

3) False Premise "infinite number of just-as-plausable belief systems". I think even you agree that not all belief systems exactly equally plausible.

Yes, but how do we tell these belief systems apart ? Is Christianity better than native Australian Aboriginal beliefs simply because the technical might of the British Empire ? or do we adopt the fallacy of the majority and go with the belief that the most people believe in ?.

To the people that believe in 'x' their faith is as unwavering as any other believer. How do we differentiate ?

It is fair to say that "all belief systems (are) exactly equally plausible" unless you can offer some criteria in which we can judge which belief system is true, or more correct or verifiable.

And, to the original question:

Him

[Perhaps you are now realizing that merely asserting the "holy spirit" is unique and then admitting that every manifesting characteristic of the holy spirit is *not* unique is inherently contradictory. Is that so?]

Me
NO, I would not admit that any more than admitting that my brand new Honda CBR600RR ABS is not unique even though they are cranked out by a factory. It is physically identical to 100s (1000s?) of others. Yet it is special, unique, and irreplaceable (emotionally) to me. If it got stolen, and the insurance company bought me another one I would have an identical bike, but it just wouldn't be the same.

That is a hard one to answer. I've had this debate before WRT the nature of "teleporters". If I copy an image file or a database from one server to another then the files are the same files but they are actually completely different atoms (or electrons or magnetic domains on the disk) but they are the same if I should do any reasonable check (SHA2, md5 etc) on the contents. Same but different. No contradiction, just mis-understanding on what is being compared. I'm leaning towards property dualism here which is still materialism.

Trust me when I say that you can fairly cleanly divide any atheist into one of two camps and the transporter/teleporter argument will do this. Actually don't trust me, trust is blind, - read here, here and finally here for the monster 1199 post, 22710 view debate that had us atheists using every trick in the book against each other ranging from logic, sarcasm, contradiction, and outright ad hominem. My Avatar is the same dog so you'll recognise my stuff.

[Confused]

As this is more related to a discussion and not really science, nor debate, I am moving it to general chat.

[Intrepidman]

I have been having a 'conversation' with an Atheist from Great Britain (I think). I'm getting really frustrated because he keeps trying to turn it into a formal debate. I am not a master debater by any stretch of the imagination. I would like some help, and perhaps a ruling.

Learn to recognise the types of fallacies and what formal debate is. Formal debate has very precise rules of engagement which few forums use. Pointing out a fallacy is not formal debate but just plain common sense.

The things he said are in brackets and bold

Him
[2. That your claim that Christianity does is supported merely by anecdote and hear-say "evidence" and thus is as valid as the claims from FSM and a near infinite number of just-as-plausable belief systems all of which are "supported" merely by anecdote and hear-say.]

1) Guilt by Association (Pastafarians)

Guilt by Association is the attempt to discredit an idea based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it. This is the reverse of an Appeal to Misleading Authority, and might be justly called "Appeal to Anti-Authority". An argument to authority argues in favor of an idea based upon associating an authority figure with the idea, whereas Guilt by Association argues against an idea based upon associating it with disreputable people or groups.

IE, You are attempting to associate Christianity with Pastafarians.

*only* if he used FSM. He didn't, he placed Christianity in the same boat as every religion. The FSM was created to show the absurdity and it is valid to use it. The onus is on you to provide the "USP" - unique selling point of what you propose that allows the audience to differentiate the religions.

2) The use of quotes is a Appeal to Ridicule

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."

Only if quoted out of context - usually referred to a "Quote-mine". I use *this* to highlight that "this" is being used in a special way.

By using a word in quotes the person is saying that what is presented as that thing deviates from an acceptable definition.

With theists, the "evidence" is usually poor, unsubstantiated, unreasonable, and consisting mostly of special pleading.

3) False Premise "infinite number of just-as-plausable belief systems". I think even you agree that not all belief systems exactly equally plausible.

Yes, but how do we tell these belief systems apart ? Is Christianity better than native Australian Aboriginal beliefs simply because the technical might of the British Empire ? or do we adopt the fallacy of the majority and go with the belief that the most people believe in ?.

To the people that believe in 'x' their faith is as unwavering as any other believer. How do we differentiate ?

It is fair to say that "all belief systems (are) exactly equally plausible" unless you can offer some criteria in which we can judge which belief system is true, or more correct or verifiable.

And, to the original question:

Him

[Perhaps you are now realizing that merely asserting the "holy spirit" is unique and then admitting that every manifesting characteristic of the holy spirit is *not* unique is inherently contradictory. Is that so?]

Me
NO, I would not admit that any more than admitting that my brand new Honda CBR600RR ABS is not unique even though they are cranked out by a factory. It is physically identical to 100s (1000s?) of others. Yet it is special, unique, and irreplaceable (emotionally) to me. If it got stolen, and the insurance company bought me another one I would have an identical bike, but it just wouldn't be the same.

That is a hard one to answer. I've had this debate before WRT the nature of "teleporters". If I copy an image file or a database from one server to another then the files are the same files but they are actually completely different atoms (or electrons or magnetic domains on the disk) but they are the same if I should do any reasonable check (SHA2, md5 etc) on the contents. Same but different. No contradiction, just mis-understanding on what is being compared. I'm leaning towards property dualism here which is still materialism.

Trust me when I say that you can fairly cleanly divide any atheist into one of two camps and the transporter/teleporter argument will do this. Actually don't trust me, trust is blind, - read here, here and finally here for the monster 1199 post, 22710 view debate that had us atheists using every trick in the book against each other ranging from logic, sarcasm, contradiction, and outright ad hominem. My Avatar is the same dog so you'll recognise my stuff.

Wow! Many thanks. 24 pages on the McCoy Objection! I think what keeps happening is that I have been allowing him to force me to argue HIS points without first settling the McCoy objection.