Lord Byron wrote:
<<<Thank goodness that PWP has the sense not to discuss such an outdated book of drivel. You go and discuss the bible elsewhere.>>>
 
Peter wrote:
"I disagree that it is 'an outdated book of drivel'."
 
Since you are a Christian, I would not expect you to accept lordbyron's characterization above. But no Christian I've ever met has been able to prove to me that the collection of primitive writings known as "the Bible" has any relevance to my life.
 
You yourself wrote to the Rev: "Philosophical arguments are much more important than any 'evidential' argument because, absent of actual first hand knowledge, no one can say anything difinitively about what historically happened in any time--philosophy, on the other hand, does not need history in order to be right."
 
This just tells me that one needs philosophy, not the Bible. And I agree wholeheartedly. Besides, why read the Bible when you could read Atlas Shrugged?
 
Peter wrote:
"However, it is pointless to discuss it at this point due to the fact that the atheist worldview is completely different from the theist worldview."
 
I have to intervene on this matter again. There is no such thing as "the atheist worldview," Peter. Atheism is nothing more than the absence of god-belief. It tells us only what one does not believe; it does not tell us what one does believe or hold to be true. You'll see that many atheists reject Objectivism, a worldview (i.e., a philosophy) which is atheistic in nature (since it rejects god-belief as irrational). In the context of my point here, this can only serve to indicate that atheists may hold any variety of ideas which constitute their general philosophical outlook, and that by no means are they unified in their worldview by virtue of their atheism.
 
Furthermore, atheism, for me anyhow, is not a primary. It is a consequence of my allegiance to reason. In other words, I do not begin my philosophizing with "the assumption that God does not exist" as many theists claim to be the case. It should be very clear to everyone who has been reading that I begin my philosophizing with the axioms, and reason from there onwards. I do not begin with "the assumption that God does not exist" any more than I begin with "the assumption that Allah does not exist" or "the assumption that Scooby Doo is not a real dog." Negations are not properly axiomatic; they are only possible in contrast to affirmations.
 
Peter wrote:
"In short, we could argue all day about whether the border between Kansas and Nebraska is fair, but if one side doesn't even believe in the existence of Nebraska then the argument is futile and pointless."
 
Point taken. But then again, if the Bible does not address many of the philosophical issues which come up in debate (and indeed, we know that it does not; it does not even define its own key terms!), then naturally Bible-believers must go outside their Bible in order to find answers (indeed, earlier you were referencing Descartes rather than Jesus!), and this naturally leads to borrowing from non-biblical worldviews in order for modern theists to play. These facts only go to reinforce the spirit of lordbyron's characterization above, which you have rejected.
 
CertainVerdict