Delusion In Most Atheists?

Do I take it you consider killing an enemy in war as not justified?

What about executing a convicted killer?

Would you say that people's moral judgement of such things is 'universal'? 

For a Christian, you seem like a rather intellectually honest individual. You may ask me whatever questions you like about what I believe and why. I may even agree to debate you on these forums, if you promise to admit defeat if you are defeated.

They have a lot of similarities but some glaring differences too. I side toward full Preterism. I don't see how you can make sense of Scripture with partial Preterism, or with futurism in any form. 

Then yes, I do understand where you stand, and no I do not agree that it is the biblical stance, nor do I specifically disagree.

If one displays signs of idiocy, and/or proves that they're an idiot, and one, in turn, says they're an idiot, that is not an insult, rather it is a statement of fact.

Your opinions strike me as someone being exactly what they are accusing others as. Until you release those opinions and do more than label me that's all you really have to go by

If one displays signs of idiocy, and/or proves that they're an idiot, and one, in turn, says they're an idiot, that is not an insult, rather it is a statement of fact.

Someone who claims statements of fact to be opinions is claiming to be intelligent, and you're surprised at why I'm not interested in what that person has to say? Comical.

Okay, then the question is why should my instincts operation in the same way yours do?

Because we're both human.

If it is to my benefit to kill others so I will survive what of it? If Hitler had gained world domination and has survived, then whoever he deemed unfit would be eliminated and there would be nothing wrong with it. This begs the question of how you get from what is (descriptive) to an ought (what should be).  From what I witness those in power make the rules. If you live in North Korea you live by a different set of rules from those in the USA. Why is your moral instinct any "better" than that of Kim Jong-un? Because you like it? Well, too bad, he likes the opposite and for you to survive in his country you have to abide by what he decrees. The problem is that you have two different set of rules regarding the same thing (let's say abortion or capital punishment). Who in effect is 'right?' They both can't logically be for they state opposites. It goes against the Law of Identity, the Law of Non-contradiction, and the Laws of Excluded Middles. In effect, it turns logic on its head.

Actions beget actions. That is factual reality. That's why killing for reasons other than an eminent threat is not morally just. If your life is immediately threatened, and killing is the only way to stop that threat from meeting reality, then killing is morally justified. If you kill indiscriminately, you invite others to do the same to you. Good begets good, evil begets evil, actions beget actions. These are basic logical principals, and basic human instincts for survival.

My moral instinct is no different from Kim Jong-un's. Kim is an evil prick who was raised in a morally skewed environment. His emotions were psychologically conditioned. His morality comes from these emotions, instead of reality. As I said previously, those who base their morality on conditioned emotions rather than reality are morally wrong. Kim has exactly the same instincts as I do. He simply ignores them when it comes to morality.

I'm currently already in two time constricted debates, so I'm going to have to pass on that. I don't have time for another debate right now. Plus, I'm honestly not interested in specifically debating the biblical relevance of Preterism. I find that belief system to be irrelevant to the reason I debate against Christianity and theism.

People say there is no evidence for the biblical God. Prophecy is one of many bucket loads full of reasons. What is more, it can be verified via history to a reasonable and logical extent. Thus, there is factual evidence for it. 

A man says "God told me this will happen in 100 years." 100 years later, said thing happens. This does not prove that the god this man claims told him this actually did tell him this, nor does it prove that this god even exists. It doesn't even prove that the man knew it was going to happen. The only thing it proves, in fact, is that the man happened to be right. Be it by pure happenstance, foreknowledge, or a god, neither have been proven. This is a perfect example of what I'm referring to when I say that Christians have no concept of what constitutes evidence and/or proof.

"Ad homs" are insults used with the intention of refuting an argument. My words to you held no such intention. Currently you are proving that you have no understanding of what a logical fallacy is. Do you wish to continue showing signs of being an imbecile, or would you like to cut your losses and be quiet?

Ad hominem-

is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[

People say there is no evidence for the biblical God. Prophecy is one of many bucket loads full of reasons. What is more, it can be verified via history to a reasonable and logical extent. Thus, there is factual evidence for it. 

A man says "God told me this will happen in 100 years." 100 years later, said thing happens. This does not prove that the god this man claims told him this actually did tell him this, nor does it prove that this god even exists. It doesn't even prove that the man knew it was going to happen.

The only thing it proves, in fact, is that the man happened to be right. Be it by pure happenstance, foreknowledge, or a god, neither have been proven. This is a perfect example of what I'm referring to when I say that Christians have no concept of what constitutes evidence and/or proof.

"As I said in the description of this debate, the Christian god can only be defined by the Christian bible. The sources used for my opponent's semantic argumentation hold no authority to define this god, thus the premise for their argument is entirely false."

Post number 27 and 34. 

Your theory would be alright if it was one or two or even a few predictions, but hundreds? Who do you know who can predict the future with certainty? 

First, you would have to give good reasons that these authors wrote these manuscripts after the events in question. If you can't do that then you would have to show the predictions were inaccurate. Are your reasons good? 

What makes you think that your authority and judgments are more authoritative than its words? After all, you are basing your highest authority on a mere mortal, limited, finite mind - yours or someone else. Why is it the necessary mind in determining truth?

May I ask what your highest authority is on this matter? 

Do you believe that Josephus existed, based on his written accounts or not?

How would you confirm the existence of an ancient historical person?

Do you have to see them to believe them?

And can you get to know someone from their biography or things based on what has been written about them?

I see your argument as mute unless you want to deny the reasonableness of history.

The biblical God does not go about trying to prove His existence to His creatures.

You either take Him as the highest authority or you place some authority above His.

He interacts with humanity by singling out a specific people, and they write about Him.

The difference between you and Him is that He is a Spirit alone.

You are material and it can be argued spiritual. There is a part of you that does not seem to conform to the natural world if materialism is all there is.

By the way, are you an empiricist or do you believe in the immaterial also? 

In the pages of Scripture, there is a message, a revelation about/from a personal being claiming to be God. If this message is true, then we can know God in as much as He has revealed Himself. If the message is from God, then you would expect it to confirm what we know about reality through its words. Prophecy is one such confirmation.

Another is the unity of the Bible and its central theme. The NT says it reveals Jesus Christ throughout the OT Scriptures. I can show the reasonableness of this on most pages of the OT. The OT Mosaic Covenant was a covenant with Israel. In Exodus 24:3 they agreed to the conditions of the covenant. Deuteronomy 28 gives the blessings of the covenant and the curses for disobeying the covenant. Every physical ordinance and the ritual requirements were a shadow or type of a more perfect reality, a spiritual one. We are told they all point to Jesus Christ, and this can be demonstrated. 

The descriptions of God revealed in the pages of Scripture are also reasonable in describing what God would be like, the greatest necessary Being. The Creator would need to understand His creation and what He has made. He would have to transcend it, and therefore the physical reality, and that reality would have to have a beginning. If He is all knowing, just, and wise, then He would demonstrate this in the pages therein. These attributes are just a smattering of what is revealed about God. We also learn of His character, His holiness, purity, and power.

Then, I can go from there to determining how we make sense of anything, ultimately. Why should we in a chance happenstance universe? There is no reason. Why do we keep finding reason and why do we continue to make sense of a senseless universe? It makes no sense that we would. Why would we?

If I start to dismantle your worldview, to find out what makes it tick, what would I be left with that could make sense of anything? To make sense of origins, existence, morality, truth I claim God is necessary.