The failure to argue well resides with you. If you knew how to argue, you would refrain from quoting from the Bible, which amounts to nothing more than circular thinking. In other words, “The Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true” (not your quote but your insinuation) says nothing and achieves nothing. Feel free to come at me with any passage from the Bible about “demons” — but that doesn’t mean demons are real. It only means that you have quoted something from the Bible. Similarly, I could offer a quote by Captain Kirk or Mr. Spock. This doesn’t mean that Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock are real. It only means that I have quoted something from the Star Trek universe.
Notice that you keep using the word “if”: “If God exists….” “If Satan exists…” Also, “must”: “An objective good must necessarily…” Do you see your problem? I do. All these “if”s and “must”s demonstrate that you have a weak argumentative hand. You lack confidence in your beliefs.
Yeah, you have been consistent. You’ve been consistent in arguing for beliefs that are not grounded in anything. Satan exists? There is no evidence for that. Morality is objective? There is no evidence for that. Heaven and Hell exist? It is not a “regurgitating platitude” to say that they do not (because there is no evidence for their existence). Angels exist? There is no evidence for that. And so on. But your biggest failure is that you have failed to provide any evidence for the backdrop or foundation for all that you believe: a super-natural realm. There is no evidence that such a realm exists. There is only the natural world and no other. There is nothing “super” about it.
“You’re conceding a premise for the sake of argument: that Satan exists.” Nope. This represents yet another massive (an embarrassing) failure on your part: your inability to understand the nature of literary analysis or exegesis. There are people in the world who devote their careers to the study of Jane Austen’s novels. These people are not conceding that Austen’s characters exist. They are simply discussing the motivations of Austen’s characters. Same thing applies here. I’m not conceding that Satan exists. I’m only conceding that Satan exists as a fictional character in exactly the same way that a Jane Austen fan will concede that Fitzwilliam Darcy exists — as a fictional character. Satan is a fictional character from the Bible. Sauron is a fictional character from The Lord of the Rings. That should clear things up. (It probably won’t.)
Finally, your chatter about “blasphemy” is amusing and cute. To quote a favorite meme: “Blasphemy is speech that has been outlawed to prevent your religion from losing arguments.” Or as Robert Ingersoll once noted, “The crime called blasphemy was invented by priests for the purpose of defending doctrines not able to take care of themselves.” Yep.
Good luck taking on the next atheist. If you continue to argue with “if”s and “must”s, you will fail to provide a compelling argument for anything. But don’t think I’m only talking about you. I’m not. I’m talking about all theists. When it comes to understanding and describing the nature of the world and the universe — that is, of what we understand so far; there’s lots that we don’t understand (what caused the Big Bang, for example) — believers bring nothing to the table outside of what they believe. Sorry if that’s harsh, but to quote that famous line from baseball umpires, I calls ’em like I sees ‘em.
