I am being direct
You are not.
You made a statement. As far as you know, no Religion says X.
I provided an example of a Religion saying X.
You must concede that you are wrong and move on, or demonstrate John 15:7, Mark 11:24, Luke 11:9, and Matthew 6:6 as not existing in the Bible. You haven't done either, so you haven't actually responded to the point. Kythia has actually addressed one of the 4 examples I listed, and demonstrated why one is not in the right context, so I have removed that example.
What you've done is bring up several points in succession that have nothing to do with the rebuttal to your point. If you can't have a back and forth without moving goal posts and laying smoke screens, then nothing can be gained from this discussion, and I remove myself from it.
Kythia, I will address your post before I leave.
Have you read "Dawkins' God" and "The Dawkins Delusion" by McGrath? Particularly the former, the latter was a little weak.
I haven't even read The God Delusion xD if I can be perfectly honest, the names of these books make them sound like apologetic propoganda, but like I said, have not read them.
McGrath raises the point that Dawkins believes no knowledge of theology is necessary to criticise religion. He's outright said that on several occasions and in response to DG he made a relatively famous quote about leprechaunology being unnecessary for disbelief in leprechauns. And it was witty and pithy and often thats viewed as the same as making a point. It isn't.
Why do you not believe in Rhubarb Frankfurter? You don't follow the Church of the Starduck, so how can you say Rhubarbs existence is unlikely?
I'm not specifically referring here to your assertion about people believing all prayers are answered. As I've said many times, there are sects who believe that. But...well, lets take the first of your four quoted passages. John 15:7. The entirety of John 15 is a speech by Jesus to his gathered disciples. He's speaking directly to them and claiming their prayers will be answered. This ties in to the quotes I gave earlier through John 15:3 in which he says that they are "clean" (NIV) because of the things he's already said to them. Specifically, John 15:7 is in no way saying all prayers are answered. Its saying that the prayers of the disciples will be answered. You've taken a quote wildly out of context and tried to use it.
Then I recede John 15:7, now what of the other 3 passages?
As I say, this isn't an attempt to provoke a theological debate as I believe this is the wrong thread for that..
This is the right discussion. Lack of theism cannot be discussed without a discussion on theism itself.
What it is an attempt to do is to say that, like Dawkins, it appears you're often trying to criticise a belief system that you don't actually fully understand
My rebuttal was to a claim that X does not exist, when X appears to exist. The matter of X's existence was then ignored, not addressed. One example of X has been addressed by you, and I thank you for it, and have receded that example of X.
If you mean the prior topic of prayer induced healing, then I also concede that I was in error in stating all prayer would follow the same rules if it were a real phenomena. You are absolutely right, I do not understand how prayer works in each Religion, and while I don't think I was expected to, I shouldn't have spoke as if I did. I apologize.
Am I saying that you need a degree in theology to discuss this? No, of course I'm not. That's not only infeasible but actively unhelpful. Theology sets in a particular world view - I'm not talking about religion here, there are extremely notable areligious theologians, I'm talking about a weight given to received wisdom. All I'm trying to say is that comments like "I don't need to read the bible verse by verse to see the hypocrisy" are unhelpful when going back literally four verses would have shown there is no hypocrisy at all. We can go on to your other three, but I'm not sure it would be helpful.
You absolutely do not need a thorough understanding of a Religious text in order to see hipocrisy. For instance, God telling Abraham to kill his son, and then stopping Abraham from doing it. In this scenario, God is either...
b) Changed his mind.
But God is all knowing and cannot lie, according to the same book. So there is an inconsistency that does not require a thorough Biblical education to point out.
Because Christianity isn't the same as leprechauns.
I'm not making truth claims about leprechauns or the Christian God here. What I am saying is that the subject is much more involved. You need at least some basic knowledge of what a leprechaun is to disbelieve in it. As Christianity is a much more in depth field so you need a little more knowledge to, reasonably and articulately, criticise it ON ITS OWN TERMS. Criticising the effect it has on the world, the effect it has in politics, etc. Thats a different kettle of fish. But arguing what is and isn't a Christian belief requires some knowledge of what it is you're arguing about, no matter how little. And your unwillingness to glance back those four verses and see if the quote you plucked out of Google is relevant to your point, your claims that you don't need to actually read the Bible to know its hypocrisy... I dunno. They feel very off to me.
No, it refers to God as an entity, not the Catholic religion as a cultural phenomena. Religious influence in society is measurable, the prescence of a diety, so far, is not. I seriously doubt the statement was made in any other way but to address the supernatural.
This has been a relatively long post and I can totally see how it can be viewed as a massive attack on you. It is in no way intended as such. You've made, today, a few claims that have been out and out wrong. Factually. All I'm trying to do is to point you to McGrath's work and, if you're unwilling/able/whatever of reading to provide a brief precis of what he claims (with some of the weaker bits excised).
My massive apologies if you take offense from this.
There's no offense intended and I also apologize as well. We were both a little unclear at times, and I could have conducted myself a lot better ^^' I see no attack at all, and I look forward to speaking to you again. Thing is, I'm actually not used to talking to well spoken, clear Theists, so I was a little unprepared for this, but I feel good for having this talk with you.
Good night Elliquians!