Hell

[jotabe]

I know, but i am talking about not having happiness as the base of a moral system. Having a completely alternative thing, like selfworship, or destruction, as central. Why happiness yes and not these ones?

You know, a life led by "live fast, die young, and destroy all you can along the way".
Or think about a quite well stablished moral paradigm, like the one created by Nietzsche. Where strength and self-improvement are the ultimate cause and goal.

You can get a lot of instant gratification with that moral set. Sure, you might live a lot less, but it is a fair trade-off.

What i am trying to say is that, ultimately, there is not a really rational reason to chose the "standard" moral over other "alternative" moral systems.

[Slim]

Slim,

I recognize the whole "original sin" thing from the Old Testament, but where are you getting this "we asked to be created" stuff?


"But because being sinful is mankind's natural state"

We have no natural state. We were (or so you claim) created by another being (God) to be exactly the way we are (since God is perfect, makes no mistakes, etc.).

Therefore, God made is to be sinful, and then punishes us for following our own nature. What kind of crock is that?

I am also confounded by Slim's comments. He first comes out implying that non-Christian kind is "unreprentant", but I see no definition of the term. What are to repent - that our ancient ancestor failed, or for our own nature subsequent to their fall? If the latter, why would we repent the natural state that we were born into? He then follows that up by implying that eternal punishment isn't being "dished out" by God, it's being brought upon us "naturally" as the "consequence" of our ancestor's actions. An interesting point - God in this interpretation creates a problem (sin) via the free will and inevitable fall of the first man, and then creates a solution (repentence). Not unlike the protection racket, really - pay up or else!

Then there's some vague tripe about how we "asked" to be created. From this though follows an interesting concept - that we have always existed. If we are intemporal as this suggests, and we were at one time literally "one with God", how could we "fall"? How could our entire nature be corrupted simply from being "created" in seperate, physical form from God? Why, if we always existed as part of God, would we ever ask to be made seperate when we one with almighty God?

The information I'm seemingly just making up is found in the In the Standard Works of the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I'll give a brief summary with links to scriptures here shortly.

But first, to clear this matter up, we have a slightly different concept of "original sin." We believe that because of Adam's transgression we are capable of sinning. We are also mortal and will die. That's what I meant by "natural state" that we are sinful by nature. However, we don't need to repent for what Adam did (or anyone else for that matter), nor even our "nature." We only need to repent for our own sins.

For a definition, for one to repent means to feel sorrow for what one has done, ask God to forgive them, repair as much as possible any damages the sin may have caused, (asking those wronged for forgiveness), and don't do it again.

I think what I was trying to say in my first post is like, you're parents telling you, "don't touch that stove, you'll get burned!" And you (for whatever reason) touch the stove and get burned, it was the natural consequense, not because your parents hate you and want you to get burned. Sin is similar to that -- God is trying to protect us, not control us.

Now on to the asked to be created thing. I hope that through this explanation, you will be able to understand what I believe better.

Yes, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we believe that we have always existed, (D&C 93:29-33, Abraham 3:22)

We are litterally spirit children of God, He is our Heavenly Father. We weren't "litterally one with God" -- we were all unique children. But although we were His children, we were unlike him in many ways. He has progressed spiritually far beyond us, and had a immortal, physical body, while we were just spirits.

God has a plan for us so that we could become more like Him. We would be born, and recieve a body. We would loose all memory of pre-earth life, so that we would be able to grow spiritually by overcomming evil. Unfortunately, these bodies would be mortal, and we will make mistakes and sin. God knew all this before even the creation, so He provided for a Savior. The oldest Son of God, Jesus Christ was to be that Savior. Through His atonement, although we all sin, we all may be saved by following the laws of the Gospel. (Abraham 3:24-28, Articles of Faith 1-4)

However, Satan was also there. He gave a different plan, trying to usurp his Father. His idea was to eliminate free will, we would all be forced to do good, and not one soul would be lost. He said he would do it, and asked God to give him His glory. Jesus Christ said to his Father, "Thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever." However, 1/3 of God's children liked Satan's plan better, and followed him. God chose Jesus to be the Savior, both knowing Satan's plan could never work. Those that chose Satan were cast out of Heaven. I see it as they wanted to do things their own way, and God says, 'fine, have it your way. Try it without me, and see how far you get!' Satan and his followers will never recieve bodies, (not without trying), and will forever be miserable. (Mosos 4:1-4, Isaiah 14:12-15, JST Revelation 12:4)

So all of us who are alive already chose Jesus Christ. But Satan is still trying to get us to sin and follow him, to be miserable like himself. And because we have no memory of our pre-earth life, the battle goes on.[/url]

[Sparrowhawk]

However, Satan was also there. He gave a different plan, trying to usurp his Father. His idea was to eliminate free will, we would all be forced to do good, and not one soul would be lost. He said he would do it, and asked God to give him His glory. Jesus Christ said to his Father, "Thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever." However, 1/3 of God's children liked Satan's plan better, and followed him. God chose Jesus to be the Savior, both knowing Satan's plan could never work. Those that chose Satan were cast out of Heaven. I see it as they wanted to do things their own way, and God says, 'fine, have it your way. Try it without me, and see how far you get!' Satan and his followers will never recieve bodies, (not without trying), and will forever be miserable. (Mosos 4:1-4, Isaiah 14:12-15, JST Revelation 12:4)

So all of us who are alive already chose Jesus Christ. But Satan is still trying to get us to sin and follow him, to be miserable like himself. And because we have no memory of our pre-earth life, the battle goes on.[/url]

Riiiiiiight. So, Satan and his followers were cast out of Heaven before the Creation, correct? So they were just wandering around the empty expanse of nothing outside of Heaven for unknown time, and then Creation occurs? Or is it the other way around, Creation occurs, all is "good", and then Satan and his minions are cast down to earth where they can actively seek to undermine the paradise God created? Not that the rest makes any sense either, I mean, Satan would have realized that "forcing" people to do good literally means there would BE no good (and no evil for that matter.) Where there is no choice, there is no determination. There isn't "good" and "evil", only what you are forced to do and what you are forced not to do. This idea that somehow Satan (allegedly an angel, which I was led to believe didn't have the same free will as humans) decided on his own to recruit followers and defy God is ludicrous. To spend eternity in the precense of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing entity that controls every movement of every molecule of existance and then to decide that you're capable of usurping it? Was Lucifer some kind of retard? That's of course assuming he had free will in the first place...

[Boothby]

Sparrow,

Puh-lease.

We all know that religious texts serve only to create a language for the disussion of the various creation myths and their attendant, relatively unique moral trappings.

They shouldn't be used as history, or as physics texts, or as some way of understanding the actual physical reality of the universe.

They're stories, told to provide a sense of group superiority (for whatever given group). They're part isolationist tracts, part moral guidance, part health guide, part crowd control (typically using sex as a means to control), and part self-survival for the advantaged ruling elite within each particular "group."

Please...you know better than to assume that they're much more else than that.

[Slim]

Correct, before the creation.

Yes, in Lucifer's plan there would be really be no good nor evil, but obviously Satan could care less about that.

In pre-earth life, we all had the same will. Now? I would say they still have free-will, but one could also truthfully argue that Satan's angels aren't going to become good, and God's angels won't become evil -- because they already made their decision. Hence, different free will.

Was Lucifer some kind of retard? We probably told him that back then, too.

[Eaquae Legit]

Please, can you stop talking about these unsubstantiated beliefs as if they're somehow "true?" They're beliefs, plain and simple

We all know that religious texts serve only to create a language for the disussion of the various creation myths and their attendant, relatively unique moral trappings. [...]

They're stories, told to provide a sense of group superiority (for whatever given group). They're part isolationist tracts, part moral guidance, part health guide, part crowd control (typically using sex as a means to control), and part self-survival for the advantaged ruling elite within each particular "group."

Please...you know better than to assume that they're much more else than that.

If he has to, so do you (plural - that goes for everyone, Steve's was just the quickest post to find).

Okay, everyone happy? I can get back to my own life now without babysitting? Good. Keep me out of this, please.

[Sparrowhawk]

Okay, everyone happy? I can get back to my own life now without babysitting? Good. Keep me out of this, please.

Everyone (except those who had nothing better to do than complain about the content of other people's conversations) was happy. Ironically, it was only observers who wanted the "babysitter" in this. Those of us actually participating were perfectly content for you to be out of it in the first place.

Now that this discussion has been uncensored, I'm still waiting for answers to my inquiries.

[Eaquae Legit]

Eh. Sorry to interrupt the conversation. I don't really expect you to be happy, Satya, but at this point I don't much care as long as I'm left alone. Then I'm happy, and that's what counts to me.

Will be PMing you.

[Boothby]

Even though I believe that my approach to what the Bible and what religion represent is far, far closer to the truth (certainly, it is at least TESTABLE), I normally don't go around proclaiming that it's "truth," unless it's to offset someone else's claims of universal truth (such as "God is this, Jesus did that, etc.)

But are you telling me that a lurker has enough clout to get a thread locked, even though the participants are perfectly happy? JFC! It's not like we were trading recipes for how to roast babies or anything! For Pete's sake, tell the lurker to politely post to the thread, asking for calm or clarification, before he or she gets her knickers all in a twist.

[Dr. Mobius]

I prefer to send them through a meat grinder, but that's just me.

Baby burger, anyone?

[eriador]

Mmmm. You put a kid in the oven for a few hours with low heat... the meat just falls right off the bone. I love it. Really good, if you can find a kid to butcher.

-----------

But please, be my guest to show me some real evidence for any of this fanciness. That is, other than simple archaeological support for real-world events (as opposed to miraculous events), or this whole Satan/God conflict that isn't otherwise simply explained by natural laws, entropy, and apathy. Or that just isn't someone quoting from a book that's quoting from another book, that's quoting from a particular "Bible," and thereby claiming itself to be some independent source of information.

Or you can solve it all by simply stating, "This is what I, and people in my religion believe to be true" and you're golden. But please don't go and try to claim some "universal" truth! You haven't got it (none of the religions has, just so you don't feel horribly picked on).

Ummm. Even though I agree with you, how is the "real" evidence you're looking for any different from the evidence that's found in a book? Isn't it just a certain thing you believe in? That's like having a young-earth creationist say "I want some REAL evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years. Maybe some evidence from the Bible. This archeological stuff is just what you believe to be true."

[jotabe]

That's easy enough to answer. This "archeological stuff" is based on a corpus of testable knowledge, knowledge whose application has produce a lot of technology we use everyday.
Where is the technology produced thanks to the Bible?
...
No wonder it hasn't, specially since it would be a technology where the assumption Pi = 3 would be taken for granted.

[eriador]

Hasn't a lot of technology been produced with fundamentally flawed science? The best example I can think of is airplanes. The supposed explanation of why an airfoil works to provide lift is Bernoulli's principle, but that's been shown to not hold up to scrutiny, hence planes with basic airfoil shaped wings being able to fly upside-down. Just because technology comes from it doesn't mean that it's right.

edit: Google for evidence; I'll try to get some too.

[Boothby]

Well...archaeology is testable. Science is testable. Engineering is testable. Even if you have the equations slightly wrong for aerodynamics, or Einsteinian physics, you can always find a way to test them. And if you can't, like with string theory, then "science" withholds judgement until you can.

But is religion testable? Is the bible (aside from its often incorrect archaeological references) testable? There are enough sites on the Internet pointing out not just the logical fallacies within the Bible, but the scientific and archaeological ones, as well, to make me think, "No."

[jotabe]

That explanation for "how the planes fly" coming from the principle of Bernouilli is just a simplification for people who aren't into fluids dynamics. Actually, it has to do with the formation of air vortices around wings, due to their shape (i can't really explain it because, even though i am a physicist, i never really studied fluid mechanics to such detail). At the end, it all boils down to saying that the planes fly because the shape of the wings create pressure differentials.
It's a case similar to the electronic spin. In high-school we study that electrons "spin", and that creates their intrinsic magnetic moment, the "spin". In reality, electrons do not (cannot) spin. So electrons just happen to have an intrinsic angular moment, the same way they have mass and charge.

So, please, do not mistake "simplified explanations" with "wrong explanations".

[Guest]

Eh. Sorry to interrupt the conversation. I don't really expect you to be happy, Satya, but at this point I don't much care as long as I'm left alone. Then I'm happy, and that's what counts to me.

Will be PMing you.

Roger. *salute*

[eriador]

jotabe, from what I've heard those "pressure differentials" still don't entirely explain why the wing works, esp. when planes are flying upside-down and the such.

Boothby, it depends on how you define "testable." If you include holy texts as valid evidence for testing something, then the claims the Bible makes are indeed testable.

[Boothby]

I'm sorry...."Holy Tests?"

What are those? Got any examples?

[jotabe]

It certainly depends on how you define testable. Of course!
If we define "testable" as "of red color and round shape", then a tomato is testable.

I thought we were talking seriously here.

[Boothby]

Oh.....Holy TEXTS!!! I thought you said "Holy TESTS."

You mean...like the Bible?

A: The Bible says that X happened.

B: So, how do you know that X happened? Can you show me any proof?

A: Yes, it says so...right here...in the Bible!

That, for instance, would not count.


Nor would this:

A: The Bible says that X happened.

B: So, how do you know that X happened? Can you show me any proof?

A: Yes, it says so...right here...in this other book!

B: Excellent! Now where did that information in the other book come from?

A: Why, the Bible, of course!

Get the picture?

[Slim]

Yea, unlocked again!

I just want to say that the reason in my posts I say stuff as if it is true, it is because I'm saying what I believe in. Call me crazy, but part of what I believe is that the things I believe are true. So for me to write otherwise is to write what I believe is false. I don't say things because I think they are false. So, if that's a requirement, I'd rather never write. And I leave out the part about why I believe it's true, or try to prove its true because that is what I consider proselyting. My purpose is to explain what I believe, not to get others to agree with me.

"This is what I, and people in my religion believe to be true" There, happy?

Slim, if as you say, Lucifer's fall occured prior to Creation... well, what the hell (no pun intended) was he doing for the unknown time between his rebellion and the creation of man? Where was he? Floating in some empty void outside "heaven" waiting for something to happen? And if God had some evil rebel angel and untold numbers of rogue minions just floating outside his realm, what prompted the choice to then create his greatest undertaking right where they all were? I mean, humanity's supposed to be some kind of important creation, right? In His image and all, right? So he decides to plant us right where he'd previously left the one being in all of eternity who ever tried to usurp him, and would without doubt do everything in his power (which he still had, for some reason) to destroy us?

As far as what/where Satan was during the time between the war in heaven and the creation, I don't know. Probably in his war room making plans? All I know is the next time he turns up is in the garden of Eden to tempt Adam and Eve.

But that brings us to the more interesting question -- Why does God allow Satan to tempt us? I doubt God created the Earth right where Satan was -- I believe Satan could find his way there himself, and I believe God has created many worlds anyway. (Moses 1:33) But even still -- God has power to cast Satan out, right? Or take away his power? He will at the Second Coming, (Revelation 20:1-2) but why doesn't he now? Or better yet, thousands of years ago?

I believe a big part of the reason is back at that whole there must be opposition in all things. There must be bad for there to be good. (2 Nephi 15-18 entire chapter is on free agency.) The irony is that Satan is helping God's plan go forward. As people overcome temptation and choose to do good, they can grow spiritually.

So, maybe the real question is why does Satan keep going, if he's helping God's plan? Probably because it only helps those who actually do overcome temptation. He's trying to get people to fail so they will become miserable like himself. Misery loves company.

[Boothby]

And I leave out the part about why I believe it's true, or try to prove its true because that is what I consider proselyting.

Funny thing, Slim--I always thought that presenting beliefs as truths, and not providing any support for those statements was proselytizing, while actually presenting beliefs as beliefs, and being willing to attempt to prove your beliefs as being true was, you know, called debate, or discussion.

[Qing_Jao]

Whereas I thought proselytizing meant trying to make you believe what I believe. The obligatory "Now, this is what I believe..." can get awfully annoying after a few posts. I tend to put it in once in awhile, but every single post with the huge disclaimer gets old.

A.) Presentation of point of view: this is what happened. (understood "as far as I know" or "in my point of view")
B.) Proselytizing: This is what happened, therefore you must make your lives revolve around this information.

Didn't sound like proselytizing to me.

[Boothby]

I don't know...


When pairs of religious people (apparently, they can travel faster in pairs--it's like superconductivity!) come to my door, they typically tell me that this is the way the universe is (whatever way it is for them), and I should believe them and follow their way. That's proselytizing.

When I sit down with a devout friend, and we compare notes, and discuss why we believe the way we do, and the things we do, that's a healthy discussion.

[hive_king]

So if there needs to be evil for there to be good, once the second coming comes, won't that unbalance the system again?

Also, if we follow that logic, then we must conclude that God intentionally created a Satan that would fall, putting the blame for satan's fall on God. After all, Satan chose to fall, but God created Satan with the personality defects (power-hunger, pride, greed, etc.) that led to it.

[Slim]

Yeah, I guess I'm just paranoid. I looked at the forum rules and it says we can tell why we believe the things we do, just no "blatent proselyting." Of course, I know that y'all know that I am a returned missionary, so I'm always watching out to make sure I'm not proselyting. I know I already sound "preachy" enough.

Okay, I decided I'll post why I believe the way I do. I'll put it in the When did it start for you? thread to save space here.

Okay, back to the other topic --

Won't the second coming unbalance the system?

I hope it dosen't, but honestly I don't know how it wouldn't. I can't even guess. I don't know, so you win on that one.

Following that logic [there must be evil for there to be good] wouldn't that mean God intentionally created a Satan that would fall? Wouldn't that put the blame on God? Satan chose to fall, but God created the personality defects that led to it.

I don't believe God created Satan's personality. (Or anyone's personality.)
I believe we have always existed. (D&C 93:29 see also definition for intelligence)

So, the real question might be that because God gave Satan so much power, knowing that he'd turn out to be evil, doesn't that put the blame on God?

I'd say no, but I can't think of a better reason than "God is good." I'm more just a scriptorian than a philosopher. I'll leave this for the p-web philosophers to answer.

[Boothby]

Won't the second coming unbalance the system?

No, because there was never a "first coming," and there won't be a "second coming" because there's nothing actually "coming."

By asking that question, you presume that there was actually a first coming.

So, the real question might be that because God gave Satan so much power....

The real question is "IF" God gave Satan so much power...

One little word change, and you're no longer presuming that you are right, and that the rest of us "non-believers" are wrong.

It's really not that difficult to play fair, Slim.


(Steve as Steve...not as mod)

[Eaquae Legit]

Steve, you're still doing it too.

No, because there was never a "first coming," and there won't be a "second coming" because there's nothing actually "coming."

By asking that question, you presume that there was actually a first coming.

Of course it does. Nick was asking Slim about Slim's beliefs, and in order to answer that, he needs to presuppose a first coming. Otherwise, the question is meaningless, this whole discussion has been meaningless, and we may as well shut down the religion forum because there's no room for dialogue left.

This discussion isn't about who's right and who's wrong, and you seem to be stuck on that. It's about what people believe and why, and in that context, they don't need to preface every sentence with "I believe that..." It would be horribly tedious. But if you still want Slim to, you've got to as well, to make the discussion fair.

No, because <I believe> there was never a "first coming," and there won't be a "second coming" because there's nothing actually "coming."

By asking that question, you presume that there was actually a first coming.

Coupla words... not that hard for you to add, either. You can be a bit of a proselyte yourself.

Slim is being asked about his beliefs, and it makes sense for him to discuss them as if they are real - they are to him. He doesn't go out of his way to tell you you are wrong - something you have done to him a lot, just in this thread.

(EL as EL, now sorta following the discussion)

[Boothby]

EL,

If you notice, I only "proselytize" when I feel the need to go head-to-head with someone else who is operating on a bunch of unfounded presumptions.

Other than that, I think I'm pretty fair-minded about adding the "I believe" disclaimer on a regular basis.


Becausew Slim very often adheres to rule 1 of Sywak's five rules of theological debate:

Presume the existence of God. More specifically, presume the existence of your particular God. Don't say things like "I believe that God does this...", simply say, "God does this..." After all, everybody knows that God exists. Atheists are just wrong, and deep down inside they realize that. Yes, it's OK to pity them (just not yet--see RULE 5).

You will have to put up with me saying things like "The earth revolves around the sun" and such like, rather than "I believe the earth revolves around the sun," since I can actually make multiple references to many varying independent sources to show that to be actually true, and supported by logic and scientific investigation. As opposed, you know, to statements of alleged first and second comings, which have no basis in fact--only (by its very definition) unsupportable faith.

[Eaquae Legit]

Except we're not talking about astronomy. We're talking about The World According to Slim. He doesn't have to add "I believe" every time, because we already know that. It's presumed.

In that context "Presume the existence of God. More specifically, presume the existence of your particular God. Don't say things like "I believe that God does this...", simply say, "God does this..."" is acceptable, because it's the World According to Slim, and we have to take this for granted to have any discussion within that World. I haven't at all seen him saying (or even implying) "After all, everybody knows that God exists. Atheists are just wrong, and deep down inside they realize that. Yes, it's OK to pity them". Of course, it's evident that you DO, so we have a problem. I just see him explaining his world, not trying to judge yours.

If I asked you to explain your view of hell, I'd entirely expect you to say "There is no hell, because there is no god, and they're both fictional contructs," because we'd be talking about the World According to Steve. I'd be out of line to say "Steve you're wrong, because there is a God," because we wouldn't be talking about MY world.

Does any of that make sense?

[Sparrowhawk]

Except we're not talking about astronomy. We're talking about The World According to Slim. He doesn't have to add "I believe" every time, because we already know that. It's presumed.

In that context "Presume the existence of God. More specifically, presume the existence of your particular God. Don't say things like "I believe that God does this...", simply say, "God does this..."" is acceptable, because it's the World According to Slim, and we have to take this for granted to have any discussion within that World. I haven't at all seen him saying (or even implying) "After all, everybody knows that God exists. Atheists are just wrong, and deep down inside they realize that. Yes, it's OK to pity them". Of course, it's evident that you DO, so we have a problem. I just see him explaining his world, not trying to judge yours.

If I asked you to explain your view of hell, I'd entirely expect you to say "There is no hell, because there is no god, and they're both fictional contructs," because we'd be talking about the World According to Steve. I'd be out of line to say "Steve you're wrong, because there is a God," because we wouldn't be talking about MY world.

Does any of that make sense?

I think we all understand the gist of what you're saying.

The problem is that, even when we as outside observers of Slim's world point out inconsistancies, non sequitors and information gaps in what he presents, because it's "his world" these problems don't mean anything to him or to like-minded people. Taking things on faith that science can neither prove nor disprove ("there is a god, and not just any god, but this God") is all well and good, but it seems to me that Slim's "world" defies logic, reason and science, beyond the simple faith of believing in God.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama made an interesting point regarding science v. Buddhism; "...if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."

[Rei]

It seems to me, then, that if you wish to discuss these other inconsistancies, as you call them, it would be most appropriate to start a different thread where you can focus on them -- one where you may debate how one can accept the idea of a god as reality and why people insist upon it. That way we can continue the discussion we have here without interrupting it with off-topic points like that.

[Boothby]

Rei,

Nice idea, except when Sparrowhawk STARTED this thread:

In this light, replacing the scientist with the concept of god and his creation with humanity, is the common Western notion of the Judeo-Christian god an unmitigated evil entity? How then can this interpretation of the deity be zealously adhered to by so many millions of otherwise sane sentient beings?

the whole point was to point out the logical inconsistencies in the belief in an all-loving, all-powerful God who created humankind "allegedly" with free will, but with a horrific punishment applied if humankind dared exercise its free will.

In other words...this IS that "different thread."

[Rei]

In which case, I will step out now, because there is no room for discussion. If we are to take your viewpoint, then I guess we Christians are all a bunch of blood-thirsty fools. Afterall, we believe in a god, for starters, and then we believe in the existence of Hell. Two things which can't possibly exist, as we all know. And we have no reasoning whatsoever for this mad insistance, because God never existed, Jesus was nothing more than a good, yet deluded, man, and really if the god we believe in really existed, He'd be an evil puppet-master. I may pop in again when you are willing to accept certain premises for the sake of discussion as to why a positive "interpretation of the deity [is] zealously adhered to by so many millions of otherwise sane sentient beings".

[Boothby]

Rei,

I have never called Christians a bunch of bloodthirsty fools.

And I've never thought to piece together the atheist's credo in the manner in which you just did, but you do make a good point.

What particular premises are you asking us to accept? Are they neutral premises, are they unsupported or unsupportable premises, or are they premises that are quickly contradicted by easily observed reality? Are they premises that MUST be accepted, lest the whole theist presumption fall apart?

I'm willing to accept some premises, but not all. And I'm not willing to give you some sort of blank check on stating premises, just because your syllogisms will fail miserably without a handful of faith-based "givens."

I'm just looking for a level playing field...I'm most assuredly not going to start with the theistic premise, "Even though I can't prove anything, and even I may go as far as to deny the value of 'proof' when it suits me to do so, let's start by assuming that I'm right..."