But when it comes to faith and world view there is no such thing as a level playing field.
You are right in as much as you will never bring anything new to the table.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. What I would like to communicate is that in any conversation - between similar Christians, between dissimilar Christians, between Christians and people of different beliefs etc. - the ideal goal is not a superficial argument of party-lines and cliches that pigeonhole each individual into predetermined opposing camps. This is dehumanizing, and I believe that to be in union with God one must fully actualize their humanity through relation to that of the Other.
What I mean to say is that we all seek the Truth and it is arrogant to think that any one of us has a monopoly on it. Progress towards this unifying goal is achieved when we stop villainizing and demeaning each other in our similar paths.
A person who has seen Truth will not - cannot - turn away from it, it has been ingrained in and fundamentally changed their very nature. But this is is not what happens in petty debates and arguments, where both parties make poignant claims not so much expressions of truth rather than reactionary truisms spewed reflexively from having their toes stepped on. It's important to note the difference here; rather than uniting with the Other, this is opposition to the Other, dehumanizing and reducing the actualization of both Self and Other.
Atheists have tried to use the unicorn argument so much and for so long that its horn has been worn down to a stump.
Similarly the argument of burden of proof has been used so often and so unskillfully that it is not even burdensome anymore.
I see two different scenarios here. Yes, there are dogmatic atheists, obstinately spouting regurgitated arguments. These of course must be not addressed with arguments in turn, because as I said before, such confrontation removes us both from God and each other.
But there may be genuine cases of people who are earnestly struggling between the absurdities of either poles: a person who rejects the idolatrous church she has been raised in. (I imagine it is equally possible to be in the inverse situation: a person who cannot honestly accept a shallow atheistic conception of reality.)
I believe in a dialectical truth between both extremes that can only be accessed by honest searching. In addressing, rather than hiding from, the hardest questions.
You see Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Christians have found Jesus therefore they have truth. You have according to your profile, rejected Jesus. You have no truth anymore.
You have laid aside the burden of belief and opted for a seemingly lighter load...No level playing field.
First, it is in poor taste to make personal attacks. Second, you misunderstand me. I have rejected fundamentalist christianity, the christianity of my youth, but I in no way reject Truth. I think the essence of Truth permeates all things.
You sort to introduce the unicorn argument in another thread did you not?
That argument is probably a sine qua non of atheistic apologetics, you then want to argue (discuss) as an equal?........Can't happen.
You also tried to introduce that tired argument for the burden of proof.
I asked if you were an atheist, but you more or less denied it
As they say, if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck then it is a duck.
You do not like young Earth Creation, as an atheist you would not be expected to.
Perhaps this is my own downfall of too easily falling into reactionary, dehumanized debate roles, abandoning any real chance of communication. For this I must apologize. But at the same time,
both parties must seek to be understanding as well as understood.
But what is it exactly you are afraid of? Juk might have it in mind to dialogue with someone who will be more receptive of the truth than you are?
Why might that be a threat?
Why do you want to dismiss the help he is being offered as no good?
I hope that after my long-winded explanation here it might be a bit more clear what I was trying to say, but I'll kind of try to summarize.
Often times in apologetic debates there is this false dichotomy of an Us vs. Them attitude that is divisive and thus anti-Christian. Something like "I was Them to become like Us, because They are all wrong, ignorant buffoons to not see how clearly right We are and how horribly wrong and evil They are" from both sides. This does no good for anyone and takes everyone further from God, who is the Good and the Truth, which is only fully present in unity.
The YEC websites are equally guilty of this as the belligerent atheist websites. To respond in kind will only be lowered to the same level and remove any redemption from the conversation.
I don't think it is easy to properly respond, and I have at times been the biggest failure to do so, but it is something that we must strive for.