• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Do atheists think that debating Christian apologists is wrong?

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,181
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Its got to be in accordance to the teachings of Jesus, by their fruits you shall now them ... And not in the vein, as like taking verses as examples, and making arguments from the OT such as below, when it should be regarding Christ:

You didn't answer my question. How do you know Christ was a true prophet? What criteria did you use to make this decision?
Do you consider Mohammed or Joseph Smith to be true prophets? If not, why not?

Originally Posted by Learner Perhaps they were rather misquoting. People leading the way, having more of a politcal and power ethic than one of Christ.

Perhaps you should go back to the source and read Exodus 21 again. There is no ambiguity about Biblegod endorsing slavery, and providing explicit instructions on how different slaves are to be treated. Hebrew slaves have special rules, while women get the short end of the stick, as is typical with the Bible. God's instructions in this matter are very difficult to misunderstand or misquote.

There's been quite a few talks on slavery (I don't think I need to go into) in which theists have highlighted the differences and varied degrees in context on other threads. But the above, you should perhaps ask that to the Jews. I'm talking of those Christians who may be misquoting Christ i.e. going against His teachings! (Christians (should) follow the example of Jesus BTW).

I am not misquoting anybody. Have you read Exodus 21? Do you agree with God's instructions on how slaves should be treated? Some Christians try to gloss over these passages by making up shit, but the message is very clear, and hard to misread. God is clearly telling us that it is ok to own other people as slaves, that it is ok to beat them as long you don't kill them, that it is ok for for a slave-owner to use his female slaves for sexual gratification and pass them on to his sons when he tires of her. These are the fruits that God bears - how should this god be judged, following your own advice?
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,181
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
From the looks of the properity church description, I'll take the risk and believe in the 'ulitmate prosperity' in Heaven, thank you very much.

Heaven is like a celestial North Korea, where everyone spends an eternity singing praise for the Beloved Supreme Leader, Kim Jong-Yahweh and his ill-begotten undead clone Kim Jong-Jesus. But unlike North Korea, where you are freed from the tyranny of the state when you die, you can never escape from Heaven. Think carefully about what you wish for.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Messages
499
Location
Williamsport, PA
Basic Beliefs
Truth Seeker
I dismantled all of your arguments. Please concede that you are wrong.
Somehow I don't think you are making a joke...sigh

I'm quite serious. Ruth is wrong as I demonstrated. Her brand of Christianity like any other brand of Christianity is illogical and full of errors.

I see humility is not something you had or kept from your Xian past.

Humility is beside the point. I'm not here to be humble but to determine the facts. If a person is humble, then she's humble enough to admit she has no facts.

Anyway, your response to me is essentially the same as a response I might get from a fundamentalist Christian. Like their responses your response is bereft of any reason or supporting evidence. All it is is an ad-hominem attack on me. When people know they've lost a debate, they often resort to such tactics.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,059
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Maybe the point is Jesus was a Jew who probably 'kept kosher'.

Christianity grew to be anti Jewish but they are followers of a Jewish rabbi and preach from Jewish scripture, another one of those Christian ironies.

Could be? But I know plenty of bent "progressives* who can't stand Jews, Zionist or not. And dissing Jews is PC at this silly point in time, so idiots can get away with it, I mean idiots like communist Roger Waters, who pretends that he is only anti-Israel/anti-Zionist. He just doesn't like Jews.

I suppose it could be he just doesn't like fascists, being he's a communist (though he might not call himself that, as few communists anymore actually do - except for the wingnuts, like Rage Against the Machine's guitarist, which is a shame because he's brilliant).

I have heard Jewish slurs from blacks along with Jewish conspiracy theories. Did you know Jews control the music industry and force black artists to use crude language?

IMO progressives are acting like the communists of old in China and
Russia. Witch hunts to root out non conformist thought and speech.

Jews do not control the music biz nor force Blacks to use foul language!

Do ya think they forced Zappa to write "Dina Mo Hum"?

Or Steven Tyler to write Poontang in the Last Child lyrics?

Or Nugent to write Wang Dang Sweet Poontang?

How duped r u Steve? How deep does it go?

Lol!
 

funinspace

Don't Panic
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
4,200
Location
Oregon
Gender
Alien
Basic Beliefs
functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
I'm quite serious. Ruth is wrong as I demonstrated. Her brand of Christianity like any other brand of Christianity is illogical and full of errors.
You are like a hare, bragging about winning a race, where not only has the gun not gone off, but that Ruth hasn't even joined any race. But yes, I gather that you are serious...stern serious face noted.

I see humility is not something you had or kept from your Xian past.

Humility is beside the point. I'm not here to be humble but to determine the facts. If a person is humble, then she's humble enough to admit she has no facts.

Anyway, your response to me is essentially the same as a response I might get from a fundamentalist Christian. Like their responses your response is bereft of any reason or supporting evidence. All it is is an ad-hominem attack on me. When people know they've lost a debate, they often resort to such tactics.
Wooooooshhhh....
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,059
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
I'm quite serious. Ruth is wrong as I demonstrated. Her brand of Christianity like any other brand of Christianity is illogical and full of errors.

I see humility is not something you had or kept from your Xian past.

Humility is beside the point. I'm not here to be humble but to determine the facts. If a person is humble, then she's humble enough to admit she has no facts.

Anyway, your response to me is essentially the same as a response I might get from a fundamentalist Christian. Like their responses your response is bereft of any reason or supporting evidence. All it is is an ad-hominem attack on me. When people know they've lost a debate, they often resort to such tactics.

You sound like you're getting a bit ruffled yourself.

Ruth is fine. She never gets bent.

Learner is fine. He never gets bent.

I DO get bent, quite frequently. So watch out.

I shall sweep down like a mighty dragon and torch thy house and thy cattle and thy kine and thy candles and thy chapiters and even unto thine own...er...thine own household, even if thou dost not have an household nor even an house wherein to hide thy body...etc, etc, etc&

Come, Shadowfax, show me the meaning of paste!... :joy:
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Messages
499
Location
Williamsport, PA
Basic Beliefs
Truth Seeker
I see, ok, I can adapt to your way of putting things. Prosperity as according to Jesus means everyone prospers. Prosperity for those certain preachers mentioned, unfortunately means only they; the preachers get to prosper - not the poor folk who unfortunately fell for the dazzling sermon.

It's not the actual results of prosperity preaching I'm referring to but the message of prosperity preaching I'm saying is essentially the same whether you look at modern preachers or Jesus himself. Prosperity preachers make good use of the Gospel to scam people. It's being gullible to believe anybody who preaches prosperity. I can warn you about that scam, but if you insist on believing it, then it's your money to throw away.

Besides, you're wrong about Jesus' prosperity preaching. He never said as far as we know that everyone would prosper but only those who obeyed him. Those who have obeyed his commandments have often experienced terrible tragedies as a result. Those tragic consequences were far worse than getting scammed out of money, so Jesus was in that sense much worse than any modern prosperity preacher.

From the looks of the properity church description, I'll take the risk and believe in the 'ulitmate prosperity' in Heaven, thank you very much.

You can believe any lie you wish. I can only warn you.

Liberal Christians by contrast tend to retreat from any circumstances that might serve to falsify their beliefs tucking God and his promised rewards away to a time a place where we cannot check to see if they're real.

Sort of defeats the purpose trying to be a believer when you want to go and falsify things.

You can't falsify what is true. Only lies are vulnerable to falsification. So if your beliefs are true, then you need not fear attempts at falsifying them. If your beliefs are falsehoods, on the other hand, then neglecting to see them for what they are will do you little good. Ignorance may be bliss, but only for so long.

Quoting your "Then tell Jesus not to do it to other people" there is a better and clearer context to this part of the narrative, when Jesus warns believers of false doctrine and false prophets under the guise of Christianity whilst preaching in His name i.e. don't be lumped in with them..

I'm not sure how that's relevant to my pointing out that Jesus was a major-league generalizer. In Matthew 23, for example, he angrily denounced the Pharisees as fools and as murderers. He made no exceptions for any of them. And in John 8 he "tars the Jews with a broad brush" telling them they had the Devil for their father. He made no exceptions for "the Jews." So if you're going to say generalizing is wrong, then you better sit down with Jesus and have a very serious talk with him.

Hmmm, I don't know about that. Jesus was specific about the Pharisees, who followed their own traditions of men, which is quite clear. He didn't also include the Romans as fools and murderers though, did He? Coz that would be real major-league generalizing.

I never cease to be amazed at the bizarre logic that Christian apologists use to deny obvious facts. Using your logic, I could say that all Christians beat their kids, but I'm not generalizing because I'm not including Muslims!

So why believe in all that religious nonsense? Does reality bother you so much that you need to escape into a religious fantasy world?
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Messages
499
Location
Williamsport, PA
Basic Beliefs
Truth Seeker
You are like a hare, bragging about winning a race, where not only has the gun not gone off, but that Ruth hasn't even joined any race. But yes, I gather that you are serious...stern serious face noted.

What you've posted here is a blatant ad-hominem attack. I'd recommend you learn to debate logically.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
You are like a hare, bragging about winning a race, where not only has the gun not gone off, but that Ruth hasn't even joined any race. But yes, I gather that you are serious...stern serious face noted.

What you've posted here is a blatant ad-hominem attack. I'd recommend you learn to debate loogically.
For ad hominem, wouldn't they have had to say, "You're wrong because you're bragging" or something like that?
AH does not include everything offered as, or taken as, an insult.
 

funinspace

Don't Panic
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
4,200
Location
Oregon
Gender
Alien
Basic Beliefs
functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
You are like a hare, bragging about winning a race, where not only has the gun not gone off, but that Ruth hasn't even joined any race. But yes, I gather that you are serious...stern serious face noted.

What you've posted here is a blatant ad-hominem attack. I'd recommend you learn to debate loogically.
Well, loogically speaking, you could have pointed out what argument Ruth made that you demolished if it existed...but you probably won't. I haven't attack you, so much as point out that you haven't won any debate, as there wasn't a debate...that's my position.

I'm not sure how you've determined that I don't know how to logically debate, as I haven't engaged in much of any debate with you. Not that I didn't post one countering point, but you didn't engage that post, so not much to work with there. But maybe you've taken a fancy to my postings, and have been reading other threads from my past.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Messages
499
Location
Williamsport, PA
Basic Beliefs
Truth Seeker
For ad hominem, wouldn't they have had to say, "You're wrong because you're bragging" or something like that?
AH does not include everything offered as, or taken as, an insult.

I think it was implied that I was wrong due to my alleged arrogance. That's illogical because any pride on my part has nothing to do with whether I'm right or wrong. Also, an ad-hominem can be simple abuse.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
For ad hominem, wouldn't they have had to say, "You're wrong because you're bragging" or something like that?
AH does not include everything offered as, or taken as, an insult.

I think it was implied that I was wrong due to my alleged arrogance. That's illogical because any pride on my part has nothing to do with whether I'm right or wrong. Also, an ad-hominem can be simple abuse.

Implied? You said 'blatant ad hominem attack' AND lectured them about their debate skills.
Now 'blatant' isn't?
Meh.
 

funinspace

Don't Panic
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
4,200
Location
Oregon
Gender
Alien
Basic Beliefs
functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
For ad hominem, wouldn't they have had to say, "You're wrong because you're bragging" or something like that?
AH does not include everything offered as, or taken as, an insult.

I think it was implied that I was wrong due to my alleged arrogance. That's illogical because any pride on my part has nothing to do with whether I'm right or wrong. Also, an ad-hominem can be simple abuse.

Implied? You said 'blatant ad hominem attack' AND lectured them about their debate skills.
Now 'blatant' isn't?
Meh.

LOL...I'll suffer thru by poor debating skills.

To Unknown Soldier: I made my 'must be joking' comment, as you made a grand claim of winning a debate with Ruth, and I never saw one. And that was and is my point.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Messages
499
Location
Williamsport, PA
Basic Beliefs
Truth Seeker
Well, loogically speaking...

I edited my post to correct that spelling error. I hope it's a good example of correcting one's mistakes when they are made.

...you could have pointed out what argument Ruth made that you demolished if it existed...but you probably won't.

See my Post #46.

I haven't attack you, so much as point out that you haven't won any debate, as there wasn't a debate...that's my position.

There was no debate on your side of the issue. You danced around everything I argued.

I'm not sure how you've determined that I don't know how to logically debate, as I haven't engaged in much of any debate with you.

It appears that your lack of debating results from an inability to debate.

Not that I didn't post one countering point, but you didn't engage that post, so not much to work with there. But maybe you've taken a fancy to my postings, and have been reading other threads from my past.

What was that countering point? Did you insult me or call me a name?
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Messages
499
Location
Williamsport, PA
Basic Beliefs
Truth Seeker
I made my 'must be joking' comment, as you made a grand claim of winning a debate with Ruth, and I never saw one. And that was and is my point.

What's so "grand" about winning a debate with a Christian? How much does anybody need to say to let people know that attempting to telepathically communicate with an invisible man is as superstitious as hoping a rabbit's foot will grant them good luck? Personally, I'd bank on the rabbit's foot.

Anyway, did you miss my point about the telepathic communication with the invisible man? Or do you think that that point isn't valid.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,062
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
So this conversation what 'witty repartee' means. Always wondered what that meant.


conversation or speech characterized by quick, witty comments or replies.
"he had a quick mind and a splendid gift of repartee"

Keep the repartee, it is most entertaining.

Thrust and parry, parry and thrust.
 

funinspace

Don't Panic
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
4,200
Location
Oregon
Gender
Alien
Basic Beliefs
functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
funinspace said:
...you could have pointed out what argument Ruth made that you demolished if it existed...but you probably won't.

See my Post #46.
Ah, that is where you think you 'dismantled Ruth's arguments'. At least, thanks for pointing that out. I guess I should have been more direct in asking for where, as my snark obviously didn't get the point across well to you. I just figured it was fine to trade a barb for a self-applause. Well, without trying to trade barbs (or ad hominems), I'll just stick with color me unimpressed in calling that particular exchange an argument(s) won. As to the rest, we'd just be trading barbs, or dancing as you seem to prefer...

TTFN
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
So this conversation what 'witty repartee' means. Always wondered what that meant.
Ever see Wild Wild West, the 1999 Movie? That scene where West meets Loveless at the party, and they trade 'quips'?
Loveless repeatedly pointing out West is a black man, West listing all the body parts shot or blown off of Loveless? Pause, repeat?

Not that.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Messages
499
Location
Williamsport, PA
Basic Beliefs
Truth Seeker
See my Post #46.
Ah, that is where you think you 'dismantled Ruth's arguments'. At least, thanks for pointing that out. I guess I should have been more direct in asking for where, as my snark obviously didn't get the point across well to you. I just figured it was fine to trade a barb for a self-applause. Well, without trying to trade barbs (or ad hominems), I'll just stick with color me unimpressed in calling that particular exchange an argument(s) won. As to the rest, we'd just be trading barbs, or dancing as you seem to prefer...

TTFN

Depending on your age and your interest in boxing, you might remember the second bout between Sugar Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran. In that fight Duran quit reputedly saying "No mas" which is Spanish for "no more." Whatever Duran really said, he quit the fight for no good reason, and as a result lost the bout. I score debates the same way. If you quit for no good reason, then you lose the debate. Ruth quit for no good reason, and therefore she lost the debate.

I've seen that kind of behavior on the part of Christians many times. Once they realize they've lost the debate, they turn their tails and run. They will never concede the loss, of course.
 

abaddon

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
2,145
Ruth quit for no good reason...
It was for a good reason. You were trying to fit the theist into your pre-fab conception of what she must believe and disregarding what she said in order to do that. But, if you really wanted to discuss things forthrightly, you'd accept the other person's self-description of their beliefs and not project your image of what Christians believe onto them.
 

funinspace

Don't Panic
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
4,200
Location
Oregon
Gender
Alien
Basic Beliefs
functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
See my Post #46.
Ah, that is where you think you 'dismantled Ruth's arguments'. At least, thanks for pointing that out. I guess I should have been more direct in asking for where, as my snark obviously didn't get the point across well to you. I just figured it was fine to trade a barb for a self-applause. Well, without trying to trade barbs (or ad hominems), I'll just stick with color me unimpressed in calling that particular exchange an argument(s) won. As to the rest, we'd just be trading barbs, or dancing as you seem to prefer...

TTFN

Depending on your age and your interest in boxing, you might remember the second bout between Sugar Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran. In that fight Duran quit reputedly saying "No mas" which is Spanish for "no more." Whatever Duran really said, he quit the fight for no good reason, and as a result lost the bout. I score debates the same way. If you quit for no good reason, then you lose the debate. Ruth quit for no good reason, and therefore she lost the debate.

Here's another scoring analogy: One hears a guy bragging about the great sex he had that morning in the shower with his girlfriend; only to later find out the guy doesn't have a girlfriend...
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Messages
499
Location
Williamsport, PA
Basic Beliefs
Truth Seeker
Ruth quit for no good reason...
It was for a good reason. You were trying to fit the theist into your pre-fab conception of what she must believe and disregarding what she said in order to do that. But, if you really wanted to discuss things forthrightly, you'd accept the other person's self-description of their beliefs and not project your image of what Christians believe onto them.

I didn't disregard what she said. She just failed to say much of substance. If I said something about her that was incorrect, then she had every opportunity to correct me. She didn't.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,062
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
So this conversation what 'witty repartee' means. Always wondered what that meant.
Ever see Wild Wild West, the 1999 Movie? That scene where West meets Loveless at the party, and they trade 'quips'?
Loveless repeatedly pointing out West is a black man, West listing all the body parts shot or blown off of Loveless? Pause, repeat?

Not that.

I believe that would be a double entendre, words placing emphasis on the dark and black.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,062
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
See my Post #46.
Ah, that is where you think you 'dismantled Ruth's arguments'. At least, thanks for pointing that out. I guess I should have been more direct in asking for where, as my snark obviously didn't get the point across well to you. I just figured it was fine to trade a barb for a self-applause. Well, without trying to trade barbs (or ad hominems), I'll just stick with color me unimpressed in calling that particular exchange an argument(s) won. As to the rest, we'd just be trading barbs, or dancing as you seem to prefer...

TTFN

Depending on your age and your interest in boxing, you might remember the second bout between Sugar Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran. In that fight Duran quit reputedly saying "No mas" which is Spanish for "no more." Whatever Duran really said, he quit the fight for no good reason, and as a result lost the bout. I score debates the same way. If you quit for no good reason, then you lose the debate. Ruth quit for no good reason, and therefore she lost the debate.

I've seen that kind of behavior on the part of Christians many times. Once they realize they've lost the debate, they turn their tails and run. They will never concede the loss, of course.

Latinos have a multifaceted word, pendejo. In Yiddish putz along with bupkus.

A putz con mucho bupkus. A fool saying nothing, a lot of hot air.

Leonard psyched and frustrated Durand with a little psychology that pushed Durand to the point he said the hell with it. The two eventually became good friends. A lesson in conflict and competition.

Trump was skilled at declaring victory in the face of obvious loss on an issue.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Messages
499
Location
Williamsport, PA
Basic Beliefs
Truth Seeker
Here's another scoring analogy: One hears a guy bragging about the great sex he had that morning in the shower with his girlfriend; only to later find out the guy doesn't have a girlfriend...

I'm really not here to trade insults or engage in a troll war. I'm here to debate. If you're not willing or able to debate the issues, then I'll move on.
 

Ruth Harris

Token Christian
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
451
Location
Missouri
Basic Beliefs
Christian
Thanks to all the good people here who have come to my support.

Unknown Soldier, let me enlighten you as to why I quit replying. The simple fact of the matter is that I do not debate. Ever. I have never been, and never will be, a professional apologist or debater. It is not in my skill set. I will discuss, provide information on a subject of interest, or give my opinion on matters under discussion. But if something develops into a debate, I am out.

I also refuse to engage fundamentalists of any persuasion – religious, atheist, political, whatever. Once I have determined that someone is in that class, I disengage. This is because fundamentalists invariably want only to debate; they are not interested in discussion at all. Debate is not why I am here – which you would have learned, had you read the thread I recommended to you or looked at some of my other postings. The other forum members are very aware of my stance on this as I have never made a secret of it.

You have made it very clear that your only interest is in debate. I am equally making it clear that I do not debate. So there we are. Given these opposing viewpoints, I will not engage you further on this forum and request you respect me likewise. My best wishes to you; I hope you find what you are wanting here.

Ruth
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Messages
499
Location
Williamsport, PA
Basic Beliefs
Truth Seeker
Unknown Soldier, let me enlighten you as to why I quit replying. The simple fact of the matter is that I do not debate. Ever. I have never been, and never will be, a professional apologist or debater. It is not in my skill set. I will discuss, provide information on a subject of interest, or give my opinion on matters under discussion. But if something develops into a debate, I am out.

I also refuse to engage fundamentalists of any persuasion – religious, atheist, political, whatever. Once I have determined that someone is in that class, I disengage. This is because fundamentalists invariably want only to debate; they are not interested in discussion at all. Debate is not why I am here – which you would have learned, had you read the thread I recommended to you or looked at some of my other postings. The other forum members are very aware of my stance on this as I have never made a secret of it.

You have made it very clear that your only interest is in debate. I am equally making it clear that I do not debate. So there we are. Given these opposing viewpoints, I will not engage you further on this forum and request you respect me likewise. My best wishes to you; I hope you find what you are wanting here.

Ruth

I understand. I wouldn't want to defend Christianity either.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,062
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
If you want to use boxing metaphors.

Ruth is not a power puncher but she landed a lot more unanswered punches.

No knockout but she won on points. A unanimous decision by all three judge' score cards.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,807
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So when you were a Christian apologist you were OK debating atheists. Is that correct?

When I was a Christian and even when I was an atheist, I was OK with debating. Then I realized the dubiousness of debate in general. Debate is a competition of rhetoric, not of reason.

When I was a child I thought as a child and did childish things. When I grew up I put those childish things away.
 

Gnostic Christian Bishop

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
763
Location
Canada
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic Christian & esoteric ecumenist
So when you were a Christian apologist you were OK debating atheists. Is that correct?

When I was a Christian and even when I was an atheist, I was OK with debating. Then I realized the dubiousness of debate in general. Debate is a competition of rhetoric, not of reason.

When I was a child I thought as a child and did childish things. When I grew up I put those childish things away.

Your reasons are why I try to direct the arguments to morals.

No end game is possible on issues that pertain to the supernatural and fantasy, but an end can be logically found when morals are at issue.

That is why theists run like hell when morals are at issue.

Regards
DL
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,807
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So when you were a Christian apologist you were OK debating atheists. Is that correct?

When I was a Christian and even when I was an atheist, I was OK with debating. Then I realized the dubiousness of debate in general. Debate is a competition of rhetoric, not of reason.

When I was a child I thought as a child and did childish things. When I grew up I put those childish things away.

Your reasons are why I try to direct the arguments to morals.

No end game is possible on issues that pertain to the supernatural and fantasy, but an end can be logically found when morals are at issue.

That is why theists run like hell when morals are at issue.

Regards
DL

Indeed, though for me "ethics" as the morals we have, the emotional constructs and our subconscious, are only a noisy approximation of a much more system of game theory.

It is this ethics that is created not as a function of decree but by the mere shape of reality itself which generally shakes them to their boots because it would be true for any deterministic universe with self-modifying agents.
 

Gnostic Christian Bishop

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
763
Location
Canada
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic Christian & esoteric ecumenist
Your reasons are why I try to direct the arguments to morals.

No end game is possible on issues that pertain to the supernatural and fantasy, but an end can be logically found when morals are at issue.

That is why theists run like hell when morals are at issue.

Regards
DL

Indeed, though for me "ethics" as the morals we have, the emotional constructs and our subconscious, are only a noisy approximation of a much more system of game theory.

It is this ethics that is created not as a function of decree but by the mere shape of reality itself which generally shakes them to their boots because it would be true for any deterministic universe with self-modifying agents.

No argument against.

Regards
DL
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,807
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Your reasons are why I try to direct the arguments to morals.

No end game is possible on issues that pertain to the supernatural and fantasy, but an end can be logically found when morals are at issue.

That is why theists run like hell when morals are at issue.

Regards
DL

Indeed, though for me "ethics" as the morals we have, the emotional constructs and our subconscious, are only a noisy approximation of a much more system of game theory.

It is this ethics that is created not as a function of decree but by the mere shape of reality itself which generally shakes them to their boots because it would be true for any deterministic universe with self-modifying agents.

No argument against.

Regards
DL

At any rate, it's still just debate, though. I refuse debate even on those grounds. If their goal is to debate, I will preemptively name them the master debators, as that is the extent of what they are doing.

I engage in discussions*, wherein both parties are automatically assumed WRONG, and where those parties happily assent to this fact, trying freely to locate where, between or perhaps outside their positions, a less-wrong platform may exist.

*Occasionally lectures, if it is apparent that someone is not-even-wrong
 

Gnostic Christian Bishop

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
763
Location
Canada
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic Christian & esoteric ecumenist
No argument against.

Regards
DL

At any rate, it's still just debate, though. I refuse debate even on those grounds. If their goal is to debate, I will preemptively name them the master debators, as that is the extent of what they are doing.

I engage in discussions*, wherein both parties are automatically assumed WRONG, and where those parties happily assent to this fact, trying freely to locate where, between or perhaps outside their positions, a less-wrong platform may exist.

*Occasionally lectures, if it is apparent that someone is not-even-wrong

"wherein both parties are automatically assumed WRONG"

I have never had such a discussion.

Regards
DL
 

Thomas II

Contributor
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
13,691
Location
New England
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Okay, I have to say I have never heard of a Christian who baptized someone and then killed them. Where did you come up with that?
Might have been in a Marilyn Manson song, so it must be true :D

I do have to say that atheists often seem to want all Christians to be Biblical literalists, or God-breathed Bible types. I find that odd, as us atheist aren't all the same either... So in general terms, I'd have to say I am on the same side as Ruth Harris on her points, like regarding Dr. Francis Collins. He called himself an evangelical Christian in his book: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. I don't know what he meant by the word "evangelical" as it tends to make people think of conservative Christians. But then again, one of the larger liberal Protestant sects, is the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), and they aren't literalists in any way shape or form...and they just recently installed a transgender Bishop.

The Spanish Inquisition was not particularly nice to the Jewish Community...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Spanish-Inquisition

"The pogroms of 1391 were especially brutal, and the threat of violence hung over the Jewish community in Spain. Faced with the choice between baptism and death, the number of nominal converts to the Christian faith soon became very great. Many Jews were killed, and those who adopted Christian beliefs—the so-called conversos (Spanish: “converted”)—faced continued suspicion and prejudice. In addition, there remained a significant population of Jews who had professed conversion but continued to practice their faith in secret. Known as Marranos, those nominal converts from Judaism were perceived to be an even greater threat to the social order than those who had rejected forced conversion. After Aragon and Castile were united by the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella (1469), the Marranos were denounced as a danger to the existence of Christian Spain. In 1478 Pope Sixtus IV issued a bull authorizing the Catholic Monarchs to name inquisitors who would address the issue. That did not mean that the Spanish sovereigns were turning over to the church the struggle for unity; on the contrary, they sought to use the Inquisition to support their absolute and centralizing regime and most especially to increase royal power in Aragon. The first Spanish inquisitors, operating in Seville, proved so severe that Sixtus IV attempted to intervene..."
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Messages
499
Location
Williamsport, PA
Basic Beliefs
Truth Seeker
So when you were a Christian apologist you were OK debating atheists. Is that correct?

When I was a Christian and even when I was an atheist, I was OK with debating. Then I realized the dubiousness of debate in general. Debate is a competition of rhetoric, not of reason.

I agree that debate can devolve into a "talking contest," but I think it is often more than that. Some people will listen to reason and accept information. I know I do, and when I listen to a debate, I often agree with some of what the party I don't usually agree with argues. If I'm not sure something either debater says is true or false, then I do some fact checking. So if debate is considered that way, then you can learn a lot from it. Debates also allow people of different positions to immediately respond to the other side's objections. It can be illuminating to see how objections are handled that way.

When I was a child I thought as a child and did childish things. When I grew up I put those childish things away.

When I was a child I was taken advantage of by people who said things that were either false or unreasonable about me not sure how to respond effectively to defend myself or what I was saying. When I grew up and learned how to debate effectively, I put the childish and false claims of others away into the trash where they belong.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,807
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I agree that debate can devolve into a "talking contest," but I think it is often more than that. Some people will listen to reason and accept information. I know I do, and when I listen to a debate, I often agree with some of what the party I don't usually agree with argues. If I'm not sure something either debater says is true or false, then I do some fact checking. So if debate is considered that way, then you can learn a lot from it. Debates also allow people of different positions to immediately respond to the other side's objections. It can be illuminating to see how objections are handled that way.

When I was a child I thought as a child and did childish things. When I grew up I put those childish things away.

When I was a child I was taken advantage of by people who said things that were either false or unreasonable about me not sure how to respond effectively to defend myself or what I was saying. When I grew up and learned how to debate effectively, I put the childish and false claims of others away into the trash where they belong.

Knowing that debate (and rhetoric in general, free of logic) is by definition not a mode of discussion that is likely to yield answers. Rhetoric is something to be studied and understood surely, mut mostly so as to tear it up and throw it in the trash where it belongs, so as to undergird oneself with sturdier stuff.

It sucks that people abused you with rhetoric. It can even FEEL bad when people tear you apart with (not-rhetoric). The point is to recognize the difference between rhetorical modes and reasonable ones.

In any situation of conflict one or more people are wrong.

Of course there is a lot more complexity that is being run roughshod over for the heart of the point, but there it is: the reliance on rhetoric rather than reason is a scourge to be shamed out of existence. It is something to practice disarming and deconstructing, not originating.
 

Wiploc

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2002
Messages
3,465
Location
Denver
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
So when you were a Christian apologist you were OK debating atheists. Is that correct?

When I was a Christian and even when I was an atheist, I was OK with debating. Then I realized the dubiousness of debate in general. Debate is a competition of rhetoric, not of reason.

When I was a child I thought as a child and did childish things. When I grew up I put those childish things away.


I guess you win this round.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,403
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
One of my biggest concerns about religious belief is the adverse impact it can have on education especially science education. Living in a society full of uninformed and misinformed people can't be a good thing if education has any value at all. So I do care if any kind of thinking or lack of thinking results in millions of superstitious, ignorant people.
And......here we go again. Painting all believers with the same tarred brush.

Yes, I am a Christian. No, I am not "uninformed and misinformed" or "superstitious, ignorant". I am a big believer in science. I admire scientists and educators tremendously for using their gifts to make our society better. I have spent my life learning about everything I could. And I am far from alone in the faith community. Unfortunately, the only religious people you hear about are the ones on the far right making fools of themselves in public, kind of like the only atheists you hear about are the ones who make big noises about how Christians are ignorant. Sadly, these are the exact people that wind up in positions of power since they know how to promote themselves as "the answer to our issues". My personal feelings are best stated by this - a pox on both of their houses!

You have made a common error in conflating religious belief with lack of scientific belief. The two are entirely separate; faith deals with the intangible and science deals with the tangible world around us. There is no conflict there.

Back to your original question - is it wrong for an atheist to debate a Christian apologist? Of course not. Both sides have to be willing for a debate to even occur. But you usually just see this happening between those on the fringe of each spectrum. Most of us find such debates to be boring, to be honest. The atheist says that the Christian is believing in fairy tales and not science, and the Christian says that the atheist has made science into their god. All they are doing is talking past each other since they aren't even discussing the same thing.

Ruth
You misread the post: its first statement about religion is built around a subjunctive verb, not a declarative verb: "the adverse impact it [religious belief] can have on education especially science education." Thus the possibility you outline is actually allowed for in Unknown Soldier's statement of concern. Your statement is expanding on one area of their statement, but not contradicting or correcting it.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,403
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
I didn't overlook it. I didn't quote it. Your mind-reading skills need work.
"Living in a society full of uninformed and misinformed people can't be a good thing if education has any value at all. So I do care if any kind of thinking or lack of thinking results in millions of superstitious, ignorant people." He seems to think that religious people cause that.
"Seems to think" again. You could, maybe, ask him what he really thinks?
Or just LUMP HIM in with other opinions you object to, such as people who lump other people into big groups.

He still hasn't said that ALL religious people will ALWAYS lead to this, which is what you're objecting to. If you want him to give 'the other side' fair chance, you probably need to do the same thing you demand of him.

Just saying...
Mmm....maybe. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that the entirety of the quote should be considered when deciding someone's viewpoint. You cherry picked only one sentence; I considered the entire quote.

But okay, let's ask. Unknown Soldier, did you intend to infer that religious people as a whole are responsible for adverse impacts on science and education?

Ruth
You inferred; you are asking him if he meant to imply.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,403
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
Science doesn't work on the principle of faith.
Faith in God does not work on scientific principles. Love doesn't work on scientific principles either. Does that invalidate love? Both are intangible concerns; science is involved with tangible concerns. I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that science will never prove or disprove faith, any more than it can prove or disprove love. That is not the sphere of science. Likewise, faith or love will never prove or disprove science.

Ruth

Faith by definition is a belief held without the support of evidence. Science requires evidence.
That is what I just said. One is tangible, one is intangible. So there is no conflict there as they are concerned with different spheres.

Define intangible, define spheres. Otherwise, I infer that you are perhaps writing nonsense.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,403
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
I agree that debate can devolve into a "talking contest," but I think it is often more than that. Some people will listen to reason and accept information. I know I do, and when I listen to a debate, I often agree with some of what the party I don't usually agree with argues. If I'm not sure something either debater says is true or false, then I do some fact checking. So if debate is considered that way, then you can learn a lot from it. Debates also allow people of different positions to immediately respond to the other side's objections. It can be illuminating to see how objections are handled that way.

When I was a child I thought as a child and did childish things. When I grew up I put those childish things away.

When I was a child I was taken advantage of by people who said things that were either false or unreasonable about me not sure how to respond effectively to defend myself or what I was saying. When I grew up and learned how to debate effectively, I put the childish and false claims of others away into the trash where they belong.

Knowing that debate (and rhetoric in general, free of logic) is by definition not a mode of discussion that is likely to yield answers. Rhetoric is something to be studied and understood surely, mut mostly so as to tear it up and throw it in the trash where it belongs, so as to undergird oneself with sturdier stuff.

It sucks that people abused you with rhetoric. It can even FEEL bad when people tear you apart with (not-rhetoric). The point is to recognize the difference between rhetorical modes and reasonable ones.

In any situation of conflict one or more people are wrong.

Of course there is a lot more complexity that is being run roughshod over for the heart of the point, but there it is: the reliance on rhetoric rather than reason is a scourge to be shamed out of existence. It is something to practice disarming and deconstructing, not originating.
I think the OP refers to various occasions of argument, not merely to formal debate. When i first joined this board, I did a lot of arguing on the religious fora, but over time I got bored as the same arguments kept repeating. I don't go to religious groups and argue with them, but if any religious person or group directly importunes me I will tell them as best and politely as I can why they are wrong.
 
Top Bottom