Do atheists think that debating Christian apologists is wrong?

[Unknown Soldier]

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]

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]

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...

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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]

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

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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]

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.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Fine. Orthodox belief systems and the scientific method are still inverse operations.

 

[Jarhyn]

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]

Fine. Orthodox belief systems and the scientific method are still inverse operations.

Are you saying you debate to convert theists into the sanity of non-supernatural thinking?

Do you also comment on their inverse moral positions?

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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..."

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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.