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

If god is true, why are christians so terrible at debating?

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Jan 31, 2001
Messages
15,331
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
If I were debating, and I had A FREAKIN' PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GAWD on my side, I would never lose an argument.

Yet Christians seem so _alone_ when they talk about proving their god.
Kinda weird and self-defeating, really.
 
If I were debating, and I had A FREAKIN' PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GAWD on my side, I would never lose an argument.

Yet Christians seem so _alone_ when they talk about proving their god.
Kinda weird and self-defeating, really.

It's worse than that; If god is true, then the followers of the correct sect(s) would always win at, well, everything.

Sectarian and religious wars would be pointless - the correct side would always win every single battle and skirmish.

Athletes who dedicate their victories to god would win every competition they entered.

The very existence of competitors of a different religion, or none, would be impossible in elite sport - such people could never beat their correctly religious rivals to get to the top.

"Si deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?" cuts both ways. The very existence of effective opponents is proof that god is not on your side.

Apparently the free will to make awful and incoherent arguments is of just as vital importance as the free will to be raped or murdered. But not as important as all the times that god intervened to perform miracles when there was nobody around to document them closely. Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster are, likewise, great respectors of the free will of people with the ability to closely observe them.
 
If I were debating, and I had A FREAKIN' PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GAWD on my side, I would never lose an argument.

Yet Christians seem so _alone_ when they talk about proving their god.
Kinda weird and self-defeating, really.

Because for thousands of years, anyone who disagreed with the church even slightly was jailed or set on fire. They're not used to having to defend their truth claims.

Muslims are even less used to defending their truth claims, and so are correspondingly worse at apologetics.

Also, the facts aren't on their side. That never helps.
 
It's analogous to the fossils God plants deeeeeep in the ground -- it tests our faith and weeds out the weak believer. If your side is represented by whimsy, appeals to mood and fantasy, the persistence of legend, C.S. Lewis and The Man With the Fried Egg on His Head, and fuck-all, well, brother, you've got FAITH to move mountains if you stick with it.
 
If I were debating, and I had A FREAKIN' PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GAWD on my side, I would never lose an argument.
I have often wondered why God doesn't give Morgan Freeman the powers Moses had, and the instructions Joseph Smith had... No debates at all, just an announcement, "THIS is the Word!" and everyone would find that compelling and, even if they don't become followers, at least become convinced THAT religion was THE religion...

It would certainly streamline surveys.
Are you religious? [_] Yes [_] Why the hell not?
 
Maybe the cat just digs mystery. If he made it too easy for his people to win, then he wouldn't get to jump out from behind the Pearly Gates every day and yell "Surprise, bitches! The correct answer was Mormonism all along!" at all the new arrivals. Eternity is a really, really long time and he needs something to keep himself occupied.

It's like that episode of Smallville where Clark Kent wants to join the football team. He can't be too good or else his secret's out so he needs to hold himself back and let everyone else think that their efforts are somehow worthwhile.
 
"Si deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?" cuts both ways. The very existence of effective opponents is proof that god is not on your side.
How silly of me. I thought that existence of effective opponents is proof that effective opponents exist.

And looking at Romans 8 does not make me think that Paul was talking about doing well in debates, sports etc.
 
"Si deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?" cuts both ways. The very existence of effective opponents is proof that god is not on your side.
How silly of me. I thought that existence of effective opponents is proof that effective opponents exist.

And looking at Romans 8 does not make me think that Paul was talking about doing well in debates, sports etc.
I think that was the point - that there could be no "effective opponents" in the face of GOD'S TRUTH, only failed opponents.
 
"Si deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?" cuts both ways. The very existence of effective opponents is proof that god is not on your side.
How silly of me. I thought that existence of effective opponents is proof that effective opponents exist.
So did I; The difference being that I did not stop thinking at that point for fear of discovering, through the application of logic and reasoning, something I was keen to avoid knowing.

Effective opponents and an omnipotent supporter are mutually exclusive possibilities. The observation of one renders the existence of the other a logical impossibility.
And looking at Romans 8 does not make me think that Paul was talking about doing well in debates, sports etc.

It's clear that it does not make you think at all. That you consider such thoughtlessness to be acceptable is a scathing indictment of the effect religion has on the brains of otherwise intelligent people.
 
So did I; The difference being that I did not stop thinking at that point for fear of discovering, through the application of logic and reasoning, something I was keen to avoid knowing.
What were you keen to avoid knowing?
Effective opponents and an omnipotent supporter are mutually exclusive possibilities. The observation of one renders the existence of the other a logical impossibility.
Why?
How one measures effectiveness is important. If we are using different standards then confusion will arise.
The omnipotent supporter may decide to be 'íneffective' for a time.
Your effectiveness could only be temporary. Only the passage of time will tell.
And so on
 
So did I; The difference being that I did not stop thinking at that point for fear of discovering, through the application of logic and reasoning, something I was keen to avoid knowing.
What were you keen to avoid knowing?
If you don't understand the usage and meaning of the word "not" in English, then it's hardly surprising that you are so confused.
Effective opponents and an omnipotent supporter are mutually exclusive possibilities. The observation of one renders the existence of the other a logical impossibility.
Why?
How one measures effectiveness is important. If we are using different standards then confusion will arise.
The omnipotent supporter may decide to be 'íneffective' for a time.
Your effectiveness could only be temporary. Only the passage of time will tell.
And so on

I guess it's possible that your omnipotent, omnicognisant, and omnipresent patron might not give a shit about your calls for his help, and might make you wait thousands of years for his assistance in doing the work he wants of you; But if so, why would you like him, or want to have anything to do with him?

What's the significant difference between a friend who doesn't help you to help him (although he could without effort), and a person who isn't a friend at all?
 
What's the significant difference between a friend who doesn't help you to help him (although he could without effort), and a person who isn't a friend at all?

The significance only arises when said friend is of the tri-omni nature you mentioned. In that case, how can you place a value on warm fuzzy feelings?
 
If I were debating, and I had A FREAKIN' PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GAWD on my side, I would never lose an argument.

Yet Christians seem so _alone_ when they talk about proving their god.
Kinda weird and self-defeating, really.

But then again, if you are right and all your facts are true, why doesn't everyone agree with you?
 
If you think about it, the fact that atheism even exists as a concept is a pretty good argument for atheism. At least, it seems a benevolent and all powerful God, who wanted His creations to know Him, would simply instill the knowledge of His existence, and what He wants of us, into the very architecture of our brains. Doubt would be physically impossible.

I know, I know; Free Will and all that. But a God that allows doubt, then punishes it eternally, isn't benevolent.
 
If you think about it, the fact that atheism even exists as a concept is a pretty good argument for atheism. At least, it seems a benevolent and all powerful God, who wanted His creations to know Him, would simply instill the knowledge of His existence, and what He wants of us, into the very architecture of our brains. Doubt would be physically impossible.

I know, I know; Free Will and all that. But a God that allows doubt, then punishes it eternally, isn't benevolent.

It's a very strange definition of 'free' - Using the Christian definition of free, you are completely free to rob a bank, but will spend twenty years in jail if judged guilty of doing it, and judgment is inevitable.

My understanding of freedom is that it entails NOT getting punished for doing the things you choose to do.

The 'Free Will' excuse for God's non-intervention against evildoers, criminals, heretics, and atheists is a total dud. If any of those groups of people are subsequently punished for eternity for their choices, then they had no free will to begin with. Rather, they were victims of entrapment.
 
If you think about it, the fact that atheism even exists as a concept is a pretty good argument for atheism. At least, it seems a benevolent and all powerful God, who wanted His creations to know Him, would simply instill the knowledge of His existence, and what He wants of us, into the very architecture of our brains. Doubt would be physically impossible.

I know, I know; Free Will and all that. But a God that allows doubt, then punishes it eternally, isn't benevolent.

It's a very strange definition of 'free' - Using the Christian definition of free, you are completely free to rob a bank, but will spend twenty years in jail if judged guilty of doing it, and judgment is inevitable.

My understanding of freedom is that it entails NOT getting punished for doing the things you choose to do.

The 'Free Will' excuse for God's non-intervention against evildoers, criminals, heretics, and atheists is a total dud. If any of those groups of people are subsequently punished for eternity for their choices, then they had no free will to begin with. Rather, they were victims of entrapment.
But christians doesnt mean that: they (mostly) simply mean that we make our own decisions. That we constains some sort of intelligence that can calculate what to do. That we dont simply play up a prewritten script.
 
If you think about it, the fact that atheism even exists as a concept is a pretty good argument for atheism. At least, it seems a benevolent and all powerful God, who wanted His creations to know Him, would simply instill the knowledge of His existence, and what He wants of us, into the very architecture of our brains. Doubt would be physically impossible.

I know, I know; Free Will and all that. But a God that allows doubt, then punishes it eternally, isn't benevolent.

It's a very strange definition of 'free' - Using the Christian definition of free, you are completely free to rob a bank, but will spend twenty years in jail if judged guilty of doing it, and judgment is inevitable.

My understanding of freedom is that it entails NOT getting punished for doing the things you choose to do.

The 'Free Will' excuse for God's non-intervention against evildoers, criminals, heretics, and atheists is a total dud. If any of those groups of people are subsequently punished for eternity for their choices, then they had no free will to begin with. Rather, they were victims of entrapment.
But christians doesnt mean that: they (mostly) simply mean that we make our own decisions. That we constains some sort of intelligence that can calculate what to do. That we dont simply play up a prewritten script.

Sure. But that then stops their answer from being relevant to the question 'If God wants me to do such-and-such, why doesn't he make his desire clear to me?'

I have the free will to choose to rob a bank, but the law makes it very clear that this is not permitted, and what the consequences of doing it will be.

I have the free will to choose not to worship God, but God has made the most half arsed attempt imaginable to advise me of his opinion on that choice. The dude's meant to be all knowing and all powerful; He knows what would convince me of the rules, and he has the ability to do whatever that is - and if after all that, I choose to misbehave, then that's on me. He also knows that anyone with half a brain is not going to be impressed with the 500 year old heavily edited writings based on two thousand year old oral traditions from people who thought it was vital to know how hard they were allowed to beat their slaves, but had no thought of writing down rules on washing your hands after tending the sick, wiping your backside, or before eating.

He seems also to have been inexcusably lax in letting people in the Americas, the Far East and Australasia know the rules - why only tell a bunch of guys in the Middle East, and not let everyone in the world in on the rules?

Informed decisions need information, and that information is not provided to the vast majority of the world's population. So for us, free will includes freedom from punishment for breaking rules that were never made clear.
 
But christians doesnt mean that: they (mostly) simply mean that we make our own decisions. That we constains some sort of intelligence that can calculate what to do. That we dont simply play up a prewritten script.

Sure. But that then stops their answer from being relevant to the question 'If God wants me to do such-and-such, why doesn't he make his desire clear to me?'

I have the free will to choose to rob a bank, but the law makes it very clear that this is not permitted, and what the consequences of doing it will be.

I have the free will to choose not to worship God, but God has made the most half arsed attempt imaginable to advise me of his opinion on that choice. The dude's meant to be all knowing and all powerful; He knows what would convince me of the rules, and he has the ability to do whatever that is - and if after all that, I choose to misbehave, then that's on me. He also knows that anyone with half a brain is not going to be impressed with the 500 year old heavily edited writings based on two thousand year old oral traditions from people who thought it was vital to know how hard they were allowed to beat their slaves, but had no thought of writing down rules on washing your hands after tending the sick, wiping your backside, or before eating.

He seems also to have been inexcusably lax in letting people in the Americas, the Far East and Australasia know the rules - why only tell a bunch of guys in the Middle East, and not let everyone in the world in on the rules?

Informed decisions need information, and that information is not provided to the vast majority of the world's population. So for us, free will includes freedom from punishment for breaking rules that were never made clear.
I dont see the problem with that. I mean, it isnt like christians ever said that their god was nice, smart, knew everything or something like that...
 
Back
Top Bottom