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

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

Rhea said:
Random Person said:
Did they cheer when your team fumbled the ball or when the other team intercepted a pass? How about when the other team scored?
Click to expand...


Are you serious? Do you not understand cheering or even supporting your team through thick and thin? How about parenting?


Five Ways to Cheer for a Team That ACTUALLY Loses
Click to expand...



Cheering for the team like they won the game when they lost it? :lol:

This seems to have bleed over into your debating style as well.
 
Seriously though.
Random Person. Do you want to tell them or should I?

The Op is a pure logical fallacy. The existence of God doesn't logically depend on how loudly or how well people cheer. Any good debater would surely understand this.

Is atheism false because atheists lose so many debates?
 
Random Person said:
Cheering for the team like they won the game when they lost it? :lol:

This seems to have bleed over into your debating style as well.
Click to expand...

No apologies or regrets for living a life that includes the cheer, “Great job! Good try! We love you anyway!”


But I can see why you’re now saying “cheering like they won when they lost,”. Because we were, it’s true, talking about WLC’s debates.


Objectively, he uses tricks and dodges. He does not effectively refute the other person’s points, nor truthfully support his own. He’s not debating, he’s preaching. ~shrug~ That’s what he does and you can read thousands of reviews detailing exactly why and how.

If you care about honest debate.
 
Cheering for the team like they won the game
Click to expand...
Like they won?

No. But still, cheer for the team. Support their effort, if not their success.

But many authoritarians will belive their authority if HE tells them he won, even if he's lying. Or they'll spin it. This was a MORAL victory, or a strategic rncounter, or some other blather...
 
Lion IRC said:
Seriously though.
Random Person. Do you want to tell them or should I?

The Op is a pure logical fallacy. The existence of God doesn't logically depend on how loudly or how well people cheer. Any good debater would surely understand this.

Is atheism false because atheists lose so many debates?
Click to expand...


My first thought when I read the thread title

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

If atheists were so great at debating why are there so many Christians? I didn'y say anything because they seem so angry already.
 
Keith&Co. said:
Cheering for the team like they won the game
Click to expand...
Like they won?

No. But still, cheer for the team. Support their effort, if not their success.

But many authoritarians will belive their authority if HE tells them he won, even if he's lying. Or they'll spin it. This was a MORAL victory, or a strategic rncounter, or some other blather...
Click to expand...


I think the word you are looking for is console or perhaps commiserate.

We don't use the word "cheer" that way in America. We don't cheer the team one when they are losing for instance.
 
Random Person said:
If atheists were so great at debating why are there so many Christians?
Click to expand...
Xians offer up things like Pascal's Wager and think it's a compelling argument, rather than a flawed rationalization.
This shows that the theists who try to 'debate' the issue that way became Christains for some reason other than logical arguments, or objective evidence. So they're not a benchmark to gauge atheist debate skills.
 
Keith&Co. said:
Random Person said:
If atheists were so great at debating why are there so many Christians?
Click to expand...
Xians offer up things like Pascal's Wager and think it's a compelling argument, rather than a flawed rationalization.
This shows that the theists who try to 'debate' the issue that way became Christains for some reason other than logical arguments, or objective evidence. So they're not a benchmark to gauge atheist debate skills.
Click to expand...


The best argument against Pascal's wager as argument for a reason to believe in God is advanced by Christians. Pascal's wager does provide an excellent decision matrix for other considerations however.
 
Random Person said:
I think the word you are looking for is console or perhaps commiserate.
Click to expand...
lNo, i'm fairly certain i meant 'cheer.' The process whereby the cheerleaders shake their pompoms and try to get the people in the stands to make positive noise to boost the morale of their team...
...win or lose.
We don't use the word "cheer" that way in America. We don't cheer the team one when they are losing for instance.
Click to expand...
Actually, we do. It's called a 'rally.' When the team is losing is when the cheer leaders make some of the most noise.

And i've seen that done in Idaho, Massachusetts, Florida, Georgia, Connecticut... So, yeah, it's American to do so.
 
Random Person said:
The best argument against Pascal's wager as argument for a reason to believe in God is advanced by Christians.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. It's still flawed AND YET offered by many Christains to support their faith. Many have tried it here, for instance.
So THOSE Christains are not swayed by logic, since they wouldn't recognize a logical fallacy if it doomed them to Hell.
Pascal's wager does provide an excellent decision matrix for other considerations however.
Click to expand...
Not really. it assumes that exactly one religion exists. Kind of piddle poor 'matrix,' but it is a way to feel good about a decision after you make it...
 
Keith&Co. said:
Random Person said:
The best argument against Pascal's wager as argument for a reason to believe in God is advanced by Christians.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. It's still flawed AND YET offered by many Christains to support their faith. Many have tried it here, for instance.
So THOSE Christains are not swayed by logic, since they wouldn't recognize a logical fallacy if it doomed them to Hell.
Pascal's wager does provide an excellent decision matrix for other considerations however.
Click to expand...
Not really. it assumes that exactly one religion exists. Kind of piddle poor 'matrix,' but it is a way to feel good about a decision after you make it...
Click to expand...


"Other considerations" would mean non-religious considerations in this context.

In the context of redemption, Christians have a set of criteria necessary to be saved. Believing to hedge your bets wouldn't qualify.
 
Random Person said:
"Other considerations" would mean non-religious considerations in this context.
Click to expand...
it's still a fallacious argument. Using a fallacy for 'other considerations' would still be using a flawed tool and acting surprised when you get flawed results.
 
Keith&Co. said:
Or not, you know. You'll just be exhibit... what's the count, Rhea?
Click to expand...

Well it was gonna be "D" but I can't decide how to score the guy who just told two people who have been Americans for a combined total of well more than 100 years that "we don't do that in America," so, do I just give him a D+ ?
 
Rhea said:
Keith&Co. said:
Or not, you know. You'll just be exhibit... what's the count, Rhea?
Click to expand...

Well it was gonna be "D" but I can't decide how to score the guy who just told two people who have been Americans for a combined total of well more than 100 years that "we don't do that in America," so, do I just give him a D+ ?
Click to expand...
Or double-D?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom