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

[Lion IRC]

[
Just FYI, that wasn't me. .

Sorry. I have Lion on ignore, and can only respond to when he's quoted. SO it should link back to the post where you qwoted him...

Gotcha. Now I know I can finish my margarita.

Yes it was Rhea who wrote that.
And responding to something written by a person you claim to have on ignore is the opposite of ignore.

 

[Rhea]

Gotcha. Now I know I can finish my margarita.

Yes it was Rhea who wrote that.

wait, I wrote what?

And responding to something written by a person you claim to have on ignore is the opposite of ignore.

No. "having someone on ignore" means, specifically, that you don't have to be bothered by their posts. But you see other people responding to it and you can engage, if you wish, with the other people. That's what "having them on ignore," which is a bulletin board setting, means.

 

[braces_for_impact]

William Lane Craig doesn't need to persuade me that God is real or get me to cheer
And he isn't winning debates by debating a ventriloquism dummy

Let's be honest here, William Lane Craig convinces very few people. If I ask you and a million other people why they believe in God, they're not going to start talking to me about one of WLC's arguments. I've met a lot of people and heard a lot of reasons for believing in God, both dim-witted and rather complex, and none have mentioned WLC. WLC is a prop. He's there to make people "feel" smart, and think they've made a good choice. "Well this guy William Lane Craig is smart and has a bunch of letters behind his name, and he believes in God, so you can't say it's a stupid thing to believe in God." Unfortunately, this in itself is bad logic, but the followers of WLC don't know that, because most of them couldn't name a logical fallacy to save their soul, if you'll excuse the pun.

The problem is, none of you have good reasons. Most of you know it too, which is why it all comes down to "personal experience" these days by any of you that have argued with atheists for any length of time.

 

[abaddon]

Pascal's wager as similar to car insurance, or like the precautionary principle...

Those real-world instances are based on well-demonstrated dangers. Drive a car, you might wreck sooner or later. How do we know? Because people have observed it and measured the probabilities. Same with LionIRC's link to the precautionary principle in environmental science. People have observed what happens when inadequate precautions are taken.

Also, giving an idea the benefit of a doubt only takes some thinking about the topic. It doesn't entail trying to fully believe in spite of not finding the belief convincing.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).

This is based on nothing but how some believers strongly believe they're right and think others should share their credulity: "hmm, they seem so sure they're right that maybe they're right". That, in spite of ZERO evidence in all human history that anyone has suffered the consequences of unbelief by anyone other than some believers.

 

[abaddon]

Let's be honest here, William Lane Craig convinces very few people. If I ask you and a million other people why they believe in God, they're not going to start talking to me about one of WLC's arguments. I've met a lot of people and heard a lot of reasons for believing in God, both dim-witted and rather complex, and none have mentioned WLC. WLC is a prop. He's there to make people "feel" smart, and think they've made a good choice. "Well this guy William Lane Craig is smart and has a bunch of letters behind his name, and he believes in God, so you can't say it's a stupid thing to believe in God." Unfortunately, this in itself is bad logic, but the followers of WLC don't know that, because most of them couldn't name a logical fallacy to save their soul, if you'll excuse the pun.

The problem is, none of you have good reasons. Most of you know it too, which is why it all comes down to "personal experience" these days by any of you that have argued with atheists for any length of time.

I've read many Youtube comments after watching (in nausea) a couple WLC debates. I remember LOTS of comments by believers about "Dr. Craig is such an intelligent man!" He's able to make their faith seem reasoned.

It's kind of ironic pulling him up in this thread, with its topic. "There's this really smart guy named William Lane Craig"... as a distinctive contrast to most theists.

 

[Lion IRC]

William Lane Craig doesn't need to persuade me that God is real or get me to cheer
And he isn't winning debates by debating a ventriloquism dummy

Let's be honest here, William Lane Craig convinces very few people.

There's several billion people on Earth. So, yes, I concede he convinces very few.

If I ask you and a million other people why they believe in God, they're not going to start talking to me about one of WLC's arguments.

No, they're gonna say the same thing I did. Which is that they are already convinced God exists long before they ever heard of [insert name of apologist here]
You know one of WLC's most compelling arguments? The witness of the Holy Spirit. Personal experience of God.
He ain't preaching to the choir pal.

I've met a lot of people and heard a lot of reasons for believing in God, both dim-witted and rather complex, and none have mentioned WLC.

Why would they?
There have been billions of Christians on Earth long before he showed up.

WLC is a prop. He's there to make people "feel" smart, and think they've made a good choice. "Well this guy William Lane Craig is smart and has a bunch of letters behind his name, and he believes in God, so you can't say it's a stupid thing to believe in God."

Can you post a quote from any Christian here saying that?
You put quotations around your strawman. Are you debating with the sock on your hand that's got two buttons for eyes and a mouth that only moves when your hand does?

Unfortunately, this in itself is bad logic, but the followers of WLC don't know that, because most of them couldn't name a logical fallacy to save their soul, if you'll excuse the pun.

You just accused your sock puppet opponent of a logical fallacy but I see you conveniently neglected to state what fallacy that actually was. In point of fact you really can't just 'say' it's a stupid thing to believe in God. Because that would be a form of special pleading in any case.

The problem is, none of you have good reasons.

I don't know who you're talking at. Me?
I have good reasons.

Most of you know it too

Yep!
There we go. That's the intellectual dishonesty, strawman, money shot.
...you're wrong and you secretly know you're wrong and I shall now do my victory lap and high-5 myself a few times.

Pathetic!

 

[Rhea]

You know one of WLC's most compelling arguments? The witness of the Holy Spirit. Personal experience of God.
He ain't preaching to the choir pal.

Are “witness of the Holy Spirit” and “personal Experience of god” synonyms?
How does it follow that WLC uses this as a strong argument? How can he “argue” for someone to get a personal experience? And wy would that not be preaching to the choir?

Sorry if these questions seem basic, but I was not able to understand what you meant by that stuff. Can you explain more about this “most compelling argument,” when WLC makes it and how people receive it?

 

[braces_for_impact]

Originally posted by Lion IRC

There's several billion people on Earth. So, yes, I concede he convinces very few.

Oh, you're as clever as you are funny!

No, they're gonna say the same thing I did. Which is that they are already convinced God exists long before they ever heard of [insert name of apologist here]
You know one of WLC's most compelling arguments? The witness of the Holy Spirit. Personal experience of God.
He ain't preaching to the choir pal.

Which is exactly what I said, thank you for verifying my point.

Can you post a quote from any Christian here saying that?
You put quotations around your strawman. Are you debating with the sock on your hand that's got two buttons for eyes and a mouth that only moves when your hand does?

Not at hand, no. Perhaps Youtube or Christian boards where I've seen them myself is a great place to start. I don't view this statement as controversial enough for me even to wander off and provide those links and statements for you, so you can handwave them off. I wouldn't have made the comment had I not heard them, multiple times. Feel free to dismiss them, that is fine and really doesn't change the substance of my post.

You just accused your sock puppet opponent of a logical fallacy but I see you conveniently neglected to state what fallacy that actually was. In point of fact you really can't just 'say' it's a stupid thing to believe in God. Because that would be a form of special pleading in any case.

It could be special pleading, it could be an appeal to authority (which is the most often I've seen it misused.) If you feel it's important to name all the ways in which it's wrong, feel free.

I don't know who you're talking at. Me?
I have good reasons.

Good. Let's open a new thread and explore that. So far, an awful lot of religious people of various stripes have told me that they, too have good reasons, but they didn't. Various theologians from history have brought forth what they would consider good reasons, and yet they were wrong too. I've never heard a good one, maybe you'll be the first.

Yep!
There we go. That's the intellectual dishonesty, strawman, money shot.
...you're wrong and you secretly know you're wrong and I shall now do my victory lap and high-5 myself a few times.

Pathetic!

Argumentum as Trumpium? Ha!

 

[Keith&Co.]

"having them on ignore," which is a bulletin board setting, means.

now, if i had said "i am ignoring lion" he'd have an actual point.

 

[Rhea]

So going back to the origin of the squirrel in this thread: The claim seems to be, “Christians aren’t bad debaters, look we’ve got this one guy!”

Rhea says Christians shouldn't lose debates if God is on their side.
And I agree 100%

So much so that I think the corollary would explain why atheists lose so many AvT debates.

Notwithstanding that the One Guy is not actually good at having the information that one would expect a guy with a personal relationship with god to have, he’s merely a trickster who uses clever dodges to avoid having actual knowledge; but even at that the cheer is, “we’ve got this one guy!”

I’m not going to spend any more time detailing how William Lane Craig is not actually full of informative and compelling arguments about anything, because “Personal Experience” seems to override objective evaluation.

So I’m just going to note that,
1. “I never lose an argument,” and,
2. “We’ve got this one guy,”
don’t convince me that Christians actually operate from a position of having a personal relationship with god when they try to decide how to bring new people to the flock. Or try to convince people that some thing or other is true. Or that Christianity makes them kind or anything.

The arguments just never sound like they come from people coached by a god.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'll give you an example of what a decision matrix is.

oh, i know what a decision matrix is. Pascal's Wager dishonestly employs a decision matrix.

Now you're shifting your claim. You're not exactly employing PW for making a choice, you're using a matrix, LIKE the one in the wager, which you credit to Pascal.

Hopefully, though, if you were to supply a complete example, you would attempt to list all the possibile outcomes to support an actual matrix, rather than limiting them to point the decision to a predesired outcome.

Thus, no, you haven't shown an example of how PASCAL'S WAGER is any more useful than throwing darts at a board.

 

[skepticalbip]

The arguments just never sound like they come from people coached by a god.

Well it could be that they are being coached by the god, Loki (the Norse trickster god). He is supposed to be good at tricking people into absurd situations.

 

[Random Person]

I'll give you an example of what a decision matrix is.

oh, i know what a decision matrix is. Pascal's Wager dishonestly employs a decision matrix.

Now you're shifting your claim. You're not exactly employing PW for making a choice, you're using a matrix, LIKE the one in the wager, which you credit to Pascal.

Hopefully, though, if you were to supply a complete example, you would attempt to list all the possibile outcomes to support an actual matrix, rather than limiting them to point the decision to a predesired outcome.

Thus, no, you haven't shown an example of how PASCAL'S WAGER is any more useful than throwing darts at a board.

These aren't my thoughts and impressions. Read about Pascal.

- - - Updated - - -

The arguments just never sound like they come from people coached by a god.

Well it could be that they are being coached by the god, Loki (the Norse trickster god). He is supposed to be good at tricking people into absurd situations.

The Farting Goat is trickier.

 

[Keith&Co.]

These aren't my thoughts and impressions. Read about Pascal.

no, not interested.

YOU claimed that The Wager could be useful.
Turns out, you're talking about decision matrices, not The Wager.

No wonder you spend so much time not supporting your claims.

 

[Random Person]

These aren't my thoughts and impressions. Read about Pascal.

no, not interested.

YOU claimed that The Wager could be useful.
Turns out, you're talking about decision matrices, not The Wager.

No wonder you spend so much time not supporting your claims.

You spend a lot of time in a fog refuting stuff you pull out of you butt.

 

[Keith&Co.]

....stuff you pull out of you butt.

...accused the arse-pulling cheerleader expert...

 

[Random Person]

These aren't my thoughts and impressions. Read about Pascal.

no, not interested.

YOU claimed that The Wager could be useful.
Turns out, you're talking about decision matrices, not The Wager.

No wonder you spend so much time not supporting your claims.

I told you what I was talking about. I can't make you listen.

 

[Keith&Co.]

These aren't my thoughts and impressions. Read about Pascal.

no, not interested.

YOU claimed that The Wager could be useful.
Turns out, you're talking about decision matrices, not The Wager.

No wonder you spend so much time not supporting your claims.

I told you what I was talking about. I can't make you listen.

Yeah, saw you shift the goalpost there.

 

[Random Person]

I told you what I was talking about. I can't make you listen.

Yeah, saw you shift the goalpost there.

Then quote it or take a hike.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I told you what I was talking about. I can't make you listen.

Yeah, saw you shift the goalpost there.

Then quote it or take a hike.

Um....neither.