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

[Jolly_Penguin]

[

No. Not like flipping a coin.

'Kay. You're still not offering any situation where it's a useful tool for analysis. Wasn't it you that accused Underseer, if he COULD find fault, he would have posted it?

If you DID have a situation where PW is useful, wouldn't you have posted it by now? Unless you're just playing a game of keep away...


OR, maybe it's performance art? Throwing out unsupported assertions to show that Christains aren't the only ones who suck at debate?

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

A car owner considers buying insurance in a state where it's optional.

If I buy insurance and don't have an accident I'll have lost $x.
If I buy insurance and do have an accident...
(You get where I'm going right?)

Pascal wrote the first decision matrix.

I don't think it is a valid argument or reason for believing in God though.

Its not a good analogy. Pascal's wager claims "What have you got to lose by worshiping if there is no god?" Turns out, according to the Bible and other religious texts, quite a lot. "Thou shalt worship no god before me", right? With insurance, you pay the premium, and it may do no good, or it may help.... I've never seen a scenario where paying the insurance premium to one insurance company meant the other rival insurance company would come and do you more damage.

 

[Random Person]

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

A car owner considers buying insurance in a state where it's optional.

If I buy insurance and don't have an accident I'll have lost $x.
If I buy insurance and do have an accident...
(You get where I'm going right?)

Pascal wrote the first decision matrix.

I don't think it is a valid argument or reason for believing in God though.

Its not a good analogy. Pascal's wager claims "What have you got to lose by worshiping if there is no god?" Turns out, according to the Bible and other religious texts, quite a lot. "Thou shalt worship no god before me", right? With insurance, you pay the premium, and it may do no good, or it may help.... I've never seen a scenario where paying the insurance premium to one insurance company meant the other rival insurance company would come and do you more damage.

Does every discussion have to be about God for you? It doesn't for me.

Breath through your nose and read slowly.

I was referring to decision matrices and pointed out that PW isn't a valid argument or reason for believing in God.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Does every discussion have to be about God for you?

In the "existence of god" forum? What a shock!

 

[Random Person]

Does every discussion have to be about God for you?

In the "existence of god" forum? What a shock!

Then God must exist.

 

[Rhea]

Does every discussion have to be about God for you?

In the "existence of god" forum? What a shock!

Then God must exist.

Please define what you mean by "God"

 

[Random Person]

Then God must exist.

Please define what you mean by "God"

It wasn't a declaration but an answer to a riddle.

If every conversation has to be about god, does that means god exists or does it mean that god doesn't exist? For Keith & Co. it would seem that god exists or he (Please excuse the pronoun assumption) has made 36,000+ posts about nothing.

 

[skepticalbip]

Then God must exist.

Please define what you mean by "God"

It wasn't a declaration but an answer to a riddle.

If every conversation has to be about god, does that means god exists or does it mean that god doesn't exist? For Keith & Co. it would seem that god exists or he (Please excuse the pronoun assumption) has made 36,000+ posts about nothing.

Neither. It means that some people believe god exists, some don't, and others ask for some support for that belief to understand why some hold that unevidenced belief.

Your question is what is known as a false dichotomy.

 

[Random Person]

It wasn't a declaration but an answer to a riddle.

If every conversation has to be about god, does that means god exists or does it mean that god doesn't exist? For Keith & Co. it would seem that god exists or he (Please excuse the pronoun assumption) has made 36,000+ posts about nothing.

Neither. It means that some people believe god exists, some don't, and others ask for some support for that belief to understand why some hold that unevidenced belief.

Your question is what is known as a false dichotomy.

Your answer is what's known as denial.

 

[abaddon]

Then God must exist.

Please define what you mean by "God"

It wasn't a declaration but an answer to a riddle.

If every conversation has to be about god, does that means god exists or does it mean that god doesn't exist? For Keith & Co. it would seem that god exists or he (Please excuse the pronoun assumption) has made 36,000+ posts about nothing.

This is why you shouldn't speak in riddles. What you said is idiotic because: every conversation doesn't have to be about god (though it's good form here in the EoG forum); you don't know what the content of all Keith's posts are; and posting about a god that doesn't exist isn't posting about nothing.

Your logic isn't good. And that'd be ok if you showed your process of thinking, let people point out where it needs some work, and accepted to honestly consider it. But you choose to be sneaky and snarky instead.

And now I suppose you're going to project some characteristic of yourself onto me as a rebuttal...

 

[Random Person]

It wasn't a declaration but an answer to a riddle.

If every conversation has to be about god, does that means god exists or does it mean that god doesn't exist? For Keith & Co. it would seem that god exists or he (Please excuse the pronoun assumption) has made 36,000+ posts about nothing.

This is why you shouldn't speak in riddles. What you said is idiotic because: every conversation doesn't have to be about god (though it's good form here in the EoG forum); you don't know what the content of all Keith's posts are; and posting about a god that doesn't exist isn't posting about nothing.

Your logic isn't good. And that'd be ok if you showed your process of thinking, let people point out where it needs some work, and accepted to honestly consider it. But you choose to be sneaky and snarky instead.

And now I suppose you're going to project some characteristic of yourself onto me as a rebuttal...

You don't understand what you are reading. I didn't create the riddle. Keith & Co. claimed that every post is about God.

Before you jump in, figure out what's being said and who is saying it or you'll look like an idiot.

 

[Juma]

It wasn't a declaration but an answer to a riddle.

If every conversation has to be about god, does that means god exists or does it mean that god doesn't exist? For Keith & Co. it would seem that god exists or he (Please excuse the pronoun assumption) has made 36,000+ posts about nothing.

This is why you shouldn't speak in riddles. What you said is idiotic because: every conversation doesn't have to be about god (though it's good form here in the EoG forum); you don't know what the content of all Keith's posts are; and posting about a god that doesn't exist isn't posting about nothing.

Your logic isn't good. And that'd be ok if you showed your process of thinking, let people point out where it needs some work, and accepted to honestly consider it. But you choose to be sneaky and snarky instead.

And now I suppose you're going to project some characteristic of yourself onto me as a rebuttal...

You don't understand what you are reading. I didn't create the riddle. Keith & Co. claimed that every post is about God.

Before you jump in, figure out what's being said and who is saying it or you'll look like an idiot.

Before you jump in: check which subforum the thread is in (this is: /religion/existence of gods)
So yes, every post is supposed to be about that here.

 

[abaddon]

You don't understand what you are reading. I didn't create the riddle. Keith & Co. claimed that every post is about God.

Before you jump in, figure out what's being said and who is saying it or you'll look like an idiot.

I didn't say you created a riddle. I said you speak in riddles, referring to your shtick of dangling one-liners to try to set people up for jeering at them. It's plain you have nothing of substance to say, just a very stupid variety of "gotcha".

 

[Random Person]

You don't understand what you are reading. I didn't create the riddle. Keith & Co. claimed that every post is about God.

Before you jump in, figure out what's being said and who is saying it or you'll look like an idiot.

I didn't say you created a riddle. I said you speak in riddles, referring to your shtick of dangling one-liners to try to set people up for jeering at them. It's plain you have nothing of substance to say, just a very stupid variety of "gotcha".

This post represents your stupid variety of "gotcha".

 

[Rhea]

Turing Test has been marked "fail."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You don't understand what you are reading. I didn't create the riddle. Keith & Co. claimed that every post is about God.

Before you jump in, figure out what's being said and who is saying it or you'll look like an idiot.

Before you jump in: check which subforum the thread is in (this is: /religion/existence of gods)
So yes, every post is supposed to be about that here.

This is true. If the discussion was about something other than the existence of god, we'd probably move the thread to a different forum, so they do kind of all need to be about the existence of god here.

 

[Gun Nut]

Who says that Believers always win? Since when does "Science" get to define God?
It could be equally argued that Christian failure to convince using Science is proof that God exists.... If only just one time a Christian won a debate against any Scientist, then maybe we can say there is no supernatural influence.
BUT, Science claims to always win... so, how can that be possible without the hand of God directing the Christians to fail at what he tells us specifically not to do.
Explain that with a formula, if you can.

 

[bigfield]

BUT, Science claims to always win... so, how can that be possible without the hand of God directing the Christians to fail at what he tells us specifically not to do.
Explain that with a formula, if you can.

Christians fail to win arguments because their reasoning is shit.

If you don't have a sound argument, don't expect critical thinkers to accept your conclusions.

 

[Gun Nut]

BUT, Science claims to always win... so, how can that be possible without the hand of God directing the Christians to fail at what he tells us specifically not to do.
Explain that with a formula, if you can.

Christians fail to win arguments because their reasoning is shit.

If you don't have a sound argument, don't expect critical thinkers to accept your conclusions.

Include what I was responding to for accurate context.

See, this is exactly what you do that is dishonest and total bullshit.

The claim was made by an atheist that "Christians NEVER win debates"

The RESPONSE to that is basically that it is statistically impossible for a huge group to NEVER win an argument against another huge group, since there are so many people having those arguments. For this to be true, supernatural forces must be in play preventing the otherwise natural case of sometimes winning something.

The bullshit from atheists is the quoting of the response without what is being responded to, and then calling it a claim.

If (BIG FUCKING IF) what you say is true, THEN (conditional - see "if") <response> would have to also be true.

Then the atheists take <response> and say "look what they are claiming", while conveniently erasing the claim they made that instigated the response.

That is exactly what I mean about "if Science would stop playing around where Science has no value then Theology would not be pushed into playing around where Science works better".

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What is a place where science has no value?

 

[Rhea]

The claim was made by an atheistic t that "Christians NEVER win debates"

Who said that?