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

[Gun Nut]

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

Who said that?

bilby did:

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.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That wasn't said. He said that if God were real, they would always win debates. That's very different than someone saying that they never win.

 

[Rhea]

Oh, my. You think these two statements are the same thing?
Oh, dear.

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

bilby did:

[if god were on the side of xians] 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.

I’m not sure where to start to help you. Perhaps you could pray for assistance?
Those two statements have nothing whatsover to do with each other.
One says “christians never win debates”
And the other says, “Christians don’t ALWAYS WIN contests of all kinds”

I, um, well, just... thanks for proving the OP?
(Thoughts and prayers)

 

[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.

Include what I was responding to for accurate context.

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

That's funny, because the post I quoted did not quote the post you were responding to, so I can't actually be sure what you were responding to. Perhaps you should take some of your own medicine.

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

Lie. No-one wrote that.

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.

Lie. You didn't write that.

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.

Hypocrisy.

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.

Maybe you should learn to use the Quote function.

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".

Science always works better than theology. Theology is the religious equivalent of arguing who would win in a race between Superman and the Flash.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Dennis Prager the other day thought he had the best line of attack on Atheists. He had three questions.

1) Do you ever doubt your Atheism?
2) Where did the universe come from?
3) Do you hope you are right?

And then allowed a few dumb atheists or "former atheists" to speak on his show. Even one Atheist noted that evolution "has flaws". Talking about god and "evolution" comes up?

The first question lets Dennis know if the atheist is intellectually honest. But really it is merely an attempt to sow doubt or indicate an Atheist has contempt for religion.

The second question is the dumbest one. Where did existence come from? Well Atheists don't know. Theists only pretend to know.

The third question is irrelevant. Right about what?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What is a place where science has no value?

The White House?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Since when does "Science" get to define God?

Religions have defined their gods.... a long time ago. They also make some fantastic claims.

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.

So far we haven't had the need for a "supernatural influence" coefficient or constant.

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.

Eat shellfish?

Explain that with a formula, if you can.

According to the Tanakh, God used to intervene heavily in the local events of man. God personally selected Noah, personally selected Abram. He personally ordered the shit to be scared out of Isaac. He sent an intermediary to wrestle with Jacob in order to help even the pretty shitty moral record of Jacob as a Founding Father of the Hebrew people. God selected Moses and spoke to him personally.

That is a lot of personal interaction that would require little in the way of apologetics to explain such belief in something.

Later on, God would demand things, lessen demands, increase the demands and expectations of him people... until about the end of the Tanakh. And that was it. Until some Latino Jesus fellow and then some warrior cult of personality, both in the Middle East. However, each of those didn't have the backing of the previous followers, so the legitimacy of these claims is in doubt.

Now days we are told that God can't be expected to do anything because *blah blah* faith. But that wasn't always the case. It seems odd and contradictory.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Dennis Prager the other day thought he had the best line of attack on Atheists. He had three questions.

1) Do you ever doubt your Atheism?
2) Where did the universe come from?
3) Do you hope you are right?

And then allowed a few dumb atheists or "former atheists" to speak on his show. Even one Atheist noted that evolution "has flaws". Talking about god and "evolution" comes up?

The first question lets Dennis know if the atheist is intellectually honest. But really it is merely an attempt to sow doubt or indicate an Atheist has contempt for religion.

The second question is the dumbest one. Where did existence come from? Well Atheists don't know. Theists only pretend to know.

The third question is irrelevant. Right about what?

1) No.

2) I like that question because I always respond, "Okay, where exactly do gods come from?"

3) If you mean, "'Do I hope I'm right that gods aren't real? I've already answered that question with my first response."

 

[atrib]

If I were debating, and I had A FREAKIN' PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GAWD on my side, I would never lose an argument.

I never lose an argument.

Are you joking? You routinely run away from discussions when your arguments are shown to be flawed. A few examples:

1. You ran away when omniscience was shown to be incompatible with free will, even using your made-up definition of omniscience.
2. You ran away when asked to explain why the Biblical flood has not left any evidence in the geological and genetic record.
3. You ran away when asked why you apparently support a Church (the RCC) that has routinely sheltered and even enabled known pedophiles. Or why you habitually made the claim that the pedophile priests were atheists.

I even remember something you had posted a long time ago: a photograph of a sand dune next to a photograph of a sand sculpture. You were trying to make the point that the world looked designed using Paley's watchmaker argument. When the flaw in your argument was pointed out, you ran away.

Say the word and I will post links to the threads and posts I am talking about. So much for "I never lose an argument"!

Nobody who is winning an argument runs away.

My point exactly!!!