I don't get it. Seems reasonable to argue against what one does not believe exists. Seems natural and obvious that this is the way it should be. Other possibilities would be "To argue in favor of the existence of what one does not believe exists." and that would be a contradiction. Or "To argue against what one does believe exists." Of all three, the one you presented, which you claimed is a sign of mental illness, is the only series that flows logically and would be expected. I think you need to gain some more experience dealing with logic.
You cannot debate with an atheist about God as they know there is no God. Perhaps you could debate the meaning of Time instead. Winning a debate depends only on the ability of a person to put their point strongly enough to sway either the other person or audience. There is no formula. Debating an atheist about God is a ridiculous proposition and no atheist would bother. If you want to argue there is a God, go for it, won't change a thing. To Natural, You still don't get it do you? Atheists don't believe there is no God. They know there is no God. Do you understand the difference? A belief indicates doubt, which is what every religious person operates on, beliefs which express doubt. Knowledge is fact, no God, no proof, no belief required.
I for one am not an atheist. But it is wise not to debate if you have no evidence. Topics such as Adam and Eve, and Noahs ark are not debatable. Why, because they are stories with a happy ending, nothing to discuss/debate. When debating with an atheist choose a subject that can be debated. Like what is the cause of autism. Or what is the cause of cancer. These are topics that cant be answered. But through dialogue you can learn something.
In politics and spin No real facts are needed. One party vs the other party will often use these techniques to bolster their agenda. If they spew the same rhetoric long enough it becomes fact.
Very easy: don't wish to win - wish that your partner wins, wish that god wins. Be always yourselve. Worst what can happen: someone throws a chair on you so he has to buy a new monitor. http://youtu.be/Uzae_SqbmDE
AQgain, rubbish. God doesn't exist. I knowq that end of story. No argument needed. the only thing that will change that is proof. But, so far, in the total history of mankind not one shred of evidence has been found. Until it is there is no argument, of any sort. Why is this so hard for you morons to understand? No proof, no God. simple. Preoduce some and we have a discussion ready to go. Until then, go play with your marbles.
To prove something/someone does not exist one MUST be omnipresent and omniscient. I sorta, kinda doubt you are either.
Im an atheist and I have no problem with your religious belief. Your decision. What I have a giant problem with is this: religious institutions meddling with legislative affairs of 21 century democratic societies.
To prove something does exist generally requires evidence. To assume it does without any is sorta, kinda silly. I sorta, kinda doubt you have any.
Precisely. For some reason the faithful just can't seem to ever grasp this concept. Worship whatever you (*)(*)(*)(*) well please--I could care less. But don't presume that I have invited you to impose your religious desires by virtue of your numerical superiority.
you can't win the debate. and an atheist can't win the debate with a person of faith. basically - you have a different understanding of the world from that of the other. accept this, and look for what you do have in common.
Yeah, I'll echo most of the sentiments, it's not possible to win the argument. That would involve convincing an atheist to believe. Ultimately it comes down to faith.
Well, you may choose to believe me or not, but I have met Him. Now it's up to you to prove I did not.
not really. you claim to have met him, but only you know if its true. or maybe you don't. Nobody would really bother trying to prove that you didn't meet him. there can be several explanations for why you think you met him that don't impact on whether he exists or not.
What I would recommend for any atheist or agnostic who is serious about learning Christianity...is to approach the topic just reading about the historicity of Christ. Most historians do believe tht Christ existed and was a prophet. Pontius Pilate did exist..that much is fact and crucifixion as a form of execution was a common practice back then. The comparison that Christ's story is equivalent to a Pink unicorn really is unjust. It is very possible that not only did Christ exist, he was also crucified for his preachings. The next step of course is the faith that Christ was indeed the Son of God... and that Christ resurrected from the dead. The atheist likes to point out that this is just stolen myth from other ancient stories like the Phoenix rising from the ashes...that Christ is just a zombie fairytale. Well, there are many events..which we Christians like to call "miracles"...that science cannot explain. Very educated priests investigate miracles before identifying them as something other than natural events. Miracles do exist...whether there is underlying scientific reason that we don't yet understand...I don't know...but miralces that defy science and logic have occurred. So to sum up...I think it is unfair to simply dismiss Christianity as fairytale without exploring the very real history of it...and understanding that science can't explain everything...we do not yet know everything about our Universe. Atheists demand proof, which of course I can't give them...however a little homework and you'll discover that Christianity's roots have an historical basis in fact. Certainly something happened 2,000 plus years with this man known as Jesus of Nazareth..something that had a profound effect on people's lives. Christianity crossed cultures...religion went beyond region... something very revolutionary in it's day.. While there is no proof, the basis of faith has historical foundation.... I don't think many atheists realize that.
Pilate was not as he was described in the New Testament. Probably, that's what the Romans did to the hundreds of messianic claimaints that stirred trouble in Judaea. It is in fact a stolen myth. From Mithraism and the Dionysiac Mysteries if I remember correctly. Name one miracle that has been subjected to scientific inquiry that is unexplainable.
You don't really want to learn, you just want to argue. Pontius Pilate was Roman Governor. Most historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed. You're argument? Oh well the real Pontius Pilate wasn't like that...and lots of messiahs were crucified..where are these other messiahs who were crucified? and why has Christ's story endured? As I say, your a typical atheist with a chip on your shoulder and there is no point in debating most of your ilk. You deny even the facts... have a nice day anyway.
Where are they? Dead. Plenty of them were recorded by Tacitus. Christianity had a great PR guy in the form of Paul of Tarsus - under his auspices Christianity ceased to be a sect of Judaism and was made more accessible; and thus easier for it to prey on the desperate such as the poor and the slaves.
This is called the "Fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance." This is a fundamental misunderstanding in the way knowledge works. The burden of proof for any given claim is on the person making the (positive) claim. If I claim, for example, that purple fairies rule the earth, the burden of proof is on me. I must supply evidence. It is NOT your burden to prove that these fairies don't exist. In fact, you (nor I) are not justified in believing me unless you are shown sufficient evidence for the fairies. Without evidence -- and it's the burden of the claimant to provide evidence -- there is no justification for belief. The burden of proof regarding the existence of God is on the person who claims there is a god. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This dynamic with regard to knowledge is absolutely key to keeping good mental hygiene. I hope that you'll take it to heart.
I think if you are looking at the situation objectively, you will see that many atheists don't doubt that a person such as Jesus may have existed, however they don't think such a person was the son of God, born of a virgin, and was resuurected three days after dyring. they would also be more likely to regard any stories about his miracles as myths that are not meant to be taken literally. Ideas have always spread.there was nothing special about christianity in that regard.
he couldn't defy logic or his sacrifice would mean nothing so athests do help the christian cause unintentionally by making him more human.
