The debate between religion and no religion can be done but only with concrete context/substance. A idea can be debated but its existence cannot without evidence. What is there to gain from trying to figure out which is right, and what is the truth people seek? I am not an atheist nor do I believe in any religion. So what do you label me as?
You cannot debate with an atheist and I am telling you this, because I am an atheist. All you can do is state your beliefs, and since they have no validity in reality they have no debate value. No god or gods exist and no nonsense from old books written by primitive, ignorant savages can prove that statement invalid.
savages? ... no: sausages is the question ... I'm hungry - I should eat something. Thanks: God had sent you. Imagine they would find the sceleton of a primitive, ignorant savage in front of my computer. What a shock ... http://youtu.be/sCFsYPrLm4U
The really nice thing about your position and the position of any other Christian or Theist, is the FACT that there is NO OBLIGATION for you or any other Christian or Theist to provide any tangible evidence about anything concerning your FAITH, your BELIEF, your CONVICTION pertaining to the TRUTH of the Bible. No Requirement at all... You, as a theist are not even required to adhere to the philosophy of the Atheists or Scientists.. As a Christian, your philosophy should only be based on those things that Jesus taught, and you are free to tell the Atheists and other non-theists to go and bury their vain philosophies and their dung-heap self deceits.
Depends on what the theist gets himself into. If, for example, his faith compells him to assert something about reality then he should be called upon it. Whether or not the theist takes it up or chooses to continue without any credibility, well, that's of course his own call. But it is not his own call where that lack of credibility gets him. If, for example, he applies for a teaching job then he must either pick up the call or accept that his ignorance is proper grounds for his application to be ditched.
Those stories always made me sad. Dooming mankind to sin and death, almost all the life on earth wiped out...
Well how about this one???? My faith compels me to state that I believe the sun is going to shine for the remainder of this day and that the sun will continue shining even though my geographical location has traveled through time and space for a long enough period that the sun is no longer visible from my present geographical location. Now why should my statement based upon and compelled by my Faith be questioned? Is there any logical reason that my assertion can be rebutted? oooh Glass-hoppuh,,, you have so much to learn. 1st you must always remembuh dat others are not bound in the same mannuh that you are bound. Therefore, each, must seek their own pathway to fulfillment. To say that anothuh man is required by your command to take your path is to deprive that man of his ability to chose what learning experience he will take, which choice rightfully belongs to him.
Indeed, it should. Especially if you stood in front of a crowd reluctant to go sailing that day due to really bad weather forecasts. Yes. Non-reality used as reality IS the logical reason. What you think you're bound by is utterly irrelevant. If you take on functions that you can't handle properly then you will hopefully be dealt with accordingly.
Changing the parameters of the scenario? Interesting. I don't recall seeing where I wrote anything about 'going sailing' or 'weather forecasts'. Why would you desire to add a new set of parameters? To obfuscate what is already a valid rebuttal to your previous statement? More 'rationalism'? More excuses. And where is 'reality' perceived? Is Reality not anything more than a subjective thing? What any of us are 'bound by' is totally relevant. Are you bound by the laws of God? Remember now, if you say 'No', then I have the equal right to say to you; "What you think you're bound by is utterly irrelevant." Please describe at least one (example) of those functions that you perceive to be one that would properly fit in that category of "..functions that you can't handle properly..". Also in that example please define the term "you", and further add explanation/clarification to the clause "can't handle properly".
I am sorry, but being kicked out of a good home because you seek knowledge is NOT a happy ending. The destruction of all living beings but one boat-full is NOT a happy ending. The destruction of every living thing but one, in Jericho is NOT a happy ending, and on and on and on. The bible is full of horror tales of primitive savage human beings, that Christians for some reason believe are "GOOD">\.
As a Christian you know who wins the FINAL debate and this is what matters, for as the Word says, God confounds the intellectual for him it is foolishness. They serve satan, their father.
I've learned far more about religious fundamentalism from "debating" the silly stories than anything else. By the way, is there any reason why causes of autism or cancer should be debated with atheists in particular?
Perhaps for you, but not the Christian. For our life is eternal and has already begun. Death to the non-believer is one thing, it is not a matter for us. Or at least it shouldn't be. It's certainly not an issue for me.
If the intellect rejects His Son Jesus as their Savior, yes in fact it is so. Oh, man thinks they are so wise, yet they are so lost. How smart is that individual?
Man can take credit for the causes of autism or cancer so it matters not who debates it for debating the issue results in nothing consequential other than to turn the One who can help.
Knowledge requires a justified true belief. I see no way an atheist or theist can claim to KNOW that God exists. There are only different levels of justification, since the true part is fuzzy and ???. And even if all arguments for the existence of God ultimately fail, it doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Most philosophical atheist say the arguments for God are weak. And then they cite the problem of evil, and cite divine hiddenness, which basically says God is a being such that if God existed, then it would be obvious to everyone. It isn't obvious to everyone. Therefore God does not exist. So knock down the theist arguments, stick the problem of evil out, and throw in divine hiddenness and that's how most sophisticated atheists will stake our their position. But the universe is an extremely mysterious "place." So I would not be as so arrogant (though I'm not an atheist, but I'm sympathetic to the position) so say I KNOW that God does not exist, for I highly doubt we understand everything yet .
Winning a debate with an atheist does not involve him believing in God or what you say about God in the Bible. Basically, you as a Christian win a debate with an atheist by showing that his non-belief based on reason and proofs, does not affect your faith. Because, if a debate is taking place, this is what the atheist is trying to do. He is trying to leave you doubting your faith. As a Christian you do not move your position from believing in Jesus Christ and that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. No matter what is being brought up about certain events and statements in the Bible. Once the atheist gets you to say, yes God really can't be like that as it is written in the Bible, then you have lost. Christians must be willing to believe God and that what He says in the Bible is true. And stand by it. Quantrill
I would agree with this but I don't agree with this. As an atheist, I am generally responding to someone who has assumed themselves morally and spiritually superior to me because they have faith. I am not interested in making people doubt their faith, I am interested in pointing out that my lack of belief does not make me inferior, and when discussing evolution etc, that religious myth (and using this statement does not denigrate faith in God) is not equivalent to factual information. not really. a lot of good christians don't take the bible literally. only if you have an extremely limited understanding of what a christian is.
Actually, it's not an assumption at all. For if what we believe is true and I have no doubts about this, then your relative morality is inferior and you also have no real spirituality at all. You are not inferior in the sense of our humanity or physical being, but your rejecting our (yours and mine) Creator leaves you only with a hope and trust in man and this will fail you in the end. An atheist can demonstrate no proof for your religion of acceptance of man's theory of creation and life.
