Total Posts:83|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Convincing Athiests

drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 6:26:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
In another thread, it was said:

It's not anyone's job to pove something to you but your own. As people who love God, and can testify to you about Gd, it's our job to give you information which makes you capable of seeing God, but that does not mean you can,want to, or will. What you accept as evidence is entirely up to you and is fully your responsibility.

Which brings to mind something I commonly see among theists on the Internet. Almost invariably, failures to convince atheists are blamed on the atheists' unwillinginess to accept or acknowledge the evidence. Never considered is the failing of the theist in the presentation of that evidence.

Seems odd, for a religion that espouses humility.

I think it is almost certainly a failing of the theists. Why?

Take, for example, relativity. A world changing belief that shook the very foundations of a knowledge base that many had already accepted as all but complete. Little over a hundred years later, and almost everyone on the planet accepts it as true.

Christianity has been around for over two thousand years and only a third of the people accept it. And Christianity has the added benefits of constant social pressure to accept it in many parts of the world! Relativity is just a passing fact taught to high school students most of whom will never see it again lest they pick a relevant subject to study in college.

In light of this, is it not apparent that there is something wrong in the delivery mechanism here?

If I were to go further, I'd wonder why, out of all the Chrisitians in history, no one has been able to convey Christianity in at least as convincing a manner that relativity was.

Either this is reflective of the fact that there is no actual substance to Christianity to convey, or that some beliefs are inherently easier or harder to convince others of, regardless of the capabilities of the convincer or the disposition of the convincee, which would refute the last of sentence of the quote above.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:04:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
A belief in God is inherently more difficult to prove, as it relies on faith. It requires us to believe in something that we can't see, and it requires us to attribute all that exists to that God. Things like fine tuning, we accept as proof of God as Creator, non-believers attribute it to random chance. Neither theory can be proven to the other's satisfaction.

You say that Christianity has been around for over 2,000 years and still only a third of people accept it. Many more than that, though, believe in a creator of some sort. For even longer than Christianity has existed, man has been trying to find the answers to questions that would explain things like the beginning of the universe, in a way that would rule out a creator. In spite of all our technological advancements, we've failed to come up with anything more than "theories" that are unprovable.

The Bible says that no man can know the works of God from beginning to end. Maybe it really is that simple. Maybe we can't find definitive answers because we're not meant to know the answers.

Non-believers choose to hold out for the scientific explanation for everything. Believers choose to believe that God is the answer. In actuality, the two groups really aren't that different. Both sides believe in something, as yet unseen. So IOW, both sides share a common bond, faith.

I can't prove, to your satisfaction, that my faith in God is warranted. You can't prove, to my satisfaction, that your faith in man providing the answers, thus ruling out the existence of God, is warranted. There is a problem with the delivery mechanism of both sides. That problem is the lack of empirical evidence. Neither side has it.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 2:43:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

Non-believers choose to hold out for the scientific explanation for everything. Believers choose to believe that God is the answer. In actuality, the two groups really aren't that different. Both sides believe in something, as yet unseen. So IOW, both sides share a common bond, faith.

There is a big difference between the two groups. If something is unknown, believers will give it a supernatural explanation, while nonbelievers will strive to discover the true explanation. Previous believers of various religions made supernatural explanation for the stars, wind, lighting and orbit. All these supernatural explanations have been proven wrong. Believers should not give a supernatural explanation, just because something is unknown. This is a big difference between the groups.

I can't prove, to your satisfaction, that my faith in God is warranted. You can't prove, to my satisfaction, that your faith in man providing the answers, thus ruling out the existence of God, is warranted. There is a problem with the delivery mechanism of both sides. That problem is the lack of empirical evidence. Neither side has it.

Many beliefs can be proven false. For example, it can be shown that the earth is a lot more than 6000 years old. There is empiracle evidence that proves wrong some beliefs of believers. While, God can be "altered" to always remain logically concievable. God can not be presented in a logical way. It seems that religion is only effectivly presented using cultish brainwahing techniques or saying that it "feels good" to believe.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 6:50:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 10:04:34 AM, medic0506 wrote:
A belief in God is inherently more difficult to prove, as it relies on faith. It requires us to believe in something that we can't see, and it requires us to attribute all that exists to that God. Things like fine tuning, we accept as proof of God as Creator, non-believers attribute it to random chance. Neither theory can be proven to the other's satisfaction.

You say that Christianity has been around for over 2,000 years and still only a third of people accept it. Many more than that, though, believe in a creator of some sort. For even longer than Christianity has existed, man has been trying to find the answers to questions that would explain things like the beginning of the universe, in a way that would rule out a creator. In spite of all our technological advancements, we've failed to come up with anything more than "theories" that are unprovable.

The Bible says that no man can know the works of God from beginning to end. Maybe it really is that simple. Maybe we can't find definitive answers because we're not meant to know the answers.

Non-believers choose to hold out for the scientific explanation for everything. Believers choose to believe that God is the answer. In actuality, the two groups really aren't that different. Both sides believe in something, as yet unseen. So IOW, both sides share a common bond, faith.

I can't prove, to your satisfaction, that my faith in God is warranted. You can't prove, to my satisfaction, that your faith in man providing the answers, thus ruling out the existence of God, is warranted. There is a problem with the delivery mechanism of both sides. That problem is the lack of empirical evidence. Neither side has it.

Ok, first, I would like to clarify that this isn't about proof, or even evidence (empirical or rational); it's about being convincing, which may or may not require proof or evidence.

So, to say that it's because I'm holding out for some high standard is a bit presumptive.

Now, the other point I wish to address is the second paragraph. Sorry, but I don't accept that kind of collusion. The beliefs involved here are not only separate and distinct, but mutually exclusive. And while you may be able to categorize those beliefs under some general heading of "believing in a god" that doesn't make them the same belief.

Sure, people have an innate tendacy to anthropromorphize the world around us, especially with regards to things that we aren't aware of. Yet when you get down to specifics, everyone is of their own opinion.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 8:18:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 6:26:49 AM, drafterman wrote:
In another thread, it was said:

It's not anyone's job to pove something to you but your own. As people who love God, and can testify to you about Gd, it's our job to give you information which makes you capable of seeing God, but that does not mean you can,want to, or will. What you accept as evidence is entirely up to you and is fully your responsibility.

Which brings to mind something I commonly see among theists on the Internet. Almost invariably, failures to convince atheists are blamed on the atheists' unwillinginess to accept or acknowledge the evidence. Never considered is the failing of the theist in the presentation of that evidence.

Seems odd, for a religion that espouses humility.

I think it is almost certainly a failing of the theists. Why?

Take, for example, relativity. A world changing belief that shook the very foundations of a knowledge base that many had already accepted as all but complete. Little over a hundred years later, and almost everyone on the planet accepts it as true.

Christianity has been around for over two thousand years and only a third of the people accept it. And Christianity has the added benefits of constant social pressure to accept it in many parts of the world! Relativity is just a passing fact taught to high school students most of whom will never see it again lest they pick a relevant subject to study in college.

In light of this, is it not apparent that there is something wrong in the delivery mechanism here?

If I were to go further, I'd wonder why, out of all the Chrisitians in history, no one has been able to convey Christianity in at least as convincing a manner that relativity was.

Either this is reflective of the fact that there is no actual substance to Christianity to convey, or that some beliefs are inherently easier or harder to convince others of, regardless of the capabilities of the convincer or the disposition of the convincee, which would refute the last of sentence of the quote above.

There's no convincing evidence that theists have rendered against God. In any case, religion, as it deals with metaphysical things rather than physical things, isn't something that one proves physically. Instead, God is revealed to others, and those people decide for themselves whether they want to see Him. If they do, they can seek Him. Those that know and accept the truth, but continue to know and accept Him, found Him.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 8:49:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 8:18:57 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/10/2012 6:26:49 AM, drafterman wrote:
In another thread, it was said:

It's not anyone's job to pove something to you but your own. As people who love God, and can testify to you about Gd, it's our job to give you information which makes you capable of seeing God, but that does not mean you can,want to, or will. What you accept as evidence is entirely up to you and is fully your responsibility.

Which brings to mind something I commonly see among theists on the Internet. Almost invariably, failures to convince atheists are blamed on the atheists' unwillinginess to accept or acknowledge the evidence. Never considered is the failing of the theist in the presentation of that evidence.

Seems odd, for a religion that espouses humility.

I think it is almost certainly a failing of the theists. Why?

Take, for example, relativity. A world changing belief that shook the very foundations of a knowledge base that many had already accepted as all but complete. Little over a hundred years later, and almost everyone on the planet accepts it as true.

Christianity has been around for over two thousand years and only a third of the people accept it. And Christianity has the added benefits of constant social pressure to accept it in many parts of the world! Relativity is just a passing fact taught to high school students most of whom will never see it again lest they pick a relevant subject to study in college.

In light of this, is it not apparent that there is something wrong in the delivery mechanism here?

If I were to go further, I'd wonder why, out of all the Chrisitians in history, no one has been able to convey Christianity in at least as convincing a manner that relativity was.

Either this is reflective of the fact that there is no actual substance to Christianity to convey, or that some beliefs are inherently easier or harder to convince others of, regardless of the capabilities of the convincer or the disposition of the convincee, which would refute the last of sentence of the quote above.

There's no convincing evidence that theists have rendered against God. In any case, religion, as it deals with metaphysical things rather than physical things, isn't something that one proves physically. Instead, God is revealed to others, and those people decide for themselves whether they want to see Him. If they do, they can seek Him. Those that know and accept the truth, but continue to know and accept Him, found Him.

As I said to medic, I've not placed any restrictions such as proving religion physically. I do find it interesting that two theists have jumped to this, as if you some subconscious part of you knows the belief is without any solid foundation, so rather than try and present one and fail, you sabotage the attempt by stating you can't meet these fictitious requirements of mine, which is a subtle implication that my requirements are unreasonable or unwarranted. Maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, but it does seem odd.

To your specific point: "decide for themselves whether they want to see Him"

Would you assert that any person that genuinely wants to see God will eventually see him?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 10:06:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 8:18:57 AM, Ren wrote:
There's no convincing evidence that theists have rendered against God. In any case, religion, as it deals with BullSh*t things rather than physical things, isn't something that one proves in any manner whatsoever... Instead, God gets on the subway and reveals himself :/ to others, and those people decide for themselves whether they want to see it (nobody does, but it's not really their choice given how he's already revealed himself :/

Glad to hear you have such personal relations with god.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 3:11:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Which brings to mind something I commonly see among theists on the Internet. Almost invariably, failures to convince atheists are blamed on the atheists' unwillinginess to accept or acknowledge the evidence. Never considered is the failing of the theist in the presentation of that evidence.

It's not someone's job to convince you. It's someone's job to inform you. I believe it's referred to as "planting seeds." A plant can't grow without a seed, just like your love of God cannot blossom without knowledge of God and at least a simple explanation of what God is.

I think it is almost certainly a failing of the theists. Why?

Take, for example, relativity. A world changing belief that shook the very foundations of a knowledge base that many had already accepted as all but complete. Little over a hundred years later, and almost everyone on the planet accepts it as true.

Christianity has been around for over two thousand years and only a third of the people accept it. And Christianity has the added benefits of constant social pressure to accept it in many parts of the world! Relativity is just a passing fact taught to high school students most of whom will never see it again lest they pick a relevant subject to study in college.

In light of this, is it not apparent that there is something wrong in the delivery mechanism here?

The "delivery mechanism" doesn't matter. Someone can scream hateful things at you, but, if you get an explanation of God in it, that's enough. The delivery isn't important, but the content, the idea that we were created by something with the desire to do so, rather than just "being" or being created by randomly.

85% of people accept a creator. People have different opinion of what God is, what role he plays in our lives, and how we interact with him. This is why we have a split between Christians, Muslims, Jews, and the thousands of smaller religions that accept that the Universe was created intelligently. At the root of it all, these people believe in the same thing.

If I were to go further, I'd wonder why, out of all the Chrisitians in history, no one has been able to convey Christianity in at least as convincing a manner that relativity was.

As above, Christianity is just a handful of interpretations of God. The reason it is difficult to gather much truth about God is because of human stupidity. We do not have the capability of understanding the true will of God.

Either this is reflective of the fact that there is no actual substance to Christianity to convey, or that some beliefs are inherently easier or harder to convince others of, regardless of the capabilities of the convincer or the disposition of the convincee, which would refute the last of sentence of the quote above.

Ultimately, people have to convince themselves that something is true. You can't convince anyone of anything. It is absolutely impossible. It is the information you present that may or may not convince someone, and that information may be applied to large or small degrees, but it is our obligation to change with new information. The responsibility is not o others to change us.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 3:33:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 3:11:12 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:

Ultimately, people have to convince themselves that something is true. You can't convince anyone of anything. It is absolutely impossible. It is the information you present that may or may not convince someone, and that information may be applied to large or small degrees, but it is our obligation to change with new information. The responsibility is not o others to change us.

You don't belong on a debate site. I highly recommend you read up on Aristotles concepts of logos, pathos, and ethos.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 3:37:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You don't belong on a debate site. I highly recommend you read up on Aristotles concepts of logos, pathos, and ethos.

Where I belong is not your concern. Stick to the topic, chief.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 3:49:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 3:37:37 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
You don't belong on a debate site. I highly recommend you read up on Aristotles concepts of logos, pathos, and ethos.

Where I belong is not your concern. Stick to the topic, chief.

The topic is about convincing atheists. You say this is impossible. Not only have I provided a counterpoint by way of Aristotles fundamentals of persuasive argument, but I note that this is not the place for you.

And it is my concern; you don't belong here.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 3:56:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The topic is about convincing atheists. You say this is impossible. Not only have I provided a counterpoint by way of Aristotles fundamentals of persuasive argument, but I note that this is not the place for you.

Providing me with appeals does not say, in any way, that people can be convinced. You can use information to influence your decision, but just because you received information from someone else does not mean they convinced you. That is hilarious logic, mister science hater. An argument is performed by someone. It is up to the judges to accept the argument or not accept it, thereby using information from MULTIPLE sources to convince THEMSELVES.

And it is my concern; you don't belong here.

You are above no one, guy. Where I do and do not belong is not your concern, nor is it a decision for you to make. It is mere hand waving and ad hominem from someone who has no confidence in anything he has posted in this thread.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 5:28:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's a Christian's job (as a Christian) to merely share the Word of God. "Convincing" is not really the point. The way I see it, a Christian should share the news of Christ and their beliefs and then be done with it. Your job is not to pressure or hammer your beliefs into anyone but to merely share them.

"But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself." Ezekiel 33:9

We are to share the news only, the rest is on the atheist.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 5:34:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 6:26:49 AM, drafterman wrote:
In another thread, it was said:

It's not anyone's job to pove something to you but your own. As people who love God, and can testify to you about Gd, it's our job to give you information which makes you capable of seeing God, but that does not mean you can,want to, or will. What you accept as evidence is entirely up to you and is fully your responsibility.

Which brings to mind something I commonly see among theists on the Internet. Almost invariably, failures to convince atheists are blamed on the atheists' unwillinginess to accept or acknowledge the evidence. Never considered is the failing of the theist in the presentation of that evidence.

Seems odd, for a religion that espouses humility.

I think it is almost certainly a failing of the theists. Why?

Take, for example, relativity. A world changing belief that shook the very foundations of a knowledge base that many had already accepted as all but complete. Little over a hundred years later, and almost everyone on the planet accepts it as true.

Christianity has been around for over two thousand years and only a third of the people accept it. And Christianity has the added benefits of constant social pressure to accept it in many parts of the world! Relativity is just a passing fact taught to high school students most of whom will never see it again lest they pick a relevant subject to study in college.

In light of this, is it not apparent that there is something wrong in the delivery mechanism here?

If I were to go further, I'd wonder why, out of all the Chrisitians in history, no one has been able to convey Christianity in at least as convincing a manner that relativity was.

Either this is reflective of the fact that there is no actual substance to Christianity to convey, or that some beliefs are inherently easier or harder to convince others of, regardless of the capabilities of the convincer or the disposition of the convincee, which would refute the last of sentence of the quote above.

I agree, the theist is incapable of of presenting a convincing argument for god when the person they are trying to convince would rather not hear it let alone consider it. As a theist it is pointless to waste your time on the hell bent, move on to the next possible conversion. Theists need to recognize absolute contempt and move on.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 6:38:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 3:56:52 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
The topic is about convincing atheists. You say this is impossible. Not only have I provided a counterpoint by way of Aristotles fundamentals of persuasive argument, but I note that this is not the place for you.

Providing me with appeals does not say, in any way, that people can be convinced. You can use information to influence your decision, but just because you received information from someone else does not mean they convinced you. That is hilarious logic, mister science hater. An argument is performed by someone. It is up to the judges to accept the argument or not accept it, thereby using information from MULTIPLE sources to convince THEMSELVES.

And it is my concern; you don't belong here.

You are above no one, guy. Where I do and do not belong is not your concern, nor is it a decision for you to make. It is mere hand waving and ad hominem from someone who has no confidence in anything he has posted in this thread.

It is my concern, and my decision: you don't belong here.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 6:40:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 5:28:01 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
It's a Christian's job (as a Christian) to merely share the Word of God. "Convincing" is not really the point. The way I see it, a Christian should share the news of Christ and their beliefs and then be done with it. Your job is not to pressure or hammer your beliefs into anyone but to merely share them.

"But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself." Ezekiel 33:9

We are to share the news only, the rest is on the atheist.

Given the proposed danger you believe the atheist is in, don't you think you're under some moral obligation to act in a more deliberate manner than just warning us and then wiping your hands of the whole situation?

If you saw a blind-man walking to a cliff, would you just say, "Hey, there's a cliff" and then do nothing further if he did not heed your warning? You'd just sit there and passively watch him walk off the cliff because "the rest is on" him?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 6:46:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 5:34:45 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/10/2012 6:26:49 AM, drafterman wrote:
In another thread, it was said:

It's not anyone's job to pove something to you but your own. As people who love God, and can testify to you about Gd, it's our job to give you information which makes you capable of seeing God, but that does not mean you can,want to, or will. What you accept as evidence is entirely up to you and is fully your responsibility.

Which brings to mind something I commonly see among theists on the Internet. Almost invariably, failures to convince atheists are blamed on the atheists' unwillinginess to accept or acknowledge the evidence. Never considered is the failing of the theist in the presentation of that evidence.

Seems odd, for a religion that espouses humility.

I think it is almost certainly a failing of the theists. Why?

Take, for example, relativity. A world changing belief that shook the very foundations of a knowledge base that many had already accepted as all but complete. Little over a hundred years later, and almost everyone on the planet accepts it as true.

Christianity has been around for over two thousand years and only a third of the people accept it. And Christianity has the added benefits of constant social pressure to accept it in many parts of the world! Relativity is just a passing fact taught to high school students most of whom will never see it again lest they pick a relevant subject to study in college.

In light of this, is it not apparent that there is something wrong in the delivery mechanism here?

If I were to go further, I'd wonder why, out of all the Chrisitians in history, no one has been able to convey Christianity in at least as convincing a manner that relativity was.

Either this is reflective of the fact that there is no actual substance to Christianity to convey, or that some beliefs are inherently easier or harder to convince others of, regardless of the capabilities of the convincer or the disposition of the convincee, which would refute the last of sentence of the quote above.

I agree, the theist is incapable of of presenting a convincing argument for god when the person they are trying to convince would rather not hear it let alone consider it. As a theist it is pointless to waste your time on the hell bent, move on to the next possible conversion. Theists need to recognize absolute contempt and move on.

"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 10:35:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Unless we are to accept the Adam and Eve tale verbatim, we must acknowledge the scientific evidence, and the evidence of our own eyes and logic, shows that humans have been around for a lot longer than 6,000 years.

Nevertheless, scientists and historians have established that religion, of whatever genre, has always been an important part of the human story, it being man's way of reconciling himself with the universe around him.

These religions have always taken various forms, but typically, the sun, moon, stars and various terrestrial elements and animals were worshipped by the ancients. These religions varied from location to location and rose and fell over the milennia.

More latterly, religions have focussed their attentions on various deities and prophets, and Christianity is one of those religions, but there is nothing special about it beyond that it has a wide following.

That said, although I don't see any logical reason to place my faith in an imagined deity, I don't condemn people who believe in a god, any more than I would condemn people who place their faith in astrologists and fortune-tellers.

What I do object to, however, is religious people condemning athiests for not accepting their faith and for manipulating government legislation in order to favour people who share their beliefs over those that don't.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 2:16:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 6:40:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/11/2012 5:28:01 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
It's a Christian's job (as a Christian) to merely share the Word of God. "Convincing" is not really the point. The way I see it, a Christian should share the news of Christ and their beliefs and then be done with it. Your job is not to pressure or hammer your beliefs into anyone but to merely share them.

"But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself." Ezekiel 33:9

We are to share the news only, the rest is on the atheist.

Given the proposed danger you believe the atheist is in, don't you think you're under some moral obligation to act in a more deliberate manner than just warning us and then wiping your hands of the whole situation?

That's not a fair question. One of those damned if you do damned if you don't situations.

First thing how are you comparing apples to apples?

Should I be physically forcing you to not commit what I see as sin? Lets say I felt it was sin to teach evolution in public schools. If we take your blind man and cliff statement into account would you still fault me for trying to stop the thread of evolution?

To most theists falling off a cliff is less harmful then sinning.


If you saw a blind-man walking to a cliff, would you just say, "Hey, there's a cliff" and then do nothing further if he did not heed your warning? You'd just sit there and passively watch him walk off the cliff because "the rest is on" him?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 5:11:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 3:59:33 AM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
Is it really the Atheist fault if the Atheist's arguments are more convincing?

Thing is it really is not that convincing. Its just egoism to think man is the be all; know all.
TheAsylum
alto2osu
Posts: 277
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 5:52:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 10:35:43 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Unless we are to accept the Adam and Eve tale verbatim, we must acknowledge the scientific evidence, and the evidence of our own eyes and logic, shows that humans have been around for a lot longer than 6,000 years.

Nevertheless, scientists and historians have established that religion, of whatever genre, has always been an important part of the human story, it being man's way of reconciling himself with the universe around him.

These religions have always taken various forms, but typically, the sun, moon, stars and various terrestrial elements and animals were worshipped by the ancients. These religions varied from location to location and rose and fell over the milennia.

More latterly, religions have focussed their attentions on various deities and prophets, and Christianity is one of those religions, but there is nothing special about it beyond that it has a wide following.

That said, although I don't see any logical reason to place my faith in an imagined deity, I don't condemn people who believe in a god, any more than I would condemn people who place their faith in astrologists and fortune-tellers.

What I do object to, however, is religious people condemning athiests for not accepting their faith and for manipulating government legislation in order to favour people who share their beliefs over those that don't.

**applauds**
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 7:17:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 2:16:34 AM, jharry wrote:
At 6/12/2012 6:40:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/11/2012 5:28:01 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
It's a Christian's job (as a Christian) to merely share the Word of God. "Convincing" is not really the point. The way I see it, a Christian should share the news of Christ and their beliefs and then be done with it. Your job is not to pressure or hammer your beliefs into anyone but to merely share them.

"But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself." Ezekiel 33:9

We are to share the news only, the rest is on the atheist.

Given the proposed danger you believe the atheist is in, don't you think you're under some moral obligation to act in a more deliberate manner than just warning us and then wiping your hands of the whole situation?


That's not a fair question. One of those damned if you do damned if you don't situations.

First thing how are you comparing apples to apples?

Should I be physically forcing you to not commit what I see as sin? Lets say I felt it was sin to teach evolution in public schools. If we take your blind man and cliff statement into account would you still fault me for trying to stop the thread of evolution?

If you believe that it being taught leads to people being punished for all eternity, yes.


To most theists falling off a cliff is less harmful then sinning.

And yet, most theists would react with more urgency, passion, and persistence in saving a man from falling off a cliff than they would to save souls.




If you saw a blind-man walking to a cliff, would you just say, "Hey, there's a cliff" and then do nothing further if he did not heed your warning? You'd just sit there and passively watch him walk off the cliff because "the rest is on" him?
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 12:34:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 5:11:28 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/13/2012 3:59:33 AM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
Is it really the Atheist fault if the Atheist's arguments are more convincing?

Thing is it really is not that convincing. Its just egoism to think man is the be all; know all.

If you know that little about atheism, you shouldn't bother to have an opinion about it.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 12:43:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 7:17:53 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 2:16:34 AM, jharry wrote:

Should I be physically forcing you to not commit what I see as sin? Lets say I felt it was sin to teach evolution in public schools. If we take your blind man and cliff statement into account would you still fault me for trying to stop the thread of evolution?

If you believe that it being taught leads to people being punished for all eternity, not on moral grounds, no..

Fix'd

Fixed.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 8:34:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 7:17:53 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 2:16:34 AM, jharry wrote:
At 6/12/2012 6:40:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/11/2012 5:28:01 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
It's a Christian's job (as a Christian) to merely share the Word of God. "Convincing" is not really the point. The way I see it, a Christian should share the news of Christ and their beliefs and then be done with it. Your job is not to pressure or hammer your beliefs into anyone but to merely share them.

"But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself." Ezekiel 33:9

We are to share the news only, the rest is on the atheist.

Given the proposed danger you believe the atheist is in, don't you think you're under some moral obligation to act in a more deliberate manner than just warning us and then wiping your hands of the whole situation?


That's not a fair question. One of those damned if you do damned if you don't situations.

First thing how are you comparing apples to apples?

Should I be physically forcing you to not commit what I see as sin? Lets say I felt it was sin to teach evolution in public schools. If we take your blind man and cliff statement into account would you still fault me for trying to stop the thread of evolution?

If you believe that it being taught leads to people being punished for all eternity, yes.


To most theists falling off a cliff is less harmful then sinning.

And yet, most theists would react with more urgency, passion, and persistence in saving a man from falling off a cliff than they would to save souls.

That is a speculative statement at best. But anyway, as I said, what could a theist do? I can stop a blind man from walking off a cliff. But if a person was standing at the same cliff about to jump and I was to far away to stop them all I could do is talk to them. If they are set on jumping there might not be ANYTHING I can say or do to stop them. That is why your blind man example is an orange while we are dealing with apples.




If you saw a blind-man walking to a cliff, would you just say, "Hey, there's a cliff" and then do nothing further if he did not heed your warning? You'd just sit there and passively watch him walk off the cliff because "the rest is on" him?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 8:36:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 8:34:49 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/13/2012 7:17:53 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 2:16:34 AM, jharry wrote:
At 6/12/2012 6:40:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/11/2012 5:28:01 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
It's a Christian's job (as a Christian) to merely share the Word of God. "Convincing" is not really the point. The way I see it, a Christian should share the news of Christ and their beliefs and then be done with it. Your job is not to pressure or hammer your beliefs into anyone but to merely share them.

"But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself." Ezekiel 33:9

We are to share the news only, the rest is on the atheist.

Given the proposed danger you believe the atheist is in, don't you think you're under some moral obligation to act in a more deliberate manner than just warning us and then wiping your hands of the whole situation?


That's not a fair question. One of those damned if you do damned if you don't situations.

First thing how are you comparing apples to apples?

Should I be physically forcing you to not commit what I see as sin? Lets say I felt it was sin to teach evolution in public schools. If we take your blind man and cliff statement into account would you still fault me for trying to stop the thread of evolution?

If you believe that it being taught leads to people being punished for all eternity, yes.


To most theists falling off a cliff is less harmful then sinning.

And yet, most theists would react with more urgency, passion, and persistence in saving a man from falling off a cliff than they would to save souls.

That is a speculative statement at best. But anyway, as I said, what could a theist do? I can stop a blind man from walking off a cliff. But if a person was standing at the same cliff about to jump and I was to far away to stop them all I could do is talk to them. If they are set on jumping there might not be ANYTHING I can say or do to stop them. That is why your blind man example is an orange while we are dealing with apples.

The question isn't whether or not you can succeed, the question is the level of effort you put into trying, regardless of your expectation of success.





If you saw a blind-man walking to a cliff, would you just say, "Hey, there's a cliff" and then do nothing further if he did not heed your warning? You'd just sit there and passively watch him walk off the cliff because "the rest is on" him?
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 8:38:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 12:43:02 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 7:17:53 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 2:16:34 AM, jharry wrote:

Should I be physically forcing you to not commit what I see as sin? Lets say I felt it was sin to teach evolution in public schools. If we take your blind man and cliff statement into account would you still fault me for trying to stop the thread of evolution?

If you believe that it being taught leads to people being punished for all eternity, not on moral grounds, no..

Fix'd

Fixed.

Sorry, not sure what you answer is. I messed up the question so it is partially my fault.

Should I be enacting and supporting laws that prohibit atheists from committing what I might see as sins?

Same pretense as your blind man example. You (an atheist) are blind and can not see the grave sins you are committing.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 8:41:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 8:38:16 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/13/2012 12:43:02 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 7:17:53 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 2:16:34 AM, jharry wrote:

Should I be physically forcing you to not commit what I see as sin? Lets say I felt it was sin to teach evolution in public schools. If we take your blind man and cliff statement into account would you still fault me for trying to stop the thread of evolution?

If you believe that it being taught leads to people being punished for all eternity, not on moral grounds, no..

Fix'd

Fixed.

Sorry, not sure what you answer is. I messed up the question so it is partially my fault.

Should I be enacting and supporting laws that prohibit atheists from committing what I might see as sins?

If you believe my soul hangs in the balance, yes.


Same pretense as your blind man example. You (an atheist) are blind and can not see the grave sins you are committing.