Total Posts:100|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Lack of Real Debate

Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 4:17:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Do you want to know why this forum is in the gutters? Because there is no real debate. All that seems to go on is either preaching, the tired atheist vs theist squabble, or one christian calling another christian blasphemous.

I want to see actual theists (preferably of different religions) debate each other in the debate section. I'll even vote. What do ya say?
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 8:20:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree. The religion forum is seriously lacking in actual debate where both parties discuss things maturely and learn something from it. It would be interesting to see more emphasis placed on different beliefs as well, as much of the religious content on here applies to Christianity only.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 9:02:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What we need:
1) Theists debating each other
2) Atheists debating each other (different moral philosophies is something that could be debated)
3) Discussion (without ad homs or derailments) between theists
4) Discussion (without ad homs or derailments) between atheists
5) Discussion (without ad homs or derailments) between theists and atheists

If we can do that, then I feel like the religion section will be taken a little more seriously.

The only thing I think we could ad would be:
6) Ban preachers (those that refuse to discuss or debate, yet keep asserting points)

But that one is questionable.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 9:05:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 4:17:10 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Do you want to know why this forum is in the gutters? Because there is no real debate. All that seems to go on is either preaching, the tired atheist vs theist squabble, or one christian calling another christian blasphemous.

I want to see actual theists (preferably of different religions) debate each other in the debate section. I'll even vote. What do ya say?

There are plenty of actual debates in the debate section. Why it's impossible in a forum style? Well, I'd say the problem isn't preaching, as preaching can be rebutted.

Not that I see a single atheist rebuttal to a sermon on this forum though mind you.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 9:09:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 9:05:56 AM, neutral wrote:
At 1/4/2015 4:17:10 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Do you want to know why this forum is in the gutters? Because there is no real debate. All that seems to go on is either preaching, the tired atheist vs theist squabble, or one christian calling another christian blasphemous.

I want to see actual theists (preferably of different religions) debate each other in the debate section. I'll even vote. What do ya say?

There are plenty of actual debates in the debate section. Why it's impossible in a forum style? Well, I'd say the problem isn't preaching, as preaching can be rebutted.

Not that I see a single atheist rebuttal to a sermon on this forum though mind you.

Have you met MsTambo or LMGIG? Preaching can't be rebutted because they'll just keep preaching. There has to be some form of 2 way communication which neither of them are capable of.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 9:12:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 9:02:04 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What we need:
1) Theists debating each other
2) Atheists debating each other (different moral philosophies is something that could be debated)
I tried this in the forums (in sig) but it just boils down to Envisage's nihilism. The bastard ...

3) Discussion (without ad homs or derailments) between theists
4) Discussion (without ad homs or derailments) between atheists
5) Discussion (without ad homs or derailments) between theists and atheists

Even w/o ad hom it doesn't get very far. That's why I'm tired of reading the theist vs atheist chatter.

If we can do that, then I feel like the religion section will be taken a little more seriously.

The only thing I think we could ad would be:
6) Ban preachers (those that refuse to discuss or debate, yet keep asserting points)

But that one is questionable.

It's only questionable if you ask questions. Muahahahahahahaha
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 9:18:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 9:12:30 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:02:04 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What we need:
1) Theists debating each other
2) Atheists debating each other (different moral philosophies is something that could be debated)
I tried this in the forums (in sig) but it just boils down to Envisage's nihilism. The bastard ...

I burst out laughing so hard when I read this lmfao.

3) Discussion (without ad homs or derailments) between theists
4) Discussion (without ad homs or derailments) between atheists
5) Discussion (without ad homs or derailments) between theists and atheists

Even w/o ad hom it doesn't get very far. That's why I'm tired of reading the theist vs atheist chatter.

If we can do that, then I feel like the religion section will be taken a little more seriously.

The only thing I think we could ad would be:
6) Ban preachers (those that refuse to discuss or debate, yet keep asserting points)

But that one is questionable.

It's only questionable if you ask questions. Muahahahahahahaha
Amoranemix
Posts: 521
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 9:23:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
- SNP1
What we need:
1) Theists debating each other
2) Atheists debating each other (different moral philosophies is something that could be debated)
- Bennett91
I tried this in the forums (in sig) but it just boils down to Envisage's nihilism. The bastard ...
In order to hold interesting debates, people shouldn't give up too quickly. A certain Bennett91 (you may have heard of him) started a thread about morality for atheist, but when I presented my original ideas he abandoned his thread. Jingram994 also wrote a long post and got no response.

neutral
There are plenty of actual debates in the debate section. Why it's impossible in a forum style? Well, I'd say the problem isn't preaching, as preaching can be rebutted.
What is the point of rebutting preaching ? Do you think those preachers care about your rebuttals ? If anything it makes them preach harder and you will be submerged with even more Bible quotes.
People should stop feeding trolls by posting in preach threads.
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 9:31:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 9:09:50 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:05:56 AM, neutral wrote:
At 1/4/2015 4:17:10 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Do you want to know why this forum is in the gutters? Because there is no real debate. All that seems to go on is either preaching, the tired atheist vs theist squabble, or one christian calling another christian blasphemous.

I want to see actual theists (preferably of different religions) debate each other in the debate section. I'll even vote. What do ya say?

There are plenty of actual debates in the debate section. Why it's impossible in a forum style? Well, I'd say the problem isn't preaching, as preaching can be rebutted.

Not that I see a single atheist rebuttal to a sermon on this forum though mind you.

Have you met MsTambo or LMGIG? Preaching can't be rebutted because they'll just keep preaching. There has to be some form of 2 way communication which neither of them are capable of.

Well, here is preaching.

SERMONS.COM
This Week's Sermons

Light of the World
John 1:1-18

One of the striking features of the Gospel of John is the way it depicts the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. The other gospels usually tell us stories about Jesus. Then, like the disciples, we are left to ask, "Who is this, that wind and sea obey him? Who is this who feeds the multitude on a couple of loaves and a few fish?" But in the Gospel of John, there's never a doubt who Jesus is, because he tells us. Usually he does so with a statement that begins with the words, "I am." Put him in a situation and he will clarify who he is and what he has come to do.

You can put him in the desert surrounded by people who are chronically unsatisfied, and Jesus says, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty" (John 6:35).

You can put him in the midst of people who are confused, people who ask, "Who are you, Jesus? What makes you different from all the other gurus, rabbis, and religious leaders?" And Jesus says, "I am the gate for the sheep. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture" (10:7, 9). It is an act of self-definition.

You can put him at graveside, in the midst of grief-stricken people, and Jesus says, "I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live" (11:25).

Or put him in the midst of people who feel disconnected by life's difficulties, and Jesus says, "I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing" (15:5).

In the Gospel of John, in one situation after another, Jesus defines himself and says, "This is who I am...." In the eighth chapter, Jesus says, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life" (8:12). His words echo the opening words of the Fourth Gospel, where the writer defines the person and work of Jesus in terms of light. "What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people ... The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world" (1:3-4, 9).

Jesus says, "I am the light of the world." This is the kind of thing we might expect to hear in these days after Christmas. Not long ago we gathered on Christmas Eve to hear the prophet Isaiah say, "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light." We don't know if old Isaiah had any idea who or what he was talking about, yet we celebrate Christmas as a festival of light. We string up twinkle lights on fir trees. We illumine our houses. We burn candles in the windows and plug in GE bulbs on the shrubbery. We burn up the kilowatts because Jesus Christ is born. In the bleak midwinter, why not shine a little light?...

The Light of the World.
The Light Comes into Darkness.

http://www.sermons.com...

So that is the nefarious 'preaching' of religion, which is quite rare on the forum, but there are threads that talk about similar themes and messages. These would be called thesis statements.

I will submit that the problem is not these thesis statements but the utter failure to rebut them, for debate requires ... Antithesis. Usually the best religious arguments are met with droll atheistic 'preaching' that usually involves:

A. You religious people don't get science, for being religious must mean we are uneducated. Therefore the sermon above it fully rebutted.
B. Your God is a genocide, rapist, whatever, as if this rebuts the sermon above.
C. I'm an agnostic atheist thus have no burden of proof, but you always do therefore the sermon above is falsified.
D. Hitler was a Christian, therefore the sermon above is wrong.
E. Religion causes war, pride never dies of course, therefore that sermon is wrong.

Etc.

I'll submit B, that if there is a debate failure there are two sides to that failure. For every annoying preacher there is at least atheist troll spewing nothing but rabid calls of genocide, rape, and absolutely mocking the pretense of debate and the Hegelian dialectic by refusing to do anything save preach nihilism.

If you want to help, jump into a good debate. Start one. Pull up something from a christian website, not an atheist one, and explain why that Christian thing bothers you. Offer something thoughtful, you'll probably get a thoughtful response.

Better responses than, "this forum suck cause preachers!"

Preachers exist all over the world, many have different views than our own. Rational people know how to handle, or how to at least expose them as mindless drones and move on. Sometimes that the best you can do in a debate, get to a point where people see the pointlessness of rational discourse.

That type of mindless droning is not confined to religion, I assure you. Try politics.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 9:32:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 9:05:56 AM, neutral wrote:
At 1/4/2015 4:17:10 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Do you want to know why this forum is in the gutters? Because there is no real debate. All that seems to go on is either preaching, the tired atheist vs theist squabble, or one christian calling another christian blasphemous.

I want to see actual theists (preferably of different religions) debate each other in the debate section. I'll even vote. What do ya say?

There are plenty of actual debates in the debate section. Why it's impossible in a forum style? Well, I'd say the problem isn't preaching, as preaching can be rebutted.

Not that I see a single atheist rebuttal to a sermon on this forum though mind you.

If I wrote portions of "The Three Little Pigs" is there anything to refute? The Bible carries no authority so why does it need to be refuted?

When we do show scripture to be wrong we're told it's"poetry", or it's a "metaphor" or "out of context", or a "mistranslation". No matter what the issue is, theists are disingenuous about applying these common excuses because they're wrong but can't admit it. Debate is only productive if you're willing to admit it when you're wrong.

That said, the idea that this section of the forum is lacking compared to the rest is false. Look at what passes for debates elsewhere; rap-battles... really? Word games? Video game trivia? The kiddies just need to get over themselves. Theists have no evidence to support their beliefs. That's why it's called "faith". How are they supposed to offer rational debate?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 9:41:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 4:17:10 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Do you want to know why this forum is in the gutters? Because there is no real debate. All that seems to go on is either preaching, the tired atheist vs theist squabble, or one christian calling another christian blasphemous.

I want to see actual theists (preferably of different religions) debate each other in the debate section. I'll even vote. What do ya say?

Real debate is only possible when both sides are willing to accept the veracity of the argument best supported by objective evidence. Theism promotes belief devoid of evidence (faith). Without acceptance for the ability of evidence to demonstrate the more valid position, it becomes a contest of unsupported assertion. That's all religion has ever been anyway. Theists ignore evidence because they lack evidence and assert that belief (faith) is superior to evidence, which completely side-steps debate.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:02:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 9:31:06 AM, neutral wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:09:50 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

So that is the nefarious 'preaching' of religion, which is quite rare on the forum, but there are threads that talk about similar themes and messages. These would be called thesis statements.

MsTambo is new here, and that's all she does what you just did. Copy and paste preaching. And the thesis statements are chalk full of the same unsubstantiated and fallacious reasoning of the regular chats.

I will submit that the problem is not these thesis statements but the utter failure to rebut them, for debate requires ... Antithesis. Usually the best religious arguments are met with droll atheistic 'preaching' that usually involves:

A. You religious people don't get science, for being religious must mean we are uneducated. Therefore the sermon above it fully rebutted.
B. Your God is a genocide, rapist, whatever, as if this rebuts the sermon above.
C. I'm an agnostic atheist thus have no burden of proof, but you always do therefore the sermon above is falsified.
D. Hitler was a Christian, therefore the sermon above is wrong.
E. Religion causes war, pride never dies of course, therefore that sermon is wrong.

Etc.

Again, the tired atheist vs theist debate remains unchanged. Thanks neutral.

I'll submit B, that if there is a debate failure there are two sides to that failure. For every annoying preacher there is at least atheist troll spewing nothing but rabid calls of genocide, rape, and absolutely mocking the pretense of debate and the Hegelian dialectic by refusing to do anything save preach nihilism.

So you do acknowledge preachers are a problem. I'll admit trolls are no help either. As far as nihilism is concern Envisage is the only one who argues that, and it's far from preaching.

If you want to help, jump into a good debate. Start one. Pull up something from a christian website, not an atheist one, and explain why that Christian thing bothers you. Offer something thoughtful, you'll probably get a thoughtful response.

Sure, that could be a possibility. But I can already predict the responses, my guess is i was probably misinterpreting it.

Better responses than, "this forum suck cause preachers!"

Preachers weren't my only concern. You have a tendency to straw man, like your A-E list above.

Preachers exist all over the world, many have different views than our own. Rational people know how to handle, or how to at least expose them as mindless drones and move on. Sometimes that the best you can do in a debate, get to a point where people see the pointlessness of rational discourse.

Yes, that's the point I'm at now. Hence why I started this forum. I was talking to Fatihah about the soul. It pretty much boiled down to I can't prove dinosaurs existed (to his satisfaction), internet links to scientific sources do not count because they are not the actual physical embodiment of the subject talked about in the link, and something about how because I don't make crystals ergo the soul exists.

That type of mindless droning is not confined to religion, I assure you. Try politics.

Sure, it's in politics too. But the religion forum is what the OP is about.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:54:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 9:32:11 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:05:56 AM, neutral wrote:
At 1/4/2015 4:17:10 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Do you want to know why this forum is in the gutters? Because there is no real debate. All that seems to go on is either preaching, the tired atheist vs theist squabble, or one christian calling another christian blasphemous.

I want to see actual theists (preferably of different religions) debate each other in the debate section. I'll even vote. What do ya say?

There are plenty of actual debates in the debate section. Why it's impossible in a forum style? Well, I'd say the problem isn't preaching, as preaching can be rebutted.

Not that I see a single atheist rebuttal to a sermon on this forum though mind you.

If I wrote portions of "The Three Little Pigs" is there anything to refute? The Bible carries no authority so why does it need to be refuted?

Well, thanks for proving the point. You rebutted the three little pigs (actually not even that), and then dumped your stalking, prejudiced opinion out as fact.

Why Christians should treat that as anything other than acerbic trolling I have no idea.

YOU hold no authority whatsoever, why should we take YOU seriously? You've never even published a book, much less a best seller now have you? So thanks for your opinion, which we already know because you are an atheist - and one with quite the reputation in the religious community. (Hint: its not a good one).


When we do show scripture to be wrong we're told it's"poetry", or it's a "metaphor" or "out of context", or a "mistranslation". No matter what the issue is, theists are disingenuous about applying these common excuses because they're wrong but can't admit it. Debate is only productive if you're willing to admit it when you're wrong.

And that doesn't rebut the sermon provided does it.

We call this misdirection, not rebuttal. Common atheist tactic, at least for this guy.


That said, the idea that this section of the forum is lacking compared to the rest is false. Look at what passes for debates elsewhere; rap-battles... really? Word games? Video game trivia? The kiddies just need to get over themselves. Theists have no evidence to support their beliefs. That's why it's called "faith". How are they supposed to offer rational debate?

rap battles are not happening in the forum. And please take a look at the forum itself. Its not exactly heathy is it.

http://www.debate.org...

The last 'joke' was a day ago.

That why its called basic fact checking Beasty.

And that we should take seriously a man who has neither written a book and appears unable to even use basic fact checking to validate the inferences of his argument?

Well, this is indeed what we expect from the trolls of atheism. Thankfully, many atheists are not this. Just a few.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 11:11:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:02:26 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:31:06 AM, neutral wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:09:50 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

So that is the nefarious 'preaching' of religion, which is quite rare on the forum, but there are threads that talk about similar themes and messages. These would be called thesis statements.

MsTambo is new here, and that's all she does what you just did. Copy and paste preaching. And the thesis statements are chalk full of the same unsubstantiated and fallacious reasoning of the regular chats.

So you claim the copied text was fallacious, you failed to demonstrate it. At all.

You made an unsupported claim. Period.

I doubt you even read the sermon did you?


I will submit that the problem is not these thesis statements but the utter failure to rebut them, for debate requires ... Antithesis. Usually the best religious arguments are met with droll atheistic 'preaching' that usually involves:

A. You religious people don't get science, for being religious must mean we are uneducated. Therefore the sermon above it fully rebutted.
B. Your God is a genocide, rapist, whatever, as if this rebuts the sermon above.
C. I'm an agnostic atheist thus have no burden of proof, but you always do therefore the sermon above is falsified.
D. Hitler was a Christian, therefore the sermon above is wrong.
E. Religion causes war, pride never dies of course, therefore that sermon is wrong.

Etc.

Again, the tired atheist vs theist debate remains unchanged. Thanks neutral.

Which you seem content to do nothing to change. You just might be part of the problem, and when you level the charge of 'preaching' at one side, and then ignore your sides 'preaching' - we have the issue.

The solution is to offer an actual rebuttal. All you have done is preach. "You be fallacious because me say so!"

Quality debate that is not. Typical sectarian swill I believe, correct?


I'll submit B, that if there is a debate failure there are two sides to that failure. For every annoying preacher there is at least atheist troll spewing nothing but rabid calls of genocide, rape, and absolutely mocking the pretense of debate and the Hegelian dialectic by refusing to do anything save preach nihilism.

So you do acknowledge preachers are a problem. I'll admit trolls are no help either. As far as nihilism is concern Envisage is the only one who argues that, and it's far from preaching.

Envy argues a version of nihilism. The nihilism I refer to is rabid, unthinking anti religion. Again, not all atheists, but within the ranks of atheists are guys every bit as obstinate and preachy as the Taliban. Extremism and blind devotion are not confined to religion.

So if we want something more than that, then WE have to take the time to make the quality arguments.


If you want to help, jump into a good debate. Start one. Pull up something from a christian website, not an atheist one, and explain why that Christian thing bothers you. Offer something thoughtful, you'll probably get a thoughtful response.

Sure, that could be a possibility. But I can already predict the responses, my guess is i was probably misinterpreting it.

That is why you pull it from the Christian source, and if you are misunderstanding it, which many atheists do quite a bit (like really, I am about to rape and pillage right this instant), then concede the point. If you have it right, then explain why its right and ... win the debate.

I have voted for Envy on several occasions, for example, because he makes the better case. You don't have to agree, but you can concede a sound argument. That is what quality debate is all about.


Better responses than, "this forum suck cause preachers!"

Preachers weren't my only concern. You have a tendency to straw man, like your A-E list above.

Well, when you complain about preachers and list two names, its a fair bit of your argument. The appeal to victimhood is a tendency I have little empathy for.

The A-E list is not a straw man. Its a fact. All those arguments are found on this forum, and many others, frequently. If you doubt it, look for yourself.


Preachers exist all over the world, many have different views than our own. Rational people know how to handle, or how to at least expose them as mindless drones and move on. Sometimes that the best you can do in a debate, get to a point where people see the pointlessness of rational discourse.

Yes, that's the point I'm at now. Hence why I started this forum.

You started a thread not a forum.

I was talking to Fatihah about the soul. It pretty much boiled down to I can't prove dinosaurs existed (to his satisfaction), internet links to scientific sources do not count because they are not the actual physical embodiment of the subject talked about in the link, and something about how because I don't make crystals ergo the soul exists.

Then debate someone else. For the record, I know Fatihah, I believe is not shock to you that she found you equally frustrating.

As I said, if someone is mindless that is easy to demonstrate (witness Beasty above), but Fatihah doesn't even post here anymore, and that makes a rather poor source for your problem doesn't it?

Fatihah, for the record, was driven away by those trolls I mentioned, who, in addition to the mindless responses, had no problem digging into her personal life to attack her. And let me tell you, that has a decidedly negative effect on debate - like it drives people away kind of negative effects.


That type of mindless droning is not confined to religion, I assure you. Try politics.

Sure, it's in politics too. But the religion forum is what the OP is about.

And the rebuttal is that solutions that work with other areas with similar problems will probably work here as well. Its not the only broken tool in the chest. If something fixes the other tools in the chest, it'll probably fix the one you want fixed as well.

Truth be told, the entire forum is suffering.

IMHO, uncontrolled trolling drove most posters away. The religion section is simply the last hold out.

But you tell me, who wants to come in and hear a constant thrum of Mohammed being a pedophile? If you are Islamic and see that the people doing it are mindless dolts who refuse to even listen to you? That the mods won't do anything about it? Its a no brainer that this is not a space for debate. Its a space for mindless flame bait.

Flame bait tends to be very bad over the long run.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 11:15:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 9:31:06 AM, neutral wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:09:50 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:05:56 AM, neutral wrote:


Well, here is preaching.

SERMONS.COM
This Week's Sermons

Light of the World
John 1:1-18


One of the striking features of the Gospel of John is the way it depicts the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. The other gospels usually tell us stories about Jesus. Then, like the disciples, we are left to ask, "Who is this, that wind and sea obey him? Who is this who feeds the multitude on a couple of loaves and a few fish?" But in the Gospel of John, there's never a doubt who Jesus is, because he tells us. Usually he does so with a statement that begins with the words, "I am." Put him in a situation and he will clarify who he is and what he has come to do.

You can put him in the desert surrounded by people who are chronically unsatisfied, and Jesus says, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty" (John 6:35).

You can put him in the midst of people who are confused, people who ask, "Who are you, Jesus? What makes you different from all the other gurus, rabbis, and religious leaders?" And Jesus says, "I am the gate for the sheep. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture" (10:7, 9). It is an act of self-definition.

You can put him at graveside, in the midst of grief-stricken people, and Jesus says, "I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live" (11:25).

Or put him in the midst of people who feel disconnected by life's difficulties, and Jesus says, "I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing" (15:5).

In the Gospel of John, in one situation after another, Jesus defines himself and says, "This is who I am...." In the eighth chapter, Jesus says, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life" (8:12). His words echo the opening words of the Fourth Gospel, where the writer defines the person and work of Jesus in terms of light. "What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people ... The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world" (1:3-4, 9).

Jesus says, "I am the light of the world." This is the kind of thing we might expect to hear in these days after Christmas. Not long ago we gathered on Christmas Eve to hear the prophet Isaiah say, "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light." We don't know if old Isaiah had any idea who or what he was talking about, yet we celebrate Christmas as a festival of light. We string up twinkle lights on fir trees. We illumine our houses. We burn candles in the windows and plug in GE bulbs on the shrubbery. We burn up the kilowatts because Jesus Christ is born. In the bleak midwinter, why not shine a little light?...

The Light of the World.
The Light Comes into Darkness.

http://www.sermons.com...

Here is a rebuttal for you.
The verses John 1:1-18 does not contain anything actually said by Jesus. So it is all fluff.

The verses John 6:35 is Jesus introducing cannibalism.
The disciples were so disgusted with Jesus they walked out :
John 6:60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

John 6: 66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him

In verse s 10:7,9 Jesus's incoherency is made obvious.

John 10:19 At these words the Jews were again divided. 20 Many of them said, "He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?"

In Verses 11:35 Jesus contradicting his earlier statement because here you only have to believe to have eternal life.

John 11:35 25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

He had said early it was not enough to believe. You had to actually taste his blood and eat his flesh to receive eternal life.
John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Verses 15:5 teaches total dependence on God.
"Loosely translated: Teach a man to pray and he will starve to death waiting for god to give him a fish."

Verses 8:12 Jesus circumvents the law.

John 8: 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me." 19 Then they asked him, "Where is your father?" "You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also."

Jesus alludes to an imaginary father in heaven. He has no witnesses.

Verses 1:3-4,9 does not contain anything actually said by Jesus. It is just fluff.

So here you have it. Dissecting and refuting/rebutting a sermon is not that difficult.

Here is some good news for you.

Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness

Quote:
An Oxford University researcher and author specializing in neuroscience has suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness.

Kathleen Taylor, who describes herself as a "science writer affiliated to the Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics," made the suggestion during a presentation on brain research at the Hay Literary Festival in Wales on Wednesday.

In response to a question about the future of neuroscience, Taylor said that "One of the surprises may be to see people with certain beliefs as people who can be treated," The Times of London notes.

"Someone who has for example become radicalised to a cult ideology -- we might stop seeing that as a personal choice that they have chosen as a result of pure free will and may start treating it as some kind of mental disturbance," Taylor said. "In many ways it could be a very positive thing because there are no doubt beliefs in our society that do a heck of a lot of damage."
Mikal
Posts: 11,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 11:20:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 9:32:11 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:05:56 AM, neutral wrote:
At 1/4/2015 4:17:10 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Do you want to know why this forum is in the gutters? Because there is no real debate. All that seems to go on is either preaching, the tired atheist vs theist squabble, or one christian calling another christian blasphemous.

I want to see actual theists (preferably of different religions) debate each other in the debate section. I'll even vote. What do ya say?

There are plenty of actual debates in the debate section. Why it's impossible in a forum style? Well, I'd say the problem isn't preaching, as preaching can be rebutted.

Not that I see a single atheist rebuttal to a sermon on this forum though mind you.

If I wrote portions of "The Three Little Pigs" is there anything to refute? The Bible carries no authority so why does it need to be refuted?

When we do show scripture to be wrong we're told it's"poetry", or it's a "metaphor" or "out of context", or a "mistranslation". No matter what the issue is, theists are disingenuous about applying these common excuses because they're wrong but can't admit it. Debate is only productive if you're willing to admit it when you're wrong.

That said, the idea that this section of the forum is lacking compared to the rest is false. Look at what passes for debates elsewhere; rap-battles... really? Word games? Video game trivia? The kiddies just need to get over themselves. Theists have no evidence to support their beliefs. That's why it's called "faith". How are they supposed to offer rational debate?

The bible has no authority. That is probably the most inaccurate statement, I've read in quite some time. 32 percent of the worlds population is Christian, that is right at 1/3 of the entire world that believes in the bible and God.

You are asserting there is nothing to refute in the bible because it's not true, even if that is true and the bible if false people follow this as their life. You should challenge their fundamental theological beliefs because a majority of the bible contradicts science. There is most definitely something to refute. Just because you assume it's false does not negate that fact.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 11:36:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 11:15:47 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:31:06 AM, neutral wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:09:50 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:05:56 AM, neutral wrote:


Well, here is preaching.

SERMONS.COM
This Week's Sermons

Light of the World
John 1:1-18


One of the striking features of the Gospel of John is the way it depicts the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. The other gospels usually tell us stories about Jesus. Then, like the disciples, we are left to ask, "Who is this, that wind and sea obey him? Who is this who feeds the multitude on a couple of loaves and a few fish?" But in the Gospel of John, there's never a doubt who Jesus is, because he tells us. Usually he does so with a statement that begins with the words, "I am." Put him in a situation and he will clarify who he is and what he has come to do.

You can put him in the desert surrounded by people who are chronically unsatisfied, and Jesus says, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty" (John 6:35).

You can put him in the midst of people who are confused, people who ask, "Who are you, Jesus? What makes you different from all the other gurus, rabbis, and religious leaders?" And Jesus says, "I am the gate for the sheep. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture" (10:7, 9). It is an act of self-definition.

You can put him at graveside, in the midst of grief-stricken people, and Jesus says, "I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live" (11:25).

Or put him in the midst of people who feel disconnected by life's difficulties, and Jesus says, "I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing" (15:5).

In the Gospel of John, in one situation after another, Jesus defines himself and says, "This is who I am...." In the eighth chapter, Jesus says, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life" (8:12). His words echo the opening words of the Fourth Gospel, where the writer defines the person and work of Jesus in terms of light. "What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people ... The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world" (1:3-4, 9).

Jesus says, "I am the light of the world." This is the kind of thing we might expect to hear in these days after Christmas. Not long ago we gathered on Christmas Eve to hear the prophet Isaiah say, "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light." We don't know if old Isaiah had any idea who or what he was talking about, yet we celebrate Christmas as a festival of light. We string up twinkle lights on fir trees. We illumine our houses. We burn candles in the windows and plug in GE bulbs on the shrubbery. We burn up the kilowatts because Jesus Christ is born. In the bleak midwinter, why not shine a little light?...

The Light of the World.
The Light Comes into Darkness.

http://www.sermons.com...

Here is a rebuttal for you.
The verses John 1:1-18 does not contain anything actually said by Jesus. So it is all fluff.

Actually it does. So your point is moot, and demonstrates a lack of knowledge on things Biblical.

The verses John 6:35 is Jesus introducing cannibalism.
The disciples were so disgusted with Jesus they walked out :
John 6:60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

That is clearly an extreme interpretation: "hen Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe."

Let me know when food equals belief and that this means we must literally eat people to believe in them.

Are we to take you seriously? Given that you have already contradicted yourself, no Jesus but Jesus says?

John 6: 66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him

Yep. And that rebuts what? The faithful who stayed? How? People don't all follow football teams when they think they are losing, that doesn't mean football isn't real. Nor does it rebut the premise of the sermon.

In verse s 10:7,9 Jesus's incoherency is made obvious.

Hmm, over coming adversity requires ... adversity. Go on.


John 10:19 At these words the Jews were again divided. 20 Many of them said, "He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?"

And? People disagreed with Jesus? We Christians spend hundreds of years being persecuted and murdered. That would include ALL the Apostles. Yet the message of Jesus survives.

Not seeing a rebuttal to tis message at all yet, but we do begin with two obviously errors of fact.


In Verses 11:35 Jesus contradicting his earlier statement because here you only have to believe to have eternal life.

What statement was contradicted? Jesus wept. That is the verse you sighted.


John 11:35 25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

He had said early it was not enough to believe. You had to actually taste his blood and eat his flesh to receive eternal life.

No he did not. See above.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Please see the bolded part. Kinda relevant.

Verses 15:5 teaches total dependence on God.
"Loosely translated: T

Actual translation - follow me, do good, be charitable, honest, etc and good things will happen. And they do.


John 8: 17 In your own Law it is written {brevity}

And this means what regarding overcoming hardship? Nothing. Its a random non-contextual quote.


Verses 1:3-4,9 does not contain anything actually said by Jesus. It is just fluff.

It contains the words of an Apostle. That tends to matter. Not all Christians are Christ. In case you missed that.


So here you have it. Dissecting and refuting/rebutting a sermon is not that difficult.

No thesis.

Random quotes that do not address the sermons points.

Here is some good news for you.

Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness

Here is some good news for you:

http://www.logicmatters.net...

Logic can be taught!

http://infidels.org...

Building actual arguments can be taught.

Bad news, when we don't do this and instead vomit the stuff above, and then call people mental heath nuts we get this:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 11:43:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 11:11:04 AM, neutral wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:02:26 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:31:06 AM, neutral wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:09:50 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

So that is the nefarious 'preaching' of religion, which is quite rare on the forum, but there are threads that talk about similar themes and messages. These would be called thesis statements.

MsTambo is new here, and that's all she does what you just did. Copy and paste preaching. And the thesis statements are chalk full of the same unsubstantiated and fallacious reasoning of the regular chats.

So you claim the copied text was fallacious, you failed to demonstrate it. At all.

You made an unsupported claim. Period.

I doubt you even read the sermon did you?

I did actually read one of them. It's all the same theist points rebutted by the same atheistic points. The same old atheist vs theist debate. I didn't start this thread to debate you neutral, you're just anther boring cog in the same old debate.

I will submit that the problem is not these thesis statements but the utter failure to rebut them, for debate requires ... Antithesis. Usually the best religious arguments are met with droll atheistic 'preaching' that usually involves:

A. You religious people don't get science, for being religious must mean we are uneducated. Therefore the sermon above it fully rebutted.
B. Your God is a genocide, rapist, whatever, as if this rebuts the sermon above.
C. I'm an agnostic atheist thus have no burden of proof, but you always do therefore the sermon above is falsified.
D. Hitler was a Christian, therefore the sermon above is wrong.
E. Religion causes war, pride never dies of course, therefore that sermon is wrong.

Etc.

Again, the tired atheist vs theist debate remains unchanged. Thanks neutral.

Which you seem content to do nothing to change. You just might be part of the problem, and when you level the charge of 'preaching' at one side, and then ignore your sides 'preaching' - we have the issue.

lol I just tarted this thread to support change and you accuse me of not doing anything to promote change. lol stay classy neutral.

The solution is to offer an actual rebuttal. All you have done is preach. "You be fallacious because me say so!"

Quality debate that is not. Typical sectarian swill I believe, correct?

Your second post in this thread was a copy paste sermon ... What is your point about preaching again? Also it's funny, when theists preach w/o evidence you don't seem to care, but when we say "hey that's not evidence, you're making unsubstantiated claims" you shift the BoP saying "where's your proof?! prove what we're saying has no proof!!" when it's your job to provide said proof to begin with. The same old debate.

I'll submit B, that if there is a debate failure there are two sides to that failure. For every annoying preacher there is at least atheist troll spewing nothing but rabid calls of genocide, rape, and absolutely mocking the pretense of debate and the Hegelian dialectic by refusing to do anything save preach nihilism.

So you do acknowledge preachers are a problem. I'll admit trolls are no help either. As far as nihilism is concern Envisage is the only one who argues that, and it's far from preaching.

Envy argues a version of nihilism. The nihilism I refer to is rabid, unthinking anti religion. Again, not all atheists, but within the ranks of atheists are guys every bit as obstinate and preachy as the Taliban. Extremism and blind devotion are not confined to religion.

Sure.

So if we want something more than that, then WE have to take the time to make the quality arguments.

Then go forth and make such arguments.

If you want to help, jump into a good debate. Start one. Pull up something from a christian website, not an atheist one, and explain why that Christian thing bothers you. Offer something thoughtful, you'll probably get a thoughtful response.

Sure, that could be a possibility. But I can already predict the responses, my guess is i was probably misinterpreting it.

That is why you pull it from the Christian source, and if you are misunderstanding it, which many atheists do quite a bit (like really, I am about to rape and pillage right this instant), then concede the point. If you have it right, then explain why its right and ... win the debate.

I'm not an authority, so you tell to go to Christian authorities. But how can I say I'm right when no christian source will give testament to God's immorality? This is why I want other theists to debate each other. They at least claim to know what they are talking about and they agree on the premise of a god so a debate can be had.

Better responses than, "this forum suck cause preachers!"

Preachers weren't my only concern. You have a tendency to straw man, like your A-E list above.

Well, when you complain about preachers and list two names, its a fair bit of your argument. The appeal to victimhood is a tendency I have little empathy for.

I only brought up names because you made preaching a focus of your past posts.

Preachers exist all over the world, many have different views than our own. Rational people know how to handle, or how to at least expose them as mindless drones and move on. Sometimes that the best you can do in a debate, get to a point where people see the pointlessness of rational discourse.

Yes, that's the point I'm at now. Hence why I started this forum.

You started a thread not a forum.

Bringing up such a petty point makes me question your sincerity.

I was talking to Fatihah about the soul. It pretty much boiled down to I can't prove dinosaurs existed (to his satisfaction), internet links to scientific sources do not count because they are not the actual physical embodiment of the subject talked about in the link, and something about how because I don't make crystals ergo the soul exists.

Then debate someone else. For the record, I know Fatihah, I believe is not shock to you that she found you equally frustrating.

As I said, if someone is mindless that is easy to demonstrate (witness Beasty above), but Fatihah doesn't even post here anymore, and that makes a rather poor source for your problem doesn't it?

Fatihah, for the record, was driven away by those trolls I mentioned, who, in addition to the mindless responses, had no problem digging into her personal life to attack her. And let me tell you, that has a decidedly negative effect on debate - like it drives people away kind of negative effects.

The thread debate with Fatihah happened yesterday.

In the end neither side takes the other seriously. Rebuttals are constantly ignored and fallacies made on both sides. In the atheist vs theist debate I don't know how much farther it can get other than agree to disagree.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 11:59:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 11:20:43 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:32:11 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:05:56 AM, neutral wrote:
At 1/4/2015 4:17:10 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Do you want to know why this forum is in the gutters? Because there is no real debate. All that seems to go on is either preaching, the tired atheist vs theist squabble, or one christian calling another christian blasphemous.

I want to see actual theists (preferably of different religions) debate each other in the debate section. I'll even vote. What do ya say?

There are plenty of actual debates in the debate section. Why it's impossible in a forum style? Well, I'd say the problem isn't preaching, as preaching can be rebutted.

Not that I see a single atheist rebuttal to a sermon on this forum though mind you.

If I wrote portions of "The Three Little Pigs" is there anything to refute? The Bible carries no authority so why does it need to be refuted?

When we do show scripture to be wrong we're told it's"poetry", or it's a "metaphor" or "out of context", or a "mistranslation". No matter what the issue is, theists are disingenuous about applying these common excuses because they're wrong but can't admit it. Debate is only productive if you're willing to admit it when you're wrong.

That said, the idea that this section of the forum is lacking compared to the rest is false. Look at what passes for debates elsewhere; rap-battles... really? Word games? Video game trivia? The kiddies just need to get over themselves. Theists have no evidence to support their beliefs. That's why it's called "faith". How are they supposed to offer rational debate?

The bible has no authority. That is probably the most inaccurate statement, I've read in quite some time. 32 percent of the worlds population is Christian, that is right at 1/3 of the entire world that believes in the bible and God.

You are asserting there is nothing to refute in the bible because it's not true, even if that is true and the bible if false people follow this as their life. You should challenge their fundamental theological beliefs because a majority of the bible contradicts science. There is most definitely something to refute. Just because you assume it's false does not negate that fact.
Unfortunately you cannot refute the bible with facts, science or reason. The bible is a theological doctrine. It is a book on supernatural events and spiritual mutants much more morphed than the characters from a Stan Lee marvel comic. That is not to say Christians all subscribe to this marvel fantasy. But living eternally forever and using faith to move mountains are some of their more common aspirations.
Even their favourite character Jesus couldn't climb down from the cross he was hung on. But not to be disheartened. He was exalted for his effort to make heaven a more accessible place for believers like him who were ready to renounce the world, family and all faculty of reason and rationality. Hard to believe there are some 2 billion of such believers ready to carry their cross and ignore Stan Lees warnings super heroes in comic books should not be taken seriously as much as the bible inspired both him and Hollywood to create them.
Mikal
Posts: 11,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:01:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 11:59:48 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/4/2015 11:20:43 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:32:11 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:05:56 AM, neutral wrote:
At 1/4/2015 4:17:10 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Do you want to know why this forum is in the gutters? Because there is no real debate. All that seems to go on is either preaching, the tired atheist vs theist squabble, or one christian calling another christian blasphemous.

I want to see actual theists (preferably of different religions) debate each other in the debate section. I'll even vote. What do ya say?

There are plenty of actual debates in the debate section. Why it's impossible in a forum style? Well, I'd say the problem isn't preaching, as preaching can be rebutted.

Not that I see a single atheist rebuttal to a sermon on this forum though mind you.

If I wrote portions of "The Three Little Pigs" is there anything to refute? The Bible carries no authority so why does it need to be refuted?

When we do show scripture to be wrong we're told it's"poetry", or it's a "metaphor" or "out of context", or a "mistranslation". No matter what the issue is, theists are disingenuous about applying these common excuses because they're wrong but can't admit it. Debate is only productive if you're willing to admit it when you're wrong.

That said, the idea that this section of the forum is lacking compared to the rest is false. Look at what passes for debates elsewhere; rap-battles... really? Word games? Video game trivia? The kiddies just need to get over themselves. Theists have no evidence to support their beliefs. That's why it's called "faith". How are they supposed to offer rational debate?

The bible has no authority. That is probably the most inaccurate statement, I've read in quite some time. 32 percent of the worlds population is Christian, that is right at 1/3 of the entire world that believes in the bible and God.

You are asserting there is nothing to refute in the bible because it's not true, even if that is true and the bible if false people follow this as their life. You should challenge their fundamental theological beliefs because a majority of the bible contradicts science. There is most definitely something to refute. Just because you assume it's false does not negate that fact.
Unfortunately you cannot refute the bible with facts, science or reason. The bible is a theological doctrine. It is a book on supernatural events and spiritual mutants much more morphed than the characters from a Stan Lee marvel comic. That is not to say Christians all subscribe to this marvel fantasy. But living eternally forever and using faith to move mountains are some of their more common aspirations.
Even their favourite character Jesus couldn't climb down from the cross he was hung on. But not to be disheartened. He was exalted for his effort to make heaven a more accessible place for believers like him who were ready to renounce the world, family and all faculty of reason and rationality. Hard to believe there are some 2 billion of such believers ready to carry their cross and ignore Stan Lees warnings super heroes in comic books should not be taken seriously as much as the bible inspired both him and Hollywood to create them.

I disagree, evolution was never a thing until science showed it was almost undeniably true and then the catholic church submitted to that and adopted it as part of their doctrine. You can find things that contradict religion so hard, that people are forced to acknowledge them as fact.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:23:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 12:01:34 PM, Mikal wrote:

I disagree, evolution was never a thing until science showed it was almost undeniably true and then the catholic church submitted to that and adopted it as part of their doctrine. You can find things that contradict religion so hard, that people are forced to acknowledge them as fact.

Ah the president graces my thread! Welcome!
Mikal
Posts: 11,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:24:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 12:23:45 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:01:34 PM, Mikal wrote:

I disagree, evolution was never a thing until science showed it was almost undeniably true and then the catholic church submitted to that and adopted it as part of their doctrine. You can find things that contradict religion so hard, that people are forced to acknowledge them as fact.

Ah the president graces my thread! Welcome!

i'm trying to be more actively involved in this forum lol
Mikal
Posts: 11,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:25:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 12:23:45 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:01:34 PM, Mikal wrote:

I disagree, evolution was never a thing until science showed it was almost undeniably true and then the catholic church submitted to that and adopted it as part of their doctrine. You can find things that contradict religion so hard, that people are forced to acknowledge them as fact.

Ah the president graces my thread! Welcome!

I completely agree with the OP btw

I would love to say a RF tournament involving the users on here.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:33:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 12:25:15 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:23:45 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:01:34 PM, Mikal wrote:

I disagree, evolution was never a thing until science showed it was almost undeniably true and then the catholic church submitted to that and adopted it as part of their doctrine. You can find things that contradict religion so hard, that people are forced to acknowledge them as fact.

Ah the president graces my thread! Welcome!

I completely agree with the OP btw

I would love to say a RF tournament involving the users on here.

That could be interesting
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:40:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 12:33:13 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:25:15 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:23:45 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:01:34 PM, Mikal wrote:

I disagree, evolution was never a thing until science showed it was almost undeniably true and then the catholic church submitted to that and adopted it as part of their doctrine. You can find things that contradict religion so hard, that people are forced to acknowledge them as fact.

Ah the president graces my thread! Welcome!

I completely agree with the OP btw

I would love to say a RF tournament involving the users on here.

That could be interesting

Yes, interesting, but I'd want to see its structure.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:45:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 12:40:49 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:33:13 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:25:15 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:23:45 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:01:34 PM, Mikal wrote:

I disagree, evolution was never a thing until science showed it was almost undeniably true and then the catholic church submitted to that and adopted it as part of their doctrine. You can find things that contradict religion so hard, that people are forced to acknowledge them as fact.

Ah the president graces my thread! Welcome!

I completely agree with the OP btw

I would love to say a RF tournament involving the users on here.

That could be interesting

Yes, interesting, but I'd want to see its structure.

I think everyone should do a devil's advocate "Does god exist" debate
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:48:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 12:45:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:40:49 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:33:13 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:25:15 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:23:45 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:01:34 PM, Mikal wrote:

I disagree, evolution was never a thing until science showed it was almost undeniably true and then the catholic church submitted to that and adopted it as part of their doctrine. You can find things that contradict religion so hard, that people are forced to acknowledge them as fact.

Ah the president graces my thread! Welcome!

I completely agree with the OP btw

I would love to say a RF tournament involving the users on here.

That could be interesting

Yes, interesting, but I'd want to see its structure.

I think everyone should do a devil's advocate "Does god exist" debate

Lol and the theists play the role of the atheists! How marvelously absurd.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 5:16:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 11:43:14 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 11:11:04 AM, neutral wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:02:26 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:31:06 AM, neutral wrote:
At 1/4/2015 9:09:50 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

So that is the nefarious 'preaching' of religion, which is quite rare on the forum, but there are threads that talk about similar themes and messages. These would be called thesis statements.

MsTambo is new here, and that's all she does what you just did. Copy and paste preaching. And the thesis statements are chalk full of the same unsubstantiated and fallacious reasoning of the regular chats.

So you claim the copied text was fallacious, you failed to demonstrate it. At all.

You made an unsupported claim. Period.

I doubt you even read the sermon did you?

I did actually read one of them. It's all the same theist points rebutted by the same atheistic points. The same old atheist vs theist debate. I didn't start this thread to debate you neutral, you're just anther boring cog in the same old debate.

#1 - I only posted one???? Which others one did you read?

#2 - you opened a debate, demanding it. When you get one, you can't say, "Well, I was hoping for someone dumber, sorry!"

You want debate, but then you don't? I don't follow B?




lol I just tarted this thread to support change and you accuse me of not doing anything to promote change. lol stay classy neutral.


Yep, offered a rebuttal, you are plainly asking me not to debate you - while demanding debate. OK. You really are not doing anything to facilitate quality debate when you avoid it.

Its simple logic. I'm not even sure what you are disagreeing with here B?


Your second post in this thread was a copy paste sermon ...

No crap, to demonstrate what an actual sermon is and ... drum roll ... how it could be rebutted. So far? All we have is ONE ATHEIST completely getting the message wrong, we Christians be cannibals (but correcting that is the problem here?) and then calling us mental health issues? The lapses and lack of civilized rebuttal is ... obvious.

So if one side makes a sermon, and the other side cannot be countered on to respond to it with any amount of grace of intelligence and is reduced to ... claiming cannabalism ... and calling religious people mental health cases (repeatedly) ... you starting to see the problem?

It's not preaching. Its the trolls that are a problem.

What is your point about preaching again? Also it's funny, when theists preach w/o evidence you don't seem to care, but when we say "hey that's not evidence, you're making unsubstantiated claims" you shift the BoP saying "where's your proof?! prove what we're saying has no proof!!" when it's your job to provide said proof to begin with. The same old debate.

You mean like claiming something is fallacious without reading it and thus failing entirely to evidence the fallacy? Like that?

I believe your line here, the fallacious shifting of the burden of proof, is exactly the 'preaching' I claimed is common in atheism and which you called a straw man. Next post? Here you are saying that straw man?

The problem, demonstrated exactly as predicted.


Sure, that could be a possibility. But I can already predict the responses, my guess is i was probably misinterpreting it.

You mean like calling the body of Christ an appeal to cannablism? Why would it be ... wrong ... for a Christian to 'clarify' and 'correct' that rather egregious and deliberate misinterpretation of our faith?

Again, is the problem the correction? Or the ones who insist on dumping such idiocy into the forum like its a real though we Christians hold? Its nihilism - blind anti-religion. Why on Earth in a RELIGION FORUM would religious people NOT CORRECT egregious and deliberate misinterpretation.


I'm not an authority, so you tell to go to Christian authorities.

Are you saying our faith is too hard to understand? Then from what basis to you think our interpretation is wrong? You apparently don't understand it enough to explain why its wrong? How then do you intend to falsify the position with logic? Evidence? A rebuttal directed AT THE CLAIM, if you cannot even accurately describe the claim you reject.

ITs a bit like saying I reject evolution, but I have no idea what evolution is - its hard and I am no authority you see.

Again, you might disagree with creationists, which you and I both do, but debate requires you to understand the opposing position well enough to ... blow it apart. That is one reason agnostic atheists hate me - because I understand the claims, and the criticism is thus withering and they cannot counter it ... save by completely ejecting their burden of explanation or proof. That is how you expose people as beyond reason. How debate works. Its not about the 'satisfaction' of getting someone irrational to admit it, its about exposing them so everyone else knows.

But how can I say I'm right when no christian source will give testament to God's immorality?

Agh, they do. Its called the Bible. The phrase eternity gets used a lot as well. Again B, have you read the Bible? Because rather basic errors like that make religious people think its anything but reasoned disagreement that drives your position. When we correct the error? What would you have us do in a debate forum?


I only brought up names because you made preaching a focus of your past posts.

As did you. Its a valid concern of yours, one I agreed with. Thus addressing it is not a straw man. When someone agrees with you, but offers a caveat that 'preaching' isn't just a religious problem ... that's called a conceded point.

Is the sectarianism so strong here that we are unable to grasp someone agreeing with a point a problem? Something to be mistrusted and dismissed as a straw man less you fall into a trap?

Trolls, as I said and you agreed, are a problem too. We actually have points of agreement. No straw men at all.


Bringing up such a petty point makes me question your sincerity.

As the inability to grasp the basics of our theology makes me question yours.


Then debate someone else. For the record, I know Fatihah, I believe is not shock to you that she found you equally frustrating.

As I said, if someone is mindless that is easy to demonstrate (witness Beasty above), but Fatihah doesn't even post here anymore, and that makes a rather poor source for your problem doesn't it?

Fatihah, for the record, was driven away by those trolls I mentioned, who, in addition to the mindless responses, had no problem digging into her personal life to attack her. And let me tell you, that has a decidedly negative effect on debate - like it drives people away kind of negative effects.

The thread debate with Fatihah happened yesterday.

http://www.debate.org...

And that is what Fatihah gets. Constantly.

Perhaps you should debate her. Or simply move on. One poster the entire forum is not.


In the end neither side takes the other seriously. Rebuttals are constantly ignored and fallacies made on both sides. In the atheist vs theist debate I don't know how much farther it can get other than agree to disagree.

Or, as I have seen happen, rarely, but it happens, I have seen people actually change their minds. In the debate forums I have been in, it is usually more often from atheism to theism (perhaps because there are usually more atheists than religious people on the forums - or perhaps just my biases?)

If it doesn't matter, then there is no need to be here at all. As I said, "This is pointless," is not much a aid. In some cases, you can get to not just agree to disagree, but to genuine mutual respect. Envy and Burz pop in immediately.