Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-12-2012, 08:28 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Ontological - what a strange argument. "God exists because no greater being can be imagined," is what it boils down to.

Argument from beauty? Yeah, that's pretty dumb. The fact that I find something to be beautiful doesn't mean that God exists. In fact, there are people that outright believe in the supernatural that do not believe God exists.


Without a god, knowledge cannot exist? Well sure, if you say that there must be a god...however what's the support for saying that? Haha.

Intelligent Design? Plenty of flaws in the world.

Soul=God...nope.

The Cosmos argument ignores the fact that claiming the universe had a beginning and got there itself is just as unfathomable as claiming a being was ALWAYS there, didn't have a beginning, and wasn't born from anything. Although I've heard that the theory is that the singularity the universe might have sprang from was always there?

Other arguments I didn't bother to read - nopex100
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2013, 03:37 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
In my experience of debating Chrstians, it comes down to this:

Why do they believe that what they believe is true?

1. The Bible: in which case they have to provide evidence that the Bible proves itself to be anything other than the a book written by humans.
2. Personal Revelation: in which case they have to provide evidence that the voices in their head are any different from the voices in Charles Manson's head.
3. Personal experience: in which case they have to provide evidence that they have experienced anything supernatural.

And with a little digging you will always arrive at the answer: "I know because I know"

Sometimes you have to walk away because pointing and laughing is beneath you.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Baud2Bits
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2013, 09:32 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-01-2013 03:37 AM)Baud2Bits Wrote:  In my experience of debating Chrstians, it comes down to this:

Why do they believe that what they believe is true?

1. The Bible: in which case they have to provide evidence that the Bible proves itself to be anything other than the a book written by humans.
2. Personal Revelation: in which case they have to provide evidence that the voices in their head are any different from the voices in Charles Manson's head.
3. Personal experience: in which case they have to provide evidence that they have experienced anything supernatural.

And with a little digging you will always arrive at the answer: "I know because I know"

Sometimes you have to walk away because pointing and laughing is beneath you.
I personally prefer asking the following two questions to get to the reason why they believe in the first place.

Would you dedicate your life to worshiping a god/gods if there was no promise of an eternal afterlife in Heaven?
Would you dedicate your life to worshiping a god/gods if there was no threat of an eternal afterlife in Hell?

Cool

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
22-01-2013, 09:50 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-01-2013 09:32 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(22-01-2013 03:37 AM)Baud2Bits Wrote:  In my experience of debating Chrstians, it comes down to this:

Why do they believe that what they believe is true?

1. The Bible: in which case they have to provide evidence that the Bible proves itself to be anything other than the a book written by humans.
2. Personal Revelation: in which case they have to provide evidence that the voices in their head are any different from the voices in Charles Manson's head.
3. Personal experience: in which case they have to provide evidence that they have experienced anything supernatural.

And with a little digging you will always arrive at the answer: "I know because I know"

Sometimes you have to walk away because pointing and laughing is beneath you.
I personally prefer asking the following two questions to get to the reason why they believe in the first place.

Would you dedicate your life to worshiping a god/gods if there was no promise of an eternal afterlife in Heaven?
Would you dedicate your life to worshiping a god/gods if there was no threat of an eternal afterlife in Hell?

Cool
That is more succinct.

Or even how about: "How would you live your life differently if you knew God did not exist?"

http://www.youtube.com/user/Baud2Bits
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baud2Bits's post
25-01-2013, 11:38 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
"We are a Christian nation".
I saw this on a bumper sticker earlier. There are so many things wrong with this statement. First of all, our country's founders were mainly deist, not Christian. Also, the original pledge of allegiance don't include "under god". Also, if we were such a Christian nation, we wouldn't have freedom of religion... Much less this forum!

Another bumper sticker I see is "I'm catholic and I vote". So youre catholic. Why do I care lol. Also "Pray the holy rosary every day". Wow. Yeah lemme go do that, lol.

Better to be hungry and free than fed and in chains.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2013, 10:45 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Quote:1. The Bible: in which case they have to provide evidence that the Bible proves itself to be anything other than the a book written by humans.
2. Personal Revelation: in which case they have to provide evidence that the voices in their head are any different from the voices in Charles Manson's head.
3. Personal experience: in which case they have to provide evidence that they have experienced anything supernatural.
On the contrary, I would use 1) ontological, teleological, etc. arguments which I did not see at the beginning of this thread--the ones there at the beginning of this thread are like straw men to my way of thinking
2) I would offer you the direct opportunity to test and verify for yourself--after all, Christianity is in part a mystery religion whose blessings and evidence are available to adherents. Jesus even said, "To them I speak in parables so that they won't understand, but to my disciples, plainly..." The trap for you there? You can't pray in such a way that you expect God NOT to answer...!
3) You're begging the question as to how someone proves something is "supernatural". (Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.) Jesus did no miraculous works that were beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. At best, you could call them anomalous events...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2013, 10:50 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(11-02-2013 10:45 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:1. The Bible: in which case they have to provide evidence that the Bible proves itself to be anything other than the a book written by humans.
2. Personal Revelation: in which case they have to provide evidence that the voices in their head are any different from the voices in Charles Manson's head.
3. Personal experience: in which case they have to provide evidence that they have experienced anything supernatural.
On the contrary, I would use 1) ontological, teleological, etc. arguments which I did not see at the beginning of this thread--the ones there at the beginning of this thread are like straw men to my way of thinking
2) I would offer you the direct opportunity to test and verify for yourself--after all, Christianity is in part a mystery religion whose blessings and evidence are available to adherents. Jesus even said, "To them I speak in parables so that they won't understand, but to my disciples, plainly..." The trap for you there? You can't pray in such a way that you expect God NOT to answer...!
3) You're begging the question as to how someone proves something is "supernatural". (Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.) Jesus did no miraculous works that were beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. At best, you could call them anomalous events...
There are no supernatural events. I would call the miracles myths.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2013, 11:04 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Earth calling Chas:
That's what I just said in my post, except that the anolomalous happenings are factual and not myths.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2013, 02:14 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(11-02-2013 11:04 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Earth calling Chas:
That's what I just said in my post, except that the anolomalous happenings are factual and not myths.
There is no corroborating evidence, just stories in the Bible. Your belief is not evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2013, 03:03 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Of course there is corroborating evidence. But just as there IS a power of myth, there are powers of disbelief, willingness to suspend disbelief, etc. It's an axiom of human relations that lies believed have the same effect as truth--that's what you tell all of us "stupid" Christians, right?
I figured out a long time ago that a JUST God would condemn to eternal Hell only those who might argue with Him eternally. Josh McDowell was asked while a college student by a professor, "What's your proof, son?" McDowell, a former Atheist, spoke without taking a breath for 45 minutes.
Of course, if we look at your recent, deep, factual post of two sentences' length, you create another straw man by writing, "There is no corroborating evidence, just stories in the Bible. Your belief is not evidence."
I NEVER said MY BELIEF is evidence. I NEVER IMPLIED I count on corroborating evidence to have faith, either!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: