By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - This is why I don't like debating religion

DaRev said:


2 Timothy 3:16-17

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,  that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

all that proves is that someone, somewhere wrote that all scripture is given by inspiration of god.  that doesn' prove it's true, just that someone wrote it.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1I3mBojc0



Around the Network
GameOver22 said:

Yeah...Truth is, both sides have to provide evidence for their argument. The whole burden of proof is just a cop-out by both sides. Both theists and atheists use it. Atheists usually try to argue that the burder of proof is on the rligious believer because atheism is just the lack of belief....which is wrong. The lack of belief is agnosticism. Atheists actually claim God does not exist. Theists claim God does exist. Both have to support their argument.

No. Atheism/theism is completely different from being agnostic/gnostic. Atheism and theism deals with what a person believes. Agnosticism deals with what a person knows (or at least what s/he think he knows). If you believe in God, then you are a theist. If you don't, then you are an atheist (which doesn't necessarily mean you believe God doesn't exist). If you believe you know whether God exist or doesn't exist, then you are gnostic. If you believe it's impossible to know, then you are agnostic.

Agnosticism isn't some middle ground be atheism and theism. Agnosticism is compatible with both atheism and theism. With that said, there are four categories that a person can fall into:

  • Gnostic Theist - A person who thinks they know that at least one deity exists
  • Agnostic Theist - A person who believes that at least one deity exists, but accepts that they cannot know for certain.
  • Agnostic Atheist - A person who does not believe in the existance of a deity, OR --more specifically-- believes in the inexistance of a deity, but accepts that they cannot know for certain. 
  • Gnostic Atheist - A person who thinks they know that no deity exists.

Also, there's two types of atheists. One, those who explicitly assert that no deity exist. And then there's everyone else, those who simply do not believe in a God. 

To describe all atheists, the only definition acceptable is "those who lack a belief in a deity". Once you start referring to people who explicitly believe in the lack of a deity, then you're talking about a specific group of atheists who DO NOT represent all atheists. 



I reccomend you watch these two videos to understand atheim better and to understand why all atheist have no burden of proof.

 

 



Jay520 said:

I reccomend you watch these two videos to understand atheim better and to understand why all atheist have no burden of proof.

 

I'm an agnostic and don't associate myself with atheism at all. The first video completely misrepresents what it means to be agnostic vs atheistic. 



Debating is just stupid period unless both people are humbled and can see it from an outside perspective.

All I will say is until Science can prove why people get healed out of wheel chairs, blind people being able to see etc in the name of Jesus I will believe in God and anyone who doesnt think that stuff happens must be living under a rock considering there is a ridiculous amount of testimonies and recorded stuff showing this.

When Science can prove this ill be converted.

Thats my two cents, peace.



Around the Network
ManUtdFan said:
Jay520 said:

I reccomend you watch these two videos to understand atheim better and to understand why all atheist have no burden of proof.

 

I'm an agnostic and don't associate myself with atheism at all. The first video completely misrepresents what it means to be agnostic vs atheistic. 


The first video describes agnosticism extremely well actually. It's a common misconception that it means neither a theist or an atheist - it really does mean Iin this context) the belief that knowledge of God is unknowable. As such you can be agnostic and theist, atheist or neither.



Please this is something that really really urks me but stop equating Christianity with all Religion. If you say you hate debating with Christians that's one thing, but debating religion in general, and then taking about flaws in the Bible and that's it.
If you're interested in someone who is truly good at debating look up Ahmed Deedat. One of the most prominent modern Islamic scholars and is one of the best debaters I have ever ever seen. Even if you're not convinced by what he has to say, you will see a man who is absolutely incredible at debating and its a blast just listening to him.

Just please stop acting like Christianity is the only religion, don't forget Islam is based on the idea that the whole religion has been changed and perverted with massive flaws to the bible and their arguments and everything. Atheists aren't the only ones who believe that there are flaws in that religion



Isn't the opposite true as well? I think both sides are too stubborn. Agnostics are by far the most level headed



Stop saying "Religion" and just say "Christianity" instead.



Alara317 said:

o why don't I like debating religion? Well, it's because there's no winning a debate with a religious person, and it's NOT because they're right or my arguments fail (neither statement is correct.) I won't debate religion because even if I spent two weeks straight explaining why each and every detail in every bible ever was wrong, debunking myths or explaining how science has a better, more accurate answer, I will never, ever convince the devout that perhaps they need to be a bit more rational and critical of their faith.

Judging from these lines, you not debating religion doesn't seem like a big loss.

Well that was provocative on purpose, so let me explain: It is not your views, from what I've read your views on this topic seem very close to mine. It is because these lines give me the impression that you have a somewhat strange understanding of what debates (about religion, but it probably applies to other topics as well) that you take part in should be like:

You want to "win" the debate with the religious person, because you're absolutely convinced that they are wrong and your arguments are good. But no matter how great you explain to them, you're usually not going to convince these people, which of course just shows how stupid and irrational these idiots are.

In my language I would call this behaviour "oberlehrerhaft", and I think there is little point in debating with such a person, whatever the topic is. Because when you're going into a debate completely convinced that yours is the one and only truth, you consider everyone who has a different view wrong, and whatever arguments they say, you won't really listen. You are convinced that you are right, so whatever they say, you'll only try to find the logical fallacy that you know must be hidden in there.

I really think you're missing the point of a debate. You seem to consider it an easy competition that you should come out of as a "winner", while the positive effect on the inferior minded that you debated with should be his opportunity to enjoy the fruits of your enlightened mind. But as soon as you realize that it's not as easy as you thought to convince these people, it starts to annoy you.

Maybe I got a wrong impression here, but that is the impression I got from these lines.