Quantcast
This is why I don't like debating religion

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

steelabhold said:
DaRev said:
Alara317 said:
DaRev said:


Really what point is that? That non-religious people always make claims about religion that they themselves ultimately can't support?

As for putting my money where my mouth is I wouldn't waste my time, seriously. Because you claim on one hand that religious people should quit but now you want me to convince you? Lol - Go read my many other posts on this religion if you want proof, it was already discussed.

So you're giving up?  You can't prove it, but since the other side can't prove the contrary you're just saying "Well, you can't prove there is no god, so that must mean there is a god"?  That's totally the way to gain respect. 

At least the non religious are mature enough to admit they don't know something and strive to learn more.  Religious folks think they have all the answers, and that further investigation isn't needed.  No wonder people say religion is the opiate of the masses, or that it's an archaic, occasionally barbaric belief system.  If you're stuck in the 1600's for morals, ethics, and science, it's no wonder people are critical of it.  

If you want to be taken seriously, then back up your claims.  At least the non religious people aren't actively making claims, just requiring you substantiate yours. 

lol, nice try. Looks like you're too acustomed to foolish rants by religious people. All the eveidence you need is in the Bible pal - go read it. It's like asking me to tell you about that law of theft. If yyou want to know what theft is you go read a statute book, not Vgchartz. Similarly, if you want proof about God, you good read God's statute book aka the Bible - is that not logical?

Read about an idea made up by man, and wrote by man (theft) to explain an idea.

Read about an idea made up by man, and wrote by man (god) to explain an idea.

Very logical. The resemblance is remarkable.




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.



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.

Around the Network
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



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. 



Around the Network

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.



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



YNWA

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