Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 149

Thread: If god is true, why are christians so terrible at debating?

  1. Top | #11
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,126
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    31,603
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigers! View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post

    "Si deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?" cuts both ways. The very existence of effective opponents is proof that god is not on your side.
    How silly of me. I thought that existence of effective opponents is proof that effective opponents exist.
    So did I; The difference being that I did not stop thinking at that point for fear of discovering, through the application of logic and reasoning, something I was keen to avoid knowing.

    Effective opponents and an omnipotent supporter are mutually exclusive possibilities. The observation of one renders the existence of the other a logical impossibility.

    And looking at Romans 8 does not make me think that Paul was talking about doing well in debates, sports etc.
    It's clear that it does not make you think at all. That you consider such thoughtlessness to be acceptable is a scathing indictment of the effect religion has on the brains of otherwise intelligent people.

  2. Top | #12
    Veteran Member Tigers!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    On the wing waiting for a kick.
    Posts
    1,684
    Archived
    2,558
    Total Posts
    4,242
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    So did I; The difference being that I did not stop thinking at that point for fear of discovering, through the application of logic and reasoning, something I was keen to avoid knowing.
    What were you keen to avoid knowing?
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Effective opponents and an omnipotent supporter are mutually exclusive possibilities. The observation of one renders the existence of the other a logical impossibility.
    Why?
    How one measures effectiveness is important. If we are using different standards then confusion will arise.
    The omnipotent supporter may decide to be 'íneffective' for a time.
    Your effectiveness could only be temporary. Only the passage of time will tell.
    And so on
    NOTE: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

  3. Top | #13
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,126
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    31,603
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigers! View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    So did I; The difference being that I did not stop thinking at that point for fear of discovering, through the application of logic and reasoning, something I was keen to avoid knowing.
    What were you keen to avoid knowing?
    If you don't understand the usage and meaning of the word "not" in English, then it's hardly surprising that you are so confused.
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Effective opponents and an omnipotent supporter are mutually exclusive possibilities. The observation of one renders the existence of the other a logical impossibility.
    Why?
    How one measures effectiveness is important. If we are using different standards then confusion will arise.
    The omnipotent supporter may decide to be 'íneffective' for a time.
    Your effectiveness could only be temporary. Only the passage of time will tell.
    And so on
    I guess it's possible that your omnipotent, omnicognisant, and omnipresent patron might not give a shit about your calls for his help, and might make you wait thousands of years for his assistance in doing the work he wants of you; But if so, why would you like him, or want to have anything to do with him?

    What's the significant difference between a friend who doesn't help you to help him (although he could without effort), and a person who isn't a friend at all?

  4. Top | #14
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    10,481
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    11,188
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    What's the significant difference between a friend who doesn't help you to help him (although he could without effort), and a person who isn't a friend at all?
    The significance only arises when said friend is of the tri-omni nature you mentioned. In that case, how can you place a value on warm fuzzy feelings?

  5. Top | #15
    Super Moderator Bronzeage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    6,610
    Archived
    7,568
    Total Posts
    14,178
    Rep Power
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    If I were debating, and I had A FREAKIN' PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GAWD on my side, I would never lose an argument.

    Yet Christians seem so _alone_ when they talk about proving their god.
    Kinda weird and self-defeating, really.
    But then again, if you are right and all your facts are true, why doesn't everyone agree with you?

  6. Top | #16
    Zen Hedonist Jobar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    1,097
    Archived
    9,525
    Total Posts
    10,622
    Rep Power
    68
    If you think about it, the fact that atheism even exists as a concept is a pretty good argument for atheism. At least, it seems a benevolent and all powerful God, who wanted His creations to know Him, would simply instill the knowledge of His existence, and what He wants of us, into the very architecture of our brains. Doubt would be physically impossible.

    I know, I know; Free Will and all that. But a God that allows doubt, then punishes it eternally, isn't benevolent.

  7. Top | #17
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,126
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    31,603
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
    If you think about it, the fact that atheism even exists as a concept is a pretty good argument for atheism. At least, it seems a benevolent and all powerful God, who wanted His creations to know Him, would simply instill the knowledge of His existence, and what He wants of us, into the very architecture of our brains. Doubt would be physically impossible.

    I know, I know; Free Will and all that. But a God that allows doubt, then punishes it eternally, isn't benevolent.
    It's a very strange definition of 'free' - Using the Christian definition of free, you are completely free to rob a bank, but will spend twenty years in jail if judged guilty of doing it, and judgment is inevitable.

    My understanding of freedom is that it entails NOT getting punished for doing the things you choose to do.

    The 'Free Will' excuse for God's non-intervention against evildoers, criminals, heretics, and atheists is a total dud. If any of those groups of people are subsequently punished for eternity for their choices, then they had no free will to begin with. Rather, they were victims of entrapment.

  8. Top | #18
    Gone
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,779
    Archived
    2,812
    Total Posts
    7,591
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
    If you think about it, the fact that atheism even exists as a concept is a pretty good argument for atheism. At least, it seems a benevolent and all powerful God, who wanted His creations to know Him, would simply instill the knowledge of His existence, and what He wants of us, into the very architecture of our brains. Doubt would be physically impossible.

    I know, I know; Free Will and all that. But a God that allows doubt, then punishes it eternally, isn't benevolent.
    It's a very strange definition of 'free' - Using the Christian definition of free, you are completely free to rob a bank, but will spend twenty years in jail if judged guilty of doing it, and judgment is inevitable.

    My understanding of freedom is that it entails NOT getting punished for doing the things you choose to do.

    The 'Free Will' excuse for God's non-intervention against evildoers, criminals, heretics, and atheists is a total dud. If any of those groups of people are subsequently punished for eternity for their choices, then they had no free will to begin with. Rather, they were victims of entrapment.
    But christians doesnt mean that: they (mostly) simply mean that we make our own decisions. That we constains some sort of intelligence that can calculate what to do. That we dont simply play up a prewritten script.

  9. Top | #19
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,126
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    31,603
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Juma View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
    If you think about it, the fact that atheism even exists as a concept is a pretty good argument for atheism. At least, it seems a benevolent and all powerful God, who wanted His creations to know Him, would simply instill the knowledge of His existence, and what He wants of us, into the very architecture of our brains. Doubt would be physically impossible.

    I know, I know; Free Will and all that. But a God that allows doubt, then punishes it eternally, isn't benevolent.
    It's a very strange definition of 'free' - Using the Christian definition of free, you are completely free to rob a bank, but will spend twenty years in jail if judged guilty of doing it, and judgment is inevitable.

    My understanding of freedom is that it entails NOT getting punished for doing the things you choose to do.

    The 'Free Will' excuse for God's non-intervention against evildoers, criminals, heretics, and atheists is a total dud. If any of those groups of people are subsequently punished for eternity for their choices, then they had no free will to begin with. Rather, they were victims of entrapment.
    But christians doesnt mean that: they (mostly) simply mean that we make our own decisions. That we constains some sort of intelligence that can calculate what to do. That we dont simply play up a prewritten script.
    Sure. But that then stops their answer from being relevant to the question 'If God wants me to do such-and-such, why doesn't he make his desire clear to me?'

    I have the free will to choose to rob a bank, but the law makes it very clear that this is not permitted, and what the consequences of doing it will be.

    I have the free will to choose not to worship God, but God has made the most half arsed attempt imaginable to advise me of his opinion on that choice. The dude's meant to be all knowing and all powerful; He knows what would convince me of the rules, and he has the ability to do whatever that is - and if after all that, I choose to misbehave, then that's on me. He also knows that anyone with half a brain is not going to be impressed with the 500 year old heavily edited writings based on two thousand year old oral traditions from people who thought it was vital to know how hard they were allowed to beat their slaves, but had no thought of writing down rules on washing your hands after tending the sick, wiping your backside, or before eating.

    He seems also to have been inexcusably lax in letting people in the Americas, the Far East and Australasia know the rules - why only tell a bunch of guys in the Middle East, and not let everyone in the world in on the rules?

    Informed decisions need information, and that information is not provided to the vast majority of the world's population. So for us, free will includes freedom from punishment for breaking rules that were never made clear.

  10. Top | #20
    Gone
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,779
    Archived
    2,812
    Total Posts
    7,591
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Juma View Post
    But christians doesnt mean that: they (mostly) simply mean that we make our own decisions. That we constains some sort of intelligence that can calculate what to do. That we dont simply play up a prewritten script.
    Sure. But that then stops their answer from being relevant to the question 'If God wants me to do such-and-such, why doesn't he make his desire clear to me?'

    I have the free will to choose to rob a bank, but the law makes it very clear that this is not permitted, and what the consequences of doing it will be.

    I have the free will to choose not to worship God, but God has made the most half arsed attempt imaginable to advise me of his opinion on that choice. The dude's meant to be all knowing and all powerful; He knows what would convince me of the rules, and he has the ability to do whatever that is - and if after all that, I choose to misbehave, then that's on me. He also knows that anyone with half a brain is not going to be impressed with the 500 year old heavily edited writings based on two thousand year old oral traditions from people who thought it was vital to know how hard they were allowed to beat their slaves, but had no thought of writing down rules on washing your hands after tending the sick, wiping your backside, or before eating.

    He seems also to have been inexcusably lax in letting people in the Americas, the Far East and Australasia know the rules - why only tell a bunch of guys in the Middle East, and not let everyone in the world in on the rules?

    Informed decisions need information, and that information is not provided to the vast majority of the world's population. So for us, free will includes freedom from punishment for breaking rules that were never made clear.
    I dont see the problem with that. I mean, it isnt like christians ever said that their god was nice, smart, knew everything or something like that...

Similar Threads

  1. Terrible (mostly) British PSAs
    By repoman in forum Media & Culture Gallery
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-25-2019, 08:32 PM
  2. Tips For Staying Civil While Debating Child Prisons
    By Don2 (Don1 Revised) in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-06-2018, 04:17 AM
  3. Will Trump chicken out of debating Hillary?
    By Elixir in forum US Presidential Politics
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 08-03-2016, 03:18 AM
  4. Op-ed: what I learned from debating with trolls
    By Underseer in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-19-2015, 11:20 PM
  5. Debating Christians with different personalities
    By Brian63 in forum General Religion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-15-2015, 12:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •