Is it a waste of my time to try having honest, logical debates with theists?

[Trailblazer]

You seem to have come from one hostile place and walked into another a bit so, understandably, but I didn't want to get involved in any religious debates when you know my position.

Hostile is hostile.... Funny is funny.... There is a BIG difference between the two.
Religious debate? I don't see any.

 

[Trailblazer]

I gave Tesla the thought of Wi-fi my child.

Oh, that explains it.
We have Jesus on another forum.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Hostile is hostile.... Funny is funny.... There is a BIG difference between the two.
Religious debate? I don't see any.

Religious discussion then. I wasn't about to get involved where I had no real interest. Things can very easily turn hostile even here but I just tend to let it roll over me, as do many - but I am sure you know that.

 

[Trailblazer]

You understood my child, now I have given you the gift of understanding and wisdom, always consider the wisdom with patience, true logic could never be written in a book.

True logic could never be applied to God because God is above anything that can ever be recounted or perceived by man.
It's late here... Good night my friend.

 

[james blunt]

True logic could never be applied to God because God is above anything that can ever be recounted or perceived by man.
It's late here... Good night my friend.

Good night, it is lucky I can perceive myself then if man can't get it right.

 

[Cary Cook]

Theists as a group strike me as no more nor no less difficult to debate or discuss matters with than non-theists as a group. It seems to me the root problem isn't the beliefs a person subscribes to, but rather human nature. Our noble and esteemed species of poo-flinging super-apes apparently did not evolve to have perfectly congenial differences of opinion.

Total agreement plus a few steps further. I have crossed off this planet as an insane asylum to be worked thru and graduated from. The only reason I hang around is to do enough righteous **** to prove worthy of better company than the human species.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

A circle has a beginning for fact. The beginning of the circle is from the first placement of the pencil on the paper to create the circle.


Define Universe ?

There is no pencil. Thats the illusion of trying to make a beginning. The circle is life processes of cause and affect for everything in life to grow, die, form, dispearse, create from what already exists from one form to another. There is no beginning to the cause and affect of the universe. It has no beginning.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Total agreement plus a few steps further. I have crossed off this planet as an insane asylum to be worked thru and graduated from. The only reason I hang around is to do enough righteous **** to prove worthy of better company than the human species.

But what if you are wrong and this is the only life we have?

 

[Shia Islam]

Why is it so hard for many theists to provide/follow logical arguments? You would think, that given the amount of time their religions have been around they would have some well reasoned arguments ready to go. Yet when I try to have an honest and rational debate/discussion with a theist about religion it usually ends with them name calling, constantly ignoring/trying to change the subject, or walking away from the debate/discussion. So is it a waste of my time trying to debate theists?

With all due respect,
I really found it wate of time debating atheists as well as the followers of many religions.
I almost stopped debating them!
So don't try to debate me

 

[Mock Turtle]

With all due respect,
I really found it wate of time debating atheists as well as the followers of many religions.
I almost stopped debating them!
So don't try to debate me

That's what we like to see here - someone with a completely open mind.

 

[shmogie]

A logical argument

Why is it so hard for many theists to provide/follow logical arguments? You would think, that given the amount of time their religions have been around they would have some well reasoned arguments ready to go. Yet when I try to have an honest and rational debate/discussion with a theist about religion it usually ends with them name calling, constantly ignoring/trying to change the subject, or walking away from the debate/discussion. So is it a waste of my time trying to debate theists?

, A logical syllogism based on the rules of logic, that provides a logical argument. Nothing cannot create anything, everything exists, therefore God created everything.

Yes, it may be a waste of time. I have concluded it is a waste of time to debate theists. Their ultimate argument is " I don't know". THey are like an insatiable beast demanding more and more evidence, their is never enough foir them, but they carve out the position that they have to provide no evidence about anything. Rather a stupid rationale for reasonable debate, no ?

 

[shmogie]

Faith shouldn't keep some of them from devising logical arguments to defend their position though. Just saying.

You keep using the term "logical", do you know what it means? It doesn't mean logical SUBJECT TO YOUR JUDGEMENT, it means logical from the standpoint of the discipline of logic. Not the same, at all.

 

[Apologes]

I'm really not trying to insult anyone here. Just making an observation based on my experiences. When I try to get theists to explain or defend their position with a logical response, **** goes off the rails, usually. A lot of them keep repeating things that are only convincing to members of their own choir, like they keep forgetting that I am an atheist. When I remind them I am an atheist and that their argument isn't logical or convincing they throw stuff like "you need the spirit to understand what it really means" or mostly, blame me for not understanding and then giving up on the discussion/debate. I ask them to explain their reasoning and instead get bible verses quoted at me. I get circular reasoning that doesn't make any sense and when I point it out to them, they refuse to admit its circular reasoning. Stuff like this happens, constantly. I'm not making it up. Its frustrating.

I'm not doubting you had bad experience. I'm just saying, it's nothing unique to theism.

Can you give a logical response to a few questions that an atheist that reasons with logic and favors evidence can understand?

Sure.

Do you think some religions are more logical to follow than others?

Sure.

You must since you label yourself a Christian.

Yup.

Why is it more logical to be a Christian than a Hindu or Scientologist?

1) I believe a sound argument can be made for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus which would establish the central truth of Christianity.

2) I reject hard-cold evidentialism and endorse Reformed Epistemology. I consider Christianity to enjoy the warrant of a properly basic belief and as such, so long as it has no defeaters, is rational to hold.

I do not think other religions enjoy a comparatively strong case.

Regardless, one can be a theist without really following any particular religion. Even if Christianity (or all religions for that matter) were to turn out to be irrational, theism would still be an acceptable position to hold since I consider the arguments of Natural Theology to be more plausible than not, while finding the arguments in favor of atheism and agnosticism unpersuasive.

 

[Phantasman]

You keep using the term "logical", do you know what it means? It doesn't mean logical SUBJECT TO YOUR JUDGEMENT, it means logical from the standpoint of the discipline of logic. Not the same, at all.

Logical just means understandable. It applies to physical logic, not spiritual understanding (which defies logic).

No beginning defies logic, as all physical things began. Not being effected by time defies logic. Death is accepted as a logical event. Meaning no more. Logic cannot be applied to spiritual. This, then, is the choice.

Did a man die, and was still able to be seen (by the mind) as continuing to exist? Logically, no. Spiritually, yes.

 

[JustWondering]

The universe has lots of components, maybe different components were created different ways and maybe some components always existed. In saying that I like your logic of natural cause and endless series of creators. However God is not necessarily a being, God the creator could be classed as this natural thing you mention.

You didn't answer my question. Which makes more sense, a natural cause (Not Intelligent design) for the existence of the universe, or an endless series of creators? If an intelligent creator of some kind exists, it would need an origin as well. The argument that the world we live in is too complex to simply just exist suggests that complex things cannot just exist. Since a universe creating entity would likely be a much more complex entity than a human, it would require a creator as well. So where do you stand, natural cause or endless series of creators?

Would you accept that God is a word for whatever may of created the universe , on the basis it has not always existed, and this creator could be a natural thing?

I think creator is a more descriptive word that also has less baggage associated with it. God is usually a word referring to the biblical god, which I firmly believe doesn't exist. God also seems to carry implications of supernatural and magical abilities/attributes, I firmly believe that anything that exists is natural and bound by natural laws.

 

[JustWondering]

Developing your own views is more controllable, so if you want to get something from debates it's better to be selfish. Changing someone else's mind is not so easy, helping other people understand is not often appreciated by the people themselves. It's better when they understand by themselves and we set no goals for them. A mutual journey of discovery would be best, but all too rare.

People hate change. Most people anyway.

 

[Deeje]

There are more sects of Christianity then I could possibly count.

Do you know why?

Also, I grew up with two friends who were JW's, so I know a little bit about the JW's doctrines, some of which don't make any reasonable sense to me.

Can you name some? How clearly do you understand what you heard about our beliefs?

Don't get me wrong, I respect JW's more than a lot of other Christian sects. What turned me off of Christianity is that the bible makes claims that simply don't mesh with reality.

Can you be more specific? What claims does the Bible make that can't be true?

Doesn't really matter what sect of a religion you belong to, if the book it's based off of has stuff in it that doesn't add up, how can you maintain faith in that religion?

What stuff doesn't add up? There are some good conversations in these questions.

 

[JustWondering]

With all due respect,
I really found it wate of time debating atheists as well as the followers of many religions.
I almost stopped debating them!
So don't try to debate me

It's cool if you don't like debating. What's frustrating for me is theists who chime in on debate threads with no intention of having an honest debate.

 

[JustWondering]

A logical argument, A logical syllogism based on the rules of logic, that provides a logical argument. Nothing cannot create anything, everything exists, therefore God created everything.

Nothing in your above claim is logical, all I see is three unsubstantiated assumptions.

1. Why do you ASSUME nothing can exist without being created, what created your god?
2. If the universe needed a creator, why do you ASSUME it has to be the god you worship? Why couldn't it be magical invisible spider monkeys that created the universe?
3. Even if the universe needed to be created, why do you ASSUME there is only one creator involved?

Yes, it may be a waste of time. I have concluded it is a waste of time to debate theists.

Did you mean to say atheists? Since you find debating distasteful, why are you in the debate forums? No one is forcing you to be here after all.

Their ultimate argument is " I don't know". THey are like an insatiable beast demanding more and more evidence, their is never enough foir them, but they carve out the position that they have to provide no evidence about anything. Rather a stupid rationale for reasonable debate, no ?

What evidence does someone have to provide to back up a claim that they don't know something? For instance, lets say that you encounter two strangers, one of which produced a shoe box and asked you and the other stranger to guess what's in the shoe box. The other stranger announces right away that there are shoes in the box. Not only that but that they are running shoes, they are blue and are size 10. Neither you or the other guy know the guy with the box or have ever seen inside that box. The box doesn't have any labels or markings on it. You (for the purposes of this exercise) honestly say that you don't know what, if anything is in the box. What evidence do you provide to the guy that claims there are running shoes in the box to convince him that you don't know what's in the box?

 

[JustWondering]

You keep using the term "logical", do you know what it means? It doesn't mean logical SUBJECT TO YOUR JUDGEMENT, it means logical from the standpoint of the discipline of logic. Not the same, at all.

Is it logical to keep claiming that you detest debating atheists but insist on engaging atheists in a debate forum? Is that logical?