Posted on 01/04/2008 6:43:04 AM PST by Alex Murphy
marking
This is a good summary of debating. There might be any given subject and the participants might be assigned to debate either side of the subject. Thus, one MUST study and understand both sides of an idea in depth in order to debate it intelligently.
Which is why atheists lose debates.
Honest debates would defeat neoliberalsim like crazy. Too bad honest debate has died in our schools, universities, fraternals, government, politics and media. IMO, it seems to primarily exist in the www (so far).
It is a matter of faith to conclude that “there is nothing”.
Hitchens and others go beyond denying the existence of God. He denies that Jesus ever existed (at least in any context more real than the Athurian legend) and asserts that the world would be a much better place without Christians. This is an anti-theistic/anti-Christian approach. It goes beyond decided for himself that there is no god and that he can go about his own business with a clear conscience. He pushes to convert people to his belief system. His no god god. He insists that your God is the false god and his is the genuine god of ‘mankind’ as supreme being.
By the way, Hitchens isn't dumb enough to make the same broad assertions against Islam. He knows that there would be jihadists waiting to slit his throat if he publicly travelled the world telling everyone that it was a lie that Mohammed ascended into heaven on a horse. Their religion of peace is likewise not condemned with a statement that the world would be a better place without muslims.
considering all the removal of religion from public places, the war on Christmas, and the assault on “under God”, it say Christians are even worse debaters.
If the atheists were that lousy, the results don’t bode well for our abilities either.
You should post that as a comment at the AOL site.
The debate is "religion." An atheist draws the affirmative side and must defend religion. He wins the debate by using the arguments supporting religion that he has encountered in other debates. But he's still an atheist. Shouldn't he have lost because he's an atheist?
You can’t debate with a religious person because faith isn’t based on logic, “god” means anything and everything, the Pope is infallible, the Bible is absolute truth.
No one can debate under those circumstances. The debate rules only apply to the atheist, not the Christian. Case in point.
C: Complex things require a designer.
A: Who designed God?
C: God doesn’t need a designer.
Atheists foolish enough to engage in this non-debate deserve what they get. Dinesh is an expert in this stuff.
I wish to remark again that these atheists never take on or publicly attack the superstitions of non-western “indigenous pipples,” just as “opponents of Western Civilization” never demand that Darwin’s books be removed from study because he is a “dead white male.”
So logic, rightly understood, teaches that the world is self-existent and meaningless? Your being on FR isn't a very good witness to the ultimate meaninglessness of everything. Why not be a true Epicurean, quite worrying about ideology, enjoy the sunsets, avoid suffering, etc.?
BTW, I believe atheism has no place on Free Republic.
I'd give it the same place our Founders would give it in America.
When pressed on the millions of people killed by avowedly atheist regimes in the USSR, China, and elsewhere, they will attempt to claim that those regimes in fact practiced a "religion"! (Evidently militant atheistic socialism qualifies as a "religion", if atheists think they can use it to score points.)
That last tack is beyond logical fallacy and into insane territory.
The glaring fallacy is the category error. Nobody has ever been killed in the name of religion, just as nobody has ever painted a house "color". Religion and color are categories, not entities.
People have been killed in the name of specific religions, just as houses can be painted specific colors. However, if 1, 10, or a million people have been killed in the name of religion "A", that proves absolutely nothing about the truth or falsehood of religion "B". (Strictly speaking, it's not a slam-dunk that it proves anything about the truth or falsehood of religion "A", either.)
I'm not an atheist, but I can't stand religionists who abandon faith and try to debate with logic. Besides I too am a zionist.
I will happily debate as if I'm an atheist if you like though
I'm glad you don't make the rules around here. Religious bigotry doesn't belong on FR or any other republic
BTW, I believe atheism has no place on Free Republic.
I'd give it the same place our Founders would give it in America.
LOL! Our "rationalist" friend doesn't think creationism has any place here. Isn't it amazing the ideals people come up with when they insist that the world, and their lives, are objectively meaningless? Constantly crusading, preaching "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts." We might as well be back living under the "Tyrant of Heaven" with such bossiness, but somehow the very fact that the bossing is being done by someone other than the Creator of the Universe is supposed to make it "reasonable!"
That from the article. IMO, Christians are weak opponents in general because they just don't exercise the defense of their faith. The few that do aren't supported. Sitting on hands with mouth closed -- the typical posture for the great majority of Christians. Is end time prophecy the cause of such apathy?
The problem is mainly with definitions. If something is said to exist, it will have characteristics and properties. The first place to start a debate on the existance of God is with defining what we mean by "God".
In other words, you can't stand logically consistent religionists? So, you're a deist or a double-truth advocate then?
Besides I too am a zionist.
So you believe Mashiach is going to come and annihilate the `Amaleqites, build the Third Temple, and then the dead will be resurrected? How does an evolutionist come off believing such outlandish things?
I will happily debate as if I'm an atheist if you like though
I'm sure you'd be more than happy to "pretend" to be an atheist. I'm equally sure you wouldn't know how to advocate the other position.
I'm glad you don't make the rules around here. Religious bigotry doesn't belong on FR or any other republic
I know! What I don't know is where "rationalists" get all these values of theirs they cherish so deeply! After all, did the big bang give a flying frick whether or not billions of years in the future there would be religious bigotry? Does the vast universe weep tears if someone insults someone else's religion? I'm trying to understand here why "thou shalt not kill" makes any more sense in such a world than "it is forbidden to partake of the sacrifice before the blood has been sprinkled on the altar." BTW, I notice with some confusion that apparently one can only be guilty of "religious bigotry" if one is insulting one "irrational" religion from the perspective of another. Rationalists seem to be able to make any sort of insult and somehow magically escape the label of "bigot."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.