Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is also just the re-stating of a regular but so far unanswered question, Royalite. What, do you not want to answer the primary OP question? It's an honest one:
Why don't Christian defenders want to check out scientifically-acquired answers to mythical Godly claims, or even debate or answer anything out in the open?
Just curious. Do you have an answer? No flames will ensue, I promise! The best question however, is still... can Christian defenders of their faith potentially and honestly accept losing an open-minded debate?
Or will they simply run and hide when logic, not an individual posting here, defeats their lone and limited argument?
Or...in even simpler terms, does an intellectually honest debate have a winahhand a loosah? Yes or No?
We do. Youtube has quite a few excellent debates between Christians and atheists. I have listened to several debates involving James White, Matt Slick, and others. I have yet to see an atheist REALLY answer the Cosmological Argument, or the Transcendental Argument (TAG). They simply run and hide when presented with actual logic.
can Christian defenders of their faith potentially and honestly accept losing an open-minded debate? [/color]
That depends on the Christian. I've witnessed some pretty spirited debates. Liberal Christians are much more likely to accept they've lost an argument or a point of debate than a conservative (read fundamentalist) Christian.
That liberal Christian will then explore the points he heard made during the debate. The fundamentalist will make sure he doesn't miss church on Sunday because he wants confirmation he was right, dag nab it.
We do. Youtube has quite a few excellent debates between Christians and atheists. I have listened to several debates involving James White, Matt Slick, and others. I have yet to see an atheist REALLY answer the Cosmological Argument, or the Transcendental Argument (TAG). They simply run and hide when presented with actual logic.
Then perhaps you'd deign to answer my, and rifleman's request in the Atheism forum - the Dawkins thread, in case you forgot.
That depends on the Christian. I've witnessed some pretty spirited debates. Liberal Christians are much more likely to accept they've lost an argument or a point of debate than a conservative (read fundamentalist) Christian.
That liberal Christian will then explore the points he heard made during the debate. The fundamentalist will make sure he doesn't miss church on Sunday because he wants confirmation he was right, dag nab it.
Imagine that.....a person that doesn't actually believe in their religion's teachings is easier to convince to give up those beliefs!
The Cosmological argument is totally lacking in basic logic, which you'd even have to admit, since it's entire basis is essentially this:
"Because we Christians assume and believe the universe must have a Creator, therefore there is a God."
What a stupendously mind-boggling and circular philosophy!
What you are concluding is this: "Because it's there, it's there because!" Huh?
Then we have the special Transcendental Argument: To wit, another vacuous and assumptive conclusion:
"The existence of some special human logic per se, and as Christian defenders choose to define it, proves on it's own that God had to have designed us to all react in some identical philosophical fashion. Else how did logic "arrive" here? "
The true answer however, is this: biochemical & neuronal Evolution. Well proven, btw, and evident as a growing ability in our ape and other ancestors! As well, we have a lot of dissension in the spiritual world. Witness the so-called logical absolutes within all the world's religious cults. (By that, I mean all of them, btw..)
So, no sale here! Hardly so. We don't all respond in the exact same Designer-based logical manner, else radical Islamist fundies would not be after us, by their chosen logic. Firstly, all logical atheists would agree, logically, with your ideas. Or better yet, you with theirs! The Maori, the African Aboriginals, the American Plains Indians.. all errant if there is but one special Creators' logic, right? After all, Bear and Wolf gods indeed! How arrogant of them, huh?
And as well, such animalist-theistic ideas don't place man at the top of the Designer heap! Oh NO! How... how... errant! After all, He made us in His Image! To be The Superior Ones, having Ultimate Dominion over "the lesser beasts"!!
And yet, we have a near-unlimited set of such disjunct outcomes, as is also and often seen right here in C-D's posters, the content of which differs significantly amongst it's many spiritual competitors, thus instantly disproving this Christian-based conclusion of The One True Logic.
Your post isn't clear. (Cryptic, one sentence replies seldom are.) To whom are you referring?
Did you read the whole line, or just the part you quoted?
My point is that liberal Christians are known for not actually believing the Bible to be literal. They don't believe the text, and don't believe that what Christianity teaches as actual events that happened in history....didn't happen. So, should it surprise you that such a person who doesn't actually believe the scriptures to be true.....would give up their beliefs easily?
The Cosmological argument is totally lacking in basic logic, which you'd even have to admit, since it's entire basis is essentially this:
"Because we Christians assume and believe the universe must have a Creator, therefore there is a God."
Until you are able to give a reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe, other than a creator, it is a good argument.
Quote:
What a stupendously mind-boggling and circular philosophy!
What you are concluding is this: "Because it's there, it's there!" Huh?
Then we have the special Transcendental Argument: To wit, another vacuous and assumptive conclusion:
"The existence of some special human logic per se, and as Christian defenders choose to define it, proves on it's own that God had to have designed us to all react in some identical philosophical fashion. Else how did it "arrive" here? Answer: biochemical & neuronal Evolution. Well proven, btw, and evident as a growing ability in our ape and other ancestors! As well, we have a lot of dissension in the spiritual world. witness the so-called logical absolutes within all the world's religious cults. (By that, I mean all of them, btw..)
Where did you get that? That's not really the argument. The argument is hinged upon logical absolutes that are independent upon human logic...such as the Law of Identity.
Quote:
No hardly so. We don't all respond in the same logical manner, else radical Islamist fundies would not be after us, by their chosen logic. Atheists would all agree, logically, with your ideas. The Maori, the African Aboriginals, the American Plains Indians.. all errant if there is but one special Creators' logic, right?
The Law of Identity is always true, no matter where or who.
Quote:
And yet, we have an unlimited set of such disjunct outcomes, as is so also and often seen right here in C-D's posters, which differs significantly amongst it's many commentators, thus instantly disproving this Christian-based conclusion.
QED.
Yet, I've never seen either one adequately refuted here, or elsewhere. Every attempt that I've made in the past to argue them has always resulted in me being overwhelmed by about a dozen people that demand I answer every red-herring argument. If/when I actually make a point, the atheists here have tended to be too stubborn to actually admit it. I would suggest we actually start a thread and discuss it...but I have no confidence that we'd actually be able to debate it without the same results happening.
My point is that liberal Christians are known for not actually believing the Bible to be literal. They don't believe the text, and don't believe that what Christianity teaches as actual events that happened in history....didn't happen. So, should it surprise you that such a person who doesn't actually believe the scriptures to be true.....would give up their beliefs easily?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewDropInn
I wasn't aware that the participants in a debate are expected to give up their beliefs.
This is the attitude of dogmatism that I have referred to in other posts, DewDrop. Vizio's posts are NOT a debate and they are not intended to be engaged in reason or logical discourse. They are dogmatic promotion of intransigent views . . . cloaked in the "armor" of defending his unflinching faith in God. This is the unreasoning credulity I frequently refer to. There IS no reasoning or debating with such.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes or No?
Your post isn't clear. (Cryptic, one sentence replies seldom are.) To whom are you referring?
All such arguments so easily debunked!
