Comments for Head-to-Head:

TXatheist · Post by **TXatheist** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:53 am

If you are following the Head-to-Head: "Rational Thinking Leads to the Conclusion that Christianity is False", your comments are welcome here.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:55 pm

McCulloch wrote:
Btv3PXkR wrote:To begin with, Religulous needs only to prove the contrapositive, if chrisitanity is right, then the thinking is irrational.
Goose wrote:Ever heard of circular reasoning?
Of course we've heard of circular reasoning. Were debating religion, aren't we?

.

Wouldn't that be We're, not were?

Btv3PXkR · Post by **Btv3PXkR** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:57 pm

I didn't know the grammar police were online.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:24 pm

Btv3PXkR wrote:I didn't know the grammar police were online.

Oh yes.. it so fun to raze him about a typo, since he is the Grammar Police supreme

Btv3PXkR · Post by **Btv3PXkR** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:27 pm

Ah, touche! I'll have to watch my q's and p's.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:12 pm

McCulloch wrote:Were debating religion, aren't we?

goat wrote:Wouldn't that be We're, not were?

The gremlins stole my apostrophe!

ggeorge2814 · Post by **ggeorge2814** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:22 am

Hello everyone. I've been lurking and reading the head-to-head thread between Goose and Religulous and since it seems to have come to an end, I'd like to take up the argument. I am an atheist and I think that rational thinking can lead us to the conclusion that Christianity is false at the very root of its belief structure, from any given denomination or angle it wishes to present itself.

If Goose would like to take this back up, I'd be happy to talk it over.

- G

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:34 pm

Goose is making one big error with his logic. He is assuming that the preassumptions are logical. The out put of any process is only as good as the input,

Having tied the validity of Christianity into the resurrection actually happened, he has to show that the resurrection is logically possible without going through the circular logic of appealing to scripture.

Goose · Post by **Goose** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:00 pm

ggeorge2814 wrote:I am an atheist and I think that rational thinking can lead us to the conclusion that Christianity is false at the very root of its belief structure, from any given denomination or angle it wishes to present itself.

Hi gg and welcome. Thing is, I've heard these claims many times, that Christianity can be rationally proven false, as I've just experienced with Religulous only to be disappointed in the end with the cogency of the arguments. Considering you are new to the forum and your first (and so far only) post has been a request to take up a head-to-head I am going to politely defer your invitation for now. May I suggest instead you post your argument in the apologetics sub forum. If your argument is as good as you claim it'll probably receive more views and attention there and I'm sure there are others chomping-at-the-bit to participate.

ggeorge2814 wrote:If Goose would like to take this back up, I'd be happy to talk it over.

I can appreciate your eagerness to step in and back up your fellow atheist/former-Christian. But actually, I'd prefer the head-to-head thread between religulous and I remain as it is - between religulous and I - as this is the whole point of a head-to-head. He has an opportunity to return to the thread at some point in the future if he so desires.

Cheers.

TXatheist · Post by **TXatheist** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:15 pm

Goose wrote:
ggeorge2814 wrote:I am an atheist and I think that rational thinking can lead us to the conclusion that Christianity is false at the very root of its belief structure, from any given denomination or angle it wishes to present itself.
Hi gg and welcome. Thing is, I've heard these claims many times, that Christianity can be rationally proven false, as I've just experienced with Religulous only to be disappointed in the end with the cogency of the arguments. Considering you are new to the forum and your first (and so far only) post has been a request to take up a head-to-head I am going to politely defer your invitation for now. May I suggest instead you post your argument in the apologetics sub forum. If your argument is as good as you claim it'll probably receive more views and attention there and I'm sure there are others chomping-at-the-bit to participate.

ggeorge2814 wrote:If Goose would like to take this back up, I'd be happy to talk it over.
I can appreciate your eagerness to step in and back up your fellow atheist/former-Christian. But actually, I'd prefer the head-to-head thread between religulous and I remain as it is - between religulous and I - as this is the whole point of a head-to-head. He has an opportunity to return to the thread at some point in the future if he so desires.

Cheers.

I won't be returning to that debate. I am new to debating (that was my first), and it's obvious that you are much more skilled at making a strong argument than I am. I'm not bitter or anything by any means, I just know when I'm out of my league. G on the other hand is very intelligent and very well read. I'm sure a debate between the two of you would be fascinating to follow. You do yourself a disservice by postponing it, but I understand your reason. I look forward to seeing what you two have to say.

Cheers!

Debating Christianity and Religion

Comments for Head-to-Head:

Comments for Head-to-Head:

I'm new, but up to the task.

Re: I'm new, but up to the task.

Re: I'm new, but up to the task.