"Civil Debates on Christianity and Religions"

[daedalus 2.0]

"Civil Debates on Christianity and Religions"

When will Religionists be respectful and meet Atheists on level ground? For every thread it always ends in Bible quoting or declarations of Faith.

Two things Atheists don't respect as sources/answers.

I beg and plead for Religionists to be respectful and debate on equal ground: to use the commonly accepted rules of debate to argue their point.

Otherwise, this is just a "let me preach to you vs. I'm a contradictory atheist" site.

The polemics are tiresome and mediocre. Can't we aspire to something better?

[ken1burton]

Daedalus.

Cute post. I think the Queen of England sits on a toilet and has to wipe, just like the rest of us do. If you feel others are talking down to you, Maybe you ought to deal with that yourself, within yourself.

I was just called a Fraud, and Despicable on a post, So what? I do not mind that. It does not change what I am, Does not lower me, nor raise me. That is another’s view, another’s way they wish to express themselves.

I feel no need to have to be respected. Respect of persons is even listed as sin. We all mess up. We all make mistakes, we all are uncaring at times, So why should we think we deserve respect?

We can respect acts, relationships, Etc, But I think we need to remember that people are humans, and allow for humans to not always live up to best standards. We should respect our parents as being parents, But remember they can make mistakes as well.

Don’t take things personal. Some days you eat the bear, Some days the bear eats you. Most has a way of balancing out in the long run.

Ken

[daedalus 2.0]

Daedalus.

Cute post. I think the Queen of England sits on a toilet and has to wipe, just like the rest of us do. If you feel others are talking down to you, Maybe you ought to deal with that yourself, within yourself.

Ken

I don't feel you are talking down to me. I know you are not keeping up. You are not debating, you are preaching.

Maybe it is you who has some issues?

Please, respect the debate rules and meet the requirements. Rise to the occasion; not slouch towards mediocrity, or worse.

This has to do with quality of discussion, not your self-assessed baseline of what is acceptable.

I feel no need to have to be respected.
Ken

Yes you do, you just think Jesus is the one to do it and you determine what you think Jesus determines.

For the record I think you are wonderful. A Prophet and King of Christians.

[cnorman18]

"Civil Debates on Christianity and Religions"

When will Religionists be respectful and meet Atheists on level ground? For every thread it always ends in Bible quoting or declarations of Faith.

Two things Atheists don't respect as sources/answers.

I beg and plead for Religionists to be respectful and debate on equal ground: to use the commonly accepted rules of debate to argue their point.

Otherwise, this is just a "let me preach to you vs. I'm a contradictory atheist" site.

The polemics are tiresome and mediocre. Can't we aspire to something better?

Are you speaking to ALL "religionists," Daedalus? Or did you mean to say "some religionists," or "most religionists"?

I, for one, don't think I fit the description here. Aren't blanket generalizations objectionable, too?

[C-Nub]

Despite being on the same side of theistic fence on this one, I don't really think you have much of a valid point hear, Daedulus.

I mean, firstly, you're lumping the Theists under one banner, and that doesn't really begin to cover it. I've found many to be very reasonable and rational in debates, but more importantly, we atheists definitely have our share of rudeness too. (I'm more than capable of it, I insist on calling "God" a "wizard.")

Theists don't have a lot of evidence, and expecting the to debate without bringing into the argument the reasons they (think that they) believe is absurd. Coming to a religious debate forum without being prepared to hear the same (tired) arguments a bunch of times, and to have sound, scientific evidence repeatedly denied in the face of a two thousand year old book of myths is par for the course. There's no avoiding it, and it's silly to try.

[daedalus 2.0]

Despite being on the same side of theistic fence on this one, I don't really think you have much of a valid point hear, Daedulus.

I mean, firstly, you're lumping the Theists under one banner, and that doesn't really begin to cover it. I've found many to be very reasonable and rational in debates, but more importantly, we atheists definitely have our share of rudeness too. (I'm more than capable of it, I insist on calling "God" a "wizard.")

Theists don't have a lot of evidence, and expecting the to debate without bringing into the argument the reasons they (think that they) believe is absurd. Coming to a religious debate forum without being prepared to hear the same (tired) arguments a bunch of times, and to have sound, scientific evidence repeatedly denied in the face of a two thousand year old book of myths is par for the course. There's no avoiding it, and it's silly to try.

I'm overextending for a point, and I agree with you to a degree. To a LARGE degree.

I think the general acceptance of religion by a majority of people forces a kind of general acceptance into normal language and into debate. Often questions of the nature of reality blur into matters of doctrine.

For example, one could be debating the likihood of a resurection and follow the well-worn Apologetics and counters.

However, many Xians don't feel there WAS a resurrection (not bodily, at least).

It seems, then, that a debate about the likelihood of a bodily resurrection is vastly premature if Xians have not even decided whether it really happened or not. The Bible is NOT clear. (Especially when deciding WHICH Bible to use!).

So, its not even clear in their source books (the Bible) that they are correct about their interpretation and yet they argue as if it is a given.

This is what I mean about civility. It's not civil to come into the argument with vast leaps of assumptions that you have not intention of debating and simply declare outside the purview of the debate.

It's one thing to not know and be honest about it, but its another to claim fact when it isn't established.

For example, a Sceintific Naturalist will claim that the BB is the best explanation for the existence of the Universe and beyond that will say they don't know. A Religionist will start with some assumption: God exists, X prophet was inspired by God, X person came back to life, that Faith is a valid form of knowing, etc.

In every religious debate the Religionist starts with an unwarrented assumption: that the supernatural need not be proven. Whereas the Materialist and Supernaturalist/Religionist both agree that Matter exists (except for Idealists, but we know Idealism is wrong based on basic epistemological grounds).

[C-Nub]

I hate to admit it, but you totally lost me towards the end there, Daeds. Your name is too long to type out every time.

I think what we have to remember is that, to us, the theist arguments may be tired and even a little offensive sometimes, and we have a very natural reaction of frustration when we can't quite seem to communicate across the faith-barrier, a term I'm going to pretend I just coined, because I do that.

At the same time, I think it would be very good for us to realize taht theists are almost certainly sitting around wondering why we can't understand, why we don't 'feel' or in some cases intuitively know God is there, that he loves us, and that he gave us the palatypus as proof he exists. It's frustrating for them that we cannot understand that they don't need evidence in the face of faith, and I honestly believe it has a lot to do with differences in how our brains work. I'm very literally and seriously incapable of faith. The whole idea, for lack of a better terminology, does not compute to me. You could no more convince me to have faith than you could to jump feet first into the world's second slowest-meat grinder, but at the same time, we can't deny that for some people, it makes perfect sense. We can't figure out why, or at least I can't, and it worries me that it might not be something that we as a species can ever completely escape, but it's definitely worth keeping in mind when you start to feel yourself frustrated by the same ol' same ol'.