Got Stuck In A Debate

[SilentLoner]

Hi all,

 

I seem to have gotten myself stuck in a debate with a xtian creationist-self-righteous-know-it-all online, and over the past week its been a back and forth argument. I know its a waste of time but I'm not stepping down, I'll see this through to the finish.

 

My issue is I'm not the world's best debator. I think I've held my own well so far but unfortunately he's descended into recycled arguments and ad hominem attacks. But some stabs at rationality remain. (And somehow part of our argument has recently involved the anime series Death Note as we support opposite characters. Don't ask me how it happened).

 

I'd like to ask for suggestions for counter-points at times. I'd really appreciate the help! (thanks in advance to anyone willing!)

[hereticzero]

Do have part of the debate you can post here for us to look at and come up with some ideas? Or a link?

[Jedah]

I may as well help, but just don't get your hopes up with seeing this through "to the finish".

 

The problem is ( and the reason why I hardly ever debate creationists anymore ) that they have basically no evidence. They have no evidence that their little book is true, they have no real evidence for their God, they have no evidence that the "holy spirit" offers superior morality or any kind of powers that cannot be explained by modern science. They have no evidence for anything. So before you even begin to debate a creationist, you already know that most ( if not all ) their reasons for believing will work just as well for the flying pink invisible elephant as they do for their God.

 

My basic advice if you want any kind of hope for going anywhere, is to reverse his/her bad logic back at them. If they say "the bible is true because *insert random fallacious reasoning here*" Ask him/her how the same reasoning cannot be applied to Islam or Hinduism. "The Bhagavad Gita is true because *insert same fallacious reasoning the creationist used*". Force them to recognize their mistakes as mistakes. Problem is, if you don't do this they will simply ignore you and move on to the next fallacious reason which leads to an argument that goes on forever since the number of fallacious arguments that can be made in somethings defense is practically infinite. You have to force them to recognize their bad logic before moving onto their next onslaught of bad logic. Heck, ideally you don't even want to move on at all.

[Neon Genesis]

(And somehow part of our argument has recently involved the anime series Death Note as we support opposite characters. Don't ask me how it happened).

Tell them to offer sacrifices to Misa or face her wrath because everybody knows she pwns them all?

[gypsy79]

Hey Silent,

 

I don't know if this will help, but since I used to be a Creationist, I'll give it a shot. At the time, my biggest problem with the Big Bang theory was that it seemed more unrealistic than Creationism. I have heard the same thing from many other Creationists. You can believe one of the following:

 

1. Some all powerful being who had always existed and that humans can't understand created the universe

2. Gases that came out of nowhere and weren't created by anything banged together (I'm paraphrasing badly to keep this post simple...lol)

 

To me, neither really made a huge amount of sense, but it was easier to justify # 1 in my mind because it "answered" the question of how the first thing got here. The "answer" was that there is no way we know because God is mysterious. # 2 left a lot to be desired because it didn't answer the question of where the damn gases came from in the first place. This is why I (still) hate it when non-Creationists say "Who created God?" because I'm sure all the Creationists are thinking "Back at you. Who created the damn gases?"

 

Although I stopped believing in God over a year ago, I still could not come to terms with this Big Bang problem until I read The God Delusion a couple of days ago. I had a humongous AHA moment when I realized that nobody really knows how the damn gases got here, but it's the best theory we have right now. God is too complex to have just appeared (without evolving) in all his wonder and glory, ready to create things. Much more probable that the world "started" with something much simpler, such as gases or whatever came before the gases. The problem is that your guy is not going to understand Dawkins' logic without a good, solid understanding of the theory of evolution (so that he can understand why it makes more sense that the world started out simple). That's unlikely, so dammit, I guess I'm back to square one.

 

Sorry.

[SilentLoner]

Thanks guys

 

Unfortunately he's gone past creationsim into thinly-veiled atheist bashing.

 

Here's a post I responded to yesterday (I stated in my response before this that the bible was allegorical and part of my deconversion was common sense):

"Allegorical stories. Hmph. I'd expect this from an athiest i suppose. No, i don't choose allegorical stories over evidence. I choose my faith over evidence. Something you apparently abandoned or maybe never had at all. Therefore, i won't try to explain it to you.

 

No, it's not common sense. You've developed a mind that won't believe anything it can't see. You've never seen Jesus is person, so you believe him to be a fairy tale. Well, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

 

And here's his latest response:

 

Improvement? Ha. Hardly. I never said i didn't believe anything outside religon. I believe in aliens. Also i believe in ghosts, and the Continental Drift theory, et cetra. And no, i've never "seen" Jesus in person, persay. At least not by your standards. When Jesus' presence is there, you can feel him. You can hear him speak to you when in prayer. It's a relationship that goes beyond human boundries. This is proof, but not proof you can physically "see," and that's why you'll never understand.

 

I'm getting bored here.

 

Some more Death Note arguments but thats a battle I'll handle solo (darn my otaku pride...)

[Outback Jack]

I choose my faith over evidence.

As soon as someone admits this, I'd say the debate is over. They're admitting that they'd prefer to stick their fingers in their ears rather than listen to an opposing (and evidence based) idea.

[Seeker630]

I choose my faith over evidence.

As soon as someone admits this, I'd say the debate is over. They're admitting that they'd prefer to stick their fingers in their ears rather than listen to an opposing (and evidence based) idea.

 

Right about that point I would have told him to stick his head back up his ass, right next to his Bible where it belongs. And don't bother anyone with your bullshit again. This is the same old nonsense all over again. That's why I don't debate Christians anymore------it's pointless as far as I'm concerned. I've said it before and it bears repeating-------they have to do their own homework after experiencing their own doubts. None of us here is going to deconvert anyone until the other party reaches that point.

[buffettphan]

I choose my faith over evidence.

As soon as someone admits this, I'd say the debate is over. They're admitting that they'd prefer to stick their fingers in their ears rather than listen to an opposing (and evidence based) idea.

 

 

Yup...debate over.

 

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." ---Mark Twain

[Guest HELLBOY]

I eat Christians like this one for dinner.

 

Believe me, we have the winning side, but it can be tricky - especially in unchartered waters.

 

If you give me some of his arguments where he seems to not budge, I can help you draw him out.

 

Ask him to define his faith and then ask him if he can differentiate between the definition of faith and wishful thinking.

 

If you connect to me on Yahoo Answers, I'll add you as a contact and you can view my "apologist-proof" questions.

 

Let me know if you do this and I'll show you how to find me.

 

Yours,

HB

[Guest HELLBOY]

Here's an excellent reference for you.

 

Study these essays and you'll be armed to the teeth with "doubt-forming" ideas!

 

Don't give up - Your fight is a noble one,not his.

 

HIM: "If you do not respond to GOD the way I have, then not only are you going to HELL to be tortured forever, but you deserve it."

 

YOU: Have no reason to believe what he does and if such a thing WERE true, you wouldn't want to have anything to do with such a belief OR such a GOD.

[Jedah]

I choose my faith over evidence.

 

Debate over. You won't reach this one. Someone who knowingly uses an argument from special pleading ( which is basically what faith is. ) cannot be convinced of anything outside their own microscopic universe.

[gypsy79]

Interesting that he said, "You've developed a mind that won't believe anything it can't see. You've never seen Jesus is person, so you believe him to be a fairy tale. Well, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Could his own words be turned on him? For example:

 

You've never seen fairies and unicorns in person, so YOU believe THEM to be a fairy tale.

 

Of course, then he would just say that fairies and unicorns haven't affected his life like Jeebus. I agree with the others. Unwinnable debate because his strong feelings are based on human emotion and feelings (which he calls faith) rather than logic.

[Neon Genesis]

No, it's not common sense. You've developed a mind that won't believe anything it can't see. You've never seen Jesus is person, so you believe him to be a fairy tale. Well, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

You could try asking him if he has so much devoted faith in God, if God asked him to murder a child, would he do it? If he answers yes, why does he think that's moral? If he answers no, why does he believe in God then? Because if he answers no, then he clearly doesn't have faith and needs evidence too.

[SilentLoner]

Oh for fuck's sake:

 

I don't have to do anything differently. In this case, the burden of proof is on you. Because you are the one putting forth unsupported claims. As soon as i make a claim, i'll need to support it, but so far, all that i've been required to do is hear you out and contridict what you've said. "He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim." -Plato and Socrates. That's me, ok?

 

Ha. Last time I checked, the burden of proof was on the believer, not vice versa. On another note, anyone have a youtube account and want to take a crack at this guy? I could go answer but I'm short on time for a good response at the moment.

[Guest nonreligiousbelieverinGod]

I don't tell people I am an ex-christian anymore because I'm afraid of arguments and discrimination without cause. I would steer clear of these people and leave them alone. They are brainwashed.

[Skeptic]

Oh for fuck's sake:

 

I don't have to do anything differently. In this case, the burden of proof is on you. Because you are the one putting forth unsupported claims. As soon as i make a claim, i'll need to support it, but so far, all that i've been required to do is hear you out and contridict what you've said. "He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim." -Plato and Socrates. That's me, ok?

 

Ha. Last time I checked, the burden of proof was on the believer, not vice versa. On another note, anyone have a youtube account and want to take a crack at this guy? I could go answer but I'm short on time for a good response at the moment.

 

When people pull that crap, I just stop talking to them. There's this one lady on a forum that hosts religious debates and she does the exact same thing over and over. I have a YT account. I'm not sure if I'll say anything, but I'm kind of curious.

[hereticzero]

SilentLoner: The person told you, "Allegorical stories. Hmph. I'd expect this from an athiest i suppose. No, i don't choose allegorical stories over evidence. I choose my faith over evidence. Something you apparently abandoned or maybe never had at all. Therefore, i won't try to explain it to you.

 

No, it's not common sense. You've developed a mind that won't believe anything it can't see. You've never seen Jesus is person, so you believe him to be a fairy tale. Well, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

 

=============

If he has seen Jesus in person I would want to know what meds this cat's on! He is delusional, probably schizophrenic, they hear voices and see visions. If he has not seen Jesus in person, then he has no idea if there is a living Jesus either. He only has his anal philosophy.

[child like faith]

Thanks guys

 

Unfortunately he's gone past creationsim into thinly-veiled atheist bashing.

 

Here's a post I responded to yesterday (I stated in my response before this that the bible was allegorical and part of my deconversion was common sense):

"Allegorical stories. Hmph. I'd expect this from an athiest i suppose. No, i don't choose allegorical stories over evidence. I choose my faith over evidence. Something you apparently abandoned or maybe never had at all. Therefore, i won't try to explain it to you.

 

No, it's not common sense. You've developed a mind that won't believe anything it can't see. You've never seen Jesus is person, so you believe him to be a fairy tale. Well, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

 

And here's his latest response:

 

Improvement? Ha. Hardly. I never said i didn't believe anything outside religon. I believe in aliens. Also i believe in ghosts, and the Continental Drift theory, et cetra. And no, i've never "seen" Jesus in person, persay. At least not by your standards. When Jesus' presence is there, you can feel him. You can hear him speak to you when in prayer. It's a relationship that goes beyond human boundries. This is proof, but not proof you can physically "see," and that's why you'll never understand.

 

I'm getting bored here.

 

Some more Death Note arguments but thats a battle I'll handle solo (darn my otaku pride...)

 

oh you poor sweet little dear hearts

you guys would never bash

a christian now would you.

There is no real difference between you or us.

your just as rotten as we christians are . excepting

you have not figured that out yet.

lock us both up and give us one knife and that being the only way out .

most of us would slit your throat just as fast as you would slit ours.

the only difference being we would feel bad and trust in God forgivness for doing it . we would be justified through faith in Christ by God (not self rightiousnes ) But a alien rightiousness of God.

You would just feel bad about it. and justify your actions by your reason . (pompas self rightiousness)

[buffettphan]

oh you poor sweet little dear hearts

you guys would never bash

a christian now would you.

There is no real difference between you or us.

your just as rotten as we christians are . excepting

you have not figured that out yet.

lock us both up and give us one knife and that being the only way out .

most of us would slit your throat just as fast as you would slit ours.

the only difference being we would feel bad and trust in God forgivness for doing it . we would be justified through faith in Christ by God (not self rightiousnes ) But a alien rightiousness of God.

You would just feel bad about it. and justify your actions by your reason . (pompas self rightiousness)

 

I've been reading your various posts tonight, child like, and you are quite obnoxious. From your spelling, grammar, writing style, and attitude, I find it difficult to believe you are an "older christian" as you state in your profile. Why are you here? Do you not comprehend the name and purpose of this EX-CHRISTIAN website? We've been down the xtian path and rejected it. If you want to DISCUSS issues, that's fine. But this site is not intended for use by proselytizing xtians. If you want to preach, set up and pay for your own website.

 

BTW, the only way I'd try to slit anybody's throat would be in self-defense. You are sick. Get help.

[Ouroboros]

most of us would slit your throat just as fast as you would slit ours.

Dude. That's harsh. I can't even imagine slitting someone's throat. I even have a hard time killing insects, because I respect life with me whole being. Killing is sometimes necessary, but I'm way to empathic to take the knife myself and do it. You might be a Christian serial killer, but I'm definitely not.

 

the only difference being we would feel bad and trust in God forgivness for doing it .

I see. What you say is that you can run around and kill people, then ask God for forgiveness, and then fell good about it. That's great! A religion producing sociopaths!

 

we would be justified through faith in Christ by God (not self rightiousnes )

You. are. freaky! Are you saying you have the right and justification to kill? That's sick!

 

I'm putting you on moderator preview, indefinitely, because you sound like a psychopath in Christians clothing.

[R. S. Martin]

we would be justified through faith in Christ by God (not self rightiousnes )

You. are. freaky! Are you saying you have the right and justification to kill? That's sick!

 

I'm putting you on moderator preview, indefinitely, because you sound like a psychopath in Christians clothing.

 

So this is why he's not responding in the Lion's Den anymore. I thought there was more--or less (something strange)--to this guy than most of them.

[hollygolightly]

QUOTE (child like faith @ May 4 2009, 10:31 PM) *

oh you poor sweet little dear hearts

you guys would never bash

a christian now would you.

There is no real difference between you or us.

your just as rotten as we christians are . excepting

you have not figured that out yet.

lock us both up and give us one knife and that being the only way out .

most of us would slit your throat just as fast as you would slit ours.

the only difference being we would feel bad and trust in God forgivness for doing it . we would be justified through faith in Christ by God (not self rightiousnes ) But a alien rightiousness of God.

You would just feel bad about it. and justify your actions by your reason . (pompas self rightiousness)

 

 

Wow ... this sanctimonious b.s. irritates me beyond all measure. I have heard it so many times before: "I'm more moral than you because I can (insert "sin" here) and ask for god's forgiveness and all you do when you do wrong is feel bad about it." It makes me so angry that anyone could even buy that load of crap, let alone pass it off as a basis for superior morality. To all christians playing along, I would like to ask you something. If some one were to, as cowboy posits, "slit someone's throat" would it be better for society that he confess to his god and ask for that god's forgiveness, which he implies will absolve him for any wrong-doing or mental torture resulting from it, or would it be more beneficial that he actual feel awful for what he has done. I realize that I am leaving out law and order type punishments, but I am doing that for the sake of argument. I, for one, would much prefer the latter.

 

It is this logic, cowboy's logic, that is, that bag's me so much when I hear someone arguing for divine justice. I have heard time and time again "I wouldn't want to live in a world where people would never be brought to justice for their crimes," (that they presumably get away with in this life). Bollocks! These two positions don't fit with one another. Under the assertion that there is a god that hands out justice, but saves/forgives those who call themselves his followers there is no justice to speak of. No wonder so many people "find Jesus" in prison.

 

This whole thing reminds me of a scene from "O Brother Where Art Thou" when the three chain gang escapees (two of whom have since been baptized at a revival) are being tailed by the cops ... and the quotes go like this:

 

Pete: The Preacher said it absolved us.

Ulysses Everett McGill: For him, not for the law. I'm surprised at you, Pete, I gave you credit for more brains than Delmar.

Delmar O'Donnell: But they was witnesses that seen us redeemed.

Ulysses Everett McGill: That's not the issue Delmar. Even if that did put you square with the Lord, the State of Mississippi's a little more hard-nosed.

[laughs]

Ulysses Everett McGill: Baptism! You two are just dumber than a bag of hammers!

[hollygolightly]

P.S. the whole "the laws that apply to everyone else, don't apply to me" garbage he is pulling is textbook sociopathic behavior

[SilentLoner]

Ugh. Ended it on a sarcastic note about 2 weeks ago but trust an xtian not to get a hint. Nice to see the guy is bragging and still posting. Can't even watch one of my favorite vids without seeing those dumb comments.

 

Here's the link if anyone wants a shot (Britishman477 is the guy):