Online Debate

[Dhampir]

One of my friends was like "Hey, since we're talkin' about christianity, wanna play 'stump the christian?'" Well I tried to be as irreverent as possible at first, but then everyone started blocking me, so I switched over to being serious, and ended up debating until around 4 that morning. Now I want to keep doing it. Any suggestions for engaging them?

[Asimov]

One of my friends was like "Hey, since we're talkin' about christianity, wanna play 'stump the christian?'" Well I tried to be as irreverent as possible at first, but then everyone started blocking me, so I switched over to being serious, and ended up debating until around 4 that morning. Now I want to keep doing it. Any suggestions for engaging them?

 

1. Call them out on every single invalid logical argument that you can see. Common ones used are:

 

Shifting the burden of proof.

Argument from ignorance.

Red herrings.

Muddying the waters.

Poisoning the well.

Appeal to authority.

Circular Arguments.

 

2. Don't let them answer a question with a question unless it's a clarification.

3. Repeatedly request verification of claims that they make.

4. Don't let them overwhelm you with jargon and irrelevant information (muddying the waters).

5. If the discussion is about christianity, don't let them divert the subject to your own beliefs, they are irrelevant in context to the discussion.

 

6. My personal belief is that debating biblical inerrancy/errancy is the absolute worst standpoint to take against Christianity.

 

Do not debate:

 

Errancy

Atrocities

Archaeological finds

 

The reason being is that errancy is a battle of perspectives and interpretations. Atrocities as well. Archaeological finds that support the bible DO NOT support biblical inerrancy and if they bring it up then adhere to the Iliad as being truth because they found Troy.

 

Do debate:

Contemporary evidence regarding Jesus.

Existence of the Christian concept of God.

Fallacy of Miracles.

 

These are just my own guidelines.

[Godless Wonder]

6. My personal belief is that debating biblical inerrancy/errancy is the absolute worst standpoint to take against Christianity.

 

Do not debate:

 

Errancy

Atrocities

Archaeological finds

This is debatable. Lioads of Christians have deconverted primarily because of errors which they have eventually been forced to admit to themselves exist in the Bible. If someone believes the Bible is inerrant, and that God is loving, then you can make them say that killing babies is a good thing if God says so. (make them read Numbers ch. 31) That might eat away at them for awhile.

 

Ask them if slavery is Christian, ask them if God condones or condemns slavery. Then read Levitucus 25:44-46 -- and many other passages about slavery which are easily findable -- make sure they know "bondsmen" or servants means slaves -- they may dispute it -- "slavery was different then," and so on -- then ask them why "thou shalt not own humans as property" is not one of the ten commandments (and in fact the one about coveting forbits one to covet your neighbor's slaves, thus tacitly approving slavery.)

 

The destruction of Tyre for instance is a crazy topic:

(e.g see these many pages of insanity: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=121739) What will a lurker reading such a farcical debate think about the biblical inerrantist?

 

<p>Debating presuppositionalists can be exasperating, as their brains appear to be broken in such a way that the "debate," necessarily turns into a kind of Monty Python skit. (e.g.: see these many pages of sheer insanity "TAG Triumphant:" http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-87833.html )

 

Going for the jugular on the concept of faith can be disorienting, because they aren't usually used to it. For instance, if, upon failing to be able to come up with reasonable support for their beliefs, the Christian says, "that's why it's called faith." or some such nonsense, nail him with "So, you have no evidence, so you cop out with this 'just have to have faith' nonsense. That's like saying you just have to believe for no reason at all. Why the hell is that a good idea? That's not a good idea, that's a terrible idea. What makes you think faith is a virtua, a good idea? It seems to me it's the opposite of a virtue, probably the dumbest idea ever." etc. At this point, they will almost invariably say something like:. "you have faith the sun will come up," or "scientiest have faith that evolution is true," or some such.

 

when they say something like that, you've got to nail them 2 different ways:

 

1) They are equivocating, the faith they use to believe the absurd claims just because those claims are written down in some old book, and for no other reason is nothing like the thought process used to suppose that the sun will come up tomorrow, or that evolution is true. (Explaining how it is different can certainly be a can of worms though . . . )

 

2) (Especially if they try to suggest you use faith to believe something they do not believe, like evolution) point out to them that when they suggest that "you use faith too!" that indicates that deep down they know something is wrong with faith or they wouldn't make such an accusation. And if they disagree what what they claim you use faith to believe, point out that if you do use faith, then faith isn't very reliable is it? considering that two people are using faith and have come to different conclusions. Faith is worthless. Ask them what reasons they have for assuming that faith is a good idea? Do they "just have faith" that faith is a good idea? Do they just have faith that just having faith in faith is a good idea? That seems pretty dumb. Point out that as soon as they come up with a reason for believing something, then when they rely on that reason, that is not faith. So either they have faith or they don't, and if they do, that's necessarily not based on reason, and indefensible.

 

They may try to distinguish between "blind faith" and some other sort of faith. Don't let them. There is no other sort of faith but blind faith. If you have reasons, then that's not faith.

 

I could go on... but my fingers are tired.

[Dhampir]

What about fulfilled prophesy?

[Thurisaz]

Depends on the specific "prophecy". In general, let me point you to the damn good comments on that which can be found on page CH110 of talk.origins archive's index of cretinist claims.

[Dhampir]

Thanks. Any advice on how to open these debates?

[SkepticOfBible]

What about fulfilled prophesy?

Do you have any specific prophesy in mind?

[Dhampir]

not particularly. The two prophesies that came up: the destruction of tyre, and the fall of the temple in Jerusalem, I was actually able to work on. If you have anything on the more obscure ones, or ones that contend to announce Jesus, (although not Isaiah, I know about that one) that would help.

 

I am also looking for info to counter creationist anti-evolotion claims. Such as, how do I answer things like :unreliability of carbon dating, and gaps in fossil record, and basically anything that they like to point to that says evolution must not be true, therefore validating their position.

[HadouKen24]

It helps in any debate setting to familiarize yourself with the forms basic syllogistic logic. It's scary how many specious arguments are usually used by both sides in online debates simply based on bad logical form. It's extremely easy to fall into many fallacies, so you should familiarize yourself with the form of the syllogism (a basic unit of logical argumentation) to avoid them. Some people just have logically rigorous minds and can spot these easily. Others require practice.

 

You can find a lot of information debunking Creationism on Talk.Origins.

[Thurisaz]

Actually, you can find every single fucking cretinist/IDiot claim there ever was and is in the talk.origins archive.

 

At least I never encountered one that wasn't taken apart already there. A few times I thought it was the case, but after maybe half a second I realized that it really just was a rephrasing of the tired old nonsense.

[Guest Dude]

How about Failed Prophecies?

 

1. Why have no prophecies been demonstrated to have been fulfilled? Why are many Old Testament prophecies too vague to be tested? Why are many Old Testament prophecies "yet to be" fulfilled? Why has it been impossible to demonstrate that the Old Testament prophecies were written prior to the events forecasted?

 

2. Why wasn't Tyre destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar as prophesied by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 26)? When it was destroyed by Alexander the Great, why didn't it remain desolate as prophesied by Ezekiel?8

 

3. How can it be that Isaiah prophesied a temporary destruction of Tyre, while Ezekiel prophesied a permanent destruction (Ezekiel 26:14,21; 27:36; 28:19 versus Isaiah 23:13-18)?

 

4. Why wasn't there a 40-year period in Egypt's history when the whole land was devoid of people and animals, as prophesied by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 29:11-12)?

 

5. Why is so much of New Testament prophecy incomprehensible? Why produce a prophecy at all if it cannot be understood?

 

source: Tough Questions for the Christian Church

[BlueGiant]

I'd suggest watching out for "dogpiles" i.e. all the self-identifying Christians in the room hammering the token apostate with questions.

 

Also, try not to get overly emotional. Passionate is one thing, but anger clouds judgement.

[RHEMtron]

i just usually say my arguments, then at the end i say, "if im wrong, then may god strike me down with lightning right now..."

[Dhampir]

Dogpiling... I'm actually qutie good at evading non-essential ranting. As to emotionalism, One tactic I have been employing is to remain unable to to be flustered. Although, unliess I'm on voice chat, people tend to think any type of calling out of a person's rudeness, is getting emotional. Of course, they also seem to use that as an excuse to leave themselves.

[SkepticOfBible]

How about Failed Prophecies?

 

How about something even better?....IMAGINARY PROPHECIES

 

The following "prophecies" are not found anywhere in the OT

 

Matthew 2:23 ~ And he came and dwelled in a city called Nazareth that it might be fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophets, "He shall be called a Nazarene."

 

Luke 24:46 ~ Thus it is written and thus it was necessary for Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day.

 

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 ~ For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.

 

Matthew 27:9-10 ~ Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me

 

Mark 14:21 ~ The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! Better were it for him if he had not been born.

 

John 1:45 ~ Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

 

John 7:38 ~ He who believes in me, as the scripture said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

 

John 17:12 ~ While I was with them in the world, I kept them in they name: those that thou givest me I have kept, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

 

Acts 1:20 ~ For it is written in the Book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate and let no man dwell therein: and his bishopric let another man take.

 

1 Corinthians 15:45 ~ And so it is written, the first man, Adam, was made a living soul. The last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

 

James 4:5-6 ~ Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain the spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

 

Regarding those prophecies about destruction, that can be used to illustrate "divine hypocrasy". On one hand Jesus the God tells his followers to "Bless his enemies, pray for those hate you", and then on the other hand Jesus the God is cursing the enemies of Isreal with the worst things imagined. I mean "cut open their preganant women".....Jeez.....whoever wrote it is some kind of sicko?

 

You'll find the following articles interesting. It mentions everything that you need to know about prophecies and how to debate with fundies

 

EXAMINING THE CHRISTIAN CLAIM OF PROPHECY FULFILLMENT(3 Pages-Excellent)

 

PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED

 

Happy debating

[Dhampir]

Sorry, Merlin, I just now got to see your reply there. Thanks.

 

What do you say when they Tell you to prove evolution is true?

[Dhampir]

Okay. Last night (and part of today) I stayed up till 5:30 discussing what must be the most stupid topic to debate. I made a flippant comment about the bible speaking of rabbits and how they chew cud, and how that's a biological innaccuracy. Now the thrust of the eventual argument I was trying to make was that the bible is full of absurdities, but I was called on it, the dissenter citing scriptural mistranslations and the likelihood that the translation had to do with the fact that rabbits eat their own shit, which could be what the original hebrew meant. I posited that it was more likely that the hebrews observed the similarities between the mouth movements of rabbits, and that of cows which, having been domesticated, they'd know chewed cud and assumed that rabbits did also.

 

my questions: did my opponent's argument have any merit? does the original hebrew actually allow for that interperetation? Could I have gone about it better?

[Dhampir]

bump

[Godless Wonder]

If you want serious Bible scholar stuff from a non-Christian or at least neutral perspective, ask on iidb.org, in the Biblical Criticsim and History forum. Real heavy hitters there, someone will likely know the greek and hebrew and so on. Don't know if they'll be particularly interested in talking about rabbits chewing cuds and so on... They'll probably consider that an extremely minor nit among the plethora of things to talk about, but someone might be able to answer a specific question about the language.

 

Well, it has been discussed there many times before...

 

Here is a google search for "rabbit chew cud site:iidb.org" which may be some help.

[kellyb]

I'd ask:

 

Suppose some supernatural force comes down and commands the leader of a nation to commit genocide against another nation...only, spare the female children to use as sex slaves.

 

Would that be god or the devil that would do that?

 

Answer:

Numbers 31:1-18: "...And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded moses, and they slew all the [adult] males. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones...And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses...And Moses was angry with the officers of the host And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Ba'laam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the female children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

 

Or, suppose some supernatural force tell you to start attacking pregnant women, brutally slitting their bellies open to kill their unborn babies.

Is that god or the devil? Or are you just mentally ill, and need to seek psychiatric treatment?

 

 

 

Hosea 13:16 (New Living Translation) - The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords."

 

 

Hosea 13:16 (King James) Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God.

They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open

[SkepticOfBible]

Okay. Last night (and part of today) I stayed up till 5:30 discussing what must be the most stupid topic to debate. I made a flippant comment about the bible speaking of rabbits and how they chew cud, and how that's a biological innaccuracy. Now the thrust of the eventual argument I was trying to make was that the bible is full of absurdities, but I was called on it, the dissenter citing scriptural mistranslations and the likelihood that the translation had to do with the fact that rabbits eat their own shit, which could be what the original hebrew meant. I posited that it was more likely that the hebrews observed the similarities between the mouth movements of rabbits, and that of cows which, having been domesticated, they'd know chewed cud and assumed that rabbits did also.

 

my questions: did my opponent's argument have any merit? does the original hebrew actually allow for that interperetation? Could I have gone about it better?

 

Aah, the good old "It's not translated correctly"

 

Well for starters, you should ask point him that all the english bible translation in the world do not support his assertions. Also a good idea to point him towards the Jewish Publication Society(JPS) translation.

 

If the bible doesn't mean what it says, then what is the point of listening to it?

[RHEMtron]

Okay. Last night (and part of today) I stayed up till 5:30 discussing what must be the most stupid topic to debate. I made a flippant comment about the bible speaking of rabbits and how they chew cud, and how that's a biological innaccuracy. Now the thrust of the eventual argument I was trying to make was that the bible is full of absurdities, but I was called on it, the dissenter citing scriptural mistranslations and the likelihood that the translation had to do with the fact that rabbits eat their own shit, which could be what the original hebrew meant. I posited that it was more likely that the hebrews observed the similarities between the mouth movements of rabbits, and that of cows which, having been domesticated, they'd know chewed cud and assumed that rabbits did also.

 

my questions: did my opponent's argument have any merit? does the original hebrew actually allow for that interperetation? Could I have gone about it better?

 

Aah, the good old "It's not translated correctly"

 

Well for starters, you should ask point him that all the english bible translation in the world do not support his assertions. Also a good idea to point him towards the Jewish Publication Society(JPS) translation.

 

If the bible doesn't mean what it says, then what is the point of listening to it?

 

exactly... what's the point? the whole belief system of christianity is that the bible MUST BE TAKEN LITERALLY. "It's not translated correctly," is an unacceptable statement/argument when they insist that it must be taken literally.

[Dhampir]

This person seemed quite learned in Hebrew. He (or she) said the word chew isn't in the orginal translation. The person then said that it was likely that the Hebrews saw that cows chewed cud, as well as ate their defacation and saw that rabbits eat their shit as well (though don't chew cud), that is possibly what it meant.

 

I called it hedging, saying that it was more likely that they saw the mouth movements of rabbits and thought they chewed cud as well, and for that reason, that person was merely proposing a possible alternative which had the bible being correct.

 

Additionally, in a roundabout manner, she (I'm pretty sure it was a woman ) posited that she doesn't necessarily take the bible completely literally, which of course I could have chosen to parley into a different attack but we somehow got back on the cud thing.

[SkepticOfBible]

This person seemed quite learned in Hebrew. He (or she) said the word chew isn't in the orginal translation.

 

What does she mean by "Not there in the Original Translation".

 

I am looking at all the translations, and all of them say the same thing

 

Lev 11:6-7 (JPS)

11:6 And the hare, because she cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, she is unclean unto you

11:7 And the swine, because he parteth the hoof, and is cloven-footed, but cheweth not the cud, he is unclean unto you

 

Leviticus 11:6-7 (Darby Translation)

6and the hare, for it cheweth the cud, but hath not cloven hoofs -- it shall be unclean unto you;

7and the swine, for it hath cloven hoofs, and feet quite split open, but it cheweth not the cud -- it shall be unclean unto you.

 

Leviticus 11:6-7 (King James Version)

6And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

7And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

 

Leviticus 11:6-7 (New International Version)

6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you.

 

Leviticus 11:6-7 (New American Standard Bible)

6the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you;

7and the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you

All of these bible are done by experts in hebrew. If she wants to to claim that they are mistranslated, then she should let the editors.

 

Also how would she translate Lev 11:7

 

The person then said that it was likely that the Hebrews saw that cows chewed cud, as well as ate their defacation and saw that rabbits eat their shit as well (though don't chew cud), that is possibly what it meant.

 

So in other word the Hebrew author made a mistake. So even under the inspiration of HS, a person can commit a mistake?

[Dhampir]

Anything about Requirement for Messiah being of the line of david?