Given your options

[LogicalFallacy]

2 minutes ago, ThereAndBackAgain said:

 

If the goal here is to run Christians off as quickly as possible, then Congratulations.  

But I think we would be better served by holding off on the flame thrower and dialing down the hostility.  Of course we’re going to be impatient with Christian arguments. I know it’s going to be frustrating. But we need to make our best arguments against Christianity, for the benefit of the silent audience of lurkers.  Dog knows we have plenty of good arguments to make.  I think that’s why the Lions Den exists. If we get too frustrated by our Christian counterpart then we can disengage and let others step up. 

 

Just my two cents worth...

 

I didn't think there was any flame throwing. People were pointing out the flaws in Williams argument and he didn't like that. TRP was calling him out on typical Christian behaviour and argument modes. This guy didn't get past base one. I tried to get him into a solid conversation as to how he defined God and what his evidence was. He simply wanted to beat about the same old Christian themes of rejection, preference and baseless assumptions.

 

TBH I think there was enough hard questions being asked for @Christforums to realise that he didn't have answers for so cut and ran.

 

However I do think you have a point, so my question would be, for me personally, do you think my interactions were flame throwing or trying to get a conversation going? If you were a Christian would you want to engage with me given my MO?

[wellnamed]

15 minutes ago, ThereAndBackAgain said:

If the goal here is to run Christians off as quickly as possible, then Congratulations.

 

I don't think this thread is even particularly hostile, but I also think it might be too much to expect no hostility.

It's an interesting question though, about what the goal ought to be. It's an interesting idea that there is value to having an active Lion's Den for the benefit of demonstrating arguments against Christianity. I'm not sure everyone would agree with that though. Or, it's not clear whether that's preferable to just letting people ask questions about Christian arguments they are troubled by, no Christians needed? I can understand why some people are more hostile than others just in terms of how traumatic their deconversions were, or how recent. I could understand how some might find value in an active Lion's Den while others might prefer that the whole site is a space where they are free from dealing with Christians. I'm not sure there's any right answer, so my default would just be to let people decide for themselves, including being pretty tolerant of some open hostility towards Christians.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 minutes ago, ThereAndBackAgain said:

 

If the goal here is to run Christians off as quickly as possible, then Congratulations.  

But I think we would be better served by holding off on the flame thrower and dialing down the hostility.  Of course we’re going to be impatient with Christian arguments. I know it’s going to be frustrating. But we need to make our best arguments against Christianity, for the benefit of the silent audience of lurkers.  Dog knows we have plenty of good arguments to make.  I think that’s why the Lions Den exists. If we get too frustrated by our Christian counterpart then we can disengage and let others step up. 

 

Just my two cents worth...

Nah.  The goal isn't to run them off.  The goal is to point out the flaws/fallacies in their arguments, and, as you say, present our own.  Them choosing to run off is just a natural by-product of logic meeting religion.  Some have more staying power than others.  Unfortunate, really, I had higher hopes for christforums.

[disillusioned]

I didn't see a lot of hostility here...

[LogicalFallacy]

10 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Unfortunate, really, I had higher hopes for christforums.

 

As did I. His OP was about a debate so I thought this one was confident and had good arguments. Sadly it wasn't so. Seemed to be a lot of presuppositions and assumptions and not much meat to back it up.

[midniterider]

3 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

As did I. His OP was about a debate so I thought this one was confident and had good arguments. Sadly it wasn't so. Seemed to be a lot of presuppositions and assumptions and not much meat to back it up.

 

Some of his interactions indicated rigid brick wall conviction. Refusal to even allow a certain thought to exist in his head. It's hard to have a discussion like that.

 

He may have thought the same about us though. It would be nice if ex-C's and Christians could get along, I'm just not sure what the point of that would be. They have a recruiting mandate and I dont. So I wonder he's saying about us over there.

[Margee]

1 hour ago, NeverHealed52Years said:

  And here we go again ..... around and around and around we go...god never speaks, never shows up in any tangible way...ever...but we are supposed to believe anyway ...it is all our fault never the no show god...blame the victim...we try harder...numb out more thoughts and feelings ...more blind faith, more self blaming  and still no show, no speak, no tangible anything from god ,,,,so we repent and change and change and change and improve and improve....and still nothing ...and it is still us thinking, believing, doing something incorrectly....we didn't believe the right thing, about the right god, at exactly the right time, in exactly the right way, on the 5th Tuesday, of the sixth month, during the correct leap year, on the correct solstice, while only wearing the exact required shade of blue, when it is a waning (not waxing) crescent moon ..what exactly is that method, formula, belief, perception, understanding, teaching and feeling to please god we didn't get right so he will actually be real? wheeeeeee, around and around and around we go!!!!

1

 

YOU, get the trophy for this answer!!! You go, girl! Wonderful! 

 

[Margee]

Lemme tell you something.......You guys are all amazing!! 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

For the benefit of the lurkers:

 

The original question was phrased in such a way as to give christforums an easy way to evangelize.  If I answered, "yes, I have rejected god" then he would have started in about the evil "nature of man" at that point.  Contrariwise, if i answered, "no, i have not rejected god" it would have provided him a good platform for claiming that god still exists, I still believe, and that god is still reaching out to me.

 

It's much like asking a husband, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"  If he says "yes" it implies that he did beat her at some point.  If he says "no" it implies that he still does.  Either answer damns him.  But this is a well known trick amongst apoligizers; and the unwary often fall for it.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, wellnamed said:

 

I don't think this thread is even particularly hostile, but I also think it might be too much to expect no hostility.

It's an interesting question though, about what the goal ought to be. It's an interesting idea that there is value to having an active Lion's Den for the benefit of demonstrating arguments against Christianity. I'm not sure everyone would agree with that though. Or, it's not clear whether that's preferable to just letting people ask questions about Christian arguments they are troubled by, no Christians needed? I can understand why some people are more hostile than others just in terms of how traumatic their deconversions were, or how recent. I could understand how some might find value in an active Lion's Den while others might prefer that the whole site is a space where they are free from dealing with Christians. I'm not sure there's any right answer, so my default would just be to let people decide for themselves, including being pretty tolerant of some open hostility towards Christians.

They used to have "Peanut Gallery" threads in the more formal debate forums here.  The actual debate thread would only include those directly involved in the debate; but anybody who wanted to comment on the debate could do so in the "peanut gallery" thread associated with said debate.

 

Maybe we could do something similar here.  Have a thread for those who didn't get a chance to join in the fun before the christian tucked tail and ran.  Or even a thread dissecting the christian's arguments one by one and showing the faults and flaws therein.  Hell, it wouldn't even need to be a separate thread; it could be in the same thread.

 

I'm just throwing out ideas here; because, I agree, we really do have good arguments to present.  And the lurkers deserve the best we can give them.  Matter of fact, I feel like the lord is calling @LogicalFallacy and @TruthSeeker0 to spearhead this particular ministry.  

[LogicalFallacy]

8 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm just throwing out ideas here; because, I agree, we really do have good arguments to present.  And the lurkers deserve the best we can give them.  Matter of fact, I feel like the lord is calling @LogicalFallacy and @TruthSeeker0 to spearhead this particular ministry.  

 

I'm not getting any tingles to indicate said calling. That said I did try and get C.F. to state his case but we got nada. 

 

I don't go evangelizing to xtians... but should one like to present a case I'm happy to look at it. C.F. didn't present a case on the whole. He presented his opinions of us based on presuppositions. 

 

Besides Prof... you are more experienced... surely this calling is yours? 

[ConsiderTheSource]

1.Why is your only option to reject God?

 

Insert "All powerful Yellow belly unicorns" or "All powerful stripped tribbles" for "God".   Pretty damn impossible to reject something not ever evidenced as being real.  Present evidence for "God".

 

2. Why has the option been the basis or foundation of your position against God?

 

Again, pretty damn impossible to reject something that has not been demonstrated to exist.

 

Oh, and, if your follow up is "What evidence  would you accept to demonstrate a possible exist of "God"; I can actually answer this.  I would be very interested in a legitimate properly executed scientific statistical triple blind study that demonstrates at the 99% significance level that prayer to "God" changes outcomes not explainable by any other environmental/mental factor, e.g. the "placebo effect".  I would think the churches would be very interested in these results too.  

 

But, of course, it is not about getting to truth and reality, is it?  Nope, it is about programming, indoctrination, and control. 

[Realist]

5 hours ago, Christforums said:

Why is your only option to reject God? And, why has the option been the basis or foundation of your position against God?

 

 

 

maybe you might? get this??

 

I was born and brainwashed from birth by my parents who I held COMPLETE trust in that Santa Claus existed. After all ... I loved my parents, they were my ROCK in life and of course they could NEVER lie! Only they knew ALL truth!

 

This of course went on for some years ... but one day ... I was forced to step outside the egg shell of their indoctrination. As I grew older and became more able to think for myself ... I asked questions and sort answers from outside that shell, from which protection I had been forced to go. It was not until then answers started becoming VERY plain! I had been taught a lie ... without stepping OUTSIDE that shell and looking in from the outside .... I would never have known that!

 

So have I rejected Santa Claus? 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

28 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Besides Prof... you are more experienced... surely this calling is yours? 

Unfortunately, I was divorced and remarried, which, according to the assemblies of god, means I cannot lead ministry.  I knew I should have murdered when I had the chance.  They'd have forgiven me for that; but, woe unto the man who's had two wives.

[Joshpantera]

5 hours ago, Christforums said:

No problem.

 

I withdraw from the thread and the board.

 

I can definitely relate to communities of like mindedness.

 

Enjoy,

William

 

That's it?

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

17 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

That's it?

 

 

 

Yep - he's all out for 1 1/2 pages of replies. The rest is us nattering away among ourselves.

[TABA]

5 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I didn't think there was any flame throwing. People were pointing out the flaws in Williams argument and he didn't like that. TRP was calling him out on typical Christian behaviour and argument modes. This guy didn't get past base one. I tried to get him into a solid conversation as to how he defined God and what his evidence was. He simply wanted to beat about the same old Christian themes of rejection, preference and baseless assumptions.

 

TBH I think there was enough hard questions being asked for @Christforums to realise that he didn't have answers for so cut and ran.

 

However I do think you have a point, so my question would be, for me personally, do you think my interactions were flame throwing or trying to get a conversation going? If you were a Christian would you want to engage with me given my MO?

 

After re-reading the thread from the start I’m going to backtrack on the flame-thrower characterization.  @Christforums really did make it hard to have a discussion, given the nature of his questions.  Maybe he was a bit overwhelmed by the responses coming from multiple directions.  Seems like he wanted a more formal debate, maybe.  I know if the shoe were on the other foot and I found myself alone debating a group of feisty Christians I’d have a hard time staying focused and making the best case.  

LF, I don’t think you were out of line at all.  I’d like to think that as a Christian I would have engaged with you.  What I did do as a Christian was listen to debates between Christians and atheists.  After starting out rooting for the Christians I found myself - to my chagrin - agreeing with the atheists more often than not.  And eventually I joined their ranks.  So that’s why I value respectful debate across this divide: I’ve seen the power of a respectful debate to overcome faith.  Maybe such debate wasn’t going to be possible with our latest Christian visitor.

[LogicalFallacy]

22 minutes ago, ThereAndBackAgain said:

Maybe such debate wasn’t going to be possible with our latest Christian visitor.

 

Possibly. My first question with a debate is are you willing to change your mind, and is there anything that would? If the answer is no then debate is pointless. I think that was the position we were in with our latest Christian. 

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Possibly. My first question with a debate is are you willing to change your mind, and is there anything that would? If the answer is no then debate is pointless. I think that was the position we were in with our latest Christian. 

 

This may be totally off topic (hint, hint), and I digress, but why does this sound so familiar?

 

Let's say there were to be a meeting to try and discuss something and try and come to terms. And one party stated up front that they were unwilling to change their mind going in to it. And at that, the other party just up and walked out. Given your opinion above, would the party who up and walked out be justified in doing so? 

 

Yes or no? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TruthSeeker0]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

They used to have "Peanut Gallery" threads in the more formal debate forums here.  The actual debate thread would only include those directly involved in the debate; but anybody who wanted to comment on the debate could do so in the "peanut gallery" thread associated with said debate.

 

Maybe we could do something similar here.  Have a thread for those who didn't get a chance to join in the fun before the christian tucked tail and ran.  Or even a thread dissecting the christian's arguments one by one and showing the faults and flaws therein.  Hell, it wouldn't even need to be a separate thread; it could be in the same thread.

 

I'm just throwing out ideas here; because, I agree, we really do have good arguments to present.  And the lurkers deserve the best we can give them.  Matter of fact, I feel like the lord is calling @LogicalFallacy and @TruthSeeker0 to spearhead this particular ministry.  

Wait wha? I missed out on most of this fun (I was too busy socializing with fundie family lol) but what ministry in particular are we called to, dissection of this thread, if I understand correctly? I have to read thread this over properly tomorrow but it appears CF entered the conversation not heeding my advice to him in his intro thread, which was that he treat us as equals ie no holier than thou, and be open to the possibility his god does not exist. But he couldn't even start from that basis, instead he asked us why we've rejected his god, therefore much of the conversation was useless.

[Astreja]

11 hours ago, Christforums said:

Here's my 2 part question, Why is your only option to reject God? And, why has the option been the basis or foundation of your position against God?

 

Part 1:  I see no point in pretending to believe.  I am incapable of religious faith.

 

Part 2:  Real life, as I perceive it, offers no credible evidence for any gods.  The god of the Bible is on exactly the same footing as every other god described in literature and scripture -- a concept rather than a real being. 

 

Furthermore, believers are not able to consistently demonstrate that their beliefs do anything tangible and unique.  Sometimes their prayers inspire them to pursue and achieve a goal, and they give the credit for their own efforts to their god.  Sometimes their prayer fails utterly, leading to excuses like "God needed another angel" or "God was testing you," and they write it off as lack of faith, or some mysterious lesson, or something to do with a "fallen world."

 

Quite frankly, if my stove operated with the same inconsistency as prayer I'd have junked it long ago.

[Realist]

3 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Possibly. My first question with a debate is are you willing to change your mind, and is there anything that would? If the answer is no then debate is pointless. I think that was the position we were in with our latest Christian. 

maybe one would not even have to go that far LF.

 

The question to me that would come to mind is:

 

"are you willing to possibly admit (even entertain) the idea that it is possible the bible is not inerrant?"

 

If one won't agree this could at all be a possibility ... as Florduh says ... go play chess with pigeons! It would be more rewarding! 

 

 

 

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Wow, this one came and went before I knew he was here.  One thing we need to keep in mind is that some of these people may not be mentally stable.  Their arguments won't make much sense.  And the arguing will go nowhere.  I have suspected more than one to be in a slight manic phase.  When denial (unconscious blind spots) is happening, they honestly can't see things any other way.  They would need treatment before they could be more rational.  And let's face it.  Many of us have blind spots that we live with and are never diagnosed as mentally ill.  So don't be too rough on us when we get out in left field!

[LogicalFallacy]

4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

This may be totally off topic (hint, hint), and I digress, but why does this sound so familiar?

 

Let's say there were to be a meeting to try and discuss something and try and come to terms. And one party stated up front that they were unwilling to change their mind going in to it. And at that, the other party just up and walked out. Given your opinion above, would the party who up and walked out be justified in doing so? 

 

Yes or no? 

 

 

 

Yes, unless there were mitigating factors (E.g. an audience was watching/listening and would possibly benefit from the exchange.) I think it was Hitchen's who said that he didn't debate Christians with the hope of changing the interlocutors mind, but that maybe just one person in the audience would question their beliefs. However if the goal is to get to the truth of something and one party is not willing to budge then conversation is pointless as you can't get to truth if you already presuppose you are right.

 

What are your thoughts?

[disillusioned]

The fact that debate is pointless in certain cases says nothing about who is in the right. If I say "We should build a ladder to the moon!", and LF says "No, that's stupid. ", and I ask him if he's willing to change his mind and he says "no", so I storm off, I'm right that debate is pointless,  but I'm wrong about the issue. In this case,  debate would only be pointless because I'm being silly.