Spectrox Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 I’ve just recently completed a bit of an epic debate on a Christian site (some might say “creative trolling”). https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/what-do-you-believe-and-why-do-you-believe-it.186444/ For the more seasoned among you there probably isn’t anything new but for the less experienced you might learn something from it. I’ve been debating Christians online since 2011 and I think I’ve reached a certain level of competency. I managed to stay on the site for 6 weeks before being banned. I did this by: 1. Not blatantly breaking any of their House Rules 2. Being fair and honest – admitting when I didn’t know something or acknowledging when a Christian at least attempted to make a decent argument. 3. Going for the ball not the player. 4. Trying a Socratic approach to questioning and gradually being more assertive. 5. Attempting to be as rational, logical and evidence-based as I could be. 6. Having good Biblical knowledge. 7. Not pushing things too much if I felt the Christian’s whole life would fall apart if they stopped having faith – that’s just mean. The mistake I made was letting them know I would be leaving the country and therefore the thread at any moment – though in reality this has been postponed anyway – but I believe they used this as an excuse to get rid of me prematurely. I tried logging on on 11 September and a message popped up saying they no longer wanted to hear my atheistic, anti-Christian views and that my time was up. But I also noticed they left my status as “Active Member” when it should have said “Banned”. I think they wanted to be perceived as inclusive when in reality they couldn’t even ban me honestly. I had quite an interesting discussion with “reneweddaybyday” who made me realise I couldn’t prove a contradiction in a couple of Bible passages, but then went on to say that this meant these passages were accurate (i.e. true accounts) which cannot be inferred from my admission. There is more consistency in the New Testament than I originally thought though this is mostly due to the fact that Matthew and Luke copied vast chunks from Mark. There was also the usual Christian double negative argument from “posthuman” saying there is something wrong with the unbeliever, which is a shifting of the burden of proof. Hopefully you’ll find it interesting – probably best to just to read my responses (and what I was responding to, contained within it). My icon is a masked Dr Who villain called Sharaz Jek, who is a villain you can sympathise with as he has been grievously wronged during a war over an elixir of life drug called Spectrox. Let me know what you think. It starts to get going from page 7 (of 46 !). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.