• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:1396] Questions that atheists are afraid to answer

Lursa said:
Your excuses to avoid direct (and succinct :)) discussion are not...surprising.
Click to expand...
You haven’t defined with enough discursive vigor what you desire to discuss.
 
Alizia Tyler said:
And there you have it: “I refuse to consider — even to read.”

Elegantly demonstrated!
Click to expand...
As is your avoidance. Your convenient response is...convenient.

And expected.
 
Lursa said:
As is your avoidance. Your convenient response is...convenient.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you want to discuss. I conclude that you do not have a coherent point or topic.

Then what are you doing? It’s for anyone to guess.
 
I have noticed an indirect tendency in most if not all the deeply Christian persons of this community in that they tend to avoid direct discussion of their beliefs in depth by trying to direct conversation elsewhere when questions are asked with often lengthy obscurity mumbles. Direct answers seem almost impossible to find and it becomes quite annoying to the point the conversation becomes boring and predictable so it ends.
 
Alizia Tyler said:
I have no idea what you want to discuss. I conclude that you do not have a coherent point or topic.

Then what are you doing? It’s for anyone to guess.
Click to expand...
No worries. It's clear in my posts. If you retire, I understand. Mine were only counterpoints....entirely coherent, lol, dont be dishonest...and they remain as stated. I'm not concerned if you dont address them.
 
tecoyah said:
I have noticed an indirect tendency in most if not all the deeply Christian persons of this community in that they tend to avoid direct discussion of their beliefs in depth by trying to direct conversation elsewhere when questions are asked with often lengthy obscurity mumbles. Direct answers seem almost impossible to find and it becomes quite annoying to the point the conversation becomes boring and predictable so it ends.
Click to expand...
Yes well we all notice tendencies.

But I will accept your challenge. Define one thing, or a general thing, about Christian belief (the subject of this paragraph) and I will answer.
 
Lursa said:
No worries. It's clear in my posts. If you retire, I understand. Mine were only counterpoints....entirely coherent, lol, dont be dishonest...and they remain as stated. I'm not concerned if you dont address them.
Click to expand...
This is not discussion and you have no argument. I am going to leave it there, therefore.
 
Alizia Tyler said:
I think there is a confusion about what is and what isn't ad hominem 'attack'.

I also think that though real ad hominem is both inappropriate and fallacious that there is a great deal of negative animus that surrounds and infuses the entire question. This negative animus operates in both camps of course. The conflict in this thread shows it.

So if one goes back in time a bit -- to the French Revolution and all that happened at that time -- one can easily understand that the negative (to say the least) animus of the revolutionary atheists and anti-religionists (and Enlightenment thinkers generally) vented extreme contempt and violence against religionists, priests, nuns, church properties, etc. The point is that the doctrine of atheism is not benign. It has effects.

Similarly, some atheists bring forward arguments that describe theism and religion as negative and destructive.

So I do not think that his was an ad hominem attack because it was not directed against a person but rather against a movement in ideas. And it is 'fair game' to speak about destructive trends in ideas.

I think one has to accept that there are social and cultural battles going on around these questions.
Click to expand...

The confusion is all on your part.
 
Alizia Tyler said:
Yes well we all notice tendencies.

But I will accept your challenge. Define one thing, or a general thing, about Christian belief (the subject of this paragraph) and I will answer.
Click to expand...
Please explain then, what is used as reasoning for accepting as real something not only undefined coherently by humanity but relatively easily shown as false?
Secondly, when history of the texts are examined in detail how do you justify these Bible(s) as the "Words Of" the "God" that is undefined?
 
tecoyah said:
I have noticed an indirect tendency in most if not all the deeply Christian persons of this community in that they tend to avoid direct discussion of their beliefs in depth by trying to direct conversation elsewhere when questions are asked with often lengthy obscurity mumbles. Direct answers seem almost impossible to find and it becomes quite annoying to the point the conversation becomes boring and predictable so it ends.
Click to expand...
That's exactly why I put a couple of the sleepwalking dissemblers in this thread on 'ignore'. There comes a point when a person has to make the decision about how much time you're willing to waste on arguing with the dog (or, as Mortie told me, listening to the unenlightened humans!). BTW, Mortie does not believe that he can ever know anything about 'God", and he doesn't care what term anyone uses to describe his (lack of) belief.

(PS... that's Mortie in the avatar picture)
 
Alizia Tyler said:
This is not discussion and you have no argument. I am going to leave it there, therefore.
Click to expand...
I'm not concerned about your declaration about my argument...it had been left behind out of your convenience anyway...

I'm happy to stick with:
Lursa said:
No worries. It's clear in my posts. If you retire, I understand. Mine were only counterpoints....entirely coherent, lol, dont be dishonest...and they remain as stated. I'm not concerned if you dont address them.
Click to expand...
 
Logtroll said:
That's exactly why I put a couple of the sleepwalking dissemblers in this thread on 'ignore'. There comes a point when a person has to make the decision about how much time you're willing to waste on arguing with the dog (or, as Mortie told me, listening to the unenlightened humans!). BTW, Mortie does not believe that he can ever know anything about 'God", and he doesn't care what term anyone uses to describe his (lack of) belief.

(PS... that's Mortie in the avatar picture)
Click to expand...
Mortie seems an enlightened creature.
 
Logtroll said:
That's exactly why I put a couple of the sleepwalking dissemblers in this thread on 'ignore'. There comes a point when a person has to make the decision about how much time you're willing to waste on arguing with the dog (or, as Mortie told me, listening to the unenlightened humans!). BTW, Mortie does not believe that he can ever know anything about 'God", and he doesn't care what term anyone uses to describe his (lack of) belief.

(PS... that's Mortie in the avatar picture)
Click to expand...

Mortie looks sweet.
 
tecoyah said:
Please explain then, what is used as reasoning for accepting as real something not only undefined coherently by humanity but relatively easily shown as false?
Secondly, when history of the texts are examined in detail how do you justify these Bible(s) as the "Words Of" the "God" that is undefined?
Click to expand...
That is a muddled question. Your question actually contains assertion s and questions. I’ll try to break it down.

One questions you seem to ask are:

1) What sort of reasoning is used when a Christian person believes. Is this right?

2) I sort of understand what you are asserting with undefined coherently and also what you assert can be easily demonstrated as false. But you are making assertions in the large part, not asking a question.

3) Your next question seems to be about ‘the history of the text’ of the Bible, and by pluralizing it to bibles you mean the various books of the Bible. You seem to be saying that you have examined the texts ‘in detail’ and, I gather, found contradiction in them that indicates to you that they cannot be ‘the Word of God. But then you also mention again that God is ‘undefined’.

In regard to 3) I wonder if you can clarify what it is that you’d like me to answer.
 
Alizia Tyler said:
Note: this is an example of a psychological assertion.

Why does that horse refuse to drink good water!?! It baffles the mind when you think about it!

(But you have made no clear assertion. You have merely insinuated. Not enough in good faith discussion).
Click to expand...
It baffles your mind that a horse was led to water but didn't drink because it wasn't thirsty?
 
Logtroll said:
He is my guru..
Click to expand...
devildavid said:
Mortie looks sweet.
Click to expand...
Lursa said:
And adorable.
Click to expand...
tecoyah said:
Mortie seems an enlightened creature.
Click to expand...
I agree with each of these statements. That Mortie must really be wonderful.

I did not think it possible — until today, until it came up here — that a dog could be one’s spiritual teacher. That is if I have taken ‘guru’ in the right sense.

David, Lursa, do you think that you might seek apprenticeship under the worthy tutelage of this sweet & adorable doggie?
 
Last edited:
Loulit01 said:
It baffles your mind that a horse was led to water but didn't drink because it wasn't thirsty?
Click to expand...
Did the horse know something about the water that I did not?

Would Mortie drink?
 
Alizia Tyler said:
That is a muddled question. Your question actually contains assertion s and questions. I’ll try to break it down.

One questions you seem to ask are:

1) What sort of reasoning is used when a Christian person believes. Is this right?

2) I sort of understand what you are asserting with undefined coherently and also what you assert can be easily demonstrated as false. But you are making assertions in the large part, not asking a question.

3) Your next question seems to be about ‘the history of the text’ of the Bible, and by pluralizing it to bibles you mean the various books of the Bible. You seem to be saying that you have examined the texts ‘in detail’ and, I gather, found contradiction in them that indicates to you that they cannot be ‘the Word of God. But then you also mention again that God is ‘undefined’.

In regard to 3) I wonder if you can clarify what it is that you’d like me to answer.
Click to expand...
Okay....I'll try again with more direct questions.
Why is the Christian Yahweh more believable than the other thousands of Gods?
How is a Book so clearly edited and written by Men (council of Nicea) considered to be written by God?
 
tecoyah said:
Okay....I'll try again with more direct questions.
Why is the Christian Yahweh more believable than the other thousands of Gods?
How is a Book so clearly edited and written by Men (council of Nicea) considered to be written by God?
Click to expand...
Faith and begorra, laddies and lasses, ’tis is a fine question!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom