Insights into Non-believers' strategy in debate

[Linusthe2nd]

Dr. Peter Kreeft has written some interesting comments in his article " The Challenge of Ontological Disproofs ( for the existence of God ) " for Strange Notions. strangenotions.com/ I have noticed this same trend at Catholic Answers more and more. The idea seems to be for the non-believer to construct a syllogistic argument which seems to prove that God cannot exist. But these always contain at least one error. But often times the error is not noticed and we water down something about God or his nature in an attempt to get the opponent to agree to a " lesser " God or a God who isn’t so perfect. The reason we do this is multiple, ranging from " we really don’t know what our faith and philosophy teaches about God " to just sloppy reasoning.

One thing that will never happen, the non-believer will absolutley never agree you are right. At least that has been my experience. And they will carry the debate on forever until everyone just gets tired of it and drops off.

The reason I bring this up is because this is happening right now on at perhaps 7-8 threads on this forum right at this moment. Think about it.

Pax Christi
Linus2nd
C

 

[edwest2]

It’s classic psychological warfare. The steps are simple but the attack must be modified to fit the responses. The first step is repetition: thread after thread about the same subject, with different words but the same goal. To change the mind, confuse or offer only partial truths. This is followed by appeals to emotion which can include personal attacks ranging from veiled to severe. The thread ends up being deleted or locked.

1. Causing constant confusion is seen as good. By repeating what the media preaches - good.
2. The Church is wrong. But it can never be phrased that way.
3. Any suggestion that human knowledge is better than what the Church tells us - good.

biblehub.com/colossians/4-5.htm

biblehub.com/colossians/4-6.htm

Ed

 

[Bradski]

The idea seems to be for the non-believer to construct a syllogistic argument which seems to prove that God cannot exist.

Are you saying that there are threads where someone is trying to prove God doesn’t exist? Point me in the right direction, Linus. I’ll put them straight for you.

 

[hiramross]

Are you saying that there are threads where someone is trying to prove God doesn’t exist? Point me in the right direction, Linus. I’ll put them straight for you.

I believe in God …without any indisputable fact/proof.
Atheist do Not believe in God …without any indisputable fact/proof

The only indisputable fact is human beings suffer death. If the Atheist wants to debate on Earth about God then I’m down to debate. But if I’m right then I gain a Great Kingdom and the Atheist loses a Kingdom and…well you know the opposite. BUT if the Atheist is right then we both win NOTHING because we will just then be nonexistent. … (LAME)

I think I’m just a bit more adventurous going for that prize in the sky!!!

AMEN

 

[AnimalSpirits]

I believe in God …without any indisputable fact/proof.
Atheist do Not believe in God …without any indisputable fact/proof

Atheists apply a consistent standard- there’s no indisputable fact/proof for the Christian god, any of the other hundreds of religions, nor leprechauns, unicorns, or Santa Clause. Thus (most) atheists treat them all the same way- disbelief. I doubt most religious folk are quite so consistent.

I think I’m just a bit more adventurous going for that prize in the sky!!!

AMEN

Do you select all your beliefs in the manner? It’d be great if smoking didn’t cause cancer, fatty foods didn’t cause weight gain, and buying random stocks would triple my money in a matter of days. But the fact that something is nice to believe doesn’t make it true- I’d much prefer there be an eternal paradise awaiting after death.

 

[hiramross]

Atheists apply a consistent standard- there’s no indisputable fact/proof for the Christian god, any of the other hundreds of religions, nor leprechauns, unicorns, or Santa Clause. Thus (most) atheists treat them all the same way- disbelief. I doubt most religious folk are quite so consistent.

Do you select all your beliefs in the manner? It’d be great if smoking didn’t cause cancer, fatty foods didn’t cause weight gain, and buying random stocks would triple my money in a matter of days. But the fact that something is nice to believe doesn’t make it true- I’d much prefer there be an eternal paradise awaiting after death.

Atheist have no proof that there is NO God; so believing that the world “just existed” or any other theory that world renowned physicists would create is just as “silly” as unicorns or Santa .

Even if you think the scientific logic reasoning used by these scientist are sound and very plausible the point remains that it is still just theory; as Santa, leprechauns, and the jolly green giant.

Do you know any of the scientific facts that support the Bible writings?

youtube.com/watch?v=5mvx8kW33OU

The above link is a youtube video that explains a lot of the Bible passages that science supports…not disproves.

 

[hiramross]

Atheists apply a consistent standard- there’s no indisputable fact/proof for the Christian god, any of the other hundreds of religions, nor leprechauns, unicorns, or Santa Clause. Thus (most) atheists treat them all the same way- disbelief. I doubt most religious folk are quite so consistent.

Do you select all your beliefs in the manner? It’d be great if smoking didn’t cause cancer, fatty foods didn’t cause weight gain, and buying random stocks would triple my money in a matter of days. But the fact that something is nice to believe doesn’t make it true- I’d much prefer there be an eternal paradise awaiting after death.

and yes smoking can cause cancer and eating fatty foods lead to weight gain… and of course bad investments in stocks will make one lose money… but if I adhere to true Catholic teaching and live as Jesus told us to then I will have a happier life with better and more fulfilling relationships.

If you think living as the Catholic church teaches will not lead to better life and better relationships (of every sort) please explain… I’d sure would love to hear your reasoning

 

[Gregory_Olson]

Atheists apply a consistent standard- there’s no indisputable fact/proof for the Christian god, any of the other hundreds of religions, nor leprechauns, unicorns, or Santa Clause. Thus (most) atheists treat them all the same way- disbelief. I doubt most religious folk are quite so consistent.

Do you select all your beliefs in the manner? It’d be great if smoking didn’t cause cancer, fatty foods didn’t cause weight gain, and buying random stocks would triple my money in a matter of days. But the fact that something is nice to believe doesn’t make it true- I’d much prefer there be an eternal paradise awaiting after death.

I was going to post a hot-and-ready retort to this, but …

One thing that will never happen, the non-believer will absolutley never agree you are right. At least that has been my experience. And they will carry the debate on forever until everyone just gets tired of it and drops off.

The reason I bring this up is because this is happening right now on at perhaps 7-8 threads on this forum right at this moment. Think about it.

… then I realized how monumentally ironic it would be. :whacky:

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Atheist have no proof that there is NO God; so believing that the world “just existed” or any other theory that world renowned physicists would create is just as “silly” as unicorns or Santa .

And you have no proof that there is no Zeus or Flying Spaghetti Monster- it’s never someone else’s job to disprove the existence of something.

Even if you think the scientific logic reasoning used by these scientist are sound and very plausible the point remains that it is still just theory; as Santa, leprechauns, and the jolly green giant.

chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

Does science have all of the answers at this point in time? No. Does that mean a book based on iron age oral traditions is equally authoritative? Certainly not- scientific theory makes conclusions about the observable world by observing it, and testing various possible explanations. Neither is 100% correct and complete, but the gap between them grows wider as science explains more and more.

Do you know any of the scientific facts that support the Bible writings?

youtube.com/watch?v=5mvx8kW33OU

The above link is a youtube video that explains a lot of the Bible passages that science supports…not disproves.

It’s hardly surprising that the bible is not always wrong. When science finds pillars upon which the Earth is seated, I’ll pay some attention.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

I was going to post a hot-and-ready retort to this, but …

… then I realized how monumentally ironic it would be. :whacky:

Do you think you could be reasoned out of your belief? That is, could you conceive of any evidence that might confuse you to drop the whole religion thing? If not, I wouldn’t point fingers.

 

[hiramross]

And you have no proof that there is no Zeus or Flying Spaghetti Monster- it’s never someone else’s job to disprove the existence of something.

chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

Does science have all of the answers at this point in time? No. Does that mean a book based on iron age oral traditions is equally authoritative? Certainly not- scientific theory makes conclusions about the observable world by observing it, and testing various possible explanations. Neither is 100% correct and complete, but the gap between them grows wider as science explains more and more.

It’s hardly surprising that the bible is not always wrong. When science finds pillars upon which the Earth is seated, I’ll pay some attention.

You just made my night !!!

You’re saying the burden of proof is on the religious!!

 

[hiramross]

And you have no proof that there is no Zeus or Flying Spaghetti Monster- it’s never someone else’s job to disprove the existence of something.

chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

Does science have all of the answers at this point in time? No. Does that mean a book based on iron age oral traditions is equally authoritative? Certainly not- scientific theory makes conclusions about the observable world by observing it, and testing various possible explanations. Neither is 100% correct and complete, but the gap between them grows wider as science explains more and more.

It’s hardly surprising that the bible is not always wrong. When science finds pillars upon which the Earth is seated, I’ll pay some attention.

I honestly am going to pray for your study because if you think science is disproving the Bible then that burden is on you my friend. Please list the findings

I eagerly await your post.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

You just made my night !!!

You’re saying the burden of proof is on the religious!!

The burden is, and always should be, on the person claiming “X is a thing!”

Otherwise we live in a world where the Zeus, Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Scientology are beliefs some how worthy of acceptance. I can’t prove any of these things wrong, as far as I know. Indeed, I could make up a religion (or rather, receive a divine revelation) right now- would you feel the burden is on me to prove my new faith, or you to disprove it?

 

[hiramross]

The burden is, and always should be, on the person claiming “X is a thing!”

Otherwise we live in a world where the Zeus, Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Scientology are beliefs some how worthy of acceptance. I can’t prove any of these things wrong, as far as I know.

spend the 3 hours and watch the video linked.

All the proof you need is in the Bible and science is supporting the statements/claims and events laid out in the Bible.

If you think otherwise again that burden is on someone like you saying that no its not “x” but “Y”…prove the “y”.

Could Abraham, Moses, or Christopher Columbus describe a scientific observation, event, or physical object in the same language/context used in today’s (English) world?

 

[JackieO123]

A good sum of non-believers go for the emotional jugular.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

spend the 3 hours and watch the video linked.

Got a video which makes the points you want more intelligently? That is, without extended clips from youtube songs or dumb and dumber?

All the proof you need is in the Bible and science is supporting the statements/claims and events laid out in the Bible.

If you think otherwise again that burden is on someone like you saying that no its not “x” but “Y”…prove the “y”.

I’m not saying “y”, I’m saying “your argument for x is not sufficient.”

Could Abraham, Moses, or Christopher Columbus describe a scientific observation, event, or physical object in the same language/context used in today’s (English) world?

If they had the aid of all powerful, all knowing being, why not?

 

[hiramross]

A good sum of non-believers go for the emotional jugular.

I don’t think this person is going for emotional jugular. I really don’t want to seem rude but their response that “the burden of proof” is on a religious person… is seemingly lazy…

I could say No and object to everything and await someone to “do the work” for me… but still they offer not ONE response with support for their position.

Sad really…

 

[hiramross]

Got a video which makes the points you want more intelligently? That is, without extended clips from youtube songs or dumb and dumber?

I’m not saying “y”, I’m saying “you’re argument for x is not sufficient.”

If they had the aid of all powerful, all knowing being, why not?

May the peace of Christ be with you!

Truly I wish you the best and that you study more than relying on others to prove you wrong.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

May the peace of Christ be with you!

Truly I wish you the best and that you study more than relying on others to prove you wrong.

Miscasting my argument quite substantially- I’ll reproduce the main one:

“Atheists apply a consistent standard- there’s no indisputable fact/proof for the Christian god, any of the other hundreds of religions, nor leprechauns, unicorns, or Santa Clause. Thus (most) atheists treat them all the same way- disbelief. I doubt most religious folk are quite so consistent.”

I have no evidence of no god, just as you have no evidence of no Zeus.

And then:

“It’s hardly surprising that the bible is not always wrong. When science finds pillars upon which the Earth is seated, I’ll pay some attention.”

I’d also state that looking through the bible with the mindset that it’s certaintly right all the time will not lead to a consistent analysis. The language that sounds vaguely like a modernly accepted concept is trumpeted as a prediction, while things which are flatout absurd (a mysterious world blanketing flood which killed all but a few humans, a genealogy that implies the world is just a few thousand years old, instantaneous creation over 6 days, Earth created before Sun, a non-existent mass trek across Sinai) are taken as metaphors. Selection bias of the highest order. But for a simple error:

web.archive.org/web/20071113053701/http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/BIBLE/1KI/1KI7.HTM

“Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely.”

This implies that pi is equal to 3, which of course it is not.

 

[Lion_IRC]

You want the bible to cite pi to exact decimal places?