Which religion do you find easiest to debunk?

[Ethan_Enoch]

Interesting.

I would consider the word “debunk” to include disproving it to the point that the person you are talking to (the believer) would willingly agree with you and leave his faith.

It is really very easy to debunk ANY faith that isn’t yours–to yourself or to people who already agree with you. How about debunking something to a true believer?

One thing that I think is that the religions that are easiest to “debunk” to the satisfaction of an impartial observer, using scripture, history, logic, &c., are often the ones whose adherents are least likely to be persuaded by your debunking, because if they were actually interested in facts & reason they would never have joined these strange religions in the first place.

Of religions which I have argued against, I would consider the easiest to debunk to my own satisfaction are the “Sacred Name” groups, which believe that, in order to be saved, one must use what they imagine to be the proper pronunciations of the tetragrammaton & the “real” Hebrew name of Him Whom we call Jesus. The ones I have met and talked with are extreme Judaizers in addition to espousing a lot of gnostic ideas.

The reason that they are easy to debunk is that there are so many easily discerned falsehoods which they base their beliefs upon. For example:

Jesus is the name of a demon.

The New Testament was originally written in Hebrew.

The name “Jesus” is etymologically derived from “Zeus”.

The name Jesus equals 666 and using it is the mark of the beast.

&c., &c.

Also, a number of the leaders of these groups have made demonstrably false prophecies. Yet these people are some of the most intractable that you could ever meet.

 

[1holycatholic]

\

Let me rephrase. Do you believe it is proper to show disrespect to others while demanding respect for oneself.?

I acknowledge and honor all living beings.

Let me rephrase:

The truth is the living God, not myself.

Do you acknowledge and honor the living God?

 

[TheRev]

The Bible proceeds from the Catholic Church. Every time you acknowledge the Bible as the word of God you acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church.

That ones proves my point right there. The Bible in its totality was written over a span of how long? And you want to credit the Catholic Church with its creation? The Bible is its OWN authority, you want to usurp that authority erroneously.

 

[1holycatholic]

That ones proves my point right there. The Bible in its totality was written over a span of how long? And you want to credit the Catholic Church with its creation? The Bible is its OWN authority, you want to usurp that authority erroneously.

Let’s use your logic:
The indented text in this post is the word of God. Do not attempt to adjust your computer. Hold yourself in a state of readiness by reloading this post every third Tuesday.
This text wrote itself. This text decided what it would say. This text declares itself the authentic.
You are attempting to usurp the authority of the indented text in this post.

 

[notself]

Let me rephrase:

The truth is the living God, not myself.

Do you acknowledge and honor the living God?

No, I do not acknowledge the existence of a Creator God, or the necessity of such a being.

Do you think it is proper to show respect for all people or only those who agree with you? You never have answered this question.

 

[1holycatholic]

No, I do not acknowledge the existence of a Creator God, or the necessity of such a being.

Do you think it is proper to show respect for all people or only those who agree with you? You never have answered this question.

Your belief regarding God is in error.

Anyone who confirms someone in their error is not being respectful to them.

 

[notself]

Your belief regarding God is in error.

Anyone who confirms someone in their error is not being respectful to them.

I was not asking you to confirm anything. I merely asked you a question, twice.

Obviously, you do not wish to answer the question. Sometimes the avoidance of an answer tells as much about a person person’s beliefs as an answer would.

 

[elvisman]

That ones proves my point right there. The Bible in its totality was written over a span of how long? And you want to credit the Catholic Church with its creation? The Bible is its OWN authority, you want to usurp that authority erroneously.

AND it was written by Catholics.
Tell me, Rev - what church do you belong to? Give me a name because you strategically left that out in your profile.
This is very common among anti-Catholics on these forums so they can practice their hit-and-run apologetics.

 

[notself]

You know, I have never heard any Catholic DEMANDING anything. I do hear it from the muslims though.

I don’t hear it from the Buddhists (I read your profile and it says you are a Buddhist), I don’t hear it from the Hindus, or Jews, or anyone else like I hear it from the muslims.

I just never hear such a thing. We are bashed all the time and just take it…

I must have missed your post earlier. Forgive my late response. When have I or any other Buddhist on this board demanded respect? There are time when we have not received respect or even courtesy, but I don’t recall ever demanding it.

My post (question) to which you responded was in response to other posts. You may have missed them. Here they are in order. Note Soutane demanding respect, politely of course.

Originally Posted by Soutane to a previous poster.

Please do not refer to our Faith as RCCism it is at best lazy and at worst extremely disrespectful

My post in response to the general tone of the thread.

The whole tone of this thread is disrespectful to beliefs of others. May I loan a mirror to some of the posters here ?

The post by 1holycatholic which changes the subject and to which I respond.

Originally Posted by 1holycatholic
Do you respect truth?

Do you hold it as a truth that one may show disrespect to others while demanding respect for oneself?

After this, 1 holy catholic and I trade questions. I hope this clears things up for you.

 

[R_not]

I must have missed your post earlier. Forgive my late response. When have I or any other Buddhist on this board demanded respect? There are time when we have not received respect or even courtesy, but I don’t recall ever demanding it.

My post (question) to which you responded was in response to other posts. You may have missed them. Here they are in order. Note Soutane demanding respect, politely of course.

Originally Posted by Soutane to a previous poster.

My post in response to the general tone of the thread.

The post by 1holycatholic which changes the subject and to which I respond.

After this, 1 holy catholic and I trade questions. I hope this clears things up for you.

yes, thanks.

 

[Contarini]

I was just thinking, what do you find to be the easiest religion to debunk

The religion I know least about.

and why do you find it easy to debunk?

Ignorance and prejudice.

Edwin

 

[notself]

The religion I know least about.

Ignorance and prejudice.

Edwin

 

[R_not]

The religion I know least about.

Ignorance and prejudice.

Edwin

That doesn’t make sense. You wouldn’t even be able to begin to debunk it if you know the least about it.

Ignorance and prejudice are the traits of ones who bash others when they do know a religion. It is just a strategy that is used to start bashing because they are trying to change the subject and not deal with the issues at hand. And they might also feel uncomfortable. Instead of becoming less ignorant and dealing with facts instead of emotions, it is just easier to start calling others ignorant and prejudiced.

 

[notself]

Here is a definition and short history of the word “debunk”. The bold and coloring are mine.

de·bunk (d-bngk) KEY

TRANSITIVE VERB:
de·bunked , de·bunk·ing , de·bunks
To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug.

OTHER FORMS:
de·bunker (Noun)

WORD HISTORY:
One can readily see that debunk is constructed from the prefix de-, meaning “to remove,” and the word bunk. But what is the origin of the word bunk, denoting the nonsense that is to be removed?

Bunk came from a place where much bunk has originated, the United States Congress. During the 16th Congress (1819-1821) Felix Walker, a representative from western North Carolina whose district included Buncombe County, carried on with a dull speech in the face of protests by his colleagues. Walker later explained he had felt obligated “to make a speech for Buncombe.”

Such a masterful symbol for empty talk could not be ignored by the speakers of the language, and Buncombe, spelled Bunkum in its first recorded appearance in 1828 and later shortened to bunk, became synonymous with claptrap. The response to all this bunk seems to have been delayed, for debunk is not recorded until 1923

.

Those who ridicule the beliefs of others are seldom effective in changing those beliefs.

 

[1holycatholic]

Here is a definition and short history of the word “debunk”. The bold and coloring are mine.

.

Those who ridicule the beliefs of others are seldom effective in changing those beliefs.

?

**To expose **or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug.

Your **false **ideas have been exposed.

You seem fixated on ridicule.

 

[mfbukowski]

I was just thinking, what do you find to be the easiest religion to debunk, and why do you find it easy to debunk?

I prefer to bunk others religions rather than debunk them.

 

[R_not]

Here is a definition and short history of the word “debunk”. The bold and coloring are mine.

.

Those who ridicule the beliefs of others are seldom effective in changing those beliefs.

But, in these types of forums it allows others to see the nonsense of them and to deter them from being swayed by them.

And this is very important in debunking islam. islam’s adherents do not tell the truth about islam - and yes, that is fully sanctioned in their koran to do - to deceive us. And what is currently happening in our schools is that a whole heck of a lot of young adults are coming out of our school system with a wrong facts about islam.

Their end goal is not necessarily to convert, but to subjugate all. It is a ‘either you are with us or you are against us’ mentality which is the same as communism and nazism. And with that mentality is that god is thrown into the mix.

To know islam and its history is the complete opposite of what its adherents say about it. In fact, the ones who are truthful about it are the jihadists out there killing in the name of allah.

intentionally deceiving us to know the koran: 6:25 6:110 17:45-76
Its Bukhari b9, v86, n101 mohammad: “Silence is consent.”

war is deception knowing that our lands are considered dar al harb - the land of war.

 

[1holycatholic]

The post by 1holycatholic which changes the subject and to which I respond.

I didn’t change the subject, you did.

 

[notself]

But, in these types of forums it allows others to see the nonsense of them and to deter them from being swayed by them.

And this is very important in debunking islam. islam’s adherents do not tell the truth about islam - and yes, that is fully sanctioned in their koran to do - to deceive us. And what is currently happening in our schools is that a whole heck of a lot of young adults are coming out of our school system with a wrong facts about islam.

Their end goal is not necessarily to convert, but to subjugate all. It is a ‘either you are with us or you are against us’ mentality which is the same as communism and nazism. And with that mentality is that god is thrown into the mix.

To know islam and its history is the complete opposite of what its adherents say about it. In fact, the ones who are truthful about it are the jihadists out there killing in the name of allah.

intentionally deceiving us to know the koran: 6:25 6:110 17:45-76
Its Bukhari b9, v86, n101 mohammad: “Silence is consent.”

war is deception knowing that our lands are considered dar al harb - the land of war.

I have no problem with informed people presenting facts about a philosophy, religion, or political party. Your posts certainly fall into that category. You make a statement and then quote specific support for your statement.

Open dialog even between parties who disagree strongly is of benefit to both parties. I believe that by exchanging information about differing points of view one can make informed decisions about the civil dangers or benefits in those closely held beliefs.

That form of Islam known as Wahhabism does want to subject the world to an Islamic Theocracy. As such this sect can be extremely dangerous to civil society, and of course, Osama Bin Laden follows Wahhabism.

 

[1holycatholic]

I prefer to bunk others religions rather than debunk them.

How do you manage that? Mormonism is self refuting because it proposes an incorrect number of Gods. There is one and only one God.