A world without Religion

[BOgg]

Imagine the banishment of all religions in humanity, what and where would humanity go from there? Would Corporatism become our new God, could Science truly give us hope and morals? Just a thought, what could happen if tomorrow no religions, no spiritual guidance, no form whatsoever of preaching would be allowed about any subject possible? What would the world be like? (I am completely neutral about this.)

[Benoni]

From Post 35:

How do you discern God's purpose? If from a book, how do you determine which Holy Book , from which God or whether the author was accurate? If directly from a God to you, please report precisely what was said with quotation marks and whether there were any witnesses that overheard the communication.

It would not matter what I say to you so why are you asking?

So we can determine the veracity of your claims.

It usually goes without saying, but in debate we are essentially trying to show folks we speak truth. In this regard then it is common knowledge that upon challenge of claims, one of the best ways to show one speaks truth, is to present evidence for their assertions.

Can you present such evidence, or do you a priori seek to declare your evidence won't be accepted? This is a bit of a slanderous angle, in that you imply folks are unwilling to accept what evidence you may present - all the while not presenting any. How is it even possible to reject evidence one has yet to present?

You made claims. You got challenged.

Are you willing to support your claims?

Are you willing to retract claims for which you can't offer support?

Now, as to the claims, I'll break them down for further analysis...

This is God's purpose in the end.

Can you offer verifiable evidence for:

1- God exists (thoroughness of investigation and all that).
2- God has a "purpose".

I'll leave the referned material regarding what constitutes such "purpose" for after we establish the truthfulness of the above.

I see Benoni has made further comment within this thread that doesn't directly address these claims, so let's call this...

3rd challenge.

1. As I type I am NOT on Benoni's "ignore" deal there.
2. It can be reasonably considered, given the lengths of these posts, that Benoni would see them as he moves down the page to respond to other posts.
3. Yet no response?

4th challenge.

I'm curious to know how long Benoni will...

continue to avoid responsibility for his claims.

I will continue to count up these challenges until the universe runs out of numbers, I run out of fingers and toes, the claimant responds with something other than a refusal to support / retract, or the claimant is sanctioned.

I do not continue to avoid responsibility for my claims. I just know and understand there is NO spiritual reason why I can give you one bit of human logic, or reason, physical proof thre is a God. I have already quoted the Bible; you reject it. So what is there to debate.

NOTHING...


This does not bother me ; you are the one bothered. You play games with religous people who might try to convert you. I on the other hand really do not care what you believe.

[ChaosBorders]

.

This is what I am talking about.

Is there a topic that you feel qualified to debate against someone who does not share your beliefs? Can you, for instance, defend the "resurrection" as a literally true event that occurred in the real world? Or can you show that any of the Christian "miracle" stories are truthful accounts of events that actually happened in the real world?

If not, what are you doing at a debate site promoting god theories that you cannot defend in debate?

Why would I care to try. You do not believe in God. Praise God. His ways are not of this world; its human logic, intellect and reason. You are not on the same sheet of music with that which is spiritual. So go ahead believe you logic; you will never see or hear God with this human approach.

Benoni, regardless of your beliefs regarding logic, this particular sub-forum requires support of claims made using evidence other than scripture as joey has tried to point out numerous times. Because you are unable to do that, but also will not withdraw the claims, you are in violation of forum rules. If you are not able to follow forum rules, and are not interested in debating with non-believers in the first place, my suggestion would be to stick to the theology sub-forum rather than risk ending up on probation.

[Benoni]

.

This is what I am talking about.

Is there a topic that you feel qualified to debate against someone who does not share your beliefs? Can you, for instance, defend the "resurrection" as a literally true event that occurred in the real world? Or can you show that any of the Christian "miracle" stories are truthful accounts of events that actually happened in the real world?

If not, what are you doing at a debate site promoting god theories that you cannot defend in debate?

Why would I care to try. You do not believe in God. Praise God. His ways are not of this world; its human logic, intellect and reason. You are not on the same sheet of music with that which is spiritual. So go ahead believe you logic; you will never see or hear God with this human approach.

Benoni, regardless of your beliefs regarding logic, this particular sub-forum requires support of claims made using evidence other than scripture as joey has tried to point out numerous times. Because you are unable to do that, but also will not withdraw the claims, you are in violation of forum rules. If you are not able to follow forum rules, and are not interested in debating with non-believers in the first place, my suggestion would be to stick to the theology sub-forum rather than risk ending up on probation.

I apoogize and will leave the area. I have debated in this area quite a bit and did not realize I had over stepped the rules.

[otseng]

I do not debate non believers it is a waste of our time.

Moderator comment:

Then this forum is not the place for you. This site is founded on the premise that anyone can debate here. If you want to restrict yourself to debating only with Christians, there are other sites that cater to this.

[McCulloch]

I do not debate non believers it is a waste of our time.

Do you realize just how arrogant this sounds?

Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity.

Here we have provided an opportunity for you to explain to those of us who do not believe as you do, why you believe what you believe. But the wisdom that you present to us as being from the Holy Spirit of God, tells you that our honest inquiries are a waste of time for you to respond to. This says a lot to me about your attitude and your openness to truth.

You do not believe in God. Praise God. His ways are not of this world; its human logic, intellect and reason.

This says to me that your belief in God is not based on logic, intellect or reason. In other words, it is irrational, absurd, fallacious, incoherent, nonsensical and specious. If that is the impression you wish to convey of your beliefs to those who do not yet share them, then please do continue in this vein.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 51:

I do not continue to avoid responsibility for my claims...

Due to your response in this post I must retract the claim, but contend it was applicable until your post here.

I just know and understand there is NO spiritual reason why I can give you one bit of human logic, or reason, physical proof there is a God.

It does seem some religions require the eschewing of some of our most powerful investigative tools.

I have already quoted the Bible; you reject it.

I can quote any number of folks and books, none of which shows such quotes to be accurate, truthful, etc.

This, to me, is why it is so important I should support such quotes with verifiable evidence, or retraction.

So what is there to debate.

NOTHING...

Indeed there is "nothing" to debate when one side is unwilling to do so.

This does not bother me ; you are the one bothered.

I am bothered when folks enter a debate, and refuse to do just that.

You play games with religous people who might try to convert you.

The playing of games, IMO, comes from those who enter into debate and refuse to do so.

I on the other hand really do not care what you believe.

I do care what you believe. History is rife with folks (including myself) doing wrong stuff on the basis of faulty information, or "belief" that can't be shown accurate, truthful, etc.

I have no doubt in my mind that you believe what you say. The problem comes in showing what you say is truth.

Had you clearly marked your claims as opinion, or some other such that clearly indicated it wasn't such as an "absolute truth" claim, I may have never challenged.