How pointless is debate?

[Darias]

Over the course of the past few months, I have noticed several of my Christian brethren say things like this:

. . . there's no point in debating theology with unbelievers.

[...]

[If] you found the Bible to be true and accurate, then we would have a foundation on which to begin. If you do not, then any theological debate we might have would be a fruitless dialogue that would result in absolutely nothing in the end but two people's opinion who aren't any closer to agreeing with each other then when they first began.

[...]

As for the offer to debate, I'll pass. We cannot debate theology if you do not consider the Bible to be true. . . . I don't see the point.
_____

• ( "How do we know a sinner when we see one?" Page 29, Post 282 )

. . . I have about 15 hours into a reply to your post above, but I have decided to scrap it. I hate doing this, because I feel that in it I very strongly and adequately demonstrated that my position is Biblically consistent. However, I have said before that I do not debate theology with people who do not believe the Bible. . . .

[...]

I see no point in giving you any more of my time, at least regarding Biblical matters. . . . debating anything Biblical with you is certainly pointless.
_____

• ( "Once saved, always saved?" Page 20, Post 199 )

I refuse to debate the Bible and theology with unsaved people. It's pointless.
_____

• ( "Prayer is a waste." Page 3, Post 28 )

-----

This attitude concerns me. Two of these posts were addressed to me, a believer -- and while I take no offense at the responses in general, it does make me wonder.

If Christians are unwilling to debate other Christians on important matters of belief, how do they expect to convince non-believers to believe in their world-view?

And second, if Christians are unwilling to discuss the Bible, doctrine, or theology with non-believers, how do they expect anyone to join the faith? Are Christians just hoping people will accept Christ for fear of hell, or out of ignorance of the teachings of the faith?

Third, is this seemingly collective pessimism towards debate the result of the inability to actually support a strong argument, or is it the result of an unwillingness to exchange ideas and admit the possibility of being wrong? Or is it cased by something else?

I'd really like to know. If no one is willing to give an answer, than may I ask, "Why are you here?" After all, this is a forum called Debating Christianity and Religion.

[Darias]

I would have to agree. There have been only a couple of atheists/non-theists that have ever attempted to defend their own beliefs on this forum. They spend all of their energy trying to avoid having to defend anything. In their mind, the ability to ask 1,000 questions per thread shows how smart and intelligent they are -- If that's the case though, my 5 year old is as smart and intelligent (they've asked many of the same questions).
If this were a playground, the atheists would be the bullies. The "non-theists" would be tagging along behind the bullies, wanting to be bullies but afraid they might have to actually fight. "the liberal Christians/theists" are tagging along behind the mob, wanting the bullies to like them and tell them how smart and intelligent they are (as they tell each other how smart and intelligent they are). They will associate with the nasty "fundamentalists" occasionally, but if the bullies are around, they do what they are told.

Well since Atheist don't believe in God, and we do -- they not having a positive claim, and we having one -- they have the right to ask questions. And it is up to us to actually rationalize and defend our beliefs. Atheism in general is not a state of belief -- some Atheists claim that there is no God (God cannot exist), while many others simply just lack a belief in God, and yes there's a difference. They don't possess much of a worldview to defend -- but we do... so we have the burden of proof.

And if Christians can't answer the simple questions of a 5 year old, regarding belief, then Christianity is in trouble! lol.

As for your illustration about this forum, I find it cute, but untrue.

I have received few, if any, ad-hominems from Non-theists since I joined this forum -- and I was even more traditional then than I am now.

However, the same cannot be said in regards to Christians -- in response to many of my questions and arguments I have been the recipient of many ad-hominems -- some of which were hurtful -- all because I dared to question dogma and doctrine.

I'd rather not name names or quote quotes, but that doesn't mean I can't.

But if there are bullies here, I don't think anyone can point their fingers at "the godless ones."

[center]
[/center]

[WinePusher]

I would have to agree. There have been only a couple of atheists/non-theists that have ever attempted to defend their own beliefs on this forum. They spend all of their energy trying to avoid having to defend anything. In their mind, the ability to ask 1,000 questions per thread shows how smart and intelligent they are -- If that's the case though, my 5 year old is as smart and intelligent (they've asked many of the same questions).
If this were a playground, the atheists would be the bullies. The "non-theists" would be tagging along behind the bullies, wanting to be bullies but afraid they might have to actually fight. "the liberal Christians/theists" are tagging along behind the mob, wanting the bullies to like them and tell them how smart and intelligent they are (as they tell each other how smart and intelligent they are). They will associate with the nasty "fundamentalists" occasionally, but if the bullies are around, they do what they are told.

What a great analogy, and it's great because it's actually true. I've noticed non theists on here praising Christians (well.....liberal christians, because they essentially agree) for their superior intellect and high reasoning abilities. The whole "non theist" label is laughable in my view, it shows they aren't capable of defending any claims and the fact that they don't make any claims seems to be a tactic to make debate easier for them. But it's important to remember that there are very few of these types, there are dozens of athests and non theists on here who debate productively. And then, of course, we get liberals lecturing us on how to debate with atheists when they themselves rarely to never debate or defend any Christian Doctrines of Beliefs with atheists. I've come to learn that Liberal Christians are not Apologists for the faith.

[otseng]

Don't worry, I'm not easily disheartened. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about frustration. While your distinction is a good one, the trouble is when people start claiming that atheism isn't a worldview (when it clearly is).

Some people claim that atheism isn't a worldview? Could you provide where someone has claimed this?

My only grievance is when I present an argument, I would like to see a substantive rebuttal trying to show why or where I am wrong rather than a question asking me to prove it.

You can point out that there is no rule nor guideline that says anyone needs to prove anything on this forum. For anyone to request proof of something doesn't need to be answered. The only requirement is that claims needs to be supported through evidence and logic. The expectation that claims needs to be proven without a shadow of a doubt is unreasonable.

Don't get me wrong, there are a great number of non-theists on here that debate, contribute their own ideas, and defend their own propositions which is productive.

I would agree with that as well.

[AmazingJesusIs]

The problem I have with you Darias, is that you claim to be a Christian, but the Bible means nothing to you, because I believe you either believe in every 66 books, or none of them. If you start to say that some parts of the Bible are wrong, then nothing is stopping you from picking and choosing what scripture you want to deem false. You deem some things false, because they don't make you feel good, or they don't conform to the omnibenevolent God you have created in your mind. Have you ever read the Old Testament books describing what God instructed His people to do? He made them kill every single person in a city... to leave nothing standing. He told them to kill the woman, the children, and even the livestock. Have you ever read what He allowed Satan to do to Job? He let Satan kill Job's children, destroy his live stock... it's some pretty serious stuff, but you claim that God is omnibenevolent, when in fact He's not. He shows His common grace to everyone by letting them breath on earth. He shows His greater love, His saving grace towards His people.

You can't be a true Christian who has been saved by Jesus Christ the Messiah and believe that Bible is not true and that Scripture is errant, whether it's all sixty-six books, or one verse. You have mislead yourself. It's not the fact that you're not a Calvinist or Reformed Baptist, it's that you're not a Christian, and I know you're not a Christian because you claim that Paul's texts shouldn't be taken as real Scripture, and that you pick and choose your pieces of the Holy Bible to suit your own needs. That's not what a Disciple of Christ does. You make a bad name for us true converts.

The reason why "fellow" Christians don't debate with you is because we are not "fellow" Christians. We know we are Christians, and your belief that the Bible is false deems you un-Christian. It is without reason to debate theology with non-Christians.

[Darias]

. . . but there is no reason to debate the Bible with someone who doesn't believe int he Bible... it's pointless. Like trying to make a blind man appreciate a painting. Glad I figured out your disbelief in the Bible now so I didn't waste my time and keyboard life span anymore.
_____
SOURCE

Come on guys, really?

It's getting to the point where I find it to be a cheap way to back out of a debate, or just uncivil. I've never done this with anyone I've debated with.

[Adstar]

. . . but there is no reason to debate the Bible with someone who doesn't believe int he Bible... it's pointless. Like trying to make a blind man appreciate a painting. Glad I figured out your disbelief in the Bible now so I didn't waste my time and keyboard life span anymore.
_____
SOURCE

Come on guys, really?

It's getting to the point where I find it to be a cheap way to back out of a debate, or just uncivil. I've never done this with anyone I've debated with.

Yes Really.

Well said AmazingJesusIs.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[otseng]

You can't be a true Christian who has been saved by Jesus Christ the Messiah and believe that Bible is not true and that Scripture is errant, whether it's all sixty-six books, or one verse. You have mislead yourself. It's not the fact that you're not a Calvinist or Reformed Baptist, it's that you're not a Christian, and I know you're not a Christian because you claim that Paul's texts shouldn't be taken as real Scripture, and that you pick and choose your pieces of the Holy Bible to suit your own needs. That's not what a Disciple of Christ does. You make a bad name for us true converts.

This is for AmazingJesusIs and everyone else:

Do not judge on who you think is a "true" Christian or not. If a person claims to be a Christian, then leave it up to him/her and God. Do not judge on if someone is misled or not. This is especially true for people who are in the Brother's Keeper group. Remember the guidelines for the group:

This usergroup is for Christians to hold each other accountable to following the rules of the forum and to try to be blameless from attacking any other forum member.

Failure to comply by this will result in removal from the group.

[otseng]

. . . but there is no reason to debate the Bible with someone who doesn't believe int he Bible... it's pointless. Like trying to make a blind man appreciate a painting. Glad I figured out your disbelief in the Bible now so I didn't waste my time and keyboard life span anymore.
_____
SOURCE

Come on guys, really?

It's getting to the point where I find it to be a cheap way to back out of a debate, or just uncivil. I've never done this with anyone I've debated with.

Yes Really.

Well said AmazingJesusIs.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Not well said. Actually, quite terrible really. As it illustrates exactly what Darias was saying earlier. When one resorts to ad hominem attacks, it means that person has no sound arguments to present. Everyone, please lay off the personal attacks on Darias. This is in violation of the rules and further violations will be subject to moderator action.

[Darias]

The problem I have with you Darias, is that you claim to be a Christian,

I'm entitled to my own convictions and I can call my self what I want. I "claim" because I am.

but the Bible means nothing to you,

How've you come to determind this? How does not believing in Biblical inerrancy = the Bible means nothing to me? WinePusher doesn't even believe in that -- can you claim the Bible means nothing to him?

because I believe you either believe in every 66 books, or none of them.

Well I don't read every book as if it was literally history; I believe evolution is a fact of biology and of history. I don't think God wants me to believe in an ancient creation myth over scientific facts, just so others will readily call me "Christian."

Just because I don't believe that everything magically got here 4000 years ago, doesn't mean that I think the 10 Commandments are invalid; I'm not going to start killing people, etc. As I've said before, I see no need to throw baby Jesus out with the bathwater.

This ultimatum I get from different Christians, "All or nothing," makes no sense to me. You wouldn't go around shouting "Everyone should own a fully automatic machine gun and a bazooka and grenades OR all arms should be banned!"

If you start to say that some parts of the Bible are wrong, then nothing is stopping you from picking and choosing what scripture you want to deem false. You deem some things false, because they don't make you feel good, or they don't conform to the omnibenevolent God you have created in your mind.

Some parts of the Bible are factually wrong because they are. Living things evolved, there's never been enough water on earth to flood the entire globe, etc.

It's not like I'm tossing out scripture left and right because I don't like it; I don't have a choice.... unless I want to deny reality.

There are many Christians who believe that God is omnibenevolent; but you aren't condemning them to hell? Why me?

God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

So it's not like Christians are making things up. The problem is that God as presented in the Old Testament is very different from Jesus in the New Testament -- and that is because the authors, as inspired by their faith as they may have been, had different theologies and concepts about God -- that explains the different, nearly bi-polar characteristics of God as presented within the sacred text.

Have you ever read the Old Testament books describing what God instructed His people to do? He made them kill every single person in a city... to leave nothing standing. He told them to kill the woman, the children, and even the livestock. Have you ever read what He allowed Satan to do to Job? He let Satan kill Job's children, destroy his live stock... it's some pretty serious stuff,

It certainly is, and I am well familiar with it. You'd be surprised how many Christians thought I was slandering God because I used Biblical passages like this.

In fact, in some sections of the OT, God ordains genocide -- tells people to hate and kill his enemies, his enemies wives, children, and infants --

And that is a clear contrast between Jesus and his teaching "love your neighbor and love your enemies"

It is so much easier to ascribe those bloodthirsty passages to the will of a warlord, rather than ascribe genocide and a host of evils to a Holy, loving God. It just makes much more sense to me to read the Bible historically, rather than to believe that God is a YingYang.

but you claim that God is omnibenevolent, when in fact He's not. He shows His common grace to everyone by letting them breath on earth. He shows His greater love, His saving grace towards His people.

I and countless other Christians believe that God is love.

I do not believe in Calvinism; and I don't think that under that system that creating human beings and selecting them for heaven or hell ahead of time is a good example of God's grace, as most humans suffer grim lives on this earth only to be fated to hell for eternity. If you think that's grace you're welcome to, but don't accuse me of believing in a false god for not agreeing with your understanding.

You can't be a true Christian who has been saved by Jesus Christ the Messiah and believe that Bible is not true and that Scripture is errant, whether it's all sixty-six books, or one verse.

Here's a verse:

Judge not, that you be not judged.For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.

You have mislead yourself. It's not the fact that you're not a Calvinist or Reformed Baptist, it's that you're not a Christian, and I know you're not a Christian because you claim that Paul's texts shouldn't be taken as real Scripture, and that you pick and choose your pieces of the Holy Bible to suit your own needs. That's not what a Disciple of Christ does. You make a bad name for us true converts.

The reason why "fellow" Christians don't debate with you is because we are not "fellow" Christians. We know we are Christians, and your belief that the Bible is false deems you un-Christian. It is without reason to debate theology with non-Christians.

ok

[WinePusher]

Don't worry, I'm not easily disheartened. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about frustration. While your distinction is a good one, the trouble is when people start claiming that atheism isn't a worldview (when it clearly is).

Some people claim that atheism isn't a worldview? Could you provide where someone has claimed this?

This thread, which was unfortunately locked. The claim that I've been hearing, in general, is that atheism is a lack of a belief and/or worldview, which I disagree with. I don't mind having my beliefs challenged, I just don't appreciate it when someone challenges without any substance of alternatives. Anyways, just my two cents.