dilemma

[Mydian]

I am in the process of trying to garner knowledge of why a person would choose to believe in god. A friend of mine knows a christian who is apparently very extreme, at least from what he has told me about this person. So I mentioned I would like to talk to him. My friend tried to set this up but the person does not want to meet face to face and would rather talk over the phone or through text messages. I know i do not know enough that would swade him from his belief but i am curious as to what type of argument he can come up with. I am by no means as good at debate or even have the knowledge that most of you posses on this forum but i am trying to learn hehe.

I want him to challenge me so that i can further solidify my own thinking. I just think that doing it over the phone or through text would be limiting at best and easy for him to get mad and just hang up.

I do not want to be antagonistic but i do want to be logical. Perhaps I am thinking of this wrong. If any of you have an opinion or think I am totally wrong please feel free to respond. I know i could post here but but i feel inadequate in my knowledge base and would rather talk to someone face to face first to see if my thinking has any merit or if i am going down a wrong path of reasoning.

Thank you in advance for your advice and comments.

[OnceConvinced]

Glad to hear an update.

I have come to realise now that every human has the abilities deep inside to overcome the obstacles in their lives. Often though it takes them to get to a point where they say "I've had enough of this!" and have the motivation to deal with the problem. So when people claim that "God helped me", it simply says to me that they finally dug deep within themselves and achieved something.

You often hear the term used "He gave 110%". As if that somehow is greater than their best effort. But of course it's not. 110% is really just 100%. People rarely try hard enough to really be able to claim "I gave 100%." So when they do something amazing they claim they gave 110%. I am certain that Christians who claim that God helped them are just one of those "110%" people. It's just that they never truly gave 100% before.

[Mydian]

I never thought of it that way.Good point Once Convinced i will definitely remember that analogy

[McCulloch]

You often hear the term used "He gave 110%". As if that somehow is greater than their best effort. But of course it's not. 110% is really just 100%. People rarely try hard enough to really be able to claim "I gave 100%." So when they do something amazing they claim they gave 110%. I am certain that Christians who claim that God helped them are just one of those "110%" people. It's just that they never truly gave 100% before.

This reminds me of the joke about work-life balance.

Boss: We believe in work-life balance at this firm. There are 168 hours in the week. You've only worked 80 hours this week. When can we expect the other four hours you owe us?

[Zzyzx]

.
Mydian,

Sorry I am a bit late bumping into this thread. Here is my two cents worth – pure opinion.

And he felt the need to witness to me. To tell me how he had been and how god changed him for the better. I really couldnt do anything with a personal experience except tell him that it was not evidence of the existence of God.

This is one reason that I do NOT debate or discuss religion one-on-one in private or in person. The person to whom one is speaking is VERY unlikely to be interested in listening or to modifying their beliefs.

When debating in public, as in this forum, many people read what is said. Words wasted on fanatics (often the most vocal Christian contingent) are NOT wasted on discerning readers who evaluate what is said by "bible thumpers" vs. what is said by the opposition.

When "the playing field is level" (debate is fairly and equitably moderated) theists do not do well, in my observation. Their fanciful claims regarding supernatural beings and events are NOT shown to be real. NO evidence is supplied to substantiate the tales they tell.

He also would never answer my questions directly which i thought was odd.He kept trying to redirect the questioning to something he knew.

That is NOT unusual when discussing or debating with apologists. Question ducking is a very necessary art form because honest and open answers would reveal the ugly truth that belief is based totally upon emotion (largely hope and fear) and that there is NO valid reason to worship "gods" or to prefer one "god" over another.

Whic h of course was not a lot and I would answer and then go back to my previous question. Seemed like a lot of dodging around the issue rather than any confrontation.

That is known as the "Christian Two Step" – the evasive dance done to avoid answering sincere questions.

In the end he said he would pray for me and we left off i think on pretty good terms.

"I will pray for you" is actually a rather condescending statement to make to a person who is clearly NOT a god worshiper. It implies that the speaker has superior knowledge or position and that the "prayee" is somehow inferior or deficient.

I think he is an ok guy i just dont think he has put a lot of thought into his belief.

In my observation only a TINY percentage of Christians have put a lot of thought (beyond reading scriptures and "glorifying god") into their beliefs. Many CANNOT question the dogma upon which they have based their life decisions.

I still dont think i know enough but I am learning and most of his "knowledge" i had heard before and even had read on this forum.

We all learn here (well, most do anyway). Some of my motivation to write here is to give YOU ammunition to use in debate and to encourage you to hone your skills. The next time you are confronted with a similar situation you will likely feel a lot more comfortable with your knowledge and ability.

"Get in and mix it up" with theists here. Ask them questions, watch their dodges, learn to anticipate, ask more questions. Remember that you are most likely to be effective if you present reasoned arguments to READERS rather than to your opponents. When I am "debating" some of the fanatical fundamentalists that is exactly what I am doing.

So i think i did well even if i was not totally prepared to debate the topic last night.

Debate ability is NOT something that we are born into. There is a thread in General Chat sub-forum entitled "Debate for beginners (and others)" that may be helpful to some, particularly in regards Internet debate.

[Mydian]

Zzyzx,
Thank you for your input into this thread. I still have a long way to go in my knowledge but I have seen how the Christians duck and dodge your logic and I am always amazed at how dense they can be. I think if they would ever admit that they dont know then a lot more could be done. If they respect humbleness as they say then why cant they admit that they dont know the answer?

I think it should be more about the issues facing humanity rather than whose religion is the right one. If they can step beyond what the believe and see what is going on then maybe we can work together.

[Angel]

I am in the process of trying to garner knowledge of why a person would choose to believe in god. A friend of mine knows a christian who is apparently very extreme, at least from what he has told me about this person. So I mentioned I would like to talk to him. My friend tried to set this up but the person does not want to meet face to face and would rather talk over the phone or through text messages. I know i do not know enough that would swade him from his belief but i am curious as to what type of argument he can come up with. I am by no means as good at debate or even have the knowledge that most of you posses on this forum but i am trying to learn hehe.

I want him to challenge me so that i can further solidify my own thinking. I just think that doing it over the phone or through text would be limiting at best and easy for him to get mad and just hang up.

I do not want to be antagonistic but i do want to be logical. Perhaps I am thinking of this wrong. If any of you have an opinion or think I am totally wrong please feel free to respond. I know i could post here but but i feel inadequate in my knowledge base and would rather talk to someone face to face first to see if my thinking has any merit or if i am going down a wrong path of reasoning.

Thank you in advance for your advice and comments.

It's good that you want to learn but the problem would boil down to what does one go by to accept something. From my experience, argumentation has changed little from atheism to Christianity, but it has rather been experience or wanting to experience God that has led to some atheists or non-believers in general, switching to Christianity. Although, technically, the Bible mentions that God opens the heart of the non-believer to come into the faith. I usually try to contend with an atheist, why go by only intellect and not also experience (especially any supernatural or spiritual) and your heart. Those may have faults but so does does intellect, that's why I think going by all of them together or in proper perspective and context would lead one to a fuller picture of their experience of reality and subsequently perhaps to being open more to God up to the point of accepting Him.

[McCulloch]

Angel, do you believe that there is a God?

[Angel]

Angel, do you believe that there is a God?

I believe that God exists but I don't know that God exists. I say that I don't know in the sense of not having scientific or logical support for my theistic world view, although I still believe that God truly exists.

I probably can't post here due to Osteng's comment telling me this is subforum is only for non-Christian/theist agnostics and atheists.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 586#261586 Post #6

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 587#261587 Post #10

[Hmmm]

bottom line in a debate/conversation that you have to realize is this. There's no way to prove that God exists and there's no way to prove he doesn't. Just like there's no way to prove Santa Claus or Unicorns does or does not exist. But you can come up with a very good conclusion (*cough* atheism *cough*) if you simply use logic to develop the likeliness that God exists.

Google "Celestial Teapot" and you'll get a better idea about what I'm talking about in regards to not being able to prove or disprove God or anything else that might be made up.


But in case of a religious debate, you should always know that the person with religion should be the one with burden of proof. Because afterall, they are the one that lay claim that their God exists.

my suggestion would be to go into the conversation with an open mind though. Going in with a goal to reinforce your ideas/beliefs won't get you anywhere. Because I guarantee you the same thing is going on to the other person. It's just basically two brick walls shouting at each other.



I know it sounds very un-atheist like to say keep an open mind in a religious debate since it sounds like we're leaving an open mind to the possibility of God. But you should (in my opinion). Just in the principle of it. Going in closed minded just doesn't lead to a good debate period, no matter what topic. In end of your debate you'll hopefully be more confident in whatever you believe.

[Cephus]

I know it sounds very un-atheist like to say keep an open mind in a religious debate since it sounds like we're leaving an open mind to the possibility of God. But you should (in my opinion). Just in the principle of it. Going in closed minded just doesn't lead to a good debate period, no matter what topic. In end of your debate you'll hopefully be more confident in whatever you believe.

There's nothing un-atheist-like about it, but you have to remember that most of us have been doing this for so many years and have debated so many theists who have claimed to be able to "prove" God exists and all of them have failed miserably, that based on that experience, most of us have come to the logical conclusion that there is no evidence forthcoming. It doesn't exist. Certainly if someone did manage to present it, we'd listen, but we're no longer holding our breath.