Christian 'debate'

[JoeyKnothead]

Through a couple threads now, I've been trying to get some of our Christian claimants to either support their claims, or at least have the honor just to address challenges to them.

My efforts seem to have fallen on deaf eyes.

For debate:

Should Christians / claimants who refuse to address challenges to their claims be dismissed as liars? Preachers? Dishonorable?


(Clarifactory edit)

[benchwarmer]

Should Christians / claimants who refuse to address challenges to their claims be dismissed ...

Not to worry Joey, they are being dismissed by readers who expect some sort of support to their claims. They only hurt their own arguments by not supplying supporting evidence. I say let them keep doing it for everyone to see. The more they do it, the more people see the empty claims for what they are. In effect, they are hurting their own position all the while thinking they are "proclaiming the truth".

Sometimes the best way to win a debate is let the other side present everything they have and let it rest knowing that's all they got

[JoeyKnothead]

Should Christians / claimants who refuse to address challenges to their claims be dismissed ...

Not to worry Joey, they are being dismissed by readers who expect some sort of support to their claims. They only hurt their own arguments by not supplying supporting evidence. I say let them keep doing it for everyone to see. The more they do it, the more people see the empty claims for what they are. In effect, they are hurting their own position all the while thinking they are "proclaiming the truth".

Sometimes the best way to win a debate is let the other side present everything they have and let it rest knowing that's all they got

Thanks, I needed to see that. Part of my therapy is how I get so fixated on stuff and can't let it go.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

When atheists are clearly answered and they run away because they have lost, then they claim they were never answered, are they liars?

I suppose you just believe what you believe even if you cannot demonstrate it.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

When atheists are clearly answered and they run away because they have lost, then they claim they were never answered, are they liars?

I suppose you just believe what you believe even if you cannot demonstrate it.

"Clearly answered" is a subjective term, so that ain't much help.

Besides that, you're engaging in a thatotherbunchism, which doesn't quite get us to solving the problem of so many theists on this site making claims and then avoiding responsibility for those claims.

It's almost as if some Christians lack the honor, or the ability, to just tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

[1213]

Through a couple threads now, I've been trying to get some of our Christian claimants to either support their claims, or at least have the honor just to address challenges to them.
...

Please tell what are those challenges? (one example would be enough for start)

[JoeyKnothead]

Through a couple threads now, I've been trying to get some of our Christian claimants to either support their claims, or at least have the honor just to address challenges to them.
...

Please tell what are those challenges? (one example would be enough for start)

Here's one
Notice Wootah makes multiple claims and avoids responsibility.

And another'n
Eloi, in the OP, claims there's some dude with a bit of a book that somehow supports other claims within the OP.

Are (some) Christians devoid of honor? Or is it they just ignore anything that doesn't fit their religious beliefs?

This wouldn't much of an issue if it weren't for so many Christians spouting their superior morality.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

When atheists are clearly answered and they run away because they have lost, then they claim they were never answered, are they liars?

I suppose you just believe what you believe even if you cannot demonstrate it.

That's odd. I only recall the Christian apologists doing that. "I suppose you just believe what you believe even if you cannot demonstrate it". Is an excellent description of religious faithclaims. If I have noticed anything here, other than the common three stage apologetics
1. argue on the evidence
2 fiddle the evidence
3 abuse

i do notice what I sometimes suggested to my fellow unbelievers on my former board we do less - Gang up on the theists. One or two of out Christian posters here do seem to attract more than one opponent. But as i say, I don't notice us running away much. After all, why should we? We have pretty good responses to the usual apologetics, even if it's "Don't know" You bowled up here with the very best Atheist -stumper - the ontological argument. We took that down pretty well, like Kalam, the disciples would not die for a lie and appeal to Daniel.

Nobody ran away from those, nor the morality argument, meaning in life and consciousness. In fact, while I have blustered about Daniel is Maccabean propaganda, I felt the need to back that up and I hope to set out some time how Daniel matches the Seleucid/Ptolemaic wars but set as retrospective prophecy being evidence that the messiah 'cut off' does not refer to Jesus and the figures, however Interpreted to not refer to NT events, much less present day.

No, at best the Bible apologists may have to wait a bit for the refutation, disproof and debunk, but that's what you get, not running away.

[Miles]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

When atheists are clearly answered and they run away because they have lost,

The only thing atheists could be said to have lost is any expectation that compelling evidence for god's existence will ever show up.

then they claim they were never answered, are they liars?

Considering they've never received an answer to their challenge: show us compelling evidence for god's existence, their clam is well justified.

I suppose you just believe what you believe even if you cannot demonstrate it.

What is it you expect them to demonstrate, that their lack of belief that god exists is true? Isn't their word good enough? How about they put it in writing? Perhaps notarized?


.

[TRANSPONDER]

A4G old mate, you are on the spot. You have (never mind topic) made an accusation that atheists run away without responding. Plus some other stuff. You have to Do Something now, as a failure to respond, even with debatable apologetics will be a total self -wipeout.

....


....



Deja vu....didn't I call some other Bible apologist out on..damn' my memory...was it the 'off topic' ploy? of course, it makes no difference to the case for or against but it ain't a Good Look, trying to score cheap hits or smuggle in sideswipe accusations. I at least point to flaws in methods of debate. It is pretty much lesson 1 to pick up on logical fallacies. But only on atheist sites. I don't think Theist apologetics teach how to identify logical fallacies.

And yet, they constantly use appeal to evidence and philosophy as Authority. That Venomfang vid I posted a while ago. He tossed in 'critical thinking Philosophy...hang on. Yeah "Reason, thinking, Philosophy, critical thinking" were tossed in where that was the last thing the fellow did. Fact is that 'Philosophy' is a great favorite of Theist apologetics. But it it turns out to be Sophistry - fiddling semantics, epistemology and logic to serve the belief, not to try to avoid mistaken thinking to get at the truth.

Same with science. Dammit, we already know that science is fine if it supports (or appears to) the belief, but is tossed in the trash if it doesn't. 'Science is fiddled to suit the Belief, which can also be fiddling the Belief to fit the science like 14.5 billion years divided by Seven gives us a creation 'Day'. So oh well...so many rhetorical fiddles. Like dismissing Egyptian inscriptions as hearsay and supposedly the Bible reference to Philistines was the established theory (for all I know, it may be). the undoubted logic of unexplained Cosmic origin being a problem. And unexplained Cosmic origin with an intelligence behind it is two unexplained problems, so is the less preferrable hypothesis. No, that apparently wasn't right, never heard why. Same with Abiogenesis. It didn't matter there was a hypothetical mechanism and Creation had none (just an act of magic) but not being able to prove it with fossils (though in fact most of it can be) supposedly left the creation -claim as the established hypothesis. Same as showing evidence that the resurrections in Paul were not the ones in the gospels. That John contradicted Matthew who contradicted Luke who contradicted mark who contradicted everyone. The apologetics were all fiddling and semantics and invented stuff like the Marys split up, or Mary didn't go into the tomb. And I can't recall the evasions about Paul is obviously not talking about the Sunday resurrections.

The basis is understandable when we know that Faith is what makes the Bible (or theism) the established theory (even if only based on tradition, numbers of believers and temporal authority) and the skeptics can never win in Theism dismisses Everything, no matter how proven.

That is absolutely how it works, and the trick is to never admit being wrong (not about anything that matters). At worst, run away with a parting shot (1) I don't think that'll do here.

(1) variants on 'You'll be sorry when Jesus comes ' is a favorite. This vid of a JW visit (they love the Parting Shot) mentions it.



I wonder whether this is part of the Training 'get one last shot in to have him think about it', (or at least tell yourself you won) or it's something Theism does. I can recall a colleague (in my Buddhism days) snapping 'Christianity is better historically - based than Buddhism' before smirking off. And he wasn't a JW