Guidelines for the C&A subforum

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18629
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 229 times
Contact:

Guidelines for the C&A subforum

Post #1

Post by otseng »

1. We are debating Christianity, pro and con, for and against, not debating with the assumption that Christianity is true. Please realize that people on the forum are from all worldview backgrounds and do not necessarily share the same assumptions.

2. Avoid using the Bible as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true.

3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.

5. Please avoid "preaching" and using the forum as simply a way to blast people with the gospel message. This is a debating forum, not a convenient place to overtly proselytize.

6. Realize that most participants here are strong debaters and have a vast knowledge of Christianity and the Bible (including non-theists). If you make any claims, be ready to support your claims with evidence if asked. Non-Biblical evidence would go far among non-theists.

7. For debates purely on theology with the assumption that the Bible is an authoritative source, please consider posting in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma subforum.


If you choose to debate in this sub-forum you are REQUIRED to honor the Guidelines. Notice specifically that the Bible can be used ONLY to show what the bible says and what Christianity says. It cannot be used to prove that a statement or story is true.

This sub-forum is intended as a meeting ground for any and all theistic positions – none of which are given preferential treatment. It is a very “level playing field�. Any story, statement or claim of knowledge which is challenged is required to be substantiated with evidence to show that it is true and accurate. “The Bible (or Quran or Bhagavad Gita) says so� is NOT acceptable as proof of truth.

If you disagree with the Guidelines and/or cannot debate without attempting to use the Bible to prove a point or position true, kindly do not debate in this sub-forum. Instead, use Theology, Doctrine and Dogma OR Holy Huddle sub-forums in which the Bible IS regarded as authoritative and can be used as proof of truth.

Also, kindly review Forum Rules regarding preaching and proselytizing.
Last edited by otseng on Sat Aug 06, 2016 10:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 18462
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 449 times
Been thanked: 708 times
Contact:

Re: Guidelines for the C&A subforum

Post #2

Post by JehovahsWitness »

otseng wrote:1. We are debating Christianity, pro and con, for and against, not debating with the assumption that Christianity is true. Please realize that people on the forum are from all worldview backgrounds and do not necessarily share the same assumptions.

2. Avoid using the Bible as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true. However, using the Bible as the only source to argue what is authentic Christianity is legitimate.

3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.

5. Please avoid "preaching" and using the forum as simply a way to blast people with the gospel message. This is a debating forum, not a convenient place to overtly proselytize.

6. Realize that most participants here are strong debaters and have a vast knowledge of Christianity and the Bible (including non-theists). If you make any claims, be ready to support your claims with evidence if asked. Non-Biblical evidence would go far among non-theists.

7. For debates purely on theology with the assumption that the Bible is an authoritative source, please consider posting in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma subforum.

CLARIFICATION REQUEST - C & A Subforum

I have been told in this forum you cannot debate the nature of God (Satan/theological entity etc...) without first proving that said God exists. Is this correct?

If you cannot answer a question about the nature of God/Satan/Zeus/... without first proving their existence, can you ASK a question without doing so?

Ie. Can the original poster ask about the nature of a god/satan/Zeus (without first proving his existence) but any post made in answer must first prove the subject in question exists. Is this an accurate summary of the basis of discussion in this subforum?

Also, in the absence of the original poster specifically waving this requirement (ie stating that his question is NOT debating the existence of the entity or individual), can the actual question for debate be dealt with without having to first devote time to the unstated requirement for proof of the subject's existence.


Thanks.
JW

[Please excuse me if this is not the correct place to ask this]

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Guidelines for the C&A subforum

Post #3

Post by Danmark »

JehovahsWitness wrote: I have been told in this forum you cannot debate the nature of God (Satan/theological entity etc...) without first proving that said God exists. Is this correct?
No. The existence of god is one of primary issues.
[just got tired of seeing this question hanging after more than 2 years :) ]

ric
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 11:21 am
Location: NOVA

Re: Guidelines for the C&A subforum

Post #4

Post by ric »

I recently found this site and am interested in participating. however I have some questions on the rules
1. We are debating Christianity, pro and con, for and against, not debating with the assumption that Christianity is true. Please realize that people on the forum are from all worldview backgrounds and do not necessarily share the same assumptions.
I have difficulty with understanding this particular rule. From what I have read many atheists on this thread assume that atheism as indicated by their debating style and techniques. Then it would seem to me that if one comes at it from a Christian perspective, there should be true conviction or there really is no debate.

ric
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 11:21 am
Location: NOVA

Re: Guidelines for the C&A subforum

Post #5

Post by ric »

I recently found this site and am interested in participating. however I have some questions on the rules
1. We are debating Christianity, pro and con, for and against, not debating with the assumption that Christianity is true. Please realize that people on the forum are from all worldview backgrounds and do not necessarily share the same assumptions.
I have difficulty with understanding this particular rule. From what I have read many atheists on this thread assume that atheism is true as indicated by their debating style and techniques. Then it would seem to me that if one comes at it from a Christian perspective, there should be true conviction or there really is no debate.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Guidelines for the C&A subforum

Post #6

Post by Danmark »

ric wrote: I recently found this site and am interested in participating. however I have some questions on the rules
1. We are debating Christianity, pro and con, for and against, not debating with the assumption that Christianity is true. Please realize that people on the forum are from all worldview backgrounds and do not necessarily share the same assumptions.
I have difficulty with understanding this particular rule. From what I have read many atheists on this thread assume that atheism is true as indicated by their debating style and techniques. Then it would seem to me that if one comes at it from a Christian perspective, there should be true conviction or there really is no debate.
I'm not sure I understand your point. My perception is that all people are welcome here, no matter what their beliefs. They are free to argue any point of view. The overriding rule here is that the arguments MUST BE CIVIL.

In the apologetics forum there is a rule that says something to the effect that quotations from the Bible are not dispositive; that arguments and evidence should contain something beyond simply quoting scripture.

I hope that answers your concerns.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Post #7

Post by Zzyzx »

.
Clarification:

The existence of God can be discussed -- but is not assumed to be true -- or false.

However, it is not acceptable to request that God's existence be proved each time an issue about God is debated. In other words, 'First you have to prove God exists' is NOT an allowed rebuttal to any post.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Guidelines for the C&A subforum

Post #8

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 4 by ric]


[center]
You don't have to assume that atheists assume that atheism is true.
[/center]

ric wrote:
From what I have read many atheists on this thread assume that atheism is true as indicated by their debating style and techniques.
I never BOTHER to debate something that I don't consider true.
Why waste my time like that?

But I don't just ASSUME there are no gods.. That's a big honking mistake if you think it.

There might be a few things that I assume are true.. but Atheism sure aint it.
We can discuss this if you like.

If you would LIKE to know what a person ASSUMES is true, I think it behooves you to ask. Otherwise, you are assuming that you know what they are thinking better than they know themselves. We get a LOT of that in here, and it's always a mistake.

It's one of the "big ones" in here.



:)

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA

Re: Guidelines for the C&A subforum

Post #9

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

Blastcat wrote: [Replying to post 4 by ric]


[center]
You don't have to assume that atheists assume that atheism is true.
[/center]

ric wrote:
From what I have read many atheists on this thread assume that atheism is true as indicated by their debating style and techniques.
I never BOTHER to debate something that I don't consider true.
Why waste my time like that?

But I don't just ASSUME there are no gods.. That's a big honking mistake if you think it.

There might be a few things that I assume are true.. but Atheism sure aint it.
We can discuss this if you like.

If you would LIKE to know what a person ASSUMES is true, I think it behooves you to ask. Otherwise, you are assuming that you know what they are thinking better than they know themselves. We get a LOT of that in here, and it's always a mistake.

It's one of the "big ones" in here.



:)
Blastcat committed ritual forum sepukku (suicide) in April. He is with us no more. 'E's passed on! He is a forum member no more! THIS IS AN EX-FORUM MEMBER. The big dummy.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10846
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 545 times
Been thanked: 1199 times
Contact:

Re: Guidelines for the C&A subforum

Post #10

Post by William »

[Replying to post 8 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I wondered why he suddenly stopped posting. Was he banned or did he just move on?

Post Reply