"You can't debate about religion without being rude"

[Studdly]

Makes me think of the amazing stand up that was Bill Nye vs Ken Ham, how Ham blew himself out of the water, and still tried to claim he won.

 

[bort138]

Don't get out much, do you?

This is a point at which the liberal media really is biased -- they almost never, ever show the majority of Christians, so all you see are the loudmouthed ones, for the simple reasons that it's the idiots who make for better entertainment, an the news -- whatever anyone says, the "news" is still about entertaining.

That point was mostly referring to public debates I've watched online between atheists and theists. If faith is the justification for the beliefs of theists, what could possibly change their mind? If evidence or reason has no value to them when it comes to god and religion, what evidence or reasoning would be able to convince them otherwise? Is there anything that would change your mind?

 

[Kulindahr]

That point was mostly referring to public debates I've watched online between atheists and theists. If faith is the justification for the beliefs of theists, what could possibly change their mind? If evidence or reason has no value to them when it comes to god and religion, what evidence or reasoning would be able to convince them otherwise? Is there anything that would change your mind?

Most theists I know believe because of evidence. The "leap of faith" is not a blind one, it's just not well lit.

What would change my mind? Evidence of a better claimant to be the revelation from the Creator.

 

[bort138]

Most theists I know believe because of evidence. The "leap of faith" is not a blind one, it's just not well lit.

What would change my mind? Evidence of a better claimant to be the revelation from the Creator.

Just because something is written in a book does not make it evidence or factual in any way. Why do you believe the bible to be from the creator but not the Koran?

 

[bankside]

Just because something is written in a book does not make it evidence or factual in any way. Why do you believe the bible to be from the creator but not the Koran?

Because genesis is a royal chronicle of course. QED. If you don't get it based on that, there's no explaining it to you.

 

[Jacquemar]

Just because something is written in a book does not make it evidence or factual in any way. Why do you believe the bible to be from the creator but not the Koran?

I've asked this question several times. What about The Bible makes Christians believe that it is from god and that the Corpus Hermeticum, The Vedas, The Eddas, The Way, The Koran, etc. etc. are not? How does one objectively determine this "divine inspiration?"

And of course, I would ask the same question of those people who revere the above books.

 

[bankside]

Most theists I know believe because of evidence. The "leap of faith" is not a blind one, it's just not well lit.

What would change my mind? Evidence of a better claimant to be the revelation from the Creator.

What can't happen in the criterion you've set out is consideration of a possibly better claim that there is no creator at all. I think that puts someone outside the realm of the rational. It's possible to reject that claim, but only if a person is willing to consider the possibility of accepting it. Fiddling around the edges as to who is best at describing a creator blithely presumed to exist is not a rational activity, it is a ritualistic charade of reason.

 

[kallipolis]

Well, since Dawkins' own response to people he disagrees with is to call them deluded, then it's perfectly fair to call him deluded, or his disciples.

But if they think he's less of an atheist, they really are deluded, because by his own words in the 'debate' with WIlliams, he's more of an atheist now than he was a few years ago.

I agree...despite, Dawkins declaring that he is much more agnostic....than once upon a time...

 

[kallipolis]

On other forums I've observed people who can qualify as disciples by this standard, but for anyone on JUB that is really stretching.

Take a closer look and you'll note the same posters appearing under more than one pseudonym....that's true evangelistic fervour representing the atheistic cause....

 

[Telstra]

I don't see Dawkins as "militant" atheist.
He hasn't harm a fly yet !!!

 

[kallipolis]

I don't see Dawkins as "militant" atheist.
He hasn't harm a fly yet !!!

I agree that Dawkins' words are harmless....now what else is new?

 

[Telstra]

I agree that Dawkins' words are harmless....now what else is new?

But you keep on saying we are militant, extremist, zealous ... etc.

 

[kallipolis]

But you keep on saying we are militant, extremist, zealous ... etc.

Dawkins' words are harmless...whereas, his disciples posting here are zealous evangelists...

 

[kallipolis]

Well, since Dawkins' own response to people he disagrees with is to call them deluded, then it's perfectly fair to call him deluded, or his disciples.

But if they think he's less of an atheist, they really are deluded, because by his own words in the 'debate' with WIlliams, he's more of an atheist now than he was a few years ago.

Further after thought...I recall Dawkins' "God delusion" indicating that delusionary thinking is the preserve of religion.

“When one person is deluded, its called insanity, when a whole group are deluded it’s called religion”

These words should give our atheist pals a big chuckle...knowing that delusionary behaviour is a matter of perception....rather, than proven fact....but, they already know that....

 

[Telstra]

That statement make perfect sense is it not ?

“When one person is deluded, its called insanity, when a whole group are deluded it’s called religion”

 

[kallipolis]

That statement make perfect sense is it not ?

“When one person is deluded, its called insanity, when a whole group are deluded it’s called religion”

Your Guru, Professor Richard Dawkins made this statement...it makes sense to Richard Dawkins...others may think, otherwise...

 

[Telstra]

Your Guru, Professor Richard Dawkins made this statement...it makes sense to Richard Dawkins...others may think, otherwise...

well if one person pray for god Elvis, he or she is insane.
A large group pray for the god Elvis is religion, same thing

 

[mightbe]

I agree...despite, Dawkins declaring that he is much more agnostic....than once upon a time...

You argued against this exact same stance not two days ago. Pick a side. You can't assert something and then suddenly cast that assertion aside. At least concede that you've changed your mind.

Furthermore, you keep repeating the same demonstrably fallacious and inane arguments. It's impossible to take that kind of writing serious. Dawkins is no guru, he didn't invent atheism, and he isn't a leader. He's a spokesperson and advocate. The pope is a leader. There's a big difference.

And while you're at it, there is a right and a wrong time for ellipses.

 

[bankside]

Well this gets to my charge of "tu quoque."

Atheists come along and point out the zealous and unquestioning characteristics of many people who would call themselves believers, and kallipolis has the option to refute this, if he can. Or he can go on a campaign using invention and hyperbole to paint atheists as dogmatists and sheep-like and in the thrall of some kind of egomaniacal cabal of elite atheist overlords on whose pronouncements we depend for the illusion of meaning in our lives. (Pay attention kallipolis, there are some good adjectives here.)

Again, his game is not to refute atheist concerns about the conclusions of theists reached with too little self-reflection, too little humility, or that will not bear scrutiny, but to create a fantasist's caricature of atheism and then proclaim "See!?! They do it too!"

If it were remotely true it would be a discredit to atheists everywhere, but I must point out it would do nothing to elevate theists above buffoonery either.

 

[Kulindahr]

Just because something is written in a book does not make it evidence or factual in any way. Why do you believe the bible to be from the creator but not the Koran?

A large number of things. One is that Islam is plainly a copy-cat religion. Another is that its founder was a murderer, terrorist, caravan robber, and child abuser.