kari21 Posted January 9, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 140 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,846 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/05/1987 Author Share Posted January 9, 2008 Think Golden Rule, Kari. Would you be happy if secondeve posted a thread called "Christians Are Such Lousy Debaters" ? To be honest, I think that would be an article I would be keen on reading! Would you be saying the same thing in regard to Satanist, Cult, or Witch guests? Should we really worry about not making them "happy?" The very Gospel is offensive to an unbelieving world! I'm not too worried about making an unbeliever unhappy with the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer of dreams Posted January 9, 2008 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 39 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 314 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/08/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 9, 2008 I am a christian BTW. Your principle argument comes from a broad generalization and based on attacking the character of the atheists. It isn't valid, there are no facts backing it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kari21 Posted January 9, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 140 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,846 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/05/1987 Author Share Posted January 9, 2008 I am a christian BTW. Your principle argument comes from a broad generalization and based on attacking the character of the atheists. It isn't valid, there are no facts backing it up. Gee...I guess just like the "broad generalizations" that atheists afford Christians. And the author backs up his words with his experiences debating atheists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffnevins Posted January 9, 2008 Group: Senior Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 207 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 806 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 141 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/09/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/21/1973 Share Posted January 9, 2008 OK. My break's over. Back to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondeve Posted January 9, 2008 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 117 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,276 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/02/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/21/1986 Share Posted January 9, 2008 i don't quite accept your argument. it is standard practice to accept a few of any category as representative. consider polls - a random sampling to represent the whole. this article is even more than fair, as the writer has chosen the top 3 to represent the whole. By whose definition are Dawkins et al the "top three" atheists? Yes, they are well known and well publicised; they have written books and participated in public debates. But the fact of this prominence does not automatically mean they are the most representative of atheists as a whole, nor that all atheists - or even a majority - view them as such. To take Dawkins, while I naturally agree with some of what he says, I intensely dislike his arrogance and manner of delivery. I am also skeptical of the idea that a sampling, while certainly representative of the whole, is always an accurate such representation. Besides which, the key element of such a study - that it is, as you say, random - is absent here; the writer has chosen his sample. One might therefore be reasonable in saying that they have set out to stack the statistics somewhat in their favour. I am a christian BTW. Your principle argument comes from a broad generalization and based on attacking the character of the atheists. It isn't valid, there are no facts backing it up. Gee...I guess just like the "broad generalizations" that atheists afford Christians. This is, perhaps, the worst justification in the known universe for taking a certain tone with one's opponents. If you really take issue with said tactics and dislike their use against you, stooping to them yourself not only makes you childish, but a hypocrit. I find myself agreeing with Jesus on this one: act like an adult, and turn the other cheek. Your argument will be all the sounder for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jan 9 2008, 05:46 AM) QUOTE (Thoughtful @ Jan 8 2008, 07:17 PM) Christians are lousy debators. They wont accept anything but fanatical mysticism. If logic or common sense is introduced they deduce it down to blasphemy and disreguard it. Its frustrating but that's the way it is. How does rejecting the existance of God amount to "logic" and "commonsense" to you? I was merely proving a point shiloh. Following Lorax's example, I was trying to show kari was being a bit closed minded.She can afford to be closedminded, 'cause she's right. So what of this "fanatical mysticisim" you speak of? What precisely do we Christians have that amounts to fanatical mysticism? What logic and commonsense do you find that atheists bring to debate on the existence of God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondeve Posted January 10, 2008 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 117 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,276 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/02/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/21/1986 Share Posted January 10, 2008 She can afford to be closedminded, 'cause she's right. Closemindedness is never justified. If you're right, then there's nothing to lose by being open-minded; and if you're wrong, there's everything to gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kari21 Posted January 10, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 140 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,846 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/05/1987 Author Share Posted January 10, 2008 This is, perhaps, the worst justification in the known universe for taking a certain tone with one's opponents. If you really take issue with said tactics and dislike their use against you, stooping to them yourself not only makes you childish, but a hypocrit. If one wants to play with the pigs, you gotta get in the mud with 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing Posted January 10, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 400 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 1,903 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/20/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/19/1942 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I am a christian BTW. Your principle argument comes from a broad generalization and based on attacking the character of the atheists. It isn't valid, there are no facts backing it up. Gee...I guess just like the "broad generalizations" that atheists afford Christians. And the author backs up his words with his experiences debating atheists. stick to your guns kari. once again atta girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraught Posted January 10, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 105 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,741 Content Per Day: 0.28 Reputation: 28 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/23/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/30/1959 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I am a christian BTW. Your principle argument comes from a broad generalization and based on attacking the character of the atheists. It isn't valid, there are no facts backing it up. where do you get the idea that kari20 is attacking the character of the atheists? whether a person is a good debater has nothing to do with their character. that is a skill issue, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts