• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

There Are Some Things About Christianity Which Are Very Hard To Accept

Yes as is a standard tactic of theists against atheists. But we don't get our own special, butthurt free, forum.


If it's a stupid argument, which it is, then it's stupid no matter if made by an atheist or theist. Not sure about the "butthurt free" forum, but one doesn't need to be christian to recognize a bad argument against Christianity.
 
If it's a stupid argument, which it is, then it's stupid no matter if made by an atheist or theist. Not sure about the "butthurt free" forum, but one doesn't need to be christian to recognize a bad argument against Christianity.

Nor that the same bad argument is standard operating procedure used by theists against atheists.
 
Nor that the same bad argument is standard operating procedure used by theists against atheists.

I'm not following? What does the above have to do with what I wrote.
 
I'm not following? What does the above have to do with what I wrote.

You apparently took issue with what I had initially wrote, enough to quote it. My initial contention was that what you called a bad argument by an atheist is also standard argument used by theists against atheists.
 
Accept them or not makes no difference to me. Just keep to yourself. The moment your beliefs start affecting what I can or can't do is when I have a problem.
 
You apparently took issue with what I had initially wrote, enough to quote it.

Not really. Just correcting a statement

My initial contention was that what you called a bad argument by an atheist is also standard argument used by theists against atheists.

right, and I pointed out a) that it's a bad argument regardless of who makes it, and b) that it shouldn't take a christian to recognize a flawed argument against Christianity (due to the fact that you seemed recognizing such made me a christian)

but none of that really explains your last post. Seems you failed to understand something rather obvious and just repeated yourself.
 
but none of that really explains your last post. Seems you failed to understand something rather obvious and just repeated yourself.

You said that one doesn't have to be Christian to recognize a bad argument, to which I said nor to point out that the same bad argument is used as standard procedure against atheists.

Do I really have to hold your hand and walk you through this? It's rather obvious.
 
You said that one doesn't have to be Christian to recognize a bad argument, to which I said nor to point out that the same bad argument is used as standard procedure against atheists.

I asserted it was a bad argument in my original post on the issue, regardless of who makes it. So, again, I'm left wondering what your point is

Do I really have to hold your hand and walk you through this? It's rather obvious.

Yes, please do
 
I asserted it was a bad argument in my original post on the issue, regardless of who makes it. So, again, I'm left wondering what your point is

I fear if you don't understand, then I cannot help you understand as it is as simple as it can get at this stage already.
 
I fear if you don't understand, then I cannot help you understand as it is as simple as it can get at this stage already.

lol, imagine my surprise
 
lol, imagine my surprise

I would doubt that you're terribly surprised. You seem like you may have ended up down the "clueless" corridor before.
 
I would doubt that you're terribly surprised. You seem like you may have ended up down the "clueless" corridor before.

thx. I try to keep on top of these things
 
Humanity definitely needs religion. If we didn't, it would not have evolved as a practice of ours. I'm not implying that every single human needs organized religion, but we do have a religous impulse that is expressed at one level or another.

Religion developed because primitive humans needed to attempt to understand things which they did not, so they applied agency to these things. Example, the sun rose and provided warmth, safety from predators, helped crops grow, etc. They did not understand why a giant sphere did this, and to make sense of the world, they began beleiving this thing which provided so much for them must be some sort of deity - hence, they now understood the sun in the best, yet most primitive way they could. This all arises from innate survival instincts which evolved in us over time. When a primitive man saw the grass move, he applied his best primitive instincts - possible predator - applied agency.

The same can be said of many of the prehistoric paganistic type religions and beliefs. The moon is another example. Fire is an example. I could go on, but basically, in order to better understand things we could not control, we had to develop "religion."

Many of the monotheistic religions only arose as a means of understanding and coping with death, and "good and evil" as well as a means for control of people and to use fear as a way of making people follow rules. When a drought, a storm, an earthquake, etc happpened, they attributed these natural disasters to punishments from their gods for bad behavior. Ritualistic prayer is also a way for humans to express themselves and cope with trying times, because it takes the responsibility out of their hands if they think a deity is controllilng everything and that his will final.

This is the tip of the iceberg, and I could go on. But for a good read, checkout "Breaking the Spell" by Daniel Dennett
 
Religion developed because primitive humans needed to attempt to understand things which they did not, so they applied agency to these things. Example, the sun rose and provided warmth, safety from predators, helped crops grow, etc. They did not understand why a giant sphere did this, and to make sense of the world, they began beleiving this thing which provided so much for them must be some sort of deity - hence, they now understood the sun in the best, yet most primitive way they could. This all arises from innate survival instincts which evolved in us over time. When a primitive man saw the grass move, he applied his best primitive instincts - possible predator - applied agency.

The same can be said of many of the prehistoric paganistic type religions and beliefs. The moon is another example. Fire is an example. I could go on, but basically, in order to better understand things we could not control, we had to develop "religion."

Many of the monotheistic religions only arose as a means of understanding and coping with death, and "good and evil" as well as a means for control of people and to use fear as a way of making people follow rules. When a drought, a storm, an earthquake, etc happpened, they attributed these natural disasters to punishments from their gods for bad behavior. Ritualistic prayer is also a way for humans to express themselves and cope with trying times, because it takes the responsibility out of their hands if they think a deity is controllilng everything and that his will final.

This is the tip of the iceberg, and I could go on. But for a good read, checkout "Breaking the Spell" by Daniel Dennett

This is mindless speculation. It completely ignores the arguments of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas for the existence of God.
 
This is mindless speculation. It completely ignores the arguments of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas for the existence of God.

This is scientific speculation. Mindless speculation would be to read an ancient book and believe everything it says without doing any rational thinking, hence the term, mindless.
 
This is scientific speculation. Mindless speculation would be to read an ancient book and believe everything it says without doing any rational thinking, hence the term, mindless.

It's not scientific explanation. It's just guessing. And I notice how you ignored my allusion to St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle. That must have been convenient for you.
 
It's not scientific explanation. It's just guessing. And I notice how you ignored my allusion to St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle. That must have been convenient for you.

Explanation does not equal speculation. They are two different things.

I ignored them because:

A) I don't give a **** about St. Thomas Aquinas, he was just another snobby Catholic priest with too much time on his hands and frankly I'm not too fond of the Catholic church.

B) Who cares what Aristotle argued for the existence of god? Its 2013 not 350B.C.
 
Explanation does not equal speculation. They are two different things.

What is the basis for your "explanation"? What truth is it rooted in?

I ignored them because:

A) I don't give a **** about St. Thomas Aquinas, he was just another snobby Catholic priest with too much time on his hands and frankly I'm not too fond of the Catholic church.

Ad hominem.

B) Who cares what Aristotle argued for the existence of god? Its 2013 not 350B.C.

And old argument is not an incorrect argument.
 
What is the basis for your "explanation"? What truth is it rooted in?


Ugh... Everything I put in that first post you criticised was "speculation" by a scientist, who wrote a book I read, which I then paraphrased.

Do you understand the difference between explanation and speculation?

Your assumption on the side of god and religion is just as much of a speculative theory as the scientific view, even less so because there is absolutely no proof of anything on the religious side.
 
Ugh... Everything I put in that first post you criticised was "speculation" by a scientist, who wrote a book I read, which I then paraphrased.

Do you understand the difference between explanation and speculation?

Your assumption on the side of god and religion is just as much of a speculative theory as the scientific view, even less so because there is absolutely no proof of anything on the religious side.

All I'm saying is that the supposed explanation of the history of religion is based on nothing. There is no evidence for it. It could just as easily be something else, and in fact makes more sense that it is something else, given the writings of Aristotle arguing for the existence of God.
 
All I'm saying is that the supposed explanation of the history of religion is based on nothing. There is no evidence for it. It could just as easily be something else, and in fact makes more sense that it is something else, given the writings of Aristotle arguing for the existence of God.

What something else are you talking about??
 
All I'm saying is that the supposed explanation of the history of religion is based on nothing. There is no evidence for it. It could just as easily be logical necessity, and in fact makes more sense that it is logical necessity, given the writings of Aristotle arguing for the existence of God.

So this is what you're trying to say....?
 
So this is what you're trying to say....?

Sure, why not? Hume came along and mucked everything up by questioning the very concept of causation. He was a lunatic. And people bought into it.
 
Back
Top Bottom