• 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.

Challenge; Can you argue a case you don't actually agree with?

Even if I could, I really don't want to give the other side any good ideas....

But since the other side is retreating into head in the ground stupidity getting them to base it all on a good understanding of the universe is a giant step towards a world where their idiocy does a lot less harm.
 
Are you ray Comfort in disguise? :)

So you cannot refute my banana instead you try and attack someone else. Thats a deflection.
I will just proclaim victory here and now.
You may prostrate yourself at my ever so humble feet, I may even give you some fruit ;)
 
Last edited:
So you cannot refute my banana instead you try and attack someone else. Thats a deflection.
I will just proclaim victory here and now.
You may prostrate yourself at my ever so humble feet, I may even give you soem fruit ;)

It's that sort of philosophy which allows for endless debate!

I like it.
 
I am not Christian....
but I can provide an argument for you. I LOVE devil's advocate.

I'm pretty sure it's Free will... God chooses not to interfere with free will... and we messed it up ourselves.

In that argument one is only moving the goal posts. "Provide evidence of fee will." Which generally is met with a circular argument referring back to the will of god. After that the debate is dead since Christians will dogmatically not budge from their belief at that point.
 
But since the other side is retreating into head in the ground stupidity getting them to base it all on a good understanding of the universe is a giant step towards a world where their idiocy does a lot less harm.

All I can add to this post, is that I once got into an augment with a Flat Earth believer. It took a while before I realized that he was serious (or a fantastically dedicated faker), but the Flat Earth folks have some of the most elaborate and most compelling non-arguments and false explanations I've ever seen and to be honest, reading up on their ideas is something I recommend, because as you suggest, it's helps understand debate tactics when you're dealing with a subject that the truth of it is so easily known.

I thought about trying to argue the Earth was flat, but the level of effort required is just too much. I give you kudo's for this thread and those that are up for it, but I have to say, debating the stuff I agree with is hard enough....So I guess I must concede, I'm just not up to your challenge.
 
Why would I want to argue for something I don't agree with?

Reverse debates actually still have you arguing against what you dont agree with. It is borderline strawman. Usually the person parodies a counter argument, concentrating on their interpolations. Such debates do serve a good purpose though, it allows different sides of arguments to be exposed and analysed.
 
All I can add to this post, is that I once got into an augment with a Flat Earth believer. It took a while before I realized that he was serious (or a fantastically dedicated faker), but the Flat Earth folks have some of the most elaborate and most compelling non-arguments and false explanations I've ever seen and to be honest, reading up on their ideas is something I recommend, because as you suggest, it's helps understand debate tactics when you're dealing with a subject that the truth of it is so easily known.

I thought about trying to argue the Earth was flat, but the level of effort required is just too much. I give you kudo's for this thread and those that are up for it, but I have to say, debating the stuff I agree with is hard enough....So I guess I must concede, I'm just not up to your challenge.

Such a shame. You are one of the clever types around here. I would have loved to see some of your devils advocate stuff.
 
Without suffering, we would have no chance to practice compassion

There is plenty of suffering caused by unavoidable accidents and I see no need for the horrific diseases to add on to this. Nice try though you made me pause.
 
There is plenty of suffering caused by unavoidable accidents and I see no need for the horrific diseases to add on to this. Nice try though you made me pause.

The atheists argument against unavoidable accidents is the same as the argument against unavoidable disease (ie "Why did God create them?")
 
Knives can be used for plenty of good, and can also be used for evil. Does that mean that the maker of the knife made something evil?

Knives have nothing to do with why a compassionate loving god would create diseases that are so horrible that they are like something out of a science fiction horror film.
 
The atheists argument against unavoidable accidents is the same as the argument against unavoidable disease (ie "Why did God create them?")

Accidents are physics in motion while diseases are entities that exist and were created by the same god that created us if there is a god.
 
Mutations aren't created (at least not in nature). Mutations come about randomly through errors in replication.

Why are there "errors" in a "perfect" creation?
 
Accidents are physics in motion while diseases are entities that exist and were created by the same god that created us if there is a god.

There are two types of accidents. One is when a person does something to cause it. Those are avoidable.

Unavoidable accidents are things like tornados, earthquakes etc. They are "physics in motion" which, according to theists, was created by God just like those terrible diseases.

I'm not clear on what you mean by "unavoidable accidents" and how it is that God did not create them but did create those diseases.
 
There are two types of accidents. One is when a person does something to cause it. Those are avoidable.

Unavoidable accidents are things like tornados, earthquakes etc. They are "physics in motion" which, according to theists, was created by God just like those terrible diseases.

Physics accidents like falling off a cliff are an unavoidable part of reality but you do bring up a good point on another front. Why would a perfect god create such an imperfect planet with earth quakes, volcanoes etc.
 
Why are there "errors" in a "perfect" creation?

There are no "errors". Those mutations are the manifestations of nature's creative force. There can be no perfection without beauty, and creativity is the basis of beauty.
 
Physics accidents like falling off a cliff are an unavoidable part of reality but you do bring up a good point on another front. Why would a perfect god create such an imperfect planet with earth quakes, volcanoes etc.

Falling off a cliff is the result of a person exercising free will by not taking the proper precautions while placing themselves in a dangerous situation. All accidents are either the result of a person exercising free will inadequately or of a situation where free will did not play a role. In the case of the former, free will can be "blamed". In the latter, it's so that people can practice compassion.

Once you've made that distinction (between accidents where free will does and does not play a role), the only thing left to do is figure out which situations belong to which category. However, both categories have an explanation. In the former, it's free will; in the latter, it's the promotion of compassion
 
Falling off a cliff is the result of a person exercising free will by not taking the proper precautions while placing themselves in a dangerous situation. All accidents are either the result of a person exercising free will inadequately or of a situation where free will did not play a role. In the case of the former, free will can be "blamed". In the latter, it's so that people can practice compassion.

Once you've made that distinction (between accidents where free will does and does not play a role), the only thing left to do is figure out which situations belong to which category. However, both categories have an explanation. In the former, it's free will; in the latter, it's the promotion of compassion

If you sat in a chair your whole life you would never get hurt I guess unless one of gods earth quakes crashed your house on you but I do agree free will can increase accidents. That however does not explain gods creation of such horrible diseases unleashed on the people Christians say he so loves.
 
If you sat in a chair your whole life you would never get hurt I guess unless one of gods earth quakes crashed your house on you but I do agree free will can increase accidents.

True, but while we may disagree on which category a particular situation belongs to, the fact remains that situations can be categorized based on whether free will is to blame or is not. In the case of the former, the blame is free will; in the case of the latter, it's the promotion of compassion.


so if you think falling off a cliff is an example of the latter and ask "Why does a loving God allow this to happen?" the answer is "To allow for compassion"

That however does not explain gods creation of such horrible diseases unleashed on the people Christians say he so loves.

Again, "to allow for compassion"
 
True, but while we may disagree on which category a particular situation belongs to, the fact remains that situations can be categorized based on whether free will is to blame or is not. In the case of the former, the blame is free will; in the case of the latter, it's the promotion of compassion.


so if you think falling off a cliff is an example of the latter and ask "Why does a loving God allow this to happen?" the answer is "To allow for compassion"



Again, "to allow for compassion"

A reality without the laws of physics would not be a reality at all but a reality without the horrific diseases man suffers would still be reality. You can imagine even worse diseases than actually exist and just because they do not exist does not make the world less real. A loving god would not have created diseases that cause such extreme pain and long term suffering. It just makes no sense and to me and proves there is no god or if there is one it is at best imperfect and at worst pure evil and less mature than a child pulling the wings off flies or burning ants under a magnifying glass.
 
A reality without the laws of physics would not be a reality at all but a reality without the horrific diseases man suffers would still be reality. You can imagine even worse diseases than actually exist and just because they do not exist does not make the world less real. A loving god would not have created diseases that cause such extreme pain and long term suffering. It just makes no sense and to me and proves there is no god or if there is one it is at best imperfect and at worst pure evil and less mature than a child pulling the wings off flies or burning ants under a magnifying glass.

I would argue that your idea of perfection is imperfect. The perfect world you describe lacks creativity, beauty, compassion and, most importantly, love.
 
There are no "errors". Those mutations are the manifestations of nature's creative force. There can be no perfection without beauty, and creativity is the basis of beauty.

Yet there's the problem of time. Time is an aspect of this universe, PART of Gods creation. As such, events unfolding in our spacetime creation would be perceived by its creator, OUTSIDE of time, all at once. The beginning and ending of all things.

So God would be aware of everything that unfolds at the "moment" of creation.

So no excuses for Yahweh.

As someone said, mans inhumanity to man is covered by free will. And there are plenty of opportunities for compassion in human interactions. No real need for suffering from disease, etc.
 
Yet there's the problem of time. Time is an aspect of this universe, PART of Gods creation. As such, events unfolding in our spacetime creation would be perceived by its creator, OUTSIDE of time, all at once. The beginning and ending of all things.

So God would be aware of everything that unfolds at the "moment" of creation.

So no excuses for Yahweh.

As someone said, mans inhumanity to man is covered by free will. And there are plenty of opportunities for compassion in human interactions. No real need for suffering from disease, etc.

There is no compassion without suffering. I don't understand why you're distinguishing between different forms/causes of suffering when the question is "Why does a loving God allow people to suffer?"
 
Back
Top Bottom