Mass Debates

[crowTrobot 2]

comprehensive compilation of various religious debates available on the internet -http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=50

[Spademan 94]

Mass debates.Heh. I get it.Mass debates.Heh.

[Mercury69 3]

Mass debates.Heh. I get it.Mass debates.Heh.

Lol

[crowTrobot 2]

burn

[Balloon guy 158]

"When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"Kind of a sad title they use there, one that is completely ignorant of what Christians believe, and based on logic so poorly thought out that it could only be repeated by people who will believe anything.Christians don't believe there are no other gods, we only choose to WORSHIP one God. It's a result of confusing belief with worship and taking the concept of monotheism too literally.Also Christians don't reject Islam for the same reason Muslims reject Christianity, to think they do shows a very deep fundemental flaw of the understanding of both religions.To clarify, Christians believe in the literal existance of multiple supernatural beings that are worshipped by human beings. By every standard athiest hold, that's a god. We just don't choose to worship any of them but One.So if that's the title, the standard of intelligance that this site chooses, I guess I have to say I hold their level of value quite low.

[Spademan 94]

"When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"Kind of a sad title they use there, one that is completely ignorant of what Christians believe, and based on logic so poorly thought out that it could only be repeated by people who will believe anything.Christians don't believe there are no other gods, we only choose to WORSHIP one God. It's a result of confusing belief with worship and taking the concept of monotheism too literally.Also Christians don't reject Islam for the same reason Muslims reject Christianity, to think they do shows a very deep fundemental flaw of the understanding of both religions.To clarify, Christians believe in the literal existance of multiple supernatural beings that are worshipped by human beings. By every standard athiest hold, that's a god. We just don't choose to worship any of them but One.So if that's the title, the standard of intelligance (this one is my favorite) that this site chooses, I guess I have to say I hold their level of value quite low.

This is stupid and you're an idiot even when you are drunk and/or trolling.

[crowTrobot 2]

To clarify, Christians believe in the literal existance of multiple supernatural beings that are worshipped by human beings. By every standard athiest hold, that's a god. We just don't choose to worship any of them but One.

with the exception of a group that literally worships satan this is obviously false. in fact i've never in my life hearda christian make this excuse before. too many jager shots?

[vbnautilus 48]

Christians don't believe there are no other gods, we only choose to WORSHIP one God. It's a result of confusing belief with worship and taking the concept of monotheism too literally.

Wow, really? You are saying you believe that Ganesh and Krishna exist, you just choose not to worship them? I am honestly baffled by this. Really?? We need to check what is in those cigars.

[Balloon guy 158]

Wow, really? You are saying you believe that Ganesh and Krishna exist, you just choose not to worship them? I am honestly baffled by this. Really?? We need to check what is in those cigars.

Saying we believe in more than one supernatural being doesn't mean we believe in all of them.Satan is a supernatural being, with abilities that extend beyond natural law. By most definitions this would be a god, lower G.If you are going to apply a silly standard that says any excuse that dismisses a religion is equal to any other excuse, add in the notion that all religions are of equal value and have no difference in definition, then you must also allow that simplistic stupidity is an answer to your simplistically stupid statement.Here's another example. If a person asks us for directions to the Great Wall of China, we could give these answers;A. Take a boat and launch from Chicago, sail north for 3 days then look to your left.B. Take a rickshaw from San Diego and head south for 5 days, asking for a man named Pedro to give you a new rake.C. Take an airplane to China, pay for a tour.Now if you choose to not believe in a Great Wall, than you could apply that above statement here as you make fun of someone who answered C."When you understand why you dismiss all other possible directions, you will understand why I dismiss yours" It would make you think you are smart, make you feel pride in your smartness, and allow you to pretend that you are right, all while making you look like blind followers of bad logic.The only way this notion that Stephens penned and athiest flock too is accurate is if there are no religions that are correct. The minute you introduce the idea that one could be correct, you reveal the strawman argument and closed minded thinking that is required to make that statement.

[crowTrobot 2]

Saying we believe in more than one supernatural being doesn't mean we believe in all of them.

so which gods of other religions (other than satan) do you think are actual lesser supernational beings, and why do you think those specific ones exist but others don't?

[crowTrobot 2]

The only way this notion that Stephens penned and athiest flock too is accurate is if there are no religions that are correct. The minute you introduce the idea that one could be correct, you reveal the strawman argument and closed minded thinking that is required to make that statement.

except people believe in different mutually exclusive religions for the exact same reasons. so it doesn't matter if one might happen to be right or not because nobody has any way to distinguish between the real one and the false.

[vbnautilus 48]

Saying we believe in more than one supernatural being doesn't mean we believe in all of them.

So then you don't believe in Ganesh? If not, why not? If you don't, you must be using some logic or thought to make that decision, and that is the point of that title you quoted. For this point to be irrelevant, you would have to be someone who accepts all supernatural beliefs. If you dismiss any of them, then you are familiar with the rejection process.

[Balloon guy 158]

So then you don't believe in Ganesh? If not, why not? If you don't, you must be using some logic or thought to make that decision, and that is the point of that title you quoted. For this point to be irrelevant, you would have to be someone who accepts all supernatural beliefs. If you dismiss any of them, then you are familiar with the rejection process.

I hold that you can't get to the Great Wall on a rickshaw heading south into Mexico, I do not have to grant this set of directions any weight just because someone calls it directions.Let's not pretend that the above quote wasn't an attempt to pretend that there is some remote backdoor truth to the idea that disbelieving one religion means you have a better view point of how all religions are false.No one is saying that all religions are true, except some wacko leftists, anymore than all directions lead you to a certain address. Pretending that your side doesn't think this is a 'slam dunk in your face Christians are ignorant group' statement is disengenious

[vbnautilus 48]

I hold that you can't get to the Great Wall on a rickshaw heading south into Mexico, I do not have to grant this set of directions any weight just because someone calls it directions.Let's not pretend that the above quote wasn't an attempt to pretend that there is some remote backdoor truth to the idea that disbelieving one religion means you have a better view point of how all religions are false.No one is saying that all religions are true, except some wacko leftists, anymore than all directions lead you to a certain address. Pretending that your side doesn't think this is a 'slam dunk in your face Christians are ignorant group' statement is disengenious

To be honest I couldn't understand what you were getting at with the Great Wall thing, so I've given it another read and you seem to be saying something like:"In situations where there is only one right answer, dismissing the wrong answers does not show the decider that there is no answer. "Which I can agree with to some extent, but the problem is that each of these religions (or sets of directions) claims to be the right answer using very similar if not identical reasons. So if you heard all sets of directions there must have been something about the false ones that revealed themselves as false. More importantly, once you take the stance that they are false you must have the same relationship with their claims, prophesies, sacred texts, etc. that I have with yours.

[Balloon guy 158]

To be honest I couldn't understand what you were getting at with the Great Wall thing, so I've given it another read and you seem to be saying something like:"In situations where there is only one right answer, dismissing the wrong answers does not show the decider that there is no answer. "Which I can agree with to some extent, but the problem is that each of these religions (or sets of directions) claims to be the right answer using very similar if not identical reasons. So if you heard all sets of directions there must have been something about the false ones that revealed themselves as false. More importantly, once you take the stance that they are false you must have the same relationship with their claims, prophesies, sacred texts, etc. that I have with yours.

But again, IF one of those religions is right, and they are the real true religion, then this line of reasoning is of no value at all.You are basing your arguement that the process of dismissing direction A is somehow an allowance to apply the exact same process to dismissing directions B and C.You are holding to this notion that my dismissal of scientology because their own writings claim that they were discovered in a secret underground vault placed in earth hundreds of millions of years ago after an intergalactis battle somehow is the exact process with which you dismiss Christianity. If it is, then you are shallow in your dismissal.I hold that the Bible is true, therefore a religion that claims things contrary to the Bible would be false.You guys hold that all religions are false, therefore anything that is a religion must be false. But what should I expect from a movement that also pretends a flying spaghetti monster is deserving of equal reflection as the Creator of the universe?Strawman arguments don't support your positions, they reveal them to be as shallow as they really are.

[crowTrobot 2]

You are holding to this notion that my dismissal of scientology because their own writings claim that they were discovered in a secret underground vault placed in earth hundreds of millions of years ago after an intergalactis battle somehow is the exact process with which you dismiss Christianity. If it is, then you are shallow in your dismissal.

you fail to grasp that to someone who doesn't believe in the bible it is no less ludicrous than the claims of scientology. suffering from tunnel vision there.

[crowTrobot 2]

I hold that the Bible is true, therefore a religion that claims things contrary to the Bible would be false.

that's not your only reason for dismissing other religions. at least i hope not, because it would makeyou definitionally crazy.

You guys hold that all religions are false, therefore anything that is a religion must be false.

false. us guys hold that the pattern of evidence indicates that all religions are likely to be false. we are alwaysopen to evidence that might indicate a religion is true if someone wants to present any.

[BaseJester 1]

But what should I expect from a movement that also pretends a flying spaghetti monster is deserving of equal reflection as the Creator of the universe?Strawman arguments don't support your positions, they reveal them to be as shallow as they really are.

The whole point of the FSM is that not all ideas are deserving of equal reflection.

[vbnautilus 48]

But again, IF one of those religions is right, and they are the real true religion, then this line of reasoning is of no value at all.

If you are right, then you are right, yes. But your argument to show that you are right cannot start with the assumption that you are right.

You are holding to this notion that my dismissal of scientology because their own writings claim that they were discovered in a secret underground vault placed in earth hundreds of millions of years ago after an intergalactis battle somehow is the exact process with which you dismiss Christianity. If it is, then you are shallow in your dismissal.

The reasons why you dismiss Scientology are not shallow. I'm sure you noticed that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim that an extraterrestrial blew up a volcano full of souls which now make up human beings. There is nothing shallow about that reasoning at all.

I hold that the Bible is true, therefore a religion that claims things contrary to the Bible would be false.

Sure, again, if you start with the assumption that you are right then there is no discussion about these issues at all. We are talking about the process of deciding what is true, which must start from a position of not knowing, otherwise it is worthless.

You guys hold that all religions are false, therefore anything that is a religion must be false.

Speaking of straw men...

But what should I expect from a movement that also pretends a flying spaghetti monster is deserving of equal reflection as the Creator of the universe?

But the FSM is the Creator of the Universe. Duh.

[Balloon guy 158]

you fail to grasp that to someone who doesn't believe in the bible it is no less ludicrous than the claims of scientology. suffering from tunnel vision there.

If you already know that all religions are false, than you have a point, because otherwise you are just showing bias while pretending you are openminded.

[Balloon guy 158]

that's not your only reason for dismissing other religions. at least i hope not, because it would makeyou definitionally crazy.

Call me crazy then

false. us guys hold that the pattern of evidence indicates that all religions are likely to be false. we are alwaysopen to evidence that might indicate a religion is true if someone wants to present any.

I'm sure saying this allows you guys to be so dismissive and pretend you are open minded, but it doesn't make it true.

[Balloon guy 158]

The whole point of the FSM is that not all ideas are deserving of equal reflection.

Actually it is the exact opposite of that

[Balloon guy 158]

If you are right, then you are right, yes. But your argument to show that you are right cannot start with the assumption that you are right. The reasons why you dismiss Scientology are not shallow. I'm sure you noticed that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim that an extraterrestrial blew up a volcano full of souls which now make up human beings. There is nothing shallow about that reasoning at all.

I can see your point.

Sure, again, if you start with the assumption that you are right then there is no discussion about these issues at all. We are talking about the process of deciding what is true, which must start from a position of not knowing, otherwise it is worthless.

So unless you know the answer, you assume the answer is not true?My bias is clear, I'm just trying to help you guys realize that yours is equally clear, and help you guys quit pretending that you're not as open minded as you tell yourselves.

Speaking of straw men... But the FSM is the Creator of the Universe. Duh.

[vbnautilus 48]

So unless you know the answer, you assume the answer is not true?

Yes!Until there is sufficient evidence to support that answer, you assume it is not true. You can call it a bias, but it's really the only strategy that doesn't lead to madness. The alternative is to assume everything everyone says is true and spend all of your time trying to prove that there is no Shiva, Xenu, or Flying Saucers.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yes!Until there is sufficient evidence to support that answer, you assume it is not true. You can call it a bias, but it's really the only strategy that doesn't lead to madness. The alternative is to assume everything everyone says is true and spend all of your time trying to prove that there is no Shiva, Xenu, or Flying Saucers.

Really, so assuming your hypothosis is true and therefore merits research is crazy? Government grants are going to dry up I can tell you.We assume things are true all the time and proceed with this assumption. I can agree that once presented with evidence that your hypothisis is not true a healthy person then declares it not true, but let's not make the 'We've done that with Christianity and you won't admit it's not true" statement pretending that it's true, cause it's not.If someone says they think 'God must have created the universe because of the order, balance and physical laws that random chance doesn't adequately explain'....that's not the same as 'Haley Bop is a galatic taxicab, bring your own shoes.'But the statement in question tries to make them equal, because it's a poorly thought out statement, which is the foundational headline for the site linked in the OP.