Total questions: 21
hello! you seem to be a good debator. Would you like to have a debate on the existence of the soul? thanks.
Would you define the "soul" for me? PM me.
Why are you obsessed with debates on religion?
Didn't see the question. The topic of God is the one which really led me into philosophy, in particular, the books from the four horsemen (although they do not fuel any of my arguments). Personal curiosity is what fuels me to do the debates - to me, people defending Christian God is akin to them defending Santa, so I'm always curious to know what they will say.
One of my topics will be morality. Another will be the proof or evidence contained in the Bible itself and confirmed both internally and externally. I haven't decided on my third topic.
Great. My arguments will be a mix and match of things I have used before.
Since the scope of the debate is extensive I would suggest limiting our arguments to three talking points each.
I'll see when the time comes.
I also want the debate to begin after Christmas since it is a busy time right now.
Works with me - this is why I haven't initiated anything.
I want the maximum two-week time for the argument, 15000 characters minimum, the shared burden of proof, a voting period of two weeks, and to have a say on the Description/Introduction, including definitions.
Fair enough, though I would prefer one week for argument. I do not want this to linger past Feburay.
I propose: THBT: Atheism is a more reasonable worldview than Christianity. If you wish, I can initiate this. I suggest you accept my friendship request so we can iron out the details.
bet I'll get this arranged.
Alternatively, I would be willing to debate which worldview is more reasonable, atheism or Christianity. That involves a matter of which can justify itself more reasonably.
I propose: THBT: Atheism is a more reasonable worldview than Christianity. If you wish, I can initiate this.
I would have to put out too many fires that have been drummed into the majority of people as absolute proof. I'm not for that. Since you don't believe the biblical God, I'm into proof in a specific field on what is the more reasonable evidence to believe.
Call them fire if you wish - they are my arguments. Ultimately they are, among others, the reason why I am an atheist and you ought to consider them seriously.
Yes, I am narrowing the scope. What you propose will send us off in our different tangents where you make it much about scientism as your final and ultimate authority.
What I propose will drive us closer to the truth of Christianity - what you propose will benefit you and handicap me.
I propose: Biblical Prophecy gives good reason to believe in the biblical God
Look, you are obviously narrowing the scope of debate. This is akin to proposing "THBT: Deontology proves abortion is wrong". Why just limit yourself to one form of evidence? If you believe that biblical prophecies are a good reason to believe in God, then why not propose them as evidence in a debate about God? In a debate titled "The God of the Christian bible likely does not exist", you can use your prophecies argument and I can use my scientific argument.
Then you believe the evidence is more "reasonable" that prophecy was not fulfilled as written, correct? If so, I would like to debate you on such a subject.
If you are willing to debate the nitty-gritty details of the bible, then why don't we just debate the central figure of your religion? I propose the following resolution: THBT: The God of the Christian bible likely does not exist.
To me, it seems you have made your mind up without hearing the evidence. Are you relying more on other people's opinions about Christianity than investigating its truth claims for yourself?
No.
From your answers to my questions do you think you have a confirmation bias against the Christian faith? Second, how reasonable do you think your stance is judging from your replies?
The definition of Confirmation Bias is as follows
"a confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias that involves favoring information that confirms previously existing beliefs or biases. For example, imagine that a person holds a belief that left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people. Whenever this person encounters a person that is both left-handed and creative, they place greater importance on this "evidence" supporting their already existing belief. This individual might even seek "proof" that further backs up this belief while discounting examples that do not support this idea."
Clearly, I am not doing this. What I have done is interpret the scientific claims that apologetics make. Sure, I am ignoring "scripture evidence" because as I said, even if I divulge my time to the Hebrew Bible, there will still be thousands of doctrines left unexamined by me. It is much easier for me to investigate the scientific claims which all these religions make instead of bickering over interpretations and translations of thousand long page scriptures. Also, if I were to practice Confirmation Bias, I would not have debated the scientific claims of religion which clearly involves considering the opposing views to my stance.
As to your second question, I obviously believe that my stance is reasonable otherwise I would not adopt it. I have studied the relavant scientifc literature regarding the beginning and nature of the universe and found that it is incompatbile with a definite beginning i.e God.
If so, how well do you know of the internal and external evidence for prophecy? Do you believe it is reasonable to believe it was not fulfilled?
From my perspective, I do not get involved in specific doctrines because 1) there are too many, all of which I believe have the same truth value and 2) I am quite frankly not interested in them because I believe their overarching metaphysical claims are inaccurate. As for the second part of your question - I'll say this. It is quite likely that some prophecies were fulfilled but the impossibility of there being a supernatural creator renders the most significant of prophecies false.
So, would you say your four debates on the Christian God have come from a knowledge of the Christian teachings contained in the Bible?
As I said, I do not consider myself an expert or even knowledgeable on the Bible, however, when religions begin making scientific claims about the beginning and nature of the cosmos, I feel inclined and erudite enough to be involved.
The reason I ask is I am interested in debating someone on prophecy but I need someone who is knowledgeable on the subject.
I am interested in debating the existence of God. I do not, however, feel like I am particularly knowledgeable on scripture or the specifics of Christianity as I am not interested in them.
Feel free to DM me.
Hi there, You have had at least four debates on Christianity. Do you consider yourself somewhat knowledgeable on the subject?
I consider myself knowledgeable regarding the existence of a being whom declares to possess the omni-attributes.
whats your profile picture?
As of current, my profile picture is as follows.
https://snipboard.io/5whQCb.jpg
I'm not sure what to say about it, it's a tatted up gangster with a burning rose between his teeth.
Required reading in school, have there been any books that stand out in your memory, if so, why?
Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro
I highly recommend you read it, for it's unforeseeable twist, which is the reason I rank it as the best school prescribed text. Though it is fiction, it touches on some heated moral questions.
Why haven't you updated your profile page?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯