Argument with a christian

Discussion in 'Agnosticism and Atheism' started by xybersufer, Jan 1, 2014.

  1. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    The reason I'm a Christian is that I'm attracted to the message of unconditional love for everyone, especially society's rejects. Jesus didn't say a word about gays. I think you may be confusing Christians with fundamentalists. There are plenty of Christians (most recently Pope Francis) who are accepting of gays. Jesus taught that love of God and love of neighbor is what it's all about. The passages in the Bible condemning gays are taken out of their historical context. Besides, we're not to judge people, or to focus on the mote in our neighbor's eye instead of the beam in our own eye.
     
  2. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam _|=|-|=|_

    Messages:
    29,419
    Likes Received:
    6,296
    It's a fallacious argument on burden of proof, the person makes a claim and then lays the burden of proving on you. The fallacy comes in from the fact that eventhough you may not be able to disprove, it doesn't validate or prove the argument of the one making the claim.
     
  3. Anaximenes

    Anaximenes Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,854
    Likes Received:
    9

    Actually One proves his common belonging with God in some intuitive reality of concrete Existence. Then one might not be there for sure, often finding flaw to one's own (more personally 'own') truth. Thus one has vice and has nobody's real onus for Proof. It is better just to believe than be wicked also.:mickey:
     
  4. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    It depends on how it's phrased. If I say "There is a God", then the burden would be on me to prove it (which is impossible), just as if an atheist says "There is no God", s(he) would have to prove that (which is also impossible). If I say "I believe in God" or an atheist says "I don't believe in God" , there's nothing to prove, because nobody's claimed anything and each is in the best position to know what he or she believes. I base my belief on faith--i.e., a bet of my life on the proposition. And I place my bet on the basis of reasoning, personal experience, judgment and the best evidence available to me. Somebody else might arrive at the opposite conclusion by a similar process.
     
  5. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam _|=|-|=|_

    Messages:
    29,419
    Likes Received:
    6,296
    I don't disagree with anything you said, however I was responding to the op in which the direction of the claim was clear and the fact the op was asking in regards to a logical fallacy, I inferred a argument was made. But the info provided is scant.
     
  6. gendorf

    gendorf Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    7
    A world view is a personal thing. There is no point in arguing. Just let everyone think whatever they like. :) Conflict has no point.
     
  7. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,493
    Likes Received:
    14,738
    Why argue about an issue for which there can be no answer? I have never understood why folks are so all fired up to convince others of their position on something. In the realm of hypothesis, all answers are correct according to each individual. Agreement or disagreement do not facts make, particularly concerning esoterica. Disagree? That's your business, not mine.
     
  8. tikoo

    tikoo Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    487
    the christian might as well have said , "walk along with me or
    i'll walk with you ."
     
  9. LornaDoom

    LornaDoom Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,016
    Likes Received:
    4
    maybe what there saying to you is get off your ass and search for GOD cause he is not coming to you cause you are lazy and want it all to come to you..

    Jesus said:
    Keep on knocking and the door will be opened
    keep on searching and you will find

    says nothing about a couch and hot cheetos and hoping you will become spiritual, so throw down those cheetos and seek Jesus and God..how you say? start with google..lets see, put this in the search line...What is Gods real name? Did Jesus really walk on this earth?
     
  10. Anaximenes

    Anaximenes Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,854
    Likes Received:
    9
    But i am totally beaten by the art imitating life trouble. We think we find God and we really only have the arty proof for his being that fulfilled Life (probably, totally): realizable free mind of happiness. The reverse is dropped from above (as it were): life imitating art. Some life of another i have to trust, but He could not satisfy me as God? How not?: the proof needed to be in the Art.
    There now could be nothing else but the existential moment for the living artist.
     
  11. Mr.Writer

    Mr.Writer Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,286
    Likes Received:
    643
    Like you say it is a logical fallacy which misses the point of the need for evidence for claims. It also very dishonestly attempts to make the burden yours to disprove. This fallacy is the subject of a wonderful social satire, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster aka Pastafarianism (yeah, it's a real thing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)

    [​IMG]

    He boiled for your sins

    My suggestion is to simply not waste your time trying to reason with someone who has made a conscious decision to stop using their reason past the point where it confirms what they wish it to confirm :)

    Do not waste your energies trying to bring others into higher modes of thinking. Instead focus on yourself and learn more for yourself. If you cannot disarm these common charlatan arguments then you have opportunity for learning here!
     
  12. xybersufer

    xybersufer Member

    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    good point. i guess the fallacy is more simple than i thought
     
  13. xybersufer

    xybersufer Member

    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    thanks for your response. you are right. i had heard of the flying spaghetti monster. but the problem for me was, considering how far does one go to confirm claimed "evidence".

    i was thinking about whether to argue about not knowing what finding "god" means or whether i should argue about the burden of proof. (consistency vs validity?)
     
  14. tikoo

    tikoo Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    487
    finding god ... sure , might as well say to the christian that's what you're doing . how ?
    what evidence would you present to illustrate this is true of yourself ? if none , then i
    will be with you as a friend in spirit and suggest something .
     
  15. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    You might want to be sure you're interpreting the person correctly before you make a big deal about it--depending whether or not it's important to preserve friendly relations with this person. I'm a Christian. In a religious discussion with someone who isn't, I could see myself saying something like "I can't prove God, you'll have to find out for yourself." What I'd mean by that is that nobody can "prove" or "disprove" God. It's a bet placed on the basis of your own judgment, personal experience, evidence available to you, level of evidence you're comfortable with, and a host of other factors, many of which are subjective. I go on the basis of "substantial evidence", which in law means enough to convince a reasonable person to adopt a position, even though another reasonable person could take a different position. It's similar to Democrats and Republicans. I think one is better than the other, but I recognize that it's just my opinion and that reasonable people can come to a different conclusion on the basis of a wide range of variables. As the Pope says (and I'm not a Catholic) follow your own conscience. I enjoy exploring why these differences exist, and I have no problem voting on the basis of my own conclusions, but I think "I'm right and you're wrong" is unproductive. And I certainly wouldn't mean that the burden is on you to disprove my position. "You'll have to find out yourself " would mean you'll have to use your own judgment whether or not to bet on God.
     
  16. Anaximenes

    Anaximenes Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,854
    Likes Received:
    9
    For an hour or so I thought this discussion was under the Christianity sub-forum, and thus the flying spaghetti monster OR the nebulous fairy with backward entropy made a creative comment for the meaning of living nature. Actually I find that Christian scientists are more enlightened about the dogma over a natural creature and a artifact of organic nausea. One can compare S. Hawkings to T. Wilson. But now wondering the appropriate ways for atheists I recall that Wilson was a staunch protestant who wished that nothing organic be mixed into the probe over continental drift. Like Bush said: dead or alive?
     
  17. xybersufer

    xybersufer Member

    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    i don't agree. given (by you) that it's impossible to prove the existence of god, there is no reason to believe in god.

    what you are suggesting is that someone can believe in god without making the claim that god exists (this is what happens when you start to argue about semantics). in my opinion the claim is clear in such a situation and there is not much point wasting time on this.
     
  18. xybersufer

    xybersufer Member

    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    i think the problem with this is that it doesn't resolve any differences (not that discussions generally do that anyway).

    but my own judgement is already involved when i'm in a discussion. when only my own judgement is involved, it turns into an internal dialog, and that basicly stops any discussion.

    yes, i consider friendship and i'm not that easily drawn into these discussions in my daily life, but this particular discussion was provoked.
     
  19. xybersufer

    xybersufer Member

    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    it's not that i'm not used to these arguments. it's that i prefer making arguments out of consistency, where i take on other peoples assumptions to point out absurdities.

    although it did not seem doable in this case at first glance. but, i have concluded that it is doable by asking the person whether they would accept "if i came to a different conclusion".
     
  20. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    You're right. I'm suggesting that someone can believe in God without making the claim that God exists. The claim that God exists is a claim either of certainty or probability beyond a reasonable doubt, and I'm convinced that neither is possible for humans on the subject of God. If I made that claim, I'd be saying I'm right and you're wrong. However, in trying to make sense of reality and deciding on what course to follow, after exhausting proofs based on evidence and logic, I rely ultimately on faith as a last resort--which implies lack of certainty or proof. I follow Martin Luther in defining faith as a "joyful bet". I'm willing to respect your "joyful bet" on an opposite conclusion. It's a matter of personal judgment.

    I'm not sure what you're saying here. Yeah, you're right. discussions generally don't resolve differences, although I have been known to take them into account in changing my views. If your judgment is based on evidence and reason, and you are open to new evidence and arguments, it should theoretically be possible for you to change your mind if the new evidence and arguments warrant it.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice