CAMPBELL34 VS. LIBERTINE :The War To Settle The Score...

-Everyday a handful of people come on the forums and debate about religion. There are numerous topics debated and generally most people are either against Christianity or for it. However, does anything really get accomplished? Are we searching through the truth in all of it or are we debating just to win the argument. With this thought in mind, I would like to propose a debate between two people from opposite ends of the spectrum. Those people are Campbell34 and Libertine. I cannot stress enough PLEASE let them debate and do not interject on what is being debating. This is an A/B conversation so please do not C your way into it : ) But rather read and learn. However, if you choose to interject do it in short. Libertine writes, "On the corresponding opener ask all participants to respectly respond only briefly and only to the debate itself."

With the opener in mind let us start...

Christians look at the Bible as the word of God. Although men wrote the books of the Bible, Christians believe they were inspired by God. Christians believe that it is a flawless book, that it is without error. They believe that it is inspired by God and without error primarily because of the supposed fulfilled prophecies written throughout the Bible. Therefore, in order to discredit Christianity one must discredit the Bible. To discredit the Bible one must discredit the supposed fulfilled prophecies.

THEREFORE, THE QUESTION IS: ARE THE PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE VALID?

 

In the Red Corner....

FROM the Ninth Circle of Hell, Hades..... wearing the stylish red trunks, weighing in at 152lb, I bring you LIBERTINE.......... (crowd roars)

And introducing, in the BLUE corner... from 700 Huntley Street, wearing powder blue trunks with the cream stripe, weighing in at 178lb.... I bring you...... CAMPBELL34!!!

Let's giddid on!

 

Haha I can tell already how pointless and ridiculous this will be.

 

I would like to ask for a formal layout if this is to happen. I will ask IronGoth (representing my side) and JesusDiedForU (representing campbell's side) to both agree on the format.

My proposal is as follows: Since theism is a claim and atheism is the antithesis (practically of a claim), we must tackle this issue first and foremost:

DOES A GOD EXIST?

 

Proposal accepted : )

The first question to the Debate is:

DOES A GOD EXIST?

 

Hey! Er, wow. Uh, um... I'm honored.

What's my task again?

 

Since theism is the claim, I suggest campbell34 begin by stating that he does believe a god exists and why he believes this.

Then, we may proceed with the debate.

 

So, I am your "second"? Wait, what am I here to do again?

 

You are here to insure that I get a fair shake, just as JDFU is here to insure campbell34. We must agree on the format... the first question, of course. And to moderate the debate.

 

What if i dont want libertine representing my side?

 

Start your own thread with your own debate opponent.

I represent atheism (i.e. do not believe in the existence of god/gods).

 

Yes, I believe in God, and His name is Jesus Christ. I believe in Him, because over the years He has revealed Himself to me in a number of ways. I have heard His voice, and He is no stranger to me. He is a God of wonder.

 

may i "C" myself right now...

when i first saw the title, my thogh was along the lines of "oh boy, i hope this isn't the same thing as "Libertine, sent by the antichrist"...but it looks like this thread will be quite enjoyable and infomative

have fun boys

 

Thanks for your opening statement, campbell34.

Now, I will give mine.

I once believed in "God". I once sang about, talked about, and even taught about "God". The first thing someone must know about before debating "God" is exactly what is meant by the term "God".

With me, "God" meant a "supernatural, Supreme Being who was omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. This Being, I once described existing "outside the realm of the natural and logical" and in a place called "Heaven" with his "son" Jesus, while his "Holy Spirit" dwelt among us...the "saved" people.

This sounds remarkably similar to what campbell34 may be describing. If I am wrong, I am sure he will correct me on the error.

I believed this from a small child up until about 3 years ago.

Today, is a different story, however. I have been through 2.5 years of complete and utter torment of pushing, pulling and driving my mind through the thorns and thistles of philosophy, ancient religion, mythology, psychology, and language (although I had been schooled in most of these areas, the past 2.5 years is when I pushed myself the hardest).

Why, Libertine? Why do you no longer believe in "God"?

Simple, yet not so simple. And I hope that I can only demonstrate in this debate my reasons for doubting the existence of such a Being.


NOW...

I will tackle some of what campbell34 has said in his statement.

Here campbell34 gives a vague description of his "god" and from this I will assume he is speaking of the same definition of "god" that I once held.

Although, many people can say that "god" has revealed himself or herself, I would say that many others can say that ghosts, aliens or other "gods" (even ones that campbell34 may consider false) to have shown themselves to them. This is purely a subjective experience that proves nothing objectively.

"Revelation" may convince the person who is "experiencing" it (if, indeed, they truly are), but such experience cannot be depended upon to as a means of demonstrating to others the validity of his beliefs.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we ask campbell34 in what ways "god" has revealed himself to campbell34?

Ok, you have given us one way to go here. You have "heard his voice". Was this an audible voice? Or are you speaking metaphorically? Or, perhaps, you mean you "felt" something you consider to be the presence of "god"? I would ask you to be a little more specific, if possible.

 

When does this start...I can't wait.

 

I agree on the format.

 

This will go no where. Feeling the presence of God is by nature objectively inexplicable. If I may predict the outcome: the theist will claim an ineffable feeling of comfort and happiness derivative from God. These feelings will be resolved only to be attainable through allowing oneself to be open to God. The atheist will refuse noting perhaps evidence that the resultant feelings are from a psychological transformation of no supernatural consequence.

You have to offer the Theist an advantage resultant from a naturalistic perspective, Libertine.

 

When I made the statement I heard the voice of God, I was not speaking metaphorically. At rare times in my life, God has chosen to speak to me in an audible voice. I do not believe this occures because I'm so good. I feel in God's eyes, I'm no different than anyone else, we are all sinners before God. And none of us deserve to go to Heaven. Yet I believe it is because of my strong faith in Christ, and in His power, that God responds to me in this way. It is rare, but it has happened to me a number of times. If you read in the Bible where there is little faith, Jesus would do few miracles in those areas. Yet, where there was greater faith, He would do many miracles. Faith in God appears to be the key. Where there is greater faith, it appears God is more obvious, and shows Himself. I would also say that when you actually seek God, and are ernest about it, God will respond to your sincerity. The God of the Bible operates in ways that can best be discribed as supernatural. Many of my experiences with God have been simply remarkable. Christ made the statement that you have not, because you ask not. I have taken the steps to actually ask God to show me things, and He has proven true to His Word. A long time ago I ask Christ if I coud see a little bit of Heaven. It was a long time after that request that in a dream, He did. All I can say is the more you lean on Him, the more He reveals Himself to you. My experiences are mine alone, yet God loves everyone, and those who seek Him will discover what I have found, and perhaps even more. Jesus said, that if you seek me with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind, you will surely find me. And I'm hear to tell you, that this is the truth.

 

My question to campbell34 is a simple one. Did "God" appear to you when he spoke or was it just an audible voice with no appearance? Was the voice deep and booming, low and whispery, or anything familiar to a human voice? These are legitimate questions.

According to your perspective we are all "sinners". I reject sin as a concept applicable to myself or natural reality. I see it as a religiously-motivated moral concept. But, this is is my opinion just as yours is that we all have this "sin".

So, essentially, we control what "God" will and will not do just based on how hard we believe something (even contrary of evidence)?

We must have "faith" this "God" exists. Then, we must have "faith" this God will do whatever we desire? Why must this omni-max deity play an eternal game of hide and seek? It may even be understandable if "God" were testing using trust in "him", but on top of this we must have "faith" that this "God" even exists?!?

Are you using the supernatural as evidence for "God" or "God" as evidence for the supernatural, because you've yet to give evidence for either so far. And you can't use one, I'll go so far as to say. "imaginary" concept to support another "imaginary" concept.

However, if either of these concepts aren't imaginary then we must have evidence for one or both in order to allow you to use them as arguments in this debate.

So, you had a dream about "heaven". So have I. I've also dreamed I had sex with Angelina Jolie, but alas, it never came to pass. Dreams may mean certain things psychologically, but to base your life on them (as characters in the Bible did) is quite odd, I might say. Even dangerous in some cases.

The remainder of campbell34's paragraph is really just a testimony and anecdotal evidence combined with an over-abundance of generalizing and he appears to be jumping to conclusions based on his own preconceived notions.

Campbell34 has ignored the leading question here ("Does God Exist?") and has automatically presumed "God" without offering evidence for the existence of such a being, which is, ironically, the whole subject of this debate.

 

Is this gonna be on pay-per-veiw?