is true debate really possible??

[terryjohn]

It is good to discuss issues with a wider group of perspectives as it gives both sides a better understanding of the topic and how best to present our ideas in amore comprehensive way, knowing what others may say before they say it.

 

[WoundedDeep]

You don't think God's Spirit works through human means? He just randomly zaps people? That to me seems an ahistorical understanding of the Holy Spirit.

I have never said God's Spirit does not work through human means, I just see endless debates about who God is and what He does as not how God will convict a person to repent and believe in the Gospel. Besides, debate forums does not allow the full Gospel to be preached, that in itself defeats the purpose of telling people about God because faith comes from hearing the Word of God, not from debates.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

For many that leave the Christian faith, emotional reasons, not intellectual ones, top the list.

On what do you base this? Is your nonbelief in other gods due primarily to emotional reasons? If it is, perhaps you're projecting?

Ironically, in one debate between Craig and Sam Harris, Harris said it best, it does no good to reason with someone who doesn't believe in reason. Which is a bit hypocritical because Harris was constantly rebuffing the rational arguments for God in favor of emotivist objections (the usual list, children dying of cancer, Hindus going to hell, prayers being unanswered... neglecting Craig's arguments for ontology altogether).

Did Craig have an answer to these "emotivist" objections? Personally, I don't see anything wrong with bringing up "the usual list." It's still relevant to the debate, and it's not as if apologists have definitively addressed the items on it. The same problems still linger; Harris did well to point them out. Besides which, I notice that you don't say that Craig relies on "emotivist" objections when he talks about the consequences (in his view) of atheism.

 

[Davian]

or is it mainly just point scoring?

Points for what? And who would care, in the context of these forums?

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

Points for what? And who would care, in the context of these forums?

the point being are we trying to share what we believe to help others or are we trying to put the beliefs of others down.

 

[Davian]

the point being are we trying to share what we believe to help others or are we trying to put the beliefs of others down.

I have no intention of putting down the beliefs of others, but there is no polite way of critically assessing personal beliefs.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Debate is what you personally make of it.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[agua]

I have no intention of putting down the beliefs of others, but there is no polite way of critically assessing personal beliefs.

Why not ? Maybe I misunderstand the definition of polite.
polite






adjective po·lite \pə-ˈlīt\
: having or showing good manners or respect for other people
: socially correct or proper


(Merriam-Webser)

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

Why not ? Maybe I misunderstand the definition of polite.
polite






adjective po·lite \pə-ˈlīt\
: having or showing good manners or respect for other people
: socially correct or proper


(Merriam-Webser)

I think what they meant is, that something so close and personal as your beliefs would be taken as an attack no matter how you went about it, which is a fair comment.

 

[agua]

I think what they meant is, that something so close and personal as your beliefs would be taken as an attack no matter how you went about it, which is a fair comment.

Ah ok. I think this may be the problem often. If people debate the subject and leave their emotional position aside it's easier to be polite. Of course this becomes more difficult when personal attacks are used.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Ah ok. I think this may be the problem often. If people debate the subject and leave their emotional position aside it's easier to be polite. Of course this becomes more difficult when personal attacks are used.

I often find that the reason some of the atheists on here constantly question our faith to the point of personal attacks is because our very faith offends them. They are in enmity against God and thus they turn it on those who have faith in Him.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I often find that the reason some of the atheists on here constantly question our faith to the point of personal attacks is because our very faith offends them. They are in enmity against God and thus they turn it on those who have faith in Him.

What personal attacks?

 

[WoundedDeep]

What personal attacks?

Such as alluding that Paul, a man of faith, is someone with mental illness.

 

[quatona]

Such as alluding that Paul, a man of faith, is someone with mental illness.

Personally, I feel that "mental illness" is more of an excuse than a personal attack.
(But I haven´t seen the statement in context - which might change my view).
In any case I have problems understanding how you could possibly take it for a personal attack on you.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Personally, I feel that "mental illness" is more of an excuse than a personal attack.
(But I haven´t seen the statement in context - which might change my view).
In any case I have problems understanding how you could possibly take it for a personal attack on you.

I was personally attacked in other ways, but that is not the point I'm raising. The point is that any person with faith in God will be personally attacked because those who oppose their faith are opposing God.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I was personally attacked in other ways

How? What was said about you personally? Which thread and post?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

I was personally attacked in other ways, but that is not the point I'm raising. The point is that any person with faith in God will be personally attacked because those who oppose their faith are opposing God.

I know that this is your opinion and psychological interpretation. I was just wondering whether it is your premise/preconception or some kind of conclusion based on the observations.
In the latter case, I would like to learn how you manage to frame certain statements as personal attacks.
(Because, actually, it looks like you are making assumptions about the mindsets of other persons in your complaint about people making assumptions about the mindsets of other persons).
But maybe you feel that "people of faith" automatically deserve some special privileges or immunity?

 

[quatona]

I was personally attacked in other ways, but that is not the point I'm raising.

Most definitely it was the point you were raising:

I often find that the reason some of the atheists on here constantly question our faith to the point of personal attacks is because our very faith offends them.

(emphasis added)
Last time I checked Paul wasn´t a member of CF.

 

[WoundedDeep]

How? What was said about you personally? Which thread and post?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Long buried in threads with hundreds of posts. Some of those threads are not even here anymore.

 

[WoundedDeep]

I know that this is your opinion and psychological interpretation. I was just wondering whether it is your premise/preconception or some kind of conclusion based on the observations.
In the latter case, I would like to learn how you manage to frame certain statements as personal attacks.
(Because, actually, it looks like you are making assumptions about the mindsets of other persons in your complaint about people making assumptions about the mindsets of other persons).
But maybe you feel that "people of faith" automatically deserve some special privileges or immunity?

It is based on observations. Some on here will go to the extent of calling Christians out for speaking about their personal experiences, try to discredit those experiences however possible, and allude to the fact that perhaps Christians are out of their mind for believing that God is responsible for those experiences. That is personal attack.