Which side makes a better case?
avatar
10 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    A really excellent discussion @quinfriberg You hold your side up very well. Clearly it is familiar territory for us both.

    Prophesy would be a great discussion. It's not an area I am as experienced in but I'd love to do it. I think we'd want to set the topic ahead of time so we can both do some research and get into the nity gritty of a few specific clams.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried It would be cool to do debates on specific prophecies even, just so we can do justice to a few (or even one) instead of a broad sweep?

      Great job, I enjoyed the debate. Next time we'll do discussion style for sure.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried @quinfriberg I would love to see a prophecy debate. You guys should definitely schedule that if you haven't already. Tonight was quite a teaser on the subject.

  • 2 years ago

    Not to put too fine a point on it but to say that you can use science to test the claims of Christianity but also insist on the legitimacy of miracles is nonsensical.

    You can test the claims of Christianity except of course for all those claims you can’t test because they were miracles. The idea makes me chuckle.

    • 2 years ago

      @madmike Good point I had something like that in mind but didn't bring it up. My bit about god breaking the rules at the end was my attempt to introduce that issue. How do we know what is just god changing things if an experiment fails? It really undermines the emperical system and substitutes faith and religion as over-riding any science.

    • 2 years ago

      @madmike - No one said empirical methods could test every claim of Christianity, but certainly some. I said other standards for testing exist (and I named a few in the debate). Even naturalist believe certain things not based on empirical grounds but historical grounds, but that doesn't mean naturalism violates empiricism.

      However it is correct to say the laws of the universe are subject to God's power, although again, Christianity has a reason for believe (beside "it seems to work that way when we check) for believing in the uniformity of those laws as a general rule.

      P.S. I love Qallout though because I don't have to debate in comments though :p so if you'd like to debate this further i'd be happy to schedule a debate.

    • 2 years ago

      @quinfriberg I’d be glad to. I have strong feelings as to whether Christianity is more reasonable than atheism.

    • 2 years ago

      @madmike - Is there anyway to narrow down the topic a bit? What I learned from these past two is the topic is extremely broad right now... is there a certain aspect we can debate relating to the reasonableness of the faiths?

    • 2 years ago

      @quinfriberg My top three reasons Atheism is more reasonable than Christianty:

      1. Belief in miracles is unreasonable, i.e. virgin birth, Resurrection, Noah's ark, etc. World views that don't require miracles to be true are more reasonable than those that do.

      2. All empirical evidence points to a strictly determined universe, which precludes the Christian God. To ignore this is unreasonable.

      3. Universal morality is a fiction created by religion. Belief in universal morality, and eternal reward or punishment is unreasonable.

      I'd be willing to debate any of these, and probably any other argument that you might make that Christianity is more reasonable than atheism.

    • 2 years ago

      @madmike I vote that you guys explore reason number 2