• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Which faulty tactic you had used, when debate with some atheists about your religious claims?

Which faulty tactic you had used, when debate with some atheists about your religious claims?


  • Total voters
    5
  • This poll will close: .

Howard Is

Lucky Mud
You see these things as faulty because your own understanding has been distorted. That is, you literally cannot see God because you believe he is not there, you believe in the delusion of the physical world. But the physical world is a shadow of the Real World.


How is that an argument for God ?

Did Plato ever say he believed in God ?

It is however a good argument (or at least mental exercise) to support Bohme’s theory of the explicate and implicate universe.

BTW, the Ancient Greek philosophers gained much of their insight, or at least groovy ideas, from a psychedelic ergot which they called Kykeon.

Thanks for supporting atheist trippers like myself !

Oh yeah...and the Essenes, source of the Jesus Myth, used amanita muscaria mushrooms as a sacrament.
 
Last edited:

Howard Is

Lucky Mud
BTW, the Ancient Greek philosophers gained much of their insight, or at least groovy ideas, from a psychedelic ergot which they called Kykeon.

Thanks for supporting atheist trippers like myself !

Oh yeah...and the Essenes, source of the Jesus Myth, used amanita muscaria mushrooms as a sacrament.

All of the world’s major religions have their origin in psychedelia. I could list them one by one if you like.

“Religion” as we know it is the garbled Chinese Whispers of the testimony of trippers, be they Essenes, Greeks, Hindus, Shamans....maybe hippies in the near future, lol.

We could storm the Vatican catacombs and produce even more evidence I’m sure. It’s not like they don’t know this.

But ..”there is nothing that so disturbs the Bishops as a saint in the parish”
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I have never seen Atheism people giving any positive argument in favor of their worldview, it is perhaps for this that they resort to deride and or ridicule the truthful Religion. Right, please?
Regards
I'm happy to discuss it with you quietly if you'd find that helpful. I can tell you clearly why I'm not a believer and explain and if required defend my worldview, and listen carefully to your replies too. Just say the word.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Information/reason = intelligence
Intelligence = wisdom
Intelligence/wisdom = truth
Information is intelligence in the military sense, not in the IQ sense.

Information is not wisdom. Wisdom is about what to do with information, and what to do when there are problems with either obtaining information, or the quality of what's obtained.

Wisdom isn't truth any more than sportsmanship or amiability or any other abstraction is truth. In my view a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Which type of faulty debate tactics you had used, when debate with some atheists about your religious claims?


Choice of answers:

(1) Making bold empty claim.

(2) Making strawman argument.

(3) Reply with irrelevant stuff or moving goal posts.

(4) Change the definition of words to engage in sophistry.

(5) Say something like "go read my religion's book to find the evidence of my claims" - poor cop out. Don't bother to back up my claim with detailed evidence, instead provide vague statement like "the evidence is in my religion's book, go find it yourself".

(Yeah sure, the universe is created by The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the evidence is in the book "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster", go find it yourself. Oh, you don't want to read it? Resort to bold empty threat: You'll regret someday in the future! You read it and didn't find the evidence? Read it again, with sincere attitude; or, only my true interpretation can correctly decipher the true meanings of that book; or, you have no faith at all; or, i'll pray for you. Seriously...)

(6) Making bold empty threat - atheists will go to hell if they don't obey the God i believe in.

(7) Making bold empty threat - atheists will regret if they don't obey the God i believe in.

(8) I think the debate tactics listed above are not faulty. I think it's perfectly rational and logical for me to use the debate tactics listed above.

(9) I had used some of the faulty debate tactics listed above. I recognize it's a mistake to do so.

(10) I haven't use any of the faulty debate tactics listed above, ever.


Extra choice of answers:

(11) Ignore the debate opponent's point, and repeat my previous religious claims ad nauseam.

(12) Put the debate opponent in my ignore list and repeat my previous religious claims ad nauseam.

(13) Ignore the debate opponent's point and run away. Someday in the future make the same religious claims again, when confront, run away again. Repeat...

(14) Reply with incomprehensible sentences or word salad.

(15) Don't reply to the debate opponent's post, instead rate their post as funny/optimistic.


(I might not be participate in this discussion, so please feel free to discuss/debate with other people here.)

People who (don't have) god on their side don't
have need for such.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Information is intelligence in the military sense, not in the IQ sense.

Information is not wisdom. Wisdom is about what to do with information, and what to do when there are problems with either obtaining information, or the quality of what's obtained.

Wisdom isn't truth any more than sportsmanship or amiability or any other abstraction is truth. In my view a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality.

Oh, you know, some of our posters just say things.
Esp the "philosophers" and the "theists".
 

Audie

Veteran Member
(16) Making fun of the atheists inability to write in cogent english.

Coming from one whose "philosophy" leads into
tangles of turgid verbiage, that rates a :D

You got two errors into just eleven words.
Not bad, but only good for a dim smile.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Which type of faulty debate tactics you had used, when debate with some atheists about your religious claims?


Choice of answers:

(1) Making bold empty claim.

(2) Making strawman argument.

(3) Reply with irrelevant stuff or moving goal posts.

(4) Change the definition of words to engage in sophistry.

(5) Say something like "go read my religion's book to find the evidence of my claims" - poor cop out. Don't bother to back up my claim with detailed evidence, instead provide vague statement like "the evidence is in my religion's book, go find it yourself".

(Yeah sure, the universe is created by The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the evidence is in the book "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster", go find it yourself. Oh, you don't want to read it? Resort to bold empty threat: You'll regret someday in the future! You read it and didn't find the evidence? Read it again, with sincere attitude; or, only my true interpretation can correctly decipher the true meanings of that book; or, you have no faith at all; or, i'll pray for you. Seriously...)

(6) Making bold empty threat - atheists will go to hell if they don't obey the God i believe in.

(7) Making bold empty threat - atheists will regret if they don't obey the God i believe in.

(8) I think the debate tactics listed above are not faulty. I think it's perfectly rational and logical for me to use the debate tactics listed above.

(9) I had used some of the faulty debate tactics listed above. I recognize it's a mistake to do so.

(10) I haven't use any of the faulty debate tactics listed above, ever.


Extra choice of answers:

(11) Ignore the debate opponent's point, and repeat my previous religious claims ad nauseam.

(12) Put the debate opponent in my ignore list and repeat my previous religious claims ad nauseam.

(13) Ignore the debate opponent's point and run away. Someday in the future make the same religious claims again, when confront, run away again. Repeat...

(14) Reply with incomprehensible sentences or word salad.

(15) Don't reply to the debate opponent's post, instead rate their post as funny/optimistic.


(I might not be participate in this discussion, so please feel free to discuss/debate with other people here.)

I've never used any faulty debate tactics with any person, ever. I'm superior to all persons intellectually...

...Oh wait, that's what the skeptics say about their own arguments, every day, live here at RF.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Uh huh.
But that gets us nowhere in this discussion.
Right, because this thread is only supposed to be about the false presumptions and flawed logic of theists. We're supposed to be ignoring the false assumptions and flawed logic of atheists, I guess.
 
Top