The Next Line Of Reasoning

[cardero]

In the five years of debating religion the most fun for me has been going toe to toe with someone who implies reasoning from their scriptures. Not only was it simple to turn their own holy book against them but I enjoyed employing scripture from my own bible that I wrote sometimes quoting passages that eerily answered their questions as if the member asked GOD directly themselves.

The outlook of this tactic was to show members that if they wanted to use the word of GOD to defend their position, I had no objection of using it too. This became a frustrating practice among believers because they usually could not prove their Holy scriptures to be true (which is why they continually had to put faith into them) and they usually had no interest in proving mine wrong or right. Usually this battle of the books would end up turning into insult with the opposing RF member disgracing or discounting my relationship with GOD as well as my documented conversations.

In other words, it would cancel out the practice of using books to define the word of GOD (which was fine by me). Unfortunately, this would usually be where others would stop contributing to the discussion.

Why? I can only assume that the book that they were using was their last and most relevant line of defense and reasoning. To them there was probably no where else to go. There was nothing else to discuss if you didn’t believe in their word of GOD.

But what is the next line of reasoning when faith abandons or doesn’t convince someone else? Do they ever reflect upon the lives and decisions of others? Do they go to statistics? Do they examine real life examples? What exactly is the next line of reasoning after GOD’s word fails to impress the non-believer?

 

[freethinker44]

I used to do this too when chatrooms were popular. I would start a debate and then only speak through bible passages I quote and manage to contradict most of what people said. And then they get mad and start calling me satan, and at this point, I know that I have won the debate.

 

[Madhuri]

What does reasoning have to do with any of it? I think the correct word here is rationalising. That's all people have left when their claims are defeated and they can't face it.

 

[dead1]

"Reason" IS the capacity for rational thought or to argue logically or persuasively. I think reason has everything to do with almost any debate.
Also I don't assume that people that remove themselves from a debate believe they were defeated. Perhaps they began to recognize the limits of their reasoning or inability to sustain logical discourse. Without trying to put words in original poster's mouth, I understood the question posed as "when reasonable discourse has failed, what would be the next step in educating those who seem immovable in their defense of indefensible ideas?".
I may be incorrect in my assumption. I don't think I'm smart enough to develop a fullproof method of keeping those unwilling to debate in the debate. However, I do believe that is a worthy goal and would enjoy further input from the community as I'm sure would the original poster.

 

[Madhuri]

"Reason" IS the capacity for rational thought or to argue logically or persuasively. I think reason has everything to do with almost any debate.
Also I don't assume that people that remove themselves from a debate believe they were defeated. Perhaps they began to recognize the limits of their reasoning or inability to sustain logical discourse. Without trying to put words in original poster's mouth, I understood the question posed as "when reasonable discourse has failed, what would be the next step in educating those who seem immovable in their defense of indefensible ideas?".
I may be incorrect in my assumption. I don't think I'm smart enough to develop a fullproof method of keeping those unwilling to debate in the debate. However, I do believe that is a worthy goal and would enjoy further input from the community as I'm sure would the original poster.

I think that when people resort to insulting and such they -have- lost the debate and the fact that they do not realise this is because they are not using reason; rather they are rationalising and in denial.

 

[Man of Faith]

When a person doesn't accept the Bible as the world of God then there is nothing really left to do. That is the rejection of Jesus as redemption for their sins, it happens every day. There is nothing a Christian can do about it. We feel bad about it and hope one day that the Holy Spirit convicts that person and they accept before they die. There is a statistic known by Christians that only about 20% of people accept Jesus in adulthood, the rest accept him as a child.

I've noticed from debating over the years that people will say anything or make anything up in order to try to discount the Bible or God. For example the OP says that they created their own book, i believe the the flying spaghetti monster came about because of that. People will actually promote that religion even though they know who created it and why.

The next step for a Christian to keep plugging away. It's probably rare for someone to get saved or believe by debating anyway. It takes something or someone in the persons life to talk to them directly or for them to experience something to get them to the point that they believe they need a savior. Trying to be the smartest person in the room doesn't cut it. I could make up stuff all day long and debate others or discount their information. However the reality of death and possiblilty of eternal life and judgement doesn't go away. The possibility that the Bible is the word of God doesn't go away either.

 

[Madhuri]

The possibility that the Bible is the word of God doesn't go away either.

Possibility is the key word here.
The point being that most people in the world, Christians included have no good reason to accept the Bible as truth. By no good reason I mean that they lack any experience that would give the Bible credibility, and/or reasonable judgement. Having someone 'talk' to you is not effective unless they are a completely gullible person. It's wrong to believe everything you hear; you need good reason. You need some kind of evidence, even if that is personal experience. The fact remains that personal experience is amongst the rarest things that actually happen and even when they do, they often support a compeltely different 'reality'.

Don't be too quick to judge a person's decision to not be a Christian. There are millions of things that a person can be and from the perspective of a person who is not Christian, the Bible does not seem like a very good source of inspiration and certainly does not seem like a source for truth.

And believe me, people from every other faith/belief system feels sorry for everyone of every other belief system. Everyone thinks they are right.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But what is the next line of reasoning when faith abandons or doesn’t convince someone else? Do they ever reflect upon the lives and decisions of others? Do they go to statistics? Do they examine real life examples? What exactly is the next line of reasoning after GOD’s word fails to impress the non-believer?

I'll pray for you.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I used to do this too when chatrooms were popular. I would start a debate and then only speak through bible passages I quote and manage to contradict most of what people said. And then they get mad and start calling me satan, and at this point, I know that I have won the debate.

Ingenious methodology.

 

[linwood]

There is a statistic known by Christians that only about 20% of people accept Jesus in adulthood, the rest accept him as a child.

Do you have a source for this?

It speaks volumes.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Do you have a source for this?

It speaks volumes.

I don't know about his source but it does fit with my experience. When Billy Graham was doing his thing most of the local preachers would complain after he left. Most of those folk coming down at the call never made it to a church. But the kids - they did. Parents brought them and left them off.

And, of course, the christian message IS that only "a simple childlike faith" is needed - or desired.

 

[Man of Faith]

Do you have a source for this?

It speaks volumes.

I don't really have a source but did a Google search to see what I could find and put the results below. I've been a Christian for 39 years since I was age 10, been in many churchs, many Bible studies, taught Sunday School, been to seminars, am a Deacon today, been on committees, etc... I have seen many documents with that statistic on it, but haven't really saw the need to save any of them. I have been in churchs when polls have been taken and people asked to raised their hand concerning who was saved as a child and who was adults and the statistic has been confirmed at those times.

Age of Salvation

Salvation: at what age?

"The Barna Research study , announced on 1999-NOV-12, shows that the vast majority of those who are saved experience the conversion during childhood -- before the age of 14. A person who is unsaved at the age of 14 only has a 10% chance of being "saved" later in life."

 

[Madhuri]

Yes, kids are much more vulnerable to suggestion, pressure and fear. It makes sense.

 

[darkendless]

"Saving Kids" is child abuse.

I wouldnt think the 'true religion of God' would need to abuse vunerable kids to replenish their stocks.

 

[linwood]

Age of Salvation

Salvation: at what age?

"The Barna Research study , announced on 1999-NOV-12, shows that the vast majority of those who are saved experience the conversion during childhood -- before the age of 14. A person who is unsaved at the age of 14 only has a 10% chance of being "saved" later in life."

Very nice references, both religioustolerance.org and barna are sources I trust.

I had never given this much thought before but it meshes with my intuition on the subject.

Thank you.

 

[Man of Faith]

Yes, kids are much more vulnerable to suggestion, pressure and fear. It makes sense.

And it is easier for a child to have childlike faith.

 

[Madhuri]

And it is easier for a child to have childlike faith.

What does that mean? Undeveloped? Shallow? Brainwashed? Unthinking?

 

[Dunemeister]

Possibility is the key word here.
The point being that most people in the world, Christians included have no good reason to accept the Bible as truth. By no good reason I mean that they lack any experience that would give the Bible credibility, and/or reasonable judgement. Having someone 'talk' to you is not effective unless they are a completely gullible person. It's wrong to believe everything you hear; you need good reason. You need some kind of evidence, even if that is personal experience. The fact remains that personal experience is amongst the rarest things that actually happen and even when they do, they often support a compeltely different 'reality'.

Why assume that Christians have no experience that gives the bible credibility? Perhaps God Himself testifies to the new convert (or the venerable believer) that the doctrines taught in scripture (or the doctrine taught by their priest) is from God. This is at least possible, and if Christianity is true, it's probably the way it goes.

Don't be too quick to judge a person's decision to not be a Christian. There are millions of things that a person can be and from the perspective of a person who is not Christian, the Bible does not seem like a very good source of inspiration and certainly does not seem like a source for truth.

True. I used to find the bible repugnant (or irrelevant or inconvenient or infantile). I now find it extraordinarily beautiful, wise, and, frankly, true. So I've seen this from both sides.

 

[Dunemeister]

Yes, kids are much more vulnerable to suggestion, pressure and fear. It makes sense.

There's no need to insult children or those who teach them religion.

 

[Man of Faith]

What does that mean? Undeveloped? Shallow? Brainwashed? Unthinking?

I would say children are more trusting and humble which are attributes that can produce the faith necessary to get saved.