1. 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!

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

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Pudding, Aug 25, 2019.

?
  1. Making bold empty claim.

    20.0%
  2. Making strawman argument.

    20.0%
  3. Reply with irrelevant stuff or moving goal posts.

    20.0%
  4. Change the definition of words to engage in sophistry.

    20.0%
  5. Say something like "go read my religion's book to find the evidence of my claims" - poor cop out.

    20.0%
  6. Making bold empty threat - atheists will go to hell if they don't obey the God i believe in.

    40.0%
  7. Making bold empty threat - atheists will regret if they don't obey the God i believe in.

    20.0%
  8. I think the debate tactics listed above are not faulty.

    20.0%
  9. I had used some of the faulty debate tactics listed above. I recognize it's a mistake to do so.

    20.0%
  10. I haven't use any of the faulty debate tactics listed above, ever.

    40.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,763
    Ratings:
    +2,835
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    But what you oppose is as much a part of your worldview as what you embrace, surely? If I didn't dislike fundamentalism, I wouldn't be me.
     
  2. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    11,890
    Ratings:
    +4,173
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    We can't know if what we think 'is' corresponds with 'what is'. As humans we do not have the sensual/intellectual capacity to know 'what is'. It is far to vast and complex. So the "truth", for us, is limited to those theories of 'what is' that appear to function within the limited sensual/intellectual experience that we so have. Our "truth", therefor, is both relative and subjective. Which is why it's always changing.
     
  3. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,763
    Ratings:
    +2,835
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    But you obviously don't function on that basis.

    You have clear ideas from your sensory inputs about the world external to you. Further, you understand the origin, nature and purpose of scientific instruments, from the magnifying glass to the computer to the LHC; you have a useful outline of medicine and biology, you aren't perplexed to know how flowers grow from seeds or tadpoles from spawn, or to read a report on brain research. You live and function in, and understand, a world where knowledge isn't absolute, yet good enough to put rovers on Mars, make medicines for certain brain disorders, treat Ebola, aid fertility &c, create new materials, on and on.

    So my point is that there can indeed be a legitimate and functional concept of truth in your world and in mine. Do you seriously dispute that?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    11,890
    Ratings:
    +4,173
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    It's not a question of function. It's a question of realizing that truth is not defined by functionality. Or not realizing it.
    No, I (we) don't. Because I am already aware that there are aspects of reality that are beyond the reach of my (our) sensual/intellectual experience, and I (we) have no way of knowing how vast or how significant all that missing information is in knowing the truth of 'what is'. So we have no idea how accurate our ideas of it, are.
    We can logically assume that we cannot detect or understand 'what is' (truth) because 'what is' (truth) is an integrated whole. And we not only do not have access the that integrated whole, we don't even know how limited the access we do have, is, and how much of the whole we are oblivious of.
    What I dispute is your continued insistence on conflating functionality with truth.
     
  5. Howard Is

    Howard Is Lucky Mud

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    913
    Ratings:
    +542
    Religion:
    Loving Kindness
    You have a point, but atheism isn’t strictly about opposing theism.

    It may well be about opposing theists though, by dint of their intrusion in our lives.

    There is an important difference there.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,763
    Ratings:
    +2,835
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    It's a question of accurately reporting the external world to the brain, thus enabling the brain to deal with reality.
    But as I said, they're accessible by our tools and instruments. But until we detect them, on what basis do we say they're real? What test makes the statement "That's a real aspect of the world external to me" true?
    Or indeed whether any particular thing or phenomenon of that kind is there at all, no?
    Do you mean that we can't know 'the truth' until we account for all every atom, force and phenomenon in the the universe in real time? Or to put that another way, do you think the statement 'North Dakota shares a border with South Dakota' can't be true because it isn't part of a grand Scheme of Everything? Or do you think it's true as it stands, and if you think that, what definition of 'truth' are you using?
     
  7. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,763
    Ratings:
    +2,835
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    I have no problem with that. People can believe what they like (as long as fundamentalism is confined to consenting adults in private). The important thing is whether someone treats others with respect and decency.
     
  8. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    16,092
    Ratings:
    +1,778
    Which faulty tactic you had used, when debate with some atheists about your religious claims?

    I never used, repeat never used, any faulty tactic with anybody, including Atheism people in the forum while in discussion or debate here to convince anybody. Why should I, I don't hate anybody?
    If I did, please point it here to discuss it again.

    Regards
     
  9. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    16,092
    Ratings:
    +1,778
    I would like to ask a reverse question.
    Which faulty tactics the Atheism people use/d against the believers of Revealed Religions, please?

    Regards
     
  10. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    21,574
    Ratings:
    +9,345
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    ROFL!
    That's because atheists have no particular worldview, you silly.
     
Loading...