Christianity is not a Religion

[Jack]

As Matt W stated in post #145, you should be providing some sort of substantiation for your assertions. Here's an overview of proper debating.

[Morality Games]

What do you want me to say.

This is a debate forum. Just as people use banks to manage their finances, they use debate forums to argue. Arguing has a unique form, with different parties (or individuals) producing evidence to show how they are in the right. If you don't produce evidence, then you are not arguing, you are just repeating your feelings.

This is not a place for repeating how you feel. It is a place for argument. Rather than saying you are right, you must demonstrate that what you feel is true is true in fact.

Everyone feels as though the ideas they affirm are true. Your feelings do not make you exceptional, and they cannot be used as a point-of-attack in a debate, because they have no weight ... they can't make any psychological impact.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Will_00 What do you want me to say.

Some of the Christian members of this site are fine debaters, they substantiate their opinions beyond simply saying that their 'debates are Infinately True' [sic].

[Winter wind]

Quote by: will_00 What do you want me to say.

Quote the Bible. If you don't, It's just putting words in God's mouth.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Winter wind Quote the Bible. If you don't, It's just putting words in God's mouth.

That logic only works if...

A. You believe the bible: all of at least one version of it, is God's word.
B The various authors changed nothing and only put down exactly what God told them to write.
C. Nothing has been changed, altered, inserted or deleted.

If that's your stance then, that's your stance. I don't agree, but that's another matter except... those who disagree with these rather broad assumptions won't find "proof" in what you claim would be proof. Therefore it would be a senseless pursuit debating-wise: kind of like using Britney Spears as an example of the perfect human for those who think otherwise. Those who worship will dismiss the non-believers concerns and "facts." Those who don't will dismiss the believers as deluded.

For me, just to give an example, using the "proof" you insist as "proof," would result in "maybe this is what God intended, or maybe I'm just quoting someone else who inserted his words into God's mouth." Interesting? Yes. Something we should discuss and possibly follow? Yes. But "proof?" Not really.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: ken Carman If that's your stance then, that's your stance. I don't agree, but that's another matter except..

I was doing this Christian to Christian. I was just trying to see where he got his ideas from.

I wasn't using this to argue against atheists, just Christians I disagree with. (I don't know if you know who Will_00 is)

[Will_00]

This is not a place for repeating how you feel. It is a place for argument. Rather than saying you are right, you must demonstrate that what you feel is true is true in fact.

Some of the Christian members of this site are fine debaters, they substantiate their opinions beyond simply saying that their 'debates are Infinately True' [sic].

Quote the Bible. If you don't, It's just putting words in God's mouth.

Of course I know how to debate. Yet everytime I give Evidence, you continually use it and say that it can't be correct simply because I am quoting the Bible.

A. You believe the bible: all of at least one version of it, is God's word. B The various authors changed nothing and only put down exactly what God told them to write. C. Nothing has been changed, altered, inserted or deleted.

Fine (yet incorrect), then your logic only works if:

You believe in Darwinism.

I would like to state that in actuality your argument is cyclical.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Winter wind I was doing this Christian to Christian. I was just trying to see where he got his ideas from. I wasn't using this to argue against atheists, just Christians I disagree with. (I don't know if you know who Will_00 is)

Ah, sorry. My only defense is that I really don't have time to read every post when I comment. Besides, if I did that by the time I tried to comment I wouldn't remember what I was going to say.

Don't ever get old, it rots the memory cells.

(BTW, atheist? Not me. Just a rather odd theist.)

[Jack]

You believe in Darwinism

What exactly is Darwinism? Darwin wasn't a philosopher and didn't create a school of thought. It's not a religion; no one worships Darwin, believes he's a god or considers him a deity.
Darwin did author one of the original works that explained the observed phenomena of evolution. The theory of evolution has advanced far beyond Darwin's work. If you want to name a theory after it's most famous proponent, you should also refer to gravity as Newtonism. If you're trying to infer that scientists and atheists cling to evolution in the same way theists cling to their religions, you will fail. Accepting the best explanation for natural processes is nothing like believing in gods with no evidence to support that belief.

I would like to state that in actuality your argument is cyclical.

If you really mean cyclical, you're correct. That argument, in one form or another, comes up any time someone attempts to use the Bible as a source of unvarnished truth.

If you meant circular, I disagree. It's a list of conditions, each one of which is unique and orderly. Please explain how you perceive that argument as circular.

[Will_00]

Accepting the best explanation for natural processes is nothing like believing in gods with no evidence to support that belief.

Yet your "evidence" is not even remotely close to what is the Truth. Your "evidence" is imperfect and thus cannot be fully justified.

If you meant circular, I disagree. It's a list of conditions, each one of which is unique and orderly. Please explain how you perceive that argument as circular.

Your intentions of stating Christianity, and God, as not being existent, whilst using imperfect "evidence" goes back to the beginning of your imperfect "evidence."

[Winter wind]

Quote by: will_00 Yet everytime I give Evidence, you continually use it and say that it can't be correct simply because I am quoting the Bible.

Not me. Quote the Bible and you'll have more ammo. After all, this is a topic on whether or not Christianity is a religion, making what the Bible says highly relevant.

If anyone here says otherwise, I'll take your side.

[Jack]

Quote by: Will_00 Yet your "evidence" is not even remotely close to what is the Truth. Your "evidence" is imperfect and thus cannot be fully justified.

Yet you fail to understand the evidence that supports evolution and have not supported your contention that your "truth" is true for anyone beyond yourself and those who agree with you.

Your intentions of stating Christianity, and God, as not being existent, whilst using imperfect "evidence" goes back to the beginning of your imperfect "evidence."

You seem to be confused over what you were talking about. What you said was "cyclical", I suspect meaning "circular" was the following;

A. You believe the bible: all of at least one version of it, is God's word. B The various authors changed nothing and only put down exactly what God told them to write. C. Nothing has been changed, altered, inserted or deleted.

Where in that do you see anything resembling what you just posted?