Debate Assistance

migfart
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Debate Assistance

I've recently engaged in a rigorous debate with some of my fellow students regarding their Theistic beliefs, specifically the core tedants of Christianity. I am in need of assitance in refuting these points:

 1. Belief in a God makes me feel good, therefore it is acceptable. (Just because something makes you feel good doesn't make it true, for one)

2. Christianity "makes the most sense" in his mind after comparing it to the other major religions of the world. (Well I'm sure it would considernig he was indoctrinated)

3.We can not comprehend God and therefore the leap of faith is required, along with constant doubt. This leap of faith is virtous. (Untested belief is something that we should be striving for?)

 

Thanks guys, this is my first post here. 


serotonin_wraith
serotonin_wraith's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Okay, this is what I'd

Okay, this is what I'd probably say-

1. Belief in a God makes me feel good, therefore it is acceptable. (Just because something makes you feel good doesn't make it true, for one)

Being an alcoholic makes people feel good, is that acceptable?

Raping someone may satisfy sexual impulses and make you feel good, is that acceptable?

Hitting someone who insults you could make you feel good, is that acceptable?

There are plenty of other examples to show that just because something makes you feel good, it doesn't justify it.

2. Christianity "makes the most sense" in his mind after comparing it to the other major religions of the world. (Well I'm sure it would considernig he was indoctrinated)

But does it make more sense than not believing a God created us?

For example, scientists can measure the speed of light and how far away the stars are. Putting two and two together shows it's taken millions of years for the light of certain stars to reach us. Which makes more sense- the Universe is much older than the Bible suggests, or God made the stars with light that had already travelled millions of lightyears?

Or tell him the story of Dionysus (just google 'Dionysus Jesus&#39Eye-wink and ask him why he isn't believing in Dionysus instead, as his story is so similar to the story of Jesus, but it was believed hundreds of years before Jesus apparently walked the Earth. Makes more sense to believe the first, doesn't it?

3.We can not comprehend God and therefore the leap of faith is required, along with constant doubt. This leap of faith is virtous. (Untested belief is something that we should be striving for?)

They do claim to know God- what he wants of us, what he's like etc. They could go on for hours about it.

If they're not sure, why are they following the Bible's version of God more than any other holy books? 

It's not just that they're believing in something out of faith (belief without evidence), they're believing in something that goes against evidence.

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
serotonin_wraith

serotonin_wraith wrote:

Okay, this is what I'd probably say-

1. Belief in a God makes me feel good, therefore it is acceptable. (Just because something makes you feel good doesn't make it true, for one)

Being an alcoholic makes people feel good, is that acceptable?

Raping someone may satisfy sexual impulses and make you feel good, is that acceptable?

Hitting someone who insults you could make you feel good, is that acceptable?

There are plenty of other examples to show that just because something makes you feel good, it doesn't justify it.

 

 

All those things you mentioned affect other people. If it doesn't affect you why would you care what they believe?


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2830
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Quote: 1. Belief in a God

Quote:

1. Belief in a God makes me feel good, therefore it is acceptable. (Just because something makes you feel good doesn't make it true, for one)

Ted Bundy uses the same justification for his serial raping/killing. He argued "what's one less person in the world?"

Kant once said that in order to be moral, we must act as if anything we do might become a general rule for everyone to follow. So if your friend holds its ok for him to hold to a belief because it feels good, does he want Bundy to use the same method?

 

Quote:

2. Christianity "makes the most sense" in his mind after comparing it to the other major religions of the world. (Well I'm sure it would considernig he was indoctrinated)

Call him on this clear lie.

1) He was born into a christian culture - which makes christianity appear more reasonable, seeing as you grew up with it. Even today, I think catholocism makes 'more sense' than Mormonism or Scientology.

2) He hasn't actually compared his religion to other religions in a fair manner, he started out leaning towards christianity, and this bias influenced interpretation.

3) He's full of shit if he thinks he's really studied other religions in depth.

Quote:

3.We can not comprehend God and therefore the leap of faith is required, along with constant doubt.

Quite true! Kudos to him. "god' is an incoherent term, and there's no actual way to prove he exists.

 

Quote:

This leap of faith is virtous.

No, believing things without any reason isn't virtuous... here's why: recall my mention of Kant previously... do you want muslims who want to fly planes into buildings using your claim "faith is virtuous"? If not, why not?

If they ought not to use it, then how can you justify using it, given Kant's moral rule? 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


serotonin_wraith
serotonin_wraith's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: All

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
All those things you mentioned affect other people. If it doesn't affect you why would you care what they believe?

Well, first of all, being an alcoholic doesn't necessarily have to affect other people for it to be bad. Someone without a family or much contact with others won't harm others if they drink too much, but they will be doing harm to their bodies. Same with other drugs too.

A person's religious beliefs do affect me. Do I really need to list them all? The reason no one cares what UFO enthusiasts believe is that their beliefs don't affect others, but with religion in the heart of politics, those beliefs do affect the world.


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
serotonin_wraith wrote:

Okay, this is what I'd probably say-

1. Belief in a God makes me feel good, therefore it is acceptable. (Just because something makes you feel good doesn't make it true, for one)

Being an alcoholic makes people feel good, is that acceptable?

Raping someone may satisfy sexual impulses and make you feel good, is that acceptable?

Hitting someone who insults you could make you feel good, is that acceptable?

There are plenty of other examples to show that just because something makes you feel good, it doesn't justify it.

 

 

All those things you mentioned affect other people. If it doesn't affect you why would you care what they believe?

Homosexuality and abortion don't affect you or most theists in the slightest, why do they care so much about it? 

You're saying that you don't care about rape, murder etc until it happens to you, you're happy for all those people to get away with it? 

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
migfart wrote: 2.

migfart wrote:
2. Christianity "makes the most sense" in his mind after comparing it to the other major religions of the world. (Well I'm sure it would considernig he was indoctrinated)

I would just like to add that this is not actually an argument, it's a slightly disguised way to beg the question. It can be restated as "I and a Christian because I concluded that I should be." The mention of other religions doesn't really add anything relevent to the sentence. If he really did examine other religions, then there must be reasons that he accepted one but not the others, which have not been presented and should have been. But, for the reasons mentioned by Tod, he will be unable to explain his reasoning, because that was a lie.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
By the way, welcome to the

By the way, welcome to the forums, migfart!