» Home » Miscellaneous
Theists Should Answer Debates As If God Didn't Exist
Of course there'd be exceptions, but you shouldn't say "God said you shouldn't." or "It's in the Bible look it up." People should think independently and not hide behind the Bible.
 Homestar  06 Dec 2008 19:40
                           (What's this?)  Add to Firefox  RSS
"If" he didn't exist.
It's so hard to say IF when I know it's not a matter of if. That's why I put quotation marks. I use them a lot.
 
 Stranger  12 Dec 2008 21:14
 Add a Comment
 
 
Even as a Christian, I realize that using the Bible as factual evidence to atheists and the like is not going to work. Even though it's written by people who have had interactions with Jesus and God, it's not going to go over as factual information. It's good to follow the Bible and have morals, but it won't help you win in a debate.

However, I also side with Rodney. If we must act as though God doesn't exist, then atheists should act as if he did.
 
 bookworm3  09 Dec 2008 03:02
 1 Comment
 
 "If we must act as though God doesn't exist, then atheists should act as if he did." - pending the debate topic yes.
by  Specter87
 09 Dec 2008 03:05
Comment
  
Comment
  
 
Exactly. Too many times on this site people commit to a stance on a given subject giving their reason as "The bible tells me". It is not true, they have decided that for themselves whether they realise it or not.
 
 StBalders  08 Dec 2008 11:51
 10 Comments
 
 Too many times on this site the same can be said for those who are trying to debunk the "god" people.

It's all the same.
by  justsumguy
 09 Dec 2008 03:52
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
 
I've been saying this for years. It's ok to have morals that align with the supposed bible's morals, but state them as your own. "Passing the buck" comes to mind.
 
 Specter87  07 Dec 2008 01:30
 Add a Comment
 
 
Atheists then should answer debates as if God does exist. As we wouldn't want them to be hypocrites.

"And dictating other people's lives is part of their goal, it's part of why they try to impose their religion on others instead of keeping it where it belongs - in their homes or churches, not in public."

And they should keep their personal opinions to themselves in their homes not in public.
 
 Rodney  06 Dec 2008 23:48
 Add a Comment
 
 
The religious should, but never will.

If theists agreed that until they prove their "god" in a scientifically testable way, they could no longer attempt to dictate how others live.

And dictating other people's lives is part of their goal, it's part of why they try to impose their religion on others instead of keeping it where it belongs - in their homes or churches, not in public.

Edit:

Useless? Just like religion.
 
 K9  06 Dec 2008 21:18
 1 Comment
 
 The religious. (all religious people)
Never will. (absolute conclusion)
summation...extreme arrogance

Your second paragraph is too screwed up. I know what you're trying to say but you need to fix it.

Your third paragraph does not distinguish between the religious and the theists. Again, it is all-inclusive and hysterical.

Basically useless.

Edit: Full of use? A tool. Just like K9.
by  justsumguy
 09 Dec 2008 03:50
Comment
  
Comment
  
I don't believe that to be true unless the debate stipulates such a notion. However a wise debater would understand that an honest assessment of opposing viewpoints is necessary for a worthwhile debate.
 
 finsch  25 Oct 2009 07:40
 Add a Comment
 
 
Atheistic bias is not synonymous with independent thought, as much as you would like to believe that it is.
 
 dlmiller82  19 Oct 2009 07:50
 1 Comment
 
 You're right. I change my mind.
by  Homestar
 25 Oct 2009 06:10
Comment
  
Comment
  
 
This debate is on here many times. It doesn't make sense to say you cant use a particular line of reasoning in a debate. Then its not a debate but a lesson plan.
 
 created  18 Dec 2008 22:00
 Add a Comment
 
 
I am a theist. I constantly answer debates as if the God I believe in does not exist.

It does not help. People who do not believe in the God I believe in are offended when I take their side.

I'll do it again.

There is no God. I base my reality from that which I can know in this reality. This is our reality:

We are born from causes we can all understand. These causes can be traced by science through evolution and cosmology.

We live an extremely short period of time. We attach self importance to this temporary life.

We die. We attach self importance to the finality of death through our self importance we attached during life.

Then we sum it all up.
Some believe there is more.
Some believe there isn't.

Doesn't matter which side I'm on. I can easily map out what those two groups of people are going to say and think about the other.

For some reason, most people can't.

But since I don't believe in any gods...
And am aware of my short and temporary life...I will not pretend to have any answer. I cannot begin to understand those who believe in gods. I can write them off as delusional or misguided. Something less than I am. But this would suggest arrogance in my short and temporary existence which would seem to bloat the irony of my natural self importance.

I guess I'll try and get them to see their arrogance and the exceedingly great self importance they are applying to themselves with their beliefs in gods and how they are interfering with others pursuit of self importance.

They are being silly. They should forget all the subjective nonsense and we should all have fun and secure a better life for the next generation.

No matter what I do, I'm stuck with saying others should be a certain way. "We" should. "We" shouldn't. I do. I don't.

I might as well believe in a god. I do the same things they do without the benefits of super self importance.
 
 justsumguy  09 Dec 2008 03:44
 Add a Comment
 
 
What if the person’s answer relates to theology? To state that theists should debate from a standpoint as if no god existed is to say that you want your debating opponent to restrict their actual opinion on the debate itself. What’s the point in debating if your opinion can’t be expressed to its fullest? I for one wouldn’t assume the existence or non-existence of a god simply because someone wanted to limit my actual opinion on the matter (though doing either is probably easier for me to accomplish than others).
 
 Hizashi  09 Dec 2008 03:07
 1 Comment
 
 B.O.C.T.A.S.O.E.
by  Homestar
 26 Oct 2009 20:51
Comment
  
Comment
  
Sign In / Sign Up
 For and Against Recent Activity
Related Debates
Form Should Follow Function
Atheists Jump To Similar Conclusions About The Existence Of A Deity/Deities That Those Who Follow The...
Just Because A Person Is Atheist Doesn't Mean They Have No Morals.
Nazi Germany Had The Best Looking Military Dress Uniforms Of The 20th Century Up Until Now.
"New Years" Are Meaningless And Arbitrary Countings Of Time.
Books Are The Best Friend For A Man.
The New Transformers Movie Was Better Than The First One
Faith Is Really Just The Same Thing As Trust
People Are Forgetting What Debating Is All About
A Large # Of Ppl Invalidate Their Own Debate.
New Debates
Every High School Student Should Be Required To Take A Child Development Class.
Jesus Would Be A Revolutionary Going Against The Empire Wouldn’t He?
Hiking Is One Of The Best Forms Of Exercise.
America Has Made It Normal For An Individual To Eat Food Enough For 2 To 3 People In A Span Of 30 Years...
A Person Who Is Religious Because Of Conscience Reasons Is Rare.
The Laws Against People Who Write And Use Software And Viruses To Hack And Steal And Disrupt Computers...
Everyone Should Have The Right To Eat
The Small Things In Life Are Just As Important As The Big Things
Schools Have To Teach Too Many Subjects
Walmart Is Not A Good Store