The debate "The Christians on this app are often at a disadvantage because it's usually 1vs 3" was started by
October 10, 2016, 11:48 pm.
13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 26 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
neveralone posted 7 arguments to the agreers part.
TheExistentialist posted 6 arguments, davidsmiley posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
neveralone, redeemed, human and 10 visitors agree.
TheExistentialist, davidsmiley, adwoasarpong, Blue_ray, nick, Tobibroek, monikofos, ADrunkenRobot, Yanksxx21, ProfDoke, makson and 15 visitors disagree.
And the opposite in the real world
I COMPLETLY AGREE WITH WHAT U SAID
I guess I would consider myself an Atheist in the sense that I don't have an active belief in God or anything supernatural. If I had to place science and religion on the same field, I would say that religion was our first attempt to make sense of the world while science is our latest. Personally, I don't feel like religion and science are intrinsically at odds. The exception occurs in those cases where science directly conflicts with religion (original sin and evolution for example).
I see things like evolution being in direct conflict with some faiths and with some interpretations of certain faiths. In those cases, i would argue that science is simply the superior answer since it relies on fewer assumptions, and the assumptions you have to make about science have never been falsified (i.e. there are natural rules which govern the universe and these rules are knowable and unchangeable). In the case of religion, it requires the suspension or violation of natural rules (like gravity, weak force, strong force, electromagnetism); I do not believe such violations actually occur.
i'm perfectly happy to concede the fact that science doesn't have all the answers and that some questions are unanswerable with science. I have no problem with people using spirituality/religion/faith (or whatever else you want to call "it") to make sense of these quires. Inquiries like "why are we/am I?" have no meaning in science and so science can't answer them.
I do enjoy theological debates since most rely on very ingenious arguments and deeply metaphysical issues which often cross into the realm of philosophy rather than science vs religion. i also enjoy the cat and mouse game of ever evolving arguments. The kalam cosmological argument has undergone so many iterations for example, that it's always fun to try and recognize it; the same can be said for the watchmaker argument, etc.... Some are really fascinating since they blur the line of science and philosophy forcing me to switch gears mid argument from scientific stats, papers, etc.... to logical proofs, Socratic methods, etc....
I guess the atheist in me rejects the notion of God, but the philosopher in me yearns for the challenge of "God".
let me know if that answers your question or if I just rambled about a whole lot of nothing.
i meant what are your thoughts on the line between science and religion. I asked because your last answer was so precise, id like to hear more. and im too lazy to start another thread to keep up with
I didn't say there was a dichotomy.
I was explaining to @neveralone how he can do better in the kind of debates he's talking about. He's had a few debates with me and also a few that I've watched along this topic, so I just broke down how i'd go after some of the debates he's been in about theology.
D8 who are you?
also, Im christian, but i have an idea of what was before the big bang. and i believe in evolution, and adam and eve, why the dichotomy?
I think you need to start learning the arguments. There is a specific set of arguments that always come up in theological debates, they differ only slightly depending on which religion you're debating. Once you learn the arguments and their structures, you can usually see the counters coming and even set people up to make mistakes. So if you're arguing for creation for example, you can begin by allowing for evolution to be a given, but you can set up creation via a mitochondrial Eve and chromosomal Adam argument. This is especially true if the person you're arguing against isn't familiar with that argument and you can get them to argue against a single genealogical line on either the paternal or maternal side. If I was arguing on the religious side, I'd try and get them to deny the possibility of both separately and then attack with the science. Depending on which resource you use, you can even get the dates of both genetic parents to somewhat line up.
There are some pretty bad arguments that every secularist has heard and knows. They usually revolve around the Kalam (KCA) argument, the watchmaker argument, the perfect conditions argument, Pascal's wager, objective morality, or some combination of those arguments. You need to familiarize yourself with them and also read the scholastic responses to them to see if you can word them in a way to negate some of the most popular responses. Unfortunately it's really hard to argue against the secular side of things since saying "I don't know" is logically perfectly consistent with both atheism and agnosticism when it comes to certain queries like "what was there before the big bang?", questions about abiogenesis, etc.... With "I don't know', "science doesn't have a workable theory", or any such statement being a perfectly valid answer that doesn't diminish the secularist's position, you need to become very familiar with the theories involved in order to get someone to overstate their case and make errors based on misrepresentation. Once you get someone to overstate their case, you can then find exclusions or contradictory evidence to their claim and get them to back pedal.
This is often easier with multiple participants as you can usually get people to work of each other and catch everyone at once....but again, this takes an in-depth understanding of both religious and secular arguments and the scientific theories you're arguing against.
I'm saying I'm at a disadvantage because three minds are usually better than one.
yeah. are you saying you couldnt? dont doubt yourself
so ur saying u can do just a good of job if three guys were arguing at you as u would if only one was?
there is no fallacy in number. only arguments
it is a debating app therefore religion does have the possibility and likely hood to come in therefore it isn't secular.
FYI its a secular app.
that's true usually it's either theological or political. it's seems to just go in circles.
Yeah, I don't really care about their convictions, but I'd like see more people defend their topics....It'd also be nice to see something besides theological debates for a change.
yes it's very frustrating. they say it but they don't take action
yeah, this app lacks a 1v1 function is essentially what you're saying....If you look at any topic on any debate forum without a 1v1 function and you'll see the same phenomena. If there is a gun control debate one side will have more people than the other, etc.... It just happens that there are a ton of theological topics on this app for some reason. It would certainly seem that the christian community here is very keen to produce the topics, but not very many actually defend their position.
I see ur points but what I meant is there could be an debate happing and it will start out as 2 people on dif. sides 1 Christian 1 not.w which is fine. then all of sudden two other people join the (usually but not always and doesn't really matter) atheist side and no one joins the Christian. ergo the 1 vs 3 point.though this can happen in any debate I only have seen it in the scenario described. or it starts with one then another Christian joins and the first disappears.
Not necessarily, I think that there is a lot of discrepancy in the believes that Christians hold and thus even Christians can't necessarily agree on every topic. The secular population is a bit more uniform when it comes to theological topics and so their arguments and views often mesh together better and can build of each other. However, if you present a non-theological topic, you'll quickly see a divide of ideas among the secular users.
I also believe that many people here simply watch debates unfold rather than participate in them, especially if they weren't the author or agree completely with the authors original stance. For example, not all Christians believe that homosexuality is bad and so on topics that proclaim such a believe they will not come to defend the original author and will either stay quite or disagree with the author. If you look at the topic titles and authors however, I think you'll quickly find that there are more pro-christian topics with more authors than there are anti-christian topics with various secular authors.