who won, and why?
The Rebel.
What is the best debate you've ever read on this board...
by The Rebel 51 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
cofty
This debate on "natural evil" mostly stayed on topic for over 200 pages
All large number of theistic arguments were considered and found to be vacuous.
There is a summary of the main arguments halfway down this page...
I will update the summary when I get time.
-
The Rebel
Cofty " all " LARGE" number of theistic arguments were considered and found to be vacuous"
The Rebel " but surely the " SMALLER" number of theistic arguments should also be considered?. And isn't all debating " vacuous" when there is only one chair in the house?
Without an open mind what is the point of debating?
The Rebel.
-
OnTheWayOut
Can anyone really "WIN" a debate on the internet?
It's typically a bunch of one-sided digs and "Who got in the best zinger?"
But if they can win, an atheist won the best argument on this forum.
-
Caedes
Perhaps because theists generally don't have open minds, atheists can be persuaded by evidence. Admittedly we want hard empirical evidence which is a little thin on the ground for supernatural beings.
There is an important distinction between having a high standard of evidence required for extraordinary claims and believing anything just because someone makes a claim. I would argue that the former is far more open minded than the latter.
The more rational debates with people who don't claim a personal mental hotline to the creator of the universe tend to be more useful.
-
The Rebel
" OntheWayOut":-" can anyone WIN a debate on the Internet?
its typically a bunch of one sided digs and " who's got the best zinger?"
-
punkofnice
I don't really do debates....only if really pushed perhaps. I read them with a feeling of disappointment.
I am not a mass debater.
-
cappytan
There is an important distinction between having a high standard of evidence required for extraordinary claims and believing anything just because someone makes a claim.
^^^^^ THIS
-
The Rebel
The way I see it if a person has a nothing argument, then where there is nothing there must be something. Or at least I consider myself not brilliant enough, nor genius enough to consider what I now believe in my mind as fact.
The Rebel.
-
cappytan
The way I see it if a person has a nothing argument, then where there is nothing there must be something.
That didn't parse well. Are you saying theists have nothing arguments, therefore there must be something to them?
On the subject of theists arguments equating to nothing, I wholeheartedly agree - they have nothing to back up their arguments.