Christian System for Debating

[sigmapi1501]

-Arrive
- Lose the debate
- Declare victory
- Leave

[falcon9]

-Arrive
- Lose the debate
- Declare victory
- Leave

Some xtians stick around after losing the debate and declaring victory to keep insisting that they didn't lose the debate too.

[sigmapi1501]

God's will. 

[falcon9]

God's will. 

... wouldn't even make it through probate proceedings ...

[JediJohnnie]

[sigmapi1501]

Also, haters gonna hate.

[thesilenceofadam]

-Arrive
- Lose the debate
- Declare victory
- Leave

And biblically  Sound! Well said! It's foolish to debate Christianity. They will not know us by our great words, but by our life. Our lives are a sermon... what are we preaching. 

[falcon9]

              ... xtian "debater" ...

[falcon9]

-Arrive
- Lose the debate
- Declare victory
- Leave

And biblically  Sound! Well said!

If losing a debate, declaring a false victory nd then leaving is "biblically-sound" then that's testimony in support of religious irrationality.

It's foolish to debate Christianity.

On the contrary, it's more "foolish" for an irrational xtian to try debating with rational non-xtians because logic trumps illogic every time.

Our lives are a sermon... what are we preaching.  

"Preaching" is proselytizing.  Religious proselytizing will be opposed to my last breath, (or the proselytizer's).

“The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.”
-– Ferdinand Magellan

[alaric99x]

I don't quite get it, they make some claim about some magical being, some supernatural force for which no proof exists, and they give a challenge that we have to prove it's not true.  I have no burden to prove any of a multitude of idiotic claims are untrue, the claimant has all the burden of proof.

Additionally, what's all this idiocy I'm reading about atheism being a religion?  An absence of belief is not a belief.  I don't believe in Mickey Mouse, so now I'm a member of the Mickey Mouse denial religion, and, further, it's my obligation to prove to the idiot Mickey Mouse believers that the spiritual Mickey Mouse doesn't exist.  Some of you have truly turned logic on its head.

[falcon9]

I don't quite get it, they make some claim about some magical being, some supernatural force for which no proof exists, and they give a challenge that we have to prove it's not true.  I have no burden to prove any of a multitude of idiotic claims are untrue, the claimant has all the burden of proof.

Exactly.  Someone who makes a 'positive claim' that something exists carries the burden of proof for substantiating their claim.  The burden of proof is not irrationally-shifted onto those who challenge the initial claimant by demanding that a 'negative strawman argument', ("prove something doesn't exist"), be substantiated.  This is as illogical as you indicate since there are a near-infinite number of things which don't exist and a finite number of things which do.  Further, it is unreasonable/irrational to conclude that something exists because it cannot be proven not to exist, (because that doesn't logically follow, even from an irrationally-invalid premise).

Additionally, what's all this idiocy I'm reading about atheism being a religion?  An absence of belief is not a belief.  I don't believe in Mickey Mouse, so now I'm a member of the Mickey Mouse denial religion, and, further, it's my obligation to prove to the idiot Mickey Mouse believers that the spiritual Mickey Mouse doesn't exist.  Some of you have truly turned logic on its head.

That would be the irrational "Abrupt" who apparently prefers cloaking his illogical premises, syllogisms and conclusions in the semblance of rationality without the substance of it. His sophist arguments regarding atheism have been refuted, (although he's denied that they have, a bland denial without substantiation carries no weight ... neither does claiming such substantiation without evidence of it).  Nevertheless, one can apparently be a non-believer in a non-religion and through some twisted twist of illogic according to faith-based non-thinking, become a religious adherent.
 

[alaric99x]

The "Abrupt" character is a classic tunnel-head.  He's constantly making claims and then challenging to prove his claims are untrue.  We could all do the same, it's not logic.  I claim that the surface of Jupiter (there is no surface on Jupiter, as we know it) is populated by purple cows, prove it's not so?  Logic doesn't work that way, as you well know, falcon.  The only difference between the Abrupt character and Hitch is that, at least, Abrupt has some understanding of the English language, which Hitch obviously does not.  Two idiots, one literate, and another pathetically illiterate, both equally confused.

[falcon9]

The "Abrupt" character is a classic tunnel-head.  He's constantly making claims and then challenging to prove his claims are untrue.  We could all do the same, it's not logic.  I claim that the surface of Jupiter (there is no surface on Jupiter, as we know it) is populated by purple cows, prove it's not so?  Logic doesn't work that way, as you well know, falcon.  The only difference between the Abrupt character and Hitch is that, at least, Abrupt has some understanding of the English language, which Hitch obviously does not.  Two idiots, one literate, and another pathetically illiterate, both equally confused.

As you indicate, neither of them has a accurate apprehension of either reasoning or, reality and continue to 'insist' upon their versions of both, (sans evidence, of course).  There's not much to be done beyond refuting their nonsense, (or ignoring it), however the latter is useful for others who haven't sucumbed to religious mind-blinded blind faith as yet.

[alaric99x]

Well, gird your loins, my friend, we'll soon hear them raining fire and brimstone on both of us for these remarks.  They preach to save us, but they rejoice at our condemnation in hell for all eternity, such is christian charity.

[falcon9]

Well, gird your loins, my friend, we'll soon hear them them raining fire and brimstone on both of us for these remarks. 

Inarticulate evangelism has no discernable effect upon rational thinking and is merely unsophisticated trolling.  'Articulate' evangelism is barely sophisticated trolling however, both versions consist of sophistry in lieu of reason because logic is the 'natural predator' of blind faith.

They preach to save us, but they rejoice at our condemnation in hell for all eternity, such is christian charity.

I'd rather have 'atheist' charity; they don't make you choke-down a religious sermon while choking-down donated food.