Dear atheists...?

Question

Would you like to (or would you ever) openly debate someone on religion, say on tv or radio? If so, what would some of your key pionts be? Also what would you hope to gain from the experience?

Pangloss: I would not consider a debate as destroying ones faith. And if by chance that did happen then how strong a faith did they have to begin with?

LOL @ Ken!

Answer 1

I would love too, but would worry that my religious parents would be very concerned for my eternal health.

I try not to let my understanding hurt others too much, especially when family and friends are involved.

I would start the debate by claiming that at the end of the debate, the other side will claim that faith is required, and that logic cannot be relied apon for understanding.

I would then go right for the juggler and use biblical doctrine to prove that Faith as defined in Christianity comes from God, so even the biblical text that is relied on for understanding refutes itself.

I would then talk about the creation and changes inherent in Holy Scripture.

I would talk about what history has to show us regarding religious reliance, verses what we are told about its outcome.

And would finish with questions about who gets to determine the will of God, and who gives them the authority, when it is all subjective and not based on tangible evidense.

Answer 2

Debating Christians is like debating any other cult member. They are irrational, not terribly interested in being rational, and the end of the discussion always ends up being the Christian concept of faith, which is nothing but a cop-out. Faith is the excuse religious people give each other to believe things without evidence. How is it possible to argue with people like this?

It is worthwhile though. Some Christians will begin to be honest with themselves as a result of your arguments. ALL of the evidence is on the side of the nonbeliever. Christians can still fight however, because they aren't concerned with evidence. They will never publicly recant. They will do it slowly and privately, and when they do they will never give the credit to the debate, even if that's what planted the original seed.

Answer 3

I would like to make known all the violence that religions are accountable for... and that they have only come to power through war and murder... that just because the go around saying they serve "good" their behaviour proves the opposite. that many things that have been defined as good and evil through religion is the same way opposite in reality.

I would like to make the world understand that religions serve no real purpose on earth but to bring war and disharmony among the human race... they are the reasons for sexism. they are the reason for racism and prejudice...
In fact they are simply another means of slavery... and if people continue to value what destroys harmony in nature nature will fight back and cause the extinction of humanity.

We must see that religions are not some harmless philosophy on the earth but a dangerous destructive force.

Answer 4

I would never try to destroy another person's belief in their religion. Sometimes their faith is all they have. Why would I want to take that away from them if they are not harming others with it or trying to force it on me.
However, if Kirk Cameron ever shoves a microphone in my face, I will tear down his delusions. Let's just say that segment will never air on T.V.

EDIT- If you are asking how strong a person's faith is when they feel the need to trash other religions with lies and have everyone else think as they do, I would say not strong at all. I will let them live with their faith, but if they choose to spread lies, I will call them on it every time. If they choose to believe differently than I do and are peaceful and respectful to others, then I will not argue that their religion is wrong.

Answer 5

Perhaps, but I think it would have to be a unique format of debate, more like a trial.

The problem with arguing against a religious person is that their beliefs are totally individual and they have no problem changing to a contradictory point of view, without seeing the paradox. You have to catch them contradicting themselves and what they have already claimed is true. Therefor the arguments presented totally depend on the claims that they make at the time.

I would, of course, be willing to put my beliefs (or lack thereof) on trial as well, and answer any questions a theist might put to me to the best of my ability.

Answer 6

Being neither an atheist nor deity worshipper, I would suggest that people consider another alternative than squabbling over either/or. There is a force at work that people tend to personify as deity or discount with a belief in primitive 'science.' God/Reality is the multi-dimensional field in which we are embedded that appears responsive to consciousness ONLY because our massive thinking brain and consciousness causes shifts in our experience of reality.

Answer 7

The Wounded Eye of Horus eh? What about Osiris - your dad and Isis, your dear mumsy? And that nasty Uncle Seth that cut your dad up? Did Mumsy really find your dad in Lebanon and bring him home to Egypt in a cedar box? Where was Ptah when all this was going on?

No, I'd start swearing at them too quickly.

Answer 8

I'm not a fan of TV debates in this format.

Both sides will bring up obscure arguments that the other has never considered, and without the time to research them the responses to those arguments won't be well formed.

Answer 9

I'd enjoy it. Some of my points would be:
1. religions are supposed to be personal..and shouldnt be imposed on others in schools or through laws

2. we have a black hole, not a black pole, so if theres a gawd, its probably a female

3. if theres truth to that garbage, why do believers feel the need to spoonfeed it to their kids? truth would prove itself, right?

4. if gawd can heal the sick, why cant religious amputees ever grow limbs back? And why do believers have medical insurance?

Answer 10

yes.
One key point is if nothing can exist without being created by a supreme being who must, by implication, be immensely more complex than his creation then what is the explanation for the existence of this supreme being.
To say that he always was is also an explanation for the existence of everything else.