Do you feel bad debating fervent religious folks if religion is how they cope with life?
Yes
Side Score: 15
|
 |
No
Side Score: 52
|
|
|
|
|
This stuff is so stupid.....if you don't get saved, the memory of all these stupid things will haunt you in eternal damnation of fire. And I'm not saying that because I'm angry at anybody, I'm saying it because it's true and I hope you all get saved so I can see you in Heaven. Only God can save you, He dove into your dying to pull you up out of it in His resurrection, and you know His name is Jesus. You will face Him as your Savior and be changed to be like Him and with Him forever, or you will face Him as your Judge and remain as you are forever having turn away from His goodness in preference of believing there is nothing good from God and He's going to give you that reality which you prefer over His reality because you are asking for it.....and it can only be in Hell that you can really have what you keep insisting is the way you want things to be....reality void of God's goodness. Side: Yes
1
point
I think that it is unnecessary and just as damaging to push one's lack of faith on someone as it is for someone who is religious to push their religious beliefs on someone who is not religious and religion makes feel uncomfortable or even self-hating. I think there is nothing wrong with a healthy debate with someone who is obviously a stable sort of person...but if you can see it's getting to even them in a manner that hurts them, I would think it immoral to continue. I believe there is a mutual respect we should have for one another, and our unique states of being. I think the only time one should debate someone who is religious is if they have a view of hate or harm towards a person or themselves. But even then, chances are if they are a type of person so set in religious beliefs of hate, it's unlikely that they would be open to any alternative points of view anyway; unless perhaps they are young- there might be a chance then. Side: Yes
1
point
I'm disputing myself! An argument would also be okay if it involves a genuine curiosity about the source and a person's stance and why it is. But pure arguing for just a desire to be unrighteously victorious and unlearned about the subject itself seems rather pointless. Side: No
|
Of course you don't feel bad for them. You are one of the vast majority of people who stood watching Jesus be crucified and could care less, dismissing His agony by saying "He should have kept His mouth shut and not accused the religious leaders of being evil, and he should not have told me I deserve to die because now it's stuck to him good and he deserves it the same as me" You would talk just the way you are talking now if they crucified me in front of you.......because you are evil....so go on and hold hands with your evil friends if it makes you feel better, you won't enjoy anybody's company in Hell when all are suffering the same burning as you.......burn on in your passion against God if that's what you want to do, and by the way you are doing it I have to believe God is going to give you what you want.......to go on burning against Him, so go on with it...you go, boy...you really are da bomb!!!! Ya'll give a big round of applause for Darkyear, he rules!!!!!!! Side: Yes
Nice....and I mean that, actually a kind comment...........but you are talking to people who have hatred in their hearts and hatreds' roots are deep and ingrained.....the reason people hate Christians is because they have real hope and don't like being told they are lost and going to Hell because it has an undeniable ring of truth and they don't want to believe it. If dope or the Pope gives you hope, and hope is what is valuable, I have a better hope in the promises of God which cannot be denied by the Pope, and to be obscured by dope would only tarnish the beauty of true hope. Side: Yes
It's hard to feel bad about debating someone who insists YOU are going to hell, you deserve it because you're filthy wicked, and pretty much most of the rest of society as well, and if you dare question or challenge ANYTHING they believe then you're also an arrogant heretic. Hey, there are other people who emerge from tough backgrounds - criminals, homeless people, low skilled laborers, etc. If any one of those people walked up to you and said "you're going to be set afire and tortured forever, and you deserve it" neither you nor I nor any sensible person would think "that's OK, you sure must have had a tough life." Side: No
Believe and let believe is my motto. I believe the whole religious thing is a hoax, but I have NO objection to what others believe. My wife believes, one daughter teaches in Catholic school, another is a devout Baptist, a couple are more like myself. I will debate with anyone about it , but if they choose to believe, that's okay. However, I find it's NOT okay for ME to be an Atheist with most religious "debaters". There is only ONE SIDE that has all the answers, and I am a genocidal scumbag who would likely eat my children! I keep an open mind. When I see proof that there IS a "god", I'll believe. Been waiting, STILL waiting... All I get is scripture written by man, and threats that I will burn in hell. Side: No
1
point
2
points
“All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher.” ― Ambrose Bierce, The Collected Writings Of Ambrose Bierce The world cannot be totally rationalized. there's a point where we make assumptions. and those assumptions are in effect the lens by which we view the world. I'd think that you assume too fully that that lens can exist as a fully rational construct. by this I'm saying that you too have delusions. I'd figure that everyone has some degree of delusion, as I too used to believe that the hardest substance on earth was a correctly cut diamond. that being said, can you truly say that a lens of religion is harmful? as Ignorance or denial of truth is not always evil and can bring some amount of peace to an individual. and if religion brings good feelings to an individual, and does not harm them in another more critical way, you're only doing harm to them by challenging or destroying their otherwise functional philosophic lens. Side: Yes
1
point
that doesn't necessarily however excuse them from debate, but I think attacking their lens when that's not the point of the argument is a little pointless. If I say I'm a Worshiper of Dragons and so Doing X is bad because the dragon said so I almost feel like the correct response is to ask them to put their lens aside by saying something to the effect of: "I know that the dragon says Doing X is wrong, But are there any reasons beyond the dragon's say so that YOU believe it is" and if they reply with no, then you're dealing with a person not worth arguing with. which I find, despite the fact that some people are religious their arguments aren't always "It is because X said so" Side: Yes
1
point
You aren't going to change their minds, might as well get as much entertainment out of them as possible. I am trying to see how many angry post-ban responses I can get out of FromWithin with a single post. I've got up to three. He was so bothered by my post that he banned me then responded three separate times over the course of a day. He must have been fairly worked up. It's almost as fun as telling Bernie supporters you are voting for Hillary. Side: No
1
point
1
point
|
