CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
My favorite part is the end, with which he says the following: "I didn’t bring any of it upon myself. I was not looking for God; I did not seek Him, and I didn’t want Him. He reached out to me, loved me while I was still a sinner, broke my defenses, and decided to pour out His undeserved grace, that His Son might be glorified, and that, from my sin I may be saved by grace through faith, and not by works; it is the gift of God, so that no one may boast (Eph. 2:8-9)."
God did miraculous things with him, and I am now pleased to call him a fellow brother in Christ. No one seeks God, yet He saves those whom He wills, allowing them to live, unmeritously, in the end to which all things aim.
What is this supposed to prove? The whole story is bullshit anyways; some delusional fakir trying to spread his belief in god. Fuck, I could present a hundred Christian-turned-atheist stories.
Wow, I wasn't expecting an actual reply and I really meant that in jest :P
But yeah, I've read a number of stories of conversions one way or the other. Mythology is a passion of mine, and I study the mythos of archaic and modern religions alike- fascinating stuff really.
Oh, come on- that search will also return stories of atheists turned christian, scores of irrelevant sites that have those terms listed in their tags, and of course targeted ads and porn!
But if we're pretending it's a legit method, "Atheist turned christian" returns 42k hits, so looks like Yahweh wins this round, with bonus points for the meaning of life ;)
I should probably clarify that I'm not trying to support either side, just poking a little fun :P
Oh, come on- that search will also return stories of atheists turned christian
If you put quotes around the search terms it has to match the exact phrase, not just have those words on the pages.
But if we're pretending it's a legit method, "Atheist turned christian" returns 42k hits
It's clearly not a legitimate method, I was half joking and just trying to point out that there are a lot deconversion stories out there. Oddly, when I search for "Atheist turned christian" I only got 7,900 results. I wonder why we get such different results. I know Google filters search results based on past search history so maybe that has something to do with it. I'll have to clear my cookies and try again.
If you put quotes around the search terms it has to match the exact phrase, not just have those words on the pages.
Yeah, I saw that after I posted. I had just hovered over the link before and saw the christian+turned+atheist in there. I'm joking myself though. Weird about the results though, I get 32k when I click your link. I get the same results in both IE and Firefox, so maybe its not cookies so much as IP based?
The writer starts off trying to let you know he is a authority figure, he has his stuff together, he is a reasonable and scientific man.
I ended up studying math, physics and engineering in college, graduated from a rather respected private engineering school, which landed me a job as a computer scientist for a large investment bank.
And at the same time, since I’m a scientist, I figured there was at least one experiment that could be carried out to dis-confirm the belief that God exists: I thought
This is after a long string of details to help you relate to this guy, he likes sex, playing music in a band and playing sports as well! I think they hit lots of demographics here.
“if any of this is true, then there is a God who exists right now and presumably cares greatly about this project of mine”, so I started to pray ...
Solid piece of reasoning here. Err...wait...no. Sarcasm is hard to detect on the internet.
I was impressed by the authority of that man’s teaching. Sure enough, I didn’t have much room in my worldview for his talks of God and supernatural activity, but I was rather impressed by the way he maneuvered in conversation, and the wisdom of some of his retorts.
Translation " I am easily moved by authority figures. I am impressed by his wisdom, but will offer no examples of his wisdom. Just take my word for it...it rocks. We've already established I am an authoritative source on the subject...right?"
... and apparently his story was compelling enough that these ancient followers of his believed it and even suffered for preaching his death and resurrection.
Translation "Look at all the believers, they all can't be wrong!" This is just the bandwagon argument for believing, more appeals to authority/ad populum.
Here was an obviously educated man, who believed these incredible things about God and Jesus,
Translation "This guy here is smart and he believes!". He also says he has long talks and questions with the man who provides biblical answers to his questions. He doesn't offer any examples here either...just take his word for it they were good questions and apparently even better answers!
That was not a pleasant experience. I suddenly realized a truth I knew but had worked very hard to suppress: at the same time I had started my investigations, I had also come to commit a particularly sinister misdeed, even by my own atheistic standards.
Of course he doesn't tell us what this sin is, but it as just terrible and "wicked". It is left up to the reader here to just fill in the blank. This is a literary tool often used by hack writers who are writing so the audience can fill in the blanks to better relate to them. (Hack writers also use it to cover up their inability to write something interesting). The writer used the same technique above when he didn't give examples of the "wisdom" he received.
This seems like a writing that is ready for a terrible pamphlet.
Anyway this is his turning point where he reaches his epiphany.
I still remember laying there in pain in my apartment near Paris, when all of a sudden the quarter dropped; it made sense: “That” is why Jesus had to die:…me. He who knew no sin became sin on my behalf, so that in Him I might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). He took upon himself the penalty that I deserved, so that in God’s justice, my sins would be forgiven freely, by grace as a gift, rather than by my righteous deeds or religious rituals.
Of course it ends up that after he accepts god he is well on his way to being even more successful than before. Meets a woman, studying under a very well respected theologian.
TLDR? Formulaic writing at best, this piece is hardly convincing. It just is an appeal to authority for most of it.
I have read and understood it, it is trying to sell you something. I practically gave you a play by play of why this piece is just fluff.
It is being presented as some blog post from an honest guy, but that is highly doubtful. He gives no facts in which to verify any of this stuff, he is just asserting to the reader he is a smart, educated and scientific minded person who came to a conclusion....establishing an authority figure in which you should trust. The story is just too formulaic and filled with bad logic, it is a huge call to false authority.
They give him an incredibly useless back story to build up his credibility then skip the important reasoning bits as the reader puts them in themselves. The questions asked, the answers given, the sin, all those parts where he neglects details is a literary trick to get the reader to fill in the blanks. This allows the reader to fill what they know and feel and connect easier to the story.
All it says is this guy believes and things got easier. This piece is comforting to believers because it affirms their feelings and doesn't need to offer any proof other than what they said. He's a great/smart guy...and you know this because he told you so!
I do not feel this piece would do well targeted at the non believers though as the piece offers no evidence only assertions.
He gives no facts in which to verify any of this stuff, he is just asserting to the reader he is a smart, educated and scientific minded person who came to a conclusion....
He signed the article. His name is at the top of the article.
I have read and understood it
You haven't though.
I do not feel this piece would do well targeted at the non believers though as the piece offers no evidence only assertions.
The assertions are the evidence of God. The assertions themselves being evidential are irrelevant, since the entire conversion was outside of evidential means.
He signed the article. His name is at the top of the article.
And this changes it is a giant appeal to authority how? I think you have missed my whole point. The link talks about how smart he and other believers are. It sounds reasonable of all these other smart people believe right? That and after he believed he felt better. My original critique stands, formulaic, probably aimed at believers to assure themselves they are right.
You haven't though.
Show me then. If you are saying he is just blogging his feelings, I am in doubt. I already showed why.
And this changes it is a giant appeal to authority how? I think you have missed my whole point. The link talks about how smart he and other believers are. It sounds reasonable of all these other smart people believe right? That and after he believed he felt better. My original critique stands, formulaic, probably aimed at believers to assure themselves they are right.
The article wasn't an appeal to authority really at all, though.
Show me then. If you are saying he is just blogging his feelings, I am in doubt. I already showed why.
Negative, your answer here is an assumption. I came to that conclusion after critiquing the writing. You seemed to skip all of my critiques on the selected lines he used. I offered evidence that lead me to this conclusion in my first critique. Bad writing is easy to spot.
The article wasn't an appeal to authority really at all, though.
Then what was it? You are purposely not offering your position here. If you don't want to debate the issue that is fine, but you seem to skip all the evidence I posted that said it was likely an appeal to authority.
The main appeal is dependent on the writer and I outlined where he has appeals to authority. He claims he is smart and other believers are smart but does not give examples for you to make that conclusion...again you have to take his word on it. Then all of it hangs on his big change from the sin, all of his authority is backing this one claim here.
The story is about why he changed, he didn't offer anything but these appeals to authority. The details as noted were left out as a literary tool.
If all you are going to do is say the equivalent of "nuh oh' and offer no proof of stance we may as well be done.
The main appeal is dependent on the writer and I outlined where he has appeals to authority. He claims he is smart and other believers are smart but does not give examples for you to make that conclusion...again you have to take his word on it. The story is about why he changed, he didn't offer anything but these appeals to authority. The details as noted were left out as a literary tool.
He converted because of God opening the eyes of his heart. But even at that, I'm not sure you quite understand what an appeal to authority is. You might want to research it a bit more.
Negative, your answer here is an assumption. I came to that conclusion after critiquing the writing.
I said to "Presuppose this to be true." Do you know what presupposing something to be true means?
You seemed to skip all of my critiques on the selected lines he used. I offered evidence that lead me to this conclusion in my first critique. Bad writing is easy to spot.
To be honest, I skipped them because they weren't good critiques.
I gave clear examples of where appeals to authority appeared in my first critique. You don't show me why they don't fit, you just claim they don't.
Not a very strong position you hold. This is just a continuation of the "nuh uh" argument.
And yes I know what 'presuppose' means. Were you not saying I presupposed my conclusion? Really no need to answer, with your style of 'nuh uh' there isn't really much between us to say.
Sorry this junk piece of writing fooled you. Thanks for the dialogue.
I gave clear examples of where appeals to authority appeared in my first critique. You don't show me why they don't fit, you just claim they don't.Except they weren't.... an appeal to authority, in the fallacious sense (appeal to authority is many times not fallacious), is using someone as an authority for a proposition that is unqualified to speak on such proposition. He never makes any sort of argument saying that because he is smart, then he should be trusted. Moreover, when referring to other people, saying that they were smart, he never makes an appeal to authority. He says that they seem intelligent, such as Jesus and the pastor, yet still believe! He was an unbeliever at the time, which meant that he didn't believe them himself at the time.
You quoted, ... and apparently his story was compelling enough that these ancient followers of his believed it and even suffered for preaching his death and resurrection.
Here was your response: "Translation "Look at all the believers, they all can't be wrong!" This is just the bandwagon argument for believing, more appeals to authority/ad populum.
Thats not an appeal to the people. No where in there is there a bandwagon argument. He never says that you should believe because these people believed.
You really need to read up on some logic books. The problem that you have is that he never makes any claims, which means that he has no arguments. He can't have the types of logical fallacies that you spoke of when telling a story and not making a claim. Moreover, even if he were making a claim, they wouldn't even be logical fallacies.
He doesn't need to make claims explicitly. He is making a claim of what got him to where he is today. You are not reading the value of the words he uses nor the structure he uses to support his change. You are not reading between the lines. The formula he uses makes my critique very likely.
You quoted,... and apparently his story was compelling enough that these ancient followers of his believed it and even suffered for preaching his death and resurrection.
Here was your response:"Translation "Look at all the believers, they all can't be wrong!" This is just the bandwagon argument for believing, more appeals to authority/ad populum.
Thats not an appeal to the people. No where in there is there a bandwagon argument. He never says that you should believe because these people believed.
Huh, seems to fit pretty well...You are saying because he doesn't explicitly say 'and so you should believe too" he isn't saying it. I disagree, the context of the whole piece fits my outline, he is discussing what made him change.
I disagree, the context of the whole piece fits my outline, he is discussing what made him change.
He's not making an argument. He's telling a personal story. He's making no claims in his piece. His article is not intended for non-Christians. That was the entire point of what he said at the beginning, that people would come to him and they didn't care about the papers, only the conversion. You need to look at context. Moreover, even if he were making an argument, it still wouldn't be a logical fallacy, since the "arguments" would be supported by the propositions that he states.
An explanation is a type of argument where the conclusion is agreed upon and the reasons why the conclusion stands are given. It is an argument in reverse.
This is what the writer does. He explains why he made a change.
He's making no claims in his piece.
All of his little pieces that end up changing him are his claims. I hit a few of them...he is claiming all these things that led him to change his position.
Moreover, even if he were making an argument, it still wouldn't be a logical fallacy, since the "arguments" would be supported by the propositions that he states.
I think I showed why the measures he used failed, you just simply disagree without explaining why. They fall under the informal fallacies. Sure if you accept his measures it could be called logically sound from that view point and we both seem to agree the piece was not directed at non believers.
He does have some clear fallacies though, like this one:
“if any of this is true, then there is a God who exists right now and presumably cares greatly about this project of mine”
If any of it is true, it just proves itself to be true, not everything else that is tacked on with it. So for instance some of the historical merit the bible has does not prove the all other parts of the bible. It is a composition fallacy, sometimes called fallacy of the whole.
The part about the creator being interested in him also is non sequitur. If there is a deity why is it inherently caring about the writer and why is it hinging on anythng n the bible being true? This seems a bit self centered if nothing else.
An explanation is a type of argument where the conclusion is agreed upon and the reasons why the conclusion stands are given. It is an argument in reverse. / This is what the writer does. He explains why he made a change.
And if that is the case, then his perception of Jesus being wise and of the pastor being intelligent, while still believing, is an argument for why he believed. Thus, this is not an appeal to authority.
A story is not an argument.
All of his little pieces that end up changing him are his claims. I hit a few of them...he is claiming all these things that led him to change his position.
Its a story. And even if it were an argument, these chains provide logically acceptable propositions for his conclusion.
I think I showed why the measures he used failed, you just simply disagree without explaining why. They fall under the informal fallacies. Sure if you accept his measures it could be called logically sound from that view point and we both seem to agree the piece was not directed at non believers.
Except you didn't...... you didn't show why.
If any of it is true, it just proves itself to be true, not everything else that is tacked on with it. So for instance some of the historical merit the bible has does not prove the all other parts of the bible. It is a composition fallacy, sometimes called fallacy of the whole.
He never argues that....... You really need to take a logic class... stop trying to impress people, or yourself, by talking about logic. Its only showing the reverse. What you did here is called a straw man, and a clear red herring. Moreover, as I already said, the propositions themselves do not have to be evidentiary supported to make a logically valid argument. You could argue the soundness, but the issue with that is that your logical fallacies that you keep bringing up are fallacies about validity or strength.
The part about the creator being interested in him also is non sequitur. If there is a deity why is it inherently caring about the writer and why is it hinging on anythng n the bible being true? This seems a bit self centered if nothing else.
Thats an argument about soundness, not validity. Yet again... you make an argument about soundness, which is what non sequiturs are not aimed at.
And if that is the case, then his perception of Jesus being wise and of the pastor being intelligent, while still believing, is an argument for why he believed. Thus, this is not an appeal to authority.
It says these people are smart and they believe, not here is what some smart people believe and how/why. How can this not be an appeal to authority when he is using it as a reason he started to believe. You do not get to evaluate their information yourself, you just have to take his word on them all being cool.
stop trying to impress people, or yourself, by talking about logic. Its only showing the reverse. What you did here is called a straw man, and a clear red herring.
...So you do what you just told me not too...ok.
Hey man, the guy wrote a "blog" about his conversion. It's not my fault it is basically a trope that he wrote. If you watch these claims a lot establish that they weren't looking to be changed, they were staunchly on the other side of the debate. But it became clear to them in the end and have a moment and then things got better?
Really, you don't see it? I bet you could see it were from the other side of the debate.
Except you didn't...... you didn't show why.
I gave examples of why I came to my conclusion. You just seem to disagree.
A story is not an argument.
A story can be an argument, which also means is can also not be. But this is a semantics issue. It holds no real bearing on my point whether this story is an argument or not.
My point is I showed several areas that just seem unconvincing. Those were pretty weak examples of things to make a person change, he left it all blank. It is practically a form letter. I am sure you could plug in plenty of examples in the blank spots.
Your favorite quote from the bible? Or how about some scientific theory? Would it be easier to see then if it were coming from the other side of the debate?
You are defending a piece of lazy writing because you like the ending. Of course I am not his target audience, we established this if for believers. Sorry man I just have better expectations from my life changing events:P
It says these people are smart and they believe, not here is what some smart people believe and how/why. How can this not be an appeal to authority when he is using it as a reason he started to believe. You do not get to evaluate their information yourself, you just have to take his word on them all being cool.
Appeals to authority are not intrinsically fallacious. This would not be unqualified. Moreover, the conclusion for that part would not be for him to believe; it would be for him to recognize that he (i.e. the pastor) was smart, while believing.
...So you do what you just told me not too...ok.
The huge difference is that I actually do know what I'm talking about.
Hey man, the guy wrote a "blog" about his conversion. It's not my fault it is basically a trope that he wrote. If you watch these claims a lot establish that they weren't looking to be changed, they were staunchly on the other side of the debate. But it became clear to them in the end and have a moment and then things got better?
He doesn't make any claims..... and even if you want to say that he did, he is not making any arguments. And even if you want to say that he is, they aren't even fallacious. And if you want to say that they are, then who cares? Its a story.
I gave examples of why I came to my conclusion. You just seem to disagree.
I've provided why.
A story can be an argument, which also means is can also not be. But this is a semantics issue. It holds no real bearing on my point whether this story is an argument or not.
Stories are not arguments. You can have an argument within the story, but that is not the story.
My point is I showed several areas that just seem unconvincing. Those were pretty weak examples of things to make a person change, he left it all blank. It is practically a form letter. I am sure you could plug in plenty of examples in the blank spots.
Did you not listen to anything that I said? He said the reason he converted was because of God..... they aren't convincing to anyone, because the only thing that does convince one to believe is God Himself. Did you not read the last part?
Your favorite quote from the bible? Or how about some scientific theory? Would it be easier to see then if it were coming from the other side of the debate?
If a scientist were telling a story about how he came to believe in evolution, that would not be an argument.... and even if it were, his arguments would be around why he came to believe it, not why we should. Thats a huge difference. This article is not trying to give arguments, no matter how much you want it to be; and even if you want to believe there are, they would be directed to why he believed: he believed because he perceived the pastor to be smart, while a man of faith. That is not an appeal to unqualified authority, because it actually is why he began to believe, from your position that this was a reason to convert, not from the actual reason for his conversion, being God.
You are defending a piece of lazy writing because you like the ending. Of course I am not his target audience, we established this if for believers. Sorry man I just have better expectations from my life changing events:P
From this, we know that you do not have historical training, nor philosophic training. If his targeted audience is non-believers, then his arguments, if there are any at all, are not intended to make conclusion around why to convert, since the people he would be talking to would be already Christians.
Wow. All those assumptions. I see no need to defend myself from these accusations. Kettles and pots and all!
Half of what you type is attacking me and not my ideas. Makes for a weak stance you have there, even more so when you are defending obvious fallacies. No surprise really since we had similar issues in our first encounter.
Thanks for the dialogue. As always in these situations last word is yours.
And yes I know what 'presuppose' means. Were you not saying I presupposed my conclusion? Really no need to answer, with your style of 'nuh uh' there isn't really much between us to say.
No.... I was telling you to presuppose that the story was real.... Context is a big friend.