my christian faith help me to believe in myself and give me purpose to life. my religion make me feel good that there is a god. god that promise life after death. sometime it makes me feel more better and safe then i really am. there are bad things about religion but many good things. when i debate with atheist i always must say that i believe in my religion by faith because this is the truth. i believe the bible to be word of god. the atheist he take the side that i am stupid and ignorant of facts of science evidence. he say that events in the bible are not in order in beginning o f bible. also many different translation i n the bible are different and mean different things. i am accuse to be deny of reality because i have faith in my religion. the atheist he will win the debate because he is with scientific evidence and he use this to defend the arguement. the arguement about different translation, i dont think there are many problem with greek translation to the bible. in ministerium verksamhet i study events in the bible and perhaps are not in order but so what? time mean notheing to god. so i ask queston,how to debate with atheist about god and how do you win the debate?
The way you win any debate is to present a superior factual argument than your opponent. Hence your dilemma.
I just reported myself. For some reason there are two identical posts, and the software won't let me delete the second one. I wasn't trying to hammer home a point or anything.
As someone pointed out in another thread, I rarely see people who are in a debate changing their views. Debates sway the minds of undecided listeners, not the debaters.
perhaps there can be more facts to present in debate. he call christian religion is Judiska Myter so i dont want him to win. there is stars and the land that i will prove god he make this. then to say there is no god will be myten.
If the debate is in defense of the existence of God, you can't win the debate. If you want to win, or at least break even, in theistic debates, I suggest deism or, better yet, philosophical theism.
Yep - when your system of belief is based off circular and/or fallacious logic and the others is based off rationalism and empiricism neither side is the victor. One is just more ignorant than the other.
A friend of mine said he wanted to prove to me, logically, that a god exists. Fine. Then he waves a Bible at me and said, "Now, for starters, you will agree that the Bible is the word of God." Well, of course not, dummy. We're discussing whether or not there is a god so we can't start with agreeing on a article of your faith. Debating faith is pointless.
Oh this is an easy one. Since atheists do not BELIEVE in GOD, they are arguing against that which they do not believe exists. That is a sure sign of a mentally unstable person, and we all know you can not argue with someone who is mentally ill.
So if I argue that there is no Santa Claus, I'm nuts, but if you say there is a magic Jew, you're saner than Donald Trump?
Clever. Anyway, as an agnostic I have argued for and against both sides. The truth is the atheist has no facts to prove there isn't a god, just as you have no proof that there is. Therefore the argument is futile and you should know no matter what position of rationality the atheist trys to take he/she is really just saying their opinion and trying to make it ound like science supports them.
Sane theists agree that atheists have the better arguments, but further point out that their belief was not arrived at by argument.
Atheists don't need to disprove god for their to be a lack of evidence for god, which is what atheism is based on, no belief because of a lack of evidence. Regarding deities, anything an atheist says is true but can't support via the scientific method is as stupid as anything a theist says is true but can't support via the scientific method. The problem then isn't whether the person is a theist or non-theist, but rather the nature of the person willing to make assertions they can't substantiate.
LOL that's good sarchasm. X does not exist for all practical purposes without evidence of X. The rest is moot.