Debate with a Christian

[*Deidre*]

I pointed out Islam to illustrate that it is another version of religious "truth," just like the Christian one. The only thing both have in common is they are not stemming from reality. Truth isn't what you pretend it is, truth just IS.

If this is how you are going to debate, count me out. Acting naive. You know why I brought Islam up. :/

Deidre, when I posted what I did, I was posting in response to what Whateverist had written.

Secondly, I do not dispute that the Koran is an account of Allah's interactions with humanity. There are several texts that qualify as religious texts in the sense that they endeavor to provide an explanation for certain fundamental questions of our existence.

Thirdly, I have never argued that there is only one account that claims to be religious truth.

Fourthly you state that Christianity does not stem from reality. I adamantly disagree and am willing to defend my position in a structured debate.

Lastly, I adamantly agree with you regarding the nature of truth. Just because a person pretends something is true, does not mean it is.

You then say I am acting naive. But surely this remark is unwarranted, for I was not even talking to you when I posted what I did. Not only that but I have already stated several times why bringing up another religion is simply unjustifiable and impertinent to our discussion.

If you do not want to debate me then say so plainly for there are others that do.

Thank you.

---

disipulus; When I was a Christian, I knew what I believed wasn't provable. I knew that I had no evidence other than my "feelings," or "spiritual experiences." Those experiences wrapped up in feelings can seem so very real. As if God is "causing" the stir within you. But, I really never tried to offer my beliefs as provable to atheists. Or non-Christian believers.

If you were to say that you have no evidence, but you just choose to believe in a god, etc...you would be stating the truth. You cannot prove the existence of God in an OBJECTIVE sense. You can turn to all kinds of writings on the topic, but all of those people have the same issue as you: they can't prove the existence of a god.

Now, I'm agnostic. I don't know if there is a god or not. But I don't need to know, anymore. I am free from the need to know.

But, I'm willing to debate you but not if you come to the table with crumbs of hearsay, and speculative articles written by Bible scholars and historians.

You say you have non-Biblical evidence. No you don't. Really, you don't. But, I was once like you, looking for answers for what I put my hope in.

You hope there is a god. You hope Jesus is who you think he is.

Frankly, you don't need to prove anything to me or anyone. If you believe, so be it. But if you wish to prove God's existence, you will find you can't.

You don't require proof, that's why you believe in the first place.

I say this in kindness to you, because I once believed, too.

For me to accept the central truth claims of Christianity, I require evidence that support said claims.

I marvel at the fact that you can tell me what I require and do not require based off of how you once approached the issues in question.

I am not you Deidre. Nor can you speak on my behalf.

Your definition of proof is the problem. But, before I agree to debate you, please answer the following question. Do you believe that 2+2=4?

If so, why? If not, why?

How you answer this will determine if I'm willing to engage in a further debate with you in the other section.