The Landover Baptist Church Forum

The Landover Baptist Church Forum (https://www.landoverbaptist.net/forumindex.php)
-   False Religions and Cults (https://www.landoverbaptist.net/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   Atheist fallacies (https://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=87414)

Pim Pendergast 02-06-2013 12:03 PM

Atheist fallacies
 
A fallacy is an error in reasoning or logic. Atheists frequently employ them to support or defend their position. Here are some common ones.

Genetic fallacy. This has nothing to do with genes. It is referring to genesis, or origins. It is the attempt to discredit a belief on the grounds that its origins are dubious. For example, an atheist might claim that religion developed as a means of explaining the world or as an evolutionary adaptation or for psychological or social advantages. But you can’t discredit a belief by discrediting its supposed origins. Besides, we know that belief in the God of the Bible was the original religion and atheism arose out of man’s desire to deny the truth of God’s existence (Rom 1:18). Therefore atheism can be flatly rejected.

Ad hominem. This involves personally attacking your opponent instead of bringing a reasoned argument against him. For example, an atheist might say, “Only gullible/ weak/ uneducated people believe in God.” Just remember that those who reject God are “filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful” (Rom 1:29-31).

Begging the question. Also known as circular reasoning. This is when a claim is assumed to be true without any evidence to support it other than the claim itself. For example, atheists presuppose that God doesn’t exist and then claim that all evidence supporting the existence of God must be flawed because He doesn’t exist. We, on the other hand, know that God exists because the Bible tells us so, and we know that the Bible is reliable because it tells us it is inspired by God.

If I were God, I would/ wouldn’t… I wasn’t sure what to call this one, so I made up a name for it. Perhaps someone else on this godly forum knows the proper name. This is when people try to disprove God’s existence by claiming that if they God they would do things differently. For example, Richard Dawkins claimed that if God were real, He would have created fewer species. People often say something like, “If I were God, I wouldn’t allow suffering in the world; therefore God doesn’t exist.” Just because you might do things differently if you were God doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. Personally, I wouldn’t do anything differently if I were God. He is perfect.

Can anyone else think of other fallacies?

WalkingInTheLight 02-06-2013 12:22 PM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Excellent post!

The last trend irritates me to no end. I get so sick of hearing, "If I was God I wouldn't want people to be afraid of me", or, "If I was God I wouldn't have bothered giving people free will". Really, why on Earth would I CARE what a godless atheist would do in God's shoes?!

BelieverInGod 02-06-2013 08:16 PM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by WalkingInTheLight (Post 975591)
Excellent post!

The last trend irritates me to no end. I get so sick of hearing, "If I was God I wouldn't want people to be afraid of me", or, "If I was God I wouldn't have bothered giving people free will". Really, why on Earth would I CARE what a godless atheist would do in God's shoes?!

AMEN!

And they don't seem to understand the fact that THEY'RE NOT GOD! I know their mommies all told them they're very special all their life, but seriously, their not that "special"

Anyway, I think 'mommy' usually meant 'special' as in, you go to a 'special' school because you need a 'special' education.

Shimei 02-06-2013 08:30 PM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pim Pendergast (Post 975586)
A fallacy is an error in reasoning or logic. Atheists frequently employ them to support or defend their position. Here are some common ones.

Genetic fallacy. This has nothing to do with genes. It is referring to genesis, or origins. It is the attempt to discredit a belief on the grounds that its origins are dubious. For example, an atheist might claim that religion developed as a means of explaining the world or as an evolutionary adaptation or for psychological or social advantages. But you can’t discredit a belief by discrediting its supposed origins. Besides, we know that belief in the God of the Bible was the original religion and atheism arose out of man’s desire to deny the truth of God’s existence (Rom 1:18). Therefore atheism can be flatly rejected.

Ad hominem. This involves personally attacking your opponent instead of bringing a reasoned argument against him. For example, an atheist might say, “Only gullible/ weak/ uneducated people believe in God.” Just remember that those who reject God are “filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful” (Rom 1:29-31).

Begging the question. Also known as circular reasoning. This is when a claim is assumed to be true without any evidence to support it other than the claim itself. For example, atheists presuppose that God doesn’t exist and then claim that all evidence supporting the existence of God must be flawed because He doesn’t exist. We, on the other hand, know that God exists because the Bible tells us so, and we know that the Bible is reliable because it tells us it is inspired by God.

If I were God, I would/ wouldn’t… I wasn’t sure what to call this one, so I made up a name for it. Perhaps someone else on this godly forum knows the proper name. This is when people try to disprove God’s existence by claiming that if they God they would do things differently. For example, Richard Dawkins claimed that if God were real, He would have created fewer species. People often say something like, “If I were God, I wouldn’t allow suffering in the world; therefore God doesn’t exist.” Just because you might do things differently if you were God doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. Personally, I wouldn’t do anything differently if I were God. He is perfect.

Can anyone else think of other fallacies?

Great post. I consider the "If I were God, I would/ wouldn't argument as God is no smarter than I am argument. It is pretty neat to see you outlining the common approaches that others have in arguing against Christianity. But what I come across most often are two reasons why they are arguing to begin with.

1) Christian representation. They are arguing and criticizing people based on their behavior and belief. However, the people that I have responded to in this type of criticism seemingly fall short when pointing out why criticize Christians when people are going against Christianity? Why would anyone oppose Jesus' teaching then criticize others for not following His teaching? People or rather atheist love to try to shift the current world problems on religion. They try to pass the current day wars on religious difference. But really, people are not killing because they differ in whether Moses wrote the ten commandments or not. They are acting outside religious teaching, at least, on the side of Christianity.

2) The God of the Old Testament - Oh, so many people here or there hate the God of the OT. He was a baby killer, a genocidal maniac and so on. They want to put the problem of evil or sin upon the shoulders of its creator. This, really, falls under your classification of "If I were God I would or wouldn't"... they seemingly fail to understand the difference between Justice and cruelty.

Enjoyable read Pim Pendergast.

Billy Bob Jenkins 02-06-2013 09:22 PM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimei (Post 975682)
Great post. I consider the "If I were God, I would/ wouldn't argument as God is no smarter than I am argument. It is pretty neat to see you outlining the common approaches that others have in arguing against Christianity. But what I come across most often are two reasons why they are arguing to begin with.

1) Christian representation. They are arguing and criticizing people based on their behavior and belief. However, the people that I have responded to in this type of criticism seemingly fall short when pointing out why criticize Christians when people are going against Christianity? Why would anyone oppose Jesus' teaching then criticize others for not following His teaching? People or rather atheist love to try to shift the current world problems on religion. They try to pass the current day wars on religious difference. But really, people are not killing because they differ in whether Moses wrote the ten commandments or not. They are acting outside religious teaching, at least, on the side of Christianity.

2) The God of the Old Testament - Oh, so many people here or there hate the God of the OT. He was a baby killer, a genocidal maniac and so on. They want to put the problem of evil or sin upon the shoulders of its creator. This, really, falls under your classification of "If I were God I would or wouldn't"... they seemingly fail to understand the difference between Justice and cruelty.

Enjoyable read Pim Pendergast.

How are your studies coming along, friend? :)

Christ's teachings are so consistent, specific, and unambiguous, it is impossible for there to be any disagreement as to what He meant. That is why there is only one True Christian™ sect. So how could an atheist disagree with two different interpretations of the Gospel? That would be bizarre! :lol:

Since no religious text promotes violence (except for the Bible, the Tanakh, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Holy Books of Thelema, and others) the phrase "Holy War" is practically an oxymormon. When did the Barton Cylinder, for example, ever condone violence? Never that I am aware of.

You are also right to point out, friend, that genocide and baby killing are "Justice" when God does it, whereas cruelty is something entirely different.

You are progressing nicely towards salvation, Shimei. :spiteful:

Pastor Isaac Peters 02-06-2013 09:24 PM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
No true Scotsman. This fallacy involves making an assertion and then hand-waving away counter-examples by making the additional assertion that the counter-examples somehow aren't really counter-examples. For example, when confronted with the atrocities of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, atheists assert that those dictators weren't true atheists and that true atheists would have done things differently. That line of thinking is completely different from our Christian knowledge that since genuinely saved people do not sin (1 John 3:6, 5:18), anyone who commits a sin is not a genuinely saved Christian.

Fallacy of invincible ignorance, or, as it is often called on the Internet, "La la la, I can't hear you." This fallacy consists of sticking to an assertion after it has been proved wrong. Atheists commit this fallacy by clinging to the dogma of evil-utionism after we have shown them how wrong it is. By contrast, we Christians know that since we are to trust in the Lord with all our hearts (Proverbs 3:5-6) and to beware lest any man spoil us through philosophy and vain deceit (Colossians 2:8), unbelievers quite simply have nothing useful to tell us.

Appeal to consequences of a belief. According to this fallacy, a proposition must be true because of the adverse consequences if people didn't accept it. When atheists argue that adoption of atheist dogma will speed the progress of science, they commit this fallacy, since even if their assertion were true, it would not disprove the existence of God. On the other hand, we Christians understand the basic reality of human nature that without faith in Christ and adherence to the Holy Bible, people would have no moral compass, and society as we know it would be impossible.

Shimei 02-06-2013 09:47 PM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Bob Jenkins (Post 975690)
How are your studies coming along, friend? :)

Christ's teachings are so consistent, specific, and unambiguous, it is impossible for there to be any disagreement as to what He meant. That is why there is only one True Christian™ sect. So how could an atheist disagree with two different interpretations of the Gospel? That would be bizarre! :lol:

Since no religious text promotes violence (except for the Bible, the Tanakh, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Holy Books of Thelema, and others) the phrase "Holy War" is practically an oxymormon. When did the Barton Cylinder, for example, ever condone violence? Never that I am aware of.

You are also right to point out, friend, that genocide and baby killing are "Justice" when God does it, whereas cruelty is something entirely different.

You are progressing nicely towards salvation, Shimei. :spiteful:

My studies are going at slow but steady pace. I thank you for asking, but moreso, I am quite excited about what is happening or going to happen soon. I am going to be Baptized in two weeks!

Blind faith fallacy
I love the argument about the laws of nature. How all things work according to certain laws, for example the speed of light. We know here on Earth that light travels a certain distance at a certain speed, but then a giant leap of "Faith" or assumption is stated by saying that light travels at the same rate across the unforeseen universe. And lets not even get into the reason why all things act according to laws, but yet it is ignorance by faith to say that a supreme lawgiver made all things...

Quote:

Appeal to consequences of a belief. According to this fallacy, a proposition must be true because of the adverse consequences if people didn't accept it. When atheists argue that adoption of atheist dogma will speed the progress of science, they commit this fallacy, since even if their assertion were true, it would not disprove the existence of God. On the other hand, we Christians understand the basic reality of human nature that without faith in Christ and adherence to the Holy Bible, people would have no moral compass, and society as we know it would be impossible.
This is a great one Pastor. Yet countries such as Russia and other African settlements are increasingly becoming more religious as they advance. They are advanced and technologically so, and Evangelism is flourishing in these countries. And we only need to look upon the past at the greats, like Bacon, Kepler and Newton and so on... They hadn't an issue with Faith in God and Science.

BelieverInGod 02-06-2013 10:06 PM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pastor Isaac Peters (Post 975691)
No true Scotsman. This fallacy involves making an assertion and then hand-waving away counter-examples by making the additional assertion that the counter-examples somehow aren't really counter-examples. For example, when confronted with the atrocities of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, atheists assert that those dictators weren't true atheists and that true atheists would have done things differently. That line of thinking is completely different from our Christian knowledge that since genuinely saved people do not sin (1 John 3:6, 5:18), anyone who commits a sin is not a genuinely saved Christian.

Oh how many times I've heard this one. It's not like a True Christian™ where you have the Bible to follow, and if you don't follow it 100% then you're a cherry picker. With atheism, its simple, you don't believe in God, you're an atheist. No further proof of true atheism.


Quote:

Appeal to consequences of a belief.
Quote:

According to this fallacy, a proposition must be true because of the adverse consequences if people didn't accept it. When atheists argue that adoption of atheist dogma will speed the progress of science, they commit this fallacy, since even if their assertion were true, it would not disprove the existence of God. On the other hand, we Christians understand the basic reality of human nature that without faith in Christ and adherence to the Holy Bible, people would have no moral compass, and society as we know it would be impossible.
Have you seen that silly chart where they blame the "dark ages" on Christianity? The atheists will prattle on and on about how the "dark ages" were caused by the 'christians'. Well there's a lot wrong with that issue.

1. The 'dark ages' are called the 'dark ages' because there's no records.
2. The so called Christians is really the catholic church
3. I hate to say it, but the catholics brought Europe out of the dark ages
4. There is no proof that science would have moved forward at the rate they state.

Billy Bob Jenkins 02-06-2013 10:26 PM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimei (Post 975694)
My studies are going at slow but steady pace. I thank you for asking, but moreso, I am quite excited about what is happening or going to happen soon. I am going to be Baptized in two weeks!

Let us all pray that God does not kill you before then.
Quote:

Blind faith fallacy I love the argument about the laws of nature. How all things work according to certain laws, for example the speed of light. We know here on Earth that light travels a certain distance at a certain speed, but then a giant leap of "Faith" or assumption is stated by saying that light travels at the same rate across the unforeseen universe. And lets not even get into the reason why all things act according to laws, but yet it is ignorance by faith to say that a supreme lawgiver made all things...
There is certainly nothing that violates the Laws of Nature, which God authored anonymously. The only divine laws that get broken are the ones acknowledged in the Holy Bible.
Quote:

This is a great one Pastor. Yet countries such as Russia and other African settlements are increasingly becoming more religious as they advance. They are advanced and technologically so, and Evangelism is flourishing in these countries. And we only need to look upon the past at the greats, like Bacon, Kepler and Newton and so on... They hadn't an issue with Faith in God and Science.
And look at the civility that always accompanies Christianization! For example, the institutional extermination of queers in Uganda. The enlightened minds of Christian Evangelicals are to thank for that, especially white American ones. :innocent:

James Hutchins 02-06-2013 10:42 PM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
I have always thought the:
God Loves Everyone Fallacy was perhaps one of the stupidest I have heard. The only people who want to believe this are wicked, unworthy, shallow deviants. They are hoping that they can continue to do whatever they want and will never have to 'pay the piper'. You'd think, these God hating atheists would at least read the rule book to see what they up against BEFORE putting blind trust into things.

Leviticus 20:23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

Leviticus 26:30 And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you.

Deuteronomy 32:19 And when the LORD saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters.

Psalm 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Psalm 5:6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

Psalm 10:3 For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth.

Psalm 11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Psalm 53:5 There were they in great fear, where no fear was: for God hath scattered the bones of him that encampeth against thee: thou hast put them to shame, because God hath despised them.

Psalm 73:20 As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image.

Psalm 78:59 When God heard this, he was wroth, and greatly abhorred Israel:

Psalm 106:40 Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance.

Proverbs 6:16-19 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Proverbs 22:14 The mouth of strange women is a deep pit: he that is abhorred of the LORD shall fall therein.

Lamentations 2:6 And he hath violently taken away his tabernacle, as if it were of a garden: he hath destroyed his places of the assembly: the LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the indignation of his anger the king and the priest.

Hosea 9:15 All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.

Amos 5:21 I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.

Zechariah 11:8 Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul lothed them, and their soul also abhorred me.

Malachi 1:3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Revelation 2:6; 15 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.
I Thessalonians 2:16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

There is a reason for :sinner::haha:

Shimei 02-06-2013 11:15 PM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Bob Jenkins (Post 975709)
Let us all pray that God does not kill you before then.
There is certainly nothing that violates the Laws of Nature, which God authored anonymously. The only divine laws that get broken are the ones acknowledged in the Holy Bible.
And look at the civility that always accompanies Christianization! For example, the institutional extermination of queers in Uganda. The enlightened minds of Christian Evangelicals are to thank for that, especially white American ones. :innocent:

Ha! Thanks for that thought.

And the commandment states that we should go and multiply and be fruitful, in support of your argument... lol, you're stating two things that contradict one another. Homosexuality going against the divine creative order and also nature...

Actually, are we not a minority in world history on how we are socially experimenting with homosexuality? Maybe not, but I mean, perhaps, the other countries are looking in from a different perspective, saying, look you Episcopalians preached the Scripture, but you yourselves do not even practice what you preach. There are issues... Ezekiel 33:31-32

Anyhoot, that's an argument I'll keep distance from because I am unable to separate emotion from the topic at hand in a civil fashion. Besides, I haven't heard anything but social opinion given as opposition to Uganda. All they need do now is do something about the slave trading.

Billy Bob Jenkins 02-06-2013 11:35 PM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimei (Post 975723)
Ha! Thanks for that thought.

And the commandment states that we should go and multiply and be fruitful, in support of your argument... lol, you're stating two things that contradict one another. Homosexuality going against the divine creative order and also nature...

What I mean, friend, is that moral laws can be broken, because when you love someone you leave open the possibility that they should burn eternally. Laws of nature on the other hand cannot be broken, but God in His abundant humility, never took credit for this in the Bible. Why would He tell us undiscovered scientific facts, when that would only take away our freedom to disbelieve in His existence and fry forever? These aspects are inextricable from intelligent design. I do not see wherein lies the contradiction.

Quote:

Anyhoot, that's an argument I'll keep distance from because I am unable to separate emotion from the topic at hand in a civil fashion. Besides, I haven't heard anything but social opinion given as opposition to Uganda. All they need do now is do something about the slave trading.
It's true friend. Some of those slaves are probably stolen, and God demands capital punishment for possession of stolen slaves, no matter what the purpose of the theft was: freeing them, or resale. This is stated plainly in Exodus 21:16. We must all respect the institution of slavery, which God's law also perpetuates in Exodus 21:20-21, Leviticus 25:44-45, and other verses.

Shimei 02-07-2013 12:19 AM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Bob Jenkins (Post 975727)
What I mean, friend, is that moral laws can be broken, because when you love someone you leave open the possibility that they should burn eternally. Laws of nature on the other hand cannot be broken, but God in His abundant humility, never took credit for this in the Bible. Why would He tell us undiscovered scientific facts, when that would only take away our freedom to disbelieve in His existence and fry forever? These aspects are inextricable from intelligent design. I do not see wherein lies the contradiction.

It's true friend. Some of those slaves are probably stolen, and God demands capital punishment for possession of stolen slaves, no matter what the purpose of the theft was: freeing them, or resale. This is stated plainly in Exodus 21:16. We must all respect the institution of slavery, which God's law also perpetuates in Exodus 21:20-21, Leviticus 25:44-45, and other verses.

Yea, I can now understand what you are saying. When we love, it is so easy to excuse, ignore or condone sin. We have to be ready to forsake everything and everyone. We have to learn to hate for God or love a little less the things that keep us from Him. But I don't mean to sound like I'm preaching to the choir, because just about everyone here understands what I am sharing.

Back to what I was saying before... is it just me or does it seem as though the homosexual argument appeals to a higher sense of morality or virtue? What is natural could be said to be feelings against homosexuality. Is this really a choice? I mean the opposition towards the life of a homosexual, by the atheist argument, has a natural way of sorting out the most fittest for survival. Yet the contradiction comes into existence when they appeal toward the greater good will of mankind... Don't know if that is clear or not, but it was an aha moment. Another possible fallacy... I'll have to explore this later.

As to your question, why would God tell us undiscovered scientific facts, when that would only take away our freedom to disbelieve in His existence and fry forever?

Ha! man has the ability to freely will himself back to God through His Son despite being predestined to Hell... but you're right, the resurrection falls outside of the natural and rather falls in the supernatural.

I wouldn't put it past God, after all He so loves the world. I'm still using all my mental faculties to deliberately love my enemy in a thoughtful manner or agape. But in my life I'm learning that I have very few enemies, but my enemies appear more to be that of God's. I have to watch being self righteous and make sure that I put myself in a righteous mannerism in God.

I must say that I had a chuckle. Our finite minds cannot even perceive or comprehend His infinite wisdom, yet He still passes it down to us through Scripture. Perhaps the same could be said about Scientific discovery, and through the course of subduing nature... we fulfill one of the first commandments.

Thanks Billy Bob Jenkins, I think that I said too much. It's always easy to tell people how much I don't know, but regardless thank you!

Billy Bob Jenkins 02-07-2013 12:50 AM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimei (Post 975734)
Yea, I can now understand what you are saying. When we love, it is so easy to excuse, ignore or condone sin. We have to be ready to forsake everything and everyone. We have to learn to hate for God or love a little less the things that keep us from Him. But I don't mean to sound like I'm preaching to the choir, because just about everyone here understands what I am sharing.

Back to what I was saying before... is it just me or does it seem as though the homosexual argument appeals to a higher sense of morality or virtue? What is natural could be said to be feelings against homosexuality. Is this really a choice? I mean the opposition towards the life of a homosexual, by the atheist argument, has a natural way of sorting out the most fittest for survival. Yet the contradiction comes into existence when they appeal toward the greater good will of mankind... Don't know if that is clear or not, but it was an aha moment. Another possible fallacy... I'll have to explore this later.

As to your question, why would God tell us undiscovered scientific facts, when that would only take away our freedom to disbelieve in His existence and fry forever?

Ha! man has the ability to freely will himself back to God through His Son despite being predestined to Hell... but you're right, the resurrection falls outside of the natural and rather falls in the supernatural.

I wouldn't put it past God, after all He so loves the world. I'm still using all my mental faculties to deliberately love my enemy in a thoughtful manner or agape. But in my life I'm learning that I have very few enemies, but my enemies appear more to be that of God's. I have to watch being self righteous and make sure that I put myself in a righteous mannerism in God.

I must say that I had a chuckle. Our finite minds cannot even perceive or comprehend His infinite wisdom, yet He still passes it down to us through Scripture. Perhaps the same could be said about Scientific discovery, and through the course of subduing nature... we fulfill one of the first commandments.

Thanks Billy Bob Jenkins, I think that I said too much. It's always easy to tell people how much I don't know, but regardless thank you!

The liberal/atheist/scientific argument is that homosexuality is biological, not that it is genetic. But since Jesus and I conflate the words genetic and biological, there is no difference. You say potato I say poe-tah-toe. :innocent:

I promise you that the scientific discovery that homosexuality is biological is in no wise conducive to eternal life. This non-doctrinal speculation about science being a fulfillment of God's will may be amusing now, but will it be amusing to have your flesh burned off again and again for ever and ever? I am only looking out for your well being when I say such things, friend; I mean no offense.

My question about the notable absence of scientific facts in the Bible was rhetorical. Obviously the reason there were no scientific contributions in the Bible, and only rough mathematical estimations, is because God knows better than to believe liberal elites.

Pastor Isaac Peters 02-07-2013 06:17 PM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Misplacing the burden of proof. When atheists make an affirmative statement, e.g., that the universe came into being purely through natural mechanisms or that sodomania is caused by something other than idolatry (Romans 1:22-27), they bear the burden of proof. Instead, they commit this fallacy by trying to shift the burden of proof to us.

Pim Pendergast 02-08-2013 10:22 AM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Special pleading. Exempting oneself from the standards one applies to others without providing justification for the exemption. Example: an atheist argues that a Creator needs a creator who needs a creator, yet is willing to accept that the universe has always existed. Because the atheist never offers a satisfactory explanation as to why the universe can just exist but God cannot, he is engaging in special pleading. Of course, we know that the universe cannot have simply always existed, because Romans 1 tells us the universe is evidence of a Creator. Nothing can exist without a Creator.

Moving the goalposts. Dismissing evidence presented in response to a claim and demanding other, usually greater, evidence instead. RL example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MitzaLizalor (Post 974315)
When I hear of people claiming that the world we see around us is not the one described in Genesis it makes me wonder, where do they think it is?

When someone tells me they've done a painting it helps A LOT if they show me the painting. That's evidence.

But when God tells me He created the world and lo, there it is — they move the goalposts and that's NOT evidence?

Who needs electroconvulsive therapy when there's atheism!

Just remember that Creation is evidence of a Creator. It is not evidence of evolution. I always challenge evolutionists to show me one example – just one – of a missing link. But whatever they come up with just creates more gaps in their "tree of life."

Pastor Isaac Peters 02-09-2013 06:17 PM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Wishful thinking. This fallacy takes the form "I want P to be true; therefore, P." Atheists use it when they talk themselves into believing that God doesn't exist so that they can commit sodomy and vote Democratic without fear of judgment. We Christians do not fall for such nonsense because we have faith in God's promise of eternal salvation.

Johny Joe Hold 02-10-2013 01:16 AM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pastor Isaac Peters (Post 976389)
Wishful thinking. This fallacy takes the form "I want P to be true; therefore, P." Atheists use it when they talk themselves into believing that God doesn't exist so that they can commit sodomy and vote Democratic without fear of judgment. We Christians do not fall for such nonsense because we have faith in God's promise of eternal salvation.

When it comes to preachin', Pastor Isaac, you have the gift.

Your statement, "they talk themselves into believing God doesn't exist so they can commit sodomy..." rings so true it should be engraved in marble and put on the Freehold City Hall lawn.

Pim Pendergast 02-10-2013 08:50 AM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pastor Isaac Peters (Post 976389)
We Christians do not fall for such nonsense because we have faith in God's promise of eternal salvation.

Amen, Pastor. If there wasn’t a place for us in heaven, we would know because Jesus would have told us.

Jn 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Argument from ignorance. Accepting a proposition simply because it has not yet been disproved, or vice versa. Example: “God doesn’t exist, because no one has ever disproved that He doesn’t exist.” It is impossible for the Christian to argue from ignorance, because he knows that God exists (Gen 1:1).

Appeal to authority. Attempting to support one’s argument by referring to an unreliable or unqualified “authoritative source” that holds the same view. Atheists often appeal to science to shore up their faltering arguments. But the Bible warns us to avoid so-called science (1 Tim 6:20) because any form of worldly wisdom is an unreliable source of information about God (1 Cor 1:21).

Argument from self-knowing. Assuming that one would automatically know whether a proposition were true. Example: “If God existed, I would know it. But because I don’t know, He mustn’t exist.” Wrong! The atheist does know deep down in his heart that God exists (Rom 1:18-20; cf. 1 Cor 2:11). This is more of a lie than a fallacy.

Argument from incredulity. Dismissing a proposition simply on the grounds that one cannot imagine it to be true. Example: “I find the biblical account of a God who created the universe in six 24-hour days 6,000 years ago a bit far-fetched; therefore He doesn’t exist.” Because apparently it’s so much easier to believe the universe came from nothing and we evolved from monkeys! Fluffy-bunny “Christians” are also guilty of this fallacy: “I can’t believe God hates fags; therefore I’ll just ignore the relevant Bible passages.”

Pim Pendergast 02-13-2013 08:55 AM

Atheist biases
 
The human mind is finite. It has limitations. People tend to simplify the way they interpret and evaluate information, often by using shortcuts in reasoning, or applying “rules of thumb,” called biases, which can result in an error in judgement or decision-making. Without the Bible to fill in the gaps in our knowledge and tell us how to interpret information and make decisions, we Christians would also be prone to biases. But by the grace of God, the Holy Spirit has opened our eyes to see clearly. There is a degree of overlap between cognitive biases and fallacies, so I have decided to include examples of a few common atheist biases in this thread.

Hindsight bias, or the “knew-it-all-along effect.” Believing that events that have already occurred were predictable. Example: after debating evolution with a Christian, an atheist will often say something like, “I knew you wouldn’t listen reason.” This kind of ridicule is exactly what Jesus told us to expect in Matthew 5:10-12.

Confirmation bias. Favoring information that confirms ones pre-existing beliefs, or interpreting information in a way that confirms ones beliefs. Example: atheists live in the same world we do, yet they interpret events and experiences, such as unanswered prayer, in a way that confirms their belief that there is no God. In order to avoid cognitive dissonance, they reject fellowship with God’s people – not that we’re to have fellowship with unbelievers, anyway – and ignore God’s Word. But the Bible is completely trustworthy. I’ve never found anything in it I disagree with.

Backfire effect. Becoming stronger in ones beliefs when faced with contradictory evidence. Atheists do this all the time when confronted with evidence for God from the Bible. They often end up more convinced that the God of the Bible isn’t real. Of course, it always cracks me up whenever atheists respond with evidence from science that supposedly contradicts the Bible, such as evolution. The more I learn about the subject, the more ludicrous it seems.

Illusory superiority. Overestimating ones positive attributes and underestimating ones negative attributes. Don’t really need to explain this one much. We all know atheists think they’re smarter than everybody else. God will show them come the Day of Judgement. They will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:13-15), and we will inherit a new heaven and a new earth (Rev 21:1-8).

Shimei 02-13-2013 08:42 PM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Bob Jenkins (Post 975741)
The liberal/atheist/scientific argument is that homosexuality is biological, not that it is genetic. But since Jesus and I conflate the words genetic and biological, there is no difference. You say potato I say poe-tah-toe. :innocent:

I promise you that the scientific discovery that homosexuality is biological is in no wise conducive to eternal life. This non-doctrinal speculation about science being a fulfillment of God's will may be amusing now, but will it be amusing to have your flesh burned off again and again for ever and ever? I am only looking out for your well being when I say such things, friend; I mean no offense.

My question about the notable absence of scientific facts in the Bible was rhetorical. Obviously the reason there were no scientific contributions in the Bible, and only rough mathematical estimations, is because God knows better than to believe liberal elites.

Amen Billy Bob.

Question, while watching a debate a little while ago, I started to see another contradiction and wondered whether this be a fallacy. I mean the Atheist in the debate began using terminology from Computer Science, they began demonstrating their theory with a program. But I could not help but see that God made the universe, by softly spoken words.

The contradiction it seems comes by way of the mathematics used to create a program. To create this demo, a rendering of the universe by using a language, but yet God spoke creation into existence...

Dunno, this just came to mind while listening.

And Billy Bob, that is interesting in what you say, that only the Divine Laws are broken. Why is that?

Marshall 02-13-2013 10:27 PM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Ive noticed Satan is nearly every corner of the Interweb that isnt directly connected to the one True Christian™ church, Landover Baptist. Pornography and atheism go hand in hand. The FACT that God created sexual differences doesnt mean He wants us to simply sex each other willy nilly like negros in Africa. The same logic applies to the Interweb, just because God made it doesnt mean we should use it to spread lies and athianism by way of His grace! Trying to disprove the Bible in ANY sense, whether its using homosexual Greek debate terms or using science or linking to atheism sites, only serves to prop up Satan and his minions. It does nothing to diminish the truth of Gods love. There can only be one truth and if you use atheist logic and say the original truth must be right, then God wins because He created the universe! There was nothing before Creation! Every atheist agrees with that FACT even when they stupidly claim the "big bang" happened. What was before the "big bang"? NOTHING.
God wins.
Praise Jesus yall.

Marshall 02-13-2013 10:41 PM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Just as unzipping your tight bottomless chaps is a CHOICE, so is the CHOICE to use you God-given parts to swordfight with your friends in a park bathroom stall. There is nothing "genetic" about sexing in the rump or using your mouth on a womans stuff. Genetics, according to satan, are biological and everyone knows(including the deluded scientists) that the function of life is to reproduce. God made everything living so that it could reproduce. Thats called a LAW OF NATURE.
Logic dictates that reproduction doesnt happen if sperms are drowned in a colon. Therefore, homosexuals are UN-NATURAL by their very definition. Because they are unnatural it is easy to conclude that their sex is of the Devil and should be punishable by law.

ARGUMENT DESTROYED.

Pim Pendergast 02-14-2013 09:53 AM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimei (Post 977792)
Question, while watching a debate a little while ago, I started to see another contradiction and wondered whether this be a fallacy. I mean the Atheist in the debate began using terminology from Computer Science, they began demonstrating their theory with a program. But I could not help but see that God made the universe, by softly spoken words.

The contradiction it seems comes by way of the mathematics used to create a program. To create this demo, a rendering of the universe by using a language, but yet God spoke creation into existence...

Dunno, this just came to mind while listening.

I don't know if it's fallacious, but it's definitely ironic. God created and sustains everything by the power of His Word (Gen 1, Jn 1:1-18, Heb 1:1-3). God was the original Talker. Man can only talk because he is created in God's image (Gen 1:26-27). The atheist's ability to talk comes directly from God. Without God he wouldn't be able to talk (or create computer languages). The atheist disproves atheism every time he opens his mouth.

And homosexuality is not genetic. Just because, for example, some drosophila fruit flies in a lab somewhere once chose to be gay while they were being observed by scientists doesn't prove that there is a homosexual gene in humans.

MitzaLizalor 02-14-2013 12:24 PM

Irrits (the)
 
If you really want The Irrits try the fallacist's fallacy. Heathens are more prone to this than atheists. Before linking to some of their debased utterances I'll just make up an example

EXAMPLE 1
• pebbles do not eat camels
• "cool"jazz, worms and the moon are all types of fish
• therefore the sky is blue

Although no evidence is offered to support the conclusion, and despite several logical errors, the conclusion is not necessarily false (or true).

In the next example a number of fallacious and unconnected statements are strung together by several God denying heathens leading to a conclusion that does not follow from any of their "arguments" but which seems to be supported in Scripture. Revelation 22:17 However when we realise that the chief heathen among their number is primarily interested in goddess cults such as those of Aphrodite and Frigg the corrupted nature of their fallacious conclusion is revealed.

EXAMPLE 2
How many fallacies can you count there?
Words spun from no more substance than clouds.

Truth I Seek 02-15-2013 06:19 AM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
So many misconceptions about Atheism. You clearly don't know that much about what being atheist is about. Being Atheist is not some kind of rocket science, it's a pretty simple concept, it isn't as complex as tou seem to think

Let's try to have a serious and grown up debate here, feel free to make me some questions about atheism. Let me help you to understand Atheism and in the process maybe I can also understand you better.

It's not my intention to turn anyone to Atheism, the same way I will not be converted to your religion. I just want we to understand ourselves better.

BelieverInGod 02-15-2013 06:23 AM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth I Seek (Post 978235)
So many misconceptions about Atheism. You clearly don't know that much about what being atheist is about. Being Atheist is not some kind of rocket science, it's a pretty simple concept, it isn't as complex as tou seem to think

Let's try to have a serious and grown up debate here, feel free to make me some questions about atheism. Let me help you to understand Atheism and in the process maybe I can also understand you better.

It's not my intention to turn anyone to Atheism, the same way I will not be converted to your religion. I just want we to understand ourselves better.

Sigh...... You didn't read the very top of every page did you

UNSAVED UNWELCOME!

Nor could you be bothered to read the "Noobs" please read this before posting. Thread, as you were asked to when you joined.

Quote:

This is not a debate forum. The purpose of this site is to praise and glorify the Lord, Jesus Christ. It is a place for Christians to fellowship and worship. The goal of the Landover Baptist Church forum is to draw people to Jesus Christ because Scripture confirms that salvation comes only through Him.

Luke 6:22 tells us that because we preach the True doctrine of Jesus, men shall hate us and call us evil. So naturally, we expect that folks will get their feathers ruffled by some of the things they have to say, and they will come on here to argue with us. Perhaps we have said something that upset you. Maybe it was something I said. If so, then I am sorry that you are upset, but I do not apologize for what I have said. My words and thoughts come from the Holy Scriptures. I didn't write the Bible -- God did. So if my words upset you, then you don't have a problem with me -- you have a problem with God.

We tend to get two types of dissenters here. Some are calm and reasonable folks who are capable of rational discussion. I personally enjoy discussing religious topics with this sort of person. Others, however, are angry trolls who are just here to flame us. If you are here to flame us, please read this first.

Truth I Seek 02-15-2013 06:44 AM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BelieverInGod (Post 978237)
Sigh...... You didn't read the very top of every page did you

UNSAVED UNWELCOME!

Nor could you be bothered to read the "Noobs" please read this before posting. Thread, as you were asked to when you joined.

If the non-believers are not welcome make it an invite only forum.

Who told that I didn't read that? Foruns are by nature places of debate, a rule that states it isn't makes no sense to me. Theres something else on that thread that caught my attention:

"We tend to get two types of dissenters here. Some are calm and reasonable folks who are capable of rational discussion. I personally enjoy discussing religious topics with this sort of person."

seems like serious and rational debate are not that unwelcomed after all.

Didymus Much 02-15-2013 06:56 AM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth I Seek (Post 978235)
So many misconceptions about Atheism...

How about your misconception that atheism should be capitalized? Hint: it's not a proper noun.

Quote:

...Let's try to have a serious and grown up debate here...
Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth I Seek (Post 978244)
..."We tend to get two types of dissenters here. Some are calm and reasonable folks who are capable of rational discussion"...

Do you see the problem now?

Truth I Seek 02-15-2013 07:08 AM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus Much (Post 978246)
How about your misconception that atheism should be capitalized? Hint: it's not a proper noun.

Any problem with that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus Much (Post 978246)
Do you see the problem now?

Is there a problem?

Quote:

Definition of DISCUSSION1
: consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate

2
: a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing

Seems like a discussion is synonimous of debate. So... what's the problem after all?

Mary Etheldreda 02-15-2013 07:30 AM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth I Seek (Post 978235)
feel free to make me some questions about atheism.

What is it like to be an atheist?

:)

Didymus Much 02-15-2013 07:35 AM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth I Seek (Post 978248)
Any problem with that?...

Your reading comprehension. :thumbdown:

Quote:

...Seems like a discussion is synonimous of debate. So... what's the problem after all?
Again, your reading comprehension. "Debate" is ONE possible meaning of "discussion"; that does not mean they are synonymous.

If you have questions, ask them, POLITELY (after using the "search" function to ensure that the question has not been answered already), and they will be answered. Attempt debate, and you will be banned (after being informed that you are wrong, anyway). That will not be my doing, so don't bother bitching to me.

Billy Bob Jenkins 02-15-2013 08:04 AM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimei (Post 977792)
Amen Billy Bob.

Question, while watching a debate a little while ago, I started to see another contradiction and wondered whether this be a fallacy. I mean the Atheist in the debate began using terminology from Computer Science, they began demonstrating their theory with a program. But I could not help but see that God made the universe, by softly spoken words.

The contradiction it seems comes by way of the mathematics used to create a program. To create this demo, a rendering of the universe by using a language, but yet God spoke creation into existence...

Dunno, this just came to mind while listening.

And Billy Bob, that is interesting in what you say, that only the Divine Laws are broken. Why is that?

Friend, I believe we have covered some of this ground. The reason that prescriptive laws like "Thou shalt have no gods before me" can be broken while natural laws like Intelligent Pulling cannot, is because God loves us and therefore wants us to be free to burn in Hell for all eternity without any possibility of escape; the reason God allows evil is because He is so good. This is Christianity 101, friend. :innocent:

Pim Pendergast 02-15-2013 11:26 AM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth I Seek (Post 978235)
So many misconceptions about Atheism. You clearly don't know that much about what being atheist is about. Being Atheist is not some kind of rocket science, it's a pretty simple concept, it isn't as complex as tou seem to think

Let's try to have a serious and grown up debate here, feel free to make me some questions about atheism. Let me help you to understand Atheism and in the process maybe I can also understand you better.

It's not my intention to turn anyone to Atheism, the same way I will not be converted to your religion. I just want we to understand ourselves better.

How about explain why you reject all the evidence for God's existence. There are many sources of evidence: the Bible; creation (Rom 1:18-32), creation science and Flood geology; world events, answered prayers and miracles; and your own conscience (Rom 1:18-32). Rational discussion is encouraged on this forum. So I challenge you to explain why you reject all the evidence for God, without resorting to fallacious (irrational) reasoning, especially "begging the question," which I mentioned in the OP. Maybe then you'll see how foolish your position is.

Truth I Seek 02-15-2013 12:05 PM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus Much (Post 978253)
Your reading comprehension. :thumbdown:

Again, your reading comprehension. "Debate" is ONE possible meaning of "discussion"; that does not mean they are synonymous.

It's just a matter ofsemantics. In practice both discussion and debate are the same, 2 or more people speaking about a subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus Much (Post 978253)
If you have questions, ask them, POLITELY (after using the "search" function to ensure that the question has not been answered already), and they will be answered. Attempt debate, and you will be banned (after being informed that you are wrong, anyway). That will not be my doing, so don't bother bitching to me.

Let them ban me if they are so insecure of their beliefs that this is the only way they have to deal with someone that is not being rude to them.

Truth I Seek 02-15-2013 12:13 PM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pim Pendergast (Post 978289)
How about explain why you reject all the evidence for God's existence. There are many sources of evidence: the Bible; creation (Rom 1:18-32), creation science and Flood geology; world events, answered prayers and miracles; and your own conscience (Rom 1:18-32). Rational discussion is encouraged on this forum. So I challenge you to explain why you reject all the evidence for God, without resorting to fallacious (irrational) reasoning, especially "begging the question," which I mentioned in the OP. Maybe then you'll see how foolish your position is.

These are all faith related evidences. I need factual evidence. And the reality is that there isn't a single factual evidence of the existence of your god.

The bible is not the proof of god's existence, it's the claim of it's existence. In the same way the qu'ran it's the claim that Mohammed is the true prophet of allah and has pretty much the same faith related evidences that the bible has. Why do you accept one and reject the other?

Pim Pendergast 02-15-2013 12:53 PM

Re: Irrits (the)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MitzaLizalor (Post 978008)
How many fallacies can you count there?

I couldn't count them all, but the song reminded me of the non sequitur. "P is true; therefore R." I can only assume that if heathens like the Beatles are prone to this fallacy, it must be widespread among atheists also. I must say, after reading those lyrics I needed to read my Bible for an hour straight just to clear my head.

Proof by assertion. Simply stating something to be true without offering evidence or a supporting argument for the statement. This fallacy takes the form "P is true." For example, "God doesn't exist." Or, "Evolution is now a fact." Atheists seem to think that if they just keep saying the same thing over and over, that makes it true. God wants us to immunise our children against this kind of brainwashing. That's why it's important to homeschool them so that they can learn the truth: God does exist, and evolution is a lie from the devil; God created everything.

Appeal to ridicule. Presenting your opponent's position in a way that makes it seem ridiculous. "If the Genesis Creation account is true, then God created light before He created the sun, moon and stars!" (Which of course is true, but imagine this being said in a condescending, mocking tone). They love to mock the Creation account. They can't see the folly of their own position. If there is no God, then the universe just appeared out of nothing.

Pim Pendergast 02-15-2013 01:42 PM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth I Seek (Post 978296)
These are all faith related evidences. I need factual evidence.

The bible is not the proof of god's existence, it's the claim of it's existence. In the same way the qu'ran it's the claim that Mohammed is the true prophet of allah and has pretty much the same faith related evidences that the bible has. Why do you accept one and reject the other?

But the Bible is proof of God's existence. The very first verse states the existence of God as a fact.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And how do I know God's Word is true? Simple. The Bible tells me so.

Jn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Why is God's Word true? Because it is inspired by God.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I reject the koran because the Bible warns against adding to God's Word.

Rev 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The koran was written at least five centuries after Revelation. Accepting it would be adding to God's Word.

Quote:

And the reality is that there isn't a single factual evidence of the existence of your god.
^^^Misapplying the burden of proof^^^

So you say, but is there any factual evidence against His existence?

BelieverInGod 02-15-2013 05:25 PM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth I Seek (Post 978244)
If the non-believers are not welcome make it an invite only forum.

Because Jesus told us to preach to all the world. Can you think of a better way of getting the word out in this day-and-age other than the internet?

Anyway, how would we find True Christians™ around the world if it wasn't open? We've even had people convert because of our pages. :yahoo:

Quote:

Who told that I didn't read that? Foruns are by nature places of debate, a rule that states it isn't makes no sense to me. Theres something else on that thread that caught my attention:
No you didn't read the thread. We know that because you're asking questions that were answered in the thread.


Quote:

"We tend to get two types of dissenters here. Some are calm and reasonable folks who are capable of rational discussion. I personally enjoy discussing religious topics with this sort of person."

seems like serious and rational debate are not that unwelcomed after all.
There's a difference between discussion and debate. We will gladly have a discussion with someone who has read the Bible and actually has some idea of what they're talking about.

You on the other hand :angry:

BelieverInGod 02-15-2013 05:31 PM

Re: Atheist fallacies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth I Seek (Post 978295)
It's just a matter ofsemantics. In practice both discussion and debate are the same, 2 or more people speaking about a subject.

Wow, so this is what public education has come to...

Perhaps you should read a dictionary before you attempt the KJV Bible.

Definition of discussion
noun

[mass noun]
  • the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas: the committee acts as a forum for discussion the EC directive is currently under discussion
  • [count noun] a conversation or debate about a specific topic: discussions about environmental improvement
  • [count noun] a detailed treatment of a topic in speech or writing: see Appendix One, for a more detailed discussion
Origin:

Middle English (denoting judicial examination): via Old French from late Latin discussio(n-), from discutere 'investigate' (see discuss)




Definition of debate
noun

  • a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote: last night’s debate on the Education Bill
  • an argument about a particular subject, especially one in which many people are involved: the national debate on abortion [mass noun]: there has been much debate about prices
verb

[with object]
  • argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner: MPs debated the issue in the Commons [no object]: members of the society debated for five nights
  • [with clause] consider a possible course of action in one’s mind before reaching a decision: he debated whether he should leave the matter alone or speak to her
Phrases

be open to debate



be unproven and requiring further discussion: whether a further wave of takeovers would benefit consumers is open to debate

under debate



being discussed or disputed: the subject is still under debate






Quote:

Let them ban me if they are so insecure of their beliefs that this is the only way they have to deal with someone that is not being rude to them.
Kicking a yappy dog does not mean I'm insecure about the dog. It means it's pestered me to the point I don't want to listen to it any more.

For some reason most of you atheist type come here looking to be banned. Somehow you think that annoying us to the point that our pastors kick you out the door somehow proves your intelligence. It doesn't. It just means you're an annoying yappy little dog who got kicked out the door for being a pest.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:51 AM.

Powered by Jesus - vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Landover Baptist Forums © 1620, 2018 all rights reserved