Should Christians waste their time debating with unbelievers?

Jump to Last Post 51-81 of 81 discussions (480 posts)
  1. lionswhelp profile image77
    lionswhelpposted 9 years ago

    Hey Earnest,

    You say you had Christ? They you grew up and had your own reasoning on how things really are. What a washout. Check Proverbs 14:12 > There is a way that seems righr unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

    You lost your understanding somewhere along the "Way", John 14:6 > Jesus said, "Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me."

    Also Jeremiah 17:9-10 says the human heart on its own worldly foundations is = verse 9

    The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

    God says He has the answers for you: verse 10, the Lord searches the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

    Why did you stop seeking him, Matthew 6:33? Why did you stop listening? Are you on your own ego trip?

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      lol lol lol
      Beautifully put! I could never write a better expose of who you are even if I was exempt from being banned!
      lol lol lol

  2. profile image55
    paarsurreyposted 9 years ago

    Should Christians waste their time debating with unbelievers? from

    I don't think the Christians if they are true believers in the Creator-God Allah YHWH; they should think that discussing things with the unbelievers is the time wasted. Why don't they put it that it is the time spent positively. Jesus and Muhammad discussed things with the unbelievers; they never thought that it was time wasted.

    Thanks

    I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

  3. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    Man , it's not something I would normaly do , debate with non- believers, Todays Liberal idealists love to argue , they don't know what they're talking about , but they love to argue. It's not even debate really , if you take them deeper into the questions you lose them in the knowledge section. They're not only shallow  they're devoutely extinct in the common sense department.......

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      LOLOOLOLOL Like wot god sed in ur hed?

    2. profile image55
      stoneyyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      What a bang on description of Christians!  Well done!

  4. profile image55
    paarsurreyposted 9 years ago

    Should Christians waste their time debating with unbelievers?


    If the unbelivers are reasonable people ; then it is time spent positively.

    1. profile image55
      stoneyyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The problem is that believers aren't reasonable people.

      What they believe in privately is their business.

      What they project into the real world is subject to examination by the tools theists hopefully use in all other areas of their lives.

      What these people posit fails at the slightest glance.

  5. profile image55
    paarsurreyposted 9 years ago

    Druid Dude wrote:

    And yes, you should debate with non-believers. God Loves a good argument!

    Paarsurrey says:

    I agree with you; if the unbelievers listen to reason; then it is a poistive activity.

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Reason? A contradictory religious tome written by a bunch of psychopaths is "reason?"

    2. profile image55
      stoneyyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Insanities and inanities aren't any type of reason.

  6. TimeHealsAll profile image73
    TimeHealsAllposted 9 years ago

    Sometimes you can't even lead a horse to water. You can show the horse where the water is and leave it up to them to find it. Some horses may not even believe there's water or believe in water.  Some horses have to be near death before they'll even drink of it. The up side of this is...you planted the seed.

  7. Joy56 profile image73
    Joy56posted 9 years ago

    just read every single persons comment.  I still cannot understand and cannot ever understand, why people just come in here to argue, it is silly.  Debating can be good.  We can all agree to disagree, we can disagree without being disagreeable.

  8. profile image0
    Rookie70posted 9 years ago

    I believe that we as Christians (those of us who are) are more effective in our approach to non-believers through our lifestyle and actions. Yes, we can speak to non-believers, but not engage in arguments. We were called to speak the truth in love, and sharing words of edification. However, the time will come when Christ will come with his saints to judge the wicked. That is something we are to wait for. Until then, we are to love one another the same way Christ loved us. Debating may not win the unbeliever, but the Holy Spirit can. Remember, the gospel is not mere words, but is also power. Debating holds no power. That is not to say that Christians should not respond to people and accept challenges when it comes to defending what we believe. Even Christians are called to seek peace with all mankind. I respect everyone's right to their God-given free will, even if they choose not to believe, but I will not compromise my beliefs either. You don't believe, then that's fine, but don't hate me because I choose to believe. If you do, then you are the one who's intolerant. I personally believe Christians have every right to post their blogs on the internet like everybody else. We have the right to vote like anybody else. You take your stand, and I'll take my stand. The thing that bothers me is that everytime a Christian simply gives his/her testimony sincerely and humbly, the Atheist always attacks them with slanders ridicule. This is expected from people who always talk about morality, but will always attack a Christian whenever the opportunity arises. So much for the morale of Atheists.

  9. CkhoffmanK profile image61
    CkhoffmanKposted 9 years ago

    I dont think anyone should bother arguing about anything religion-wise.

    Now debate.. that's diff. Debating, as long as it isn't abusive, is a good thing. I enjoy a debate when my opponent uses verifiable facts in his (or her) rebuttal. But if you cant, and you try to prove the bible with the bible, then you're not worth a debate.


    Otherwise, normal debate between christians and nonchristian people should be fine. Both sides can get heated, so thats the problem.

    1. Dave Barnett profile image58
      Dave Barnettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Good man. nonbelievers arguing w/ believers like KKK at a NAACP meeting/ vice versa. And I still say that no one has provided proof to me that some "Unknown Lifeform" could exist which literally fits the description of what SOME people call God. I really don't think I'm the spittin' image of DAD. None are, but , internally , we are indistinguishable from the entirety of creation. We are ONE. In this way, it is more accurate for me to call it "cosmic consciousness" or "Spirit" I choose the latter. I do believe that an earnest search beginning with self reveals all. But it's not EASY. It is dangerous and can be FATAL.

      1. Dave Barnett profile image58
        Dave Barnettposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        correction: COULDN"T EXIST. sorry. Gotta keep my standing as the resident wacko

  10. Frank Menchise profile image30
    Frank Menchiseposted 9 years ago

    I believe that we all have the duty to spread a good word, so, if Christians debate with non believers is OK. You see it is only an exchange of their religious views and there is no harm in that?

  11. Charles James profile image72
    Charles Jamesposted 9 years ago

    "Debate" is the presentation of a reasoned argument. The difficulty with many Hubbers is that they do not attempt to present a reasoned argument. Insult, clever abuse and vulgar abuse are none of them an argument. Scan through the contributions above and very few of them are a reasoned argument.

    One can have a reasoned debate "Does God Exist?"
    Assuming God does exist, "Was Jesus The son of God?"
    Then "Which of the current religions claiming to be the voice of Christ / God is the authentic word of Christ/God?"

    When I was at University a lad in my College decided to try to bring me to Christ. I am pretty tolerant, but after a while I asked how he could reconcile being a Christian with support for the Conservative Party. After a few of these conversations he stopped bothering me.

    In answer to the question, if you find that debating with Christians is not working for you (and presumably not for God either), do something constructive with your time instead. Praying is fine if it makes you happy. Or even try doing good works - which might involve you in engaging with real people with real problems.

    I spent over 20 years working with refugees. When I see what people do to each other in the name of religion, I do not want to join!

  12. seamist profile image54
    seamistposted 9 years ago

    Should Christians waste their time debating with non-believers?

    If you're a Christian, I believe it is your responsibility to share the word with others. However, I also believe in the phrase, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink it. Past a point, it does no good to keep debating or fighting. After you've presented your beliefs, if they still don't want to believe, I think the best thing you can do is set an example with your own life and pray for them.

  13. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 9 years ago

    One of the tricks of the devil?


    You are speaking of fellow persons not bloody demons.
    Keep your ninth rate crud to yourself, or go and curse someone else.
    Dirty slimy thoughts about others. Yeh real nice!

  14. ksha16 profile image59
    ksha16posted 9 years ago

    LoL yeah hehe yeah LoL

  15. profile image0
    Rare Jewelposted 8 years ago

    For me, unless I am Spirit lead, I will not bother to debate with unbelievers or even 'believers' for that matter.

  16. Unchained Grace profile image61
    Unchained Graceposted 8 years ago

    Good afternoon. Personally, I have no beef with anyone. Yes, I am a Christian and yes we provide homes for homeless people and much else, but that is also done by many regardless of what belief system they follow. Actually, my own personal focus is to improve the quality of life for others.

    One thing does bother me a bit is the widespread racial bias and profiling which occurs. This is not necessarily a religious viewpoint but one which results in division among people who could be working together for the common good. I realize this may be a bit offtopic, but I'm not here to debate the undebatable. I'm simply here to wish all a happy holiday and I hope your Thanksgiving went well.

  17. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 8 years ago

    No. Christians and others who believe should keep it to themselves.
    It must be hard not to flog this stuff when the subconscious knows it is not true.
    The constant harping about a fairytale being true is done to support their own inner lack of belief.

    "Thou protesteth too much"

    1. profile image51
      WhatsTheDealposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I ASK YOU TO TRY AND NEGATE THIS ARGUMENT SIR smile
      ______________________________________________________

      The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “wish-fulfillment” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Frederick Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.

      Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.

      To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”

      In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:

      1. Reality is an illusion.
      2. Reality is/was self-created.
      3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
      4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

      So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.

      Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.

      Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:

      • Something exists.
      • Nothing cannot create something.
      • Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

      Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?

      To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.

      Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.

      Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:

      • Something exists.
      • You do not get something from nothing.
      • Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
      • The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
      • Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
      • Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

      Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

      But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:

      • He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
      • He must be powerful (exceedingly).
      • He must be eternal (self-existent).
      • He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
      • He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
      • He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
      • He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
      • He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
      • He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
      • He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
      • He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
      • He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
      • He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

      These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).

      One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.

      Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.

      This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”

      So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).

      1. Beelzedad profile image58
        Beelzedadposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Is that your argument? Or, did you lift if from here?

        http://www.gotquestions.org/argument-existence-God.html

        1. earnestshub profile image88
          earnestshubposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          smile It was too much to hope for an original thought on the subject I guess. smile

          1. Beelzedad profile image58
            Beelzedadposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            You got that right.

            Nice to see ya back, dude. smile

            1. earnestshub profile image88
              earnestshubposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Nice to see you as well. 4 months is a long time.

              I think the religious forums are little changed. Perhaps a few of the fundies have dropped off?

              1. Beelzedad profile image58
                Beelzedadposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, some have, but more have sprung up to take their places. Of course, they repeat the same tired arguments. smile

                1. profile image0
                  just_curiousposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Hmmm. From the looks of this site, it appears that statement rings true for both sides.

                  1. Beelzedad profile image58
                    Beelzedadposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes, I understand that the presenting of reality is a tired argument for believers.

                    But, what's interesting is that you are arguing with other believers about your beliefs. Why can't you all agree? smile

      2. dingdondingdon profile image60
        dingdondingdonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        But if you don't believe that something can arise from nothing, then you've just disproved your own religion, because that means that God (something) would have to have been created from something else before he could create us.

        Your argument doesn't work even on its own terms.

        1. aka-dj profile image77
          aka-djposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          So many people assume that God was (somehow) created. hmm hmm hmm

          He is without beginning and without end.
          He is Eternal.

          I know it's a terribly difficult concept for some, but not any more difficult that trying to imagine absolute "nothing-ness", from which came something/everything.

          So, WhatsTheDeal's argument is NOT negated at all!

    2. profile image0
      just_curiousposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Hi ernest. I would agree that religion should never be pushed on someone not interested in the topic;  but a religious forum appears to me, by name, to be in place to discuss religion.

      I would never say an atheist should not be here. I happen to be fascinated with the atheist view; but when that view includes the idea that people should not discuss religion, in a religious forum (as  I have been told rather bluntly at times) I have to scratch my head and laugh. smile

  18. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 8 years ago

    Yep, it should be easy enough to believe that an invisible, no show god made himself from nothing, came back as his own son and killed himself for us. He did this because the people HE made were faulty therefore had to be murdered en-masse, tortured and fried alive because they did not "believe" in it.

    Sure, that makes heaps of sense! lol

    I do not believe in Santa either.

    1. profile image51
      WhatsTheDealposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      It's not about it being easy...it's about it making sense and being shown in a way that "intellectuals" can understand it. You have not tried to disprove the argument showed above that uses science and philosophy (things you consider the only sound way of proving a point) to prove that believing in a creator is in fact an intellectually sound belief.  The fact that you can't even acknowledge that, shows just how lost and delusional you really are. It's not rocket science, and if other atheists (who are STILL atheists btw) can acknowledge that it makes sense I don't see why you just refuse to believe it when the evidence is clearly pointed out...moreover, the fact that there's a verse in the bible about people like you who refuse to believe despite the evidence is almost mind-boggling, and weirdly prophetic since you believe all of it is rubbish and written by people who you think are total idiots...food for thought. smile

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Evidense? What evidence?
        2,000 years and not one single piece of evidence has emerged.

        Bronze aged hate fests written by a handful of goat herders to control the masses is hardly proof of anything other than the gullibility of the ignorant!

        1. profile image51
          WhatsTheDealposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          The scientific evidence presented above is what I'm referring to. You know, that really long passage about how the universe had to have been created by an eternal creator and why? You have not tried to disprove it. Since you rely on logic, I've challenged you to present with logic and philosophical or scientific evidence that there is NO WAY AT ALL that the universe had to have been created by an eternal creator....I presented the evidence, now it's your turn to prove it wrong. Otherwise, you're just moving your mouth and saying nothing. Go ahead, take a stab at it.....I encourage you to at least try. smile

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Your idea of scientific evidence had me splitting my sides! lol
            I wrote a hub about your "scientific evidence" based on two years of bible study in 3 languages when I was a "born again christian."

            Have you even read the book?
            Read my hub if you want to know. I strongly suspect you could not change your mind in the face of evidence, and won't read it.
            I am prepared to change my beliefs in the light of better information in a heartbeat. My bet is that you are indoctrinated and have no will to learn anything else.

            Indoctrination at an early age is the only way a person could "believe" the god story.

            1. profile image51
              WhatsTheDealposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              You are still moving your mouth and saying nothing...you aren't making an argument against the evidence that was presented...which is odd, because it's not even MY scientific evidence, it's the evidence that is believed by ALL scientists, that is taught in the majority of all classrooms...were you not taught about the big bang theory? I'm not making this stuff up...it's logic and philosophy from a non biased standpoint..I even reference people who are ATHEISTS...all the evidence is strictly taken from science, logic, and philosophy...This isn't me saying "The bible says" this is strictly what "Science and simple logic says".....again, PROVE IT WRONG...give me evidence that disproves ANYTHING that was put in that argument...quote me and rip the premise to shreds....go on, I'm inviting you to, or would you rather I break it down for you so you can try and shred it point by point?

              1. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                You did not read my hub, you have presented no evidence, "all scientists" do not believe the myth, and what you accept as proof is laughable to me.
                No proof of any type is presented in your arguments for me to address. smile
                It is you who are moving your mouth and saying nothing.

                1. profile image0
                  just_curiousposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Hey ernest. I read your hub. You do realize that you're apparently a car salesman, or you own a body shop. You aren't exactly an authoritative voice on the subject of religion. You wouldn't expect anyone to take the word of someone who was apparently in the middle of some emotional tirade would you?

                  1. earnestshub profile image88
                    earnestshubposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    I am a motor engineer, not a car salesman, and years after owning my businesses I still have the respect of the industry for taking a high moral stance in my  endeavors resulting in being amongst the most successful businesses in my scope.

                    Track record has meaning to me. Your attempt to put me in a very small basket is typical. I have 6 grandchildren, write on parenting and dozens of other subjects.

                    Your half baked assumptions are insulting and narrow minded.
                    I bet you never read my hub any better than you did my profile.

                    I also have 35 0dd years of psychology and religious study which I learned formally and in depth. If you read my hubs you would know that. Have you had formal learning in religion? I doubt you have even read the bible.

                  2. earnestshub profile image88
                    earnestshubposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Go and read something other than your "good book" or read it properly from cover to cover as I have.
                    Insulting people's occupations and implying they know nothing else won't cut it.
                    Maybe you should watch a few videos by Lawrence Krauss.

                2. profile image51
                  WhatsTheDealposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Again I challenge you.....quote any 1 of the 4 points about reality that was presented.. quote it and explain to me why it doesn't make sense, not just because you don't think it does, but because you have proof that science says it's not possible...you have yet to do so...i'm waiting. Copy and paste if you have to. smile

    2. agvulpes profile image87
      agvulpesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      What!!!!... there is no 'Santa Claus' ????  sad sad sad
      What a bummer sad

    3. superwags profile image74
      superwagsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I prefer "ignostic"

  19. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 8 years ago

    I am not an atheist.
    It is a word used to describe people who don't believe that fairytales are truth by religionists.

    Not believing that fairytales are truth does not make one an atheist, that is a religious construct.

    1. profile image51
      WhatsTheDealposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      You clearly need a definition of the word Atheist....

      a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist] 
      –noun
             .a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

      Do you or do you not deny the existence of a supreme being or beings?...I rest my case. smile

      YOU ARE AN ATHEIST..again refusing to believe it despite the evidence.

  20. superwags profile image74
    superwagsposted 8 years ago

    It's a complete waste of time debating a non-believer if your intention is to try to "convert" them. However if you are ready to grow up, open your mind to a bit of old fashioned logic and learn something then it might be worth your while.

    1. profile image51
      WhatsTheDealposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I'm using logic and nothing but logic to try and have an open discussion, yet he's refusing to acknowledge it saying it's not evidence and not even trying to take apart the argument piece by piece and prove to me why it isn't.....that's not a conversation that's a typical "you're wrong, because I say so" response.....I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just proving a point that believing in a creator is actually an intellectually sound belief and I have shown the evidence to prove why. Unless he or someone else can literally quote and demolish, I'm still under the impression that there isn't any fallacy to what has been presented in my argument.

      1. superwags profile image74
        superwagsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        A creator of what?

        1. profile image51
          WhatsTheDealposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          A creator of this universe (meaning everything in existence) is what I mean. whether it's called God, Allah, Yahweh, Sun God or whatever..I was simply showing that that belief isn't improbable and is actually definite and supported, based solely on what science and philosophy (not religion)  tells us about the world and it's origins.

          1. superwags profile image74
            superwagsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            You mean a reason for the big bang? We don't know why the big bang happened, but that doesn;t mean that "god did it". There are inumerable exmples where we have believed "god did it" for the majoriy of our 200,000 years on this planet, but most have strong evidence to the contrary now.

            Belief isn't a surprise, we're predisposed to it. In fact we're predisposed in a certain way. Read up on the cargo cults of the south pacific for example. (I've got a hub on John Frumism if you're interested). Unfortunatley though, just because something is fascinating and an insight on the human psyche it doesn;t mea that it's either true or logical in a modern sense of the word.

            1. profile image51
              WhatsTheDealposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              It's not about whether a God did it or not, the fact remains that "something" caused it..what that something is we don't know but  ALL, EVERY SINGLE PIECE of evidence that we have points to only two facts, that whatever created it is eternal (was already there) and that it created it (the big bang)...

              1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                Randy Godwinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                What piece of evidence points to the cause being eternal? smile

                1. profile image51
                  WhatsTheDealposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  The cause/creator/initiator of the big bang had to be eternal, it had to already be there in order for the bang to have happened.. Since by scientific logic you cannot create someone out of nothing...it's simple really. smile No matter how you try and spin it, the fact remains that something was created and it had to have had a creator. Every effect has a cause.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                    Randy Godwinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Perhaps you are confusing a creator with a catalyst?  The big bang is doubtless not unique in terms of it being the first.  It may expand and contract countless times without any deity being responsible.  Just because you cannot fathom this occurring doesn't mean some god, or group of gods are responsible.

                    In fact, there is absolutely no evidence of any entity being involved in the process.  Ever heard of antimatter? smile

    2. marketingskeptic profile image71
      marketingskepticposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. I used to enjoy learning about different religions to see which one would fit me the best, but after being bombarded by all these "devout" Christian and preachers...I've decided that I'd NEVER convert. The fact that they tell you that you're going to hell if you don't join, just smacks of intolerance. After all, even the best of Christians sin...so really, they have no right to pretend to hold the higher moral ground just because they read the Bible. I've met so many Christian hypocrites who have way less morals than I...so if they're the sort that will go to heaven, I'd gladly take hell.

  21. profile image55
    paarsurreyposted 8 years ago

    Christians may debate with with others with rational and reasonable arguments if any; but I don't think they have any.
    Trinity is false; Jesus was no god or son of god; so in debate they will always lose.

  22. Diane Inside profile image73
    Diane Insideposted 8 years ago

    yes it is pointless to try. When theya are ready for the truth they will seek it all you can do is present the gospel and allow them to make their minds up for themselves.

    Anything else is pointless and only undermines what you are trying to do.

  23. dingdondingdon profile image60
    dingdondingdonposted 8 years ago

    I think many atheists and agnostics would be extremely relieved not to have Christians trying to argue with them all the time.

  24. profile image55
    paarsurreyposted 8 years ago

    Should Christians waste their time debating with unbelievers?

    There is no harm in bebating and convincing the non-believers with rational and reasonable arguments and only presenting Truth.

    1. pisean282311 profile image59
      pisean282311posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      lol i wonder how many agents does god have and how many truths does those agents have...

  25. victor2322 profile image59
    victor2322posted 8 years ago

    I think it can be healthy for believers to debate with non-believers. There is adifference between faith and facts. Atheists remind us Christians of that. I believe in God but I can't prove it with undeniable facts, I just believe it. That's what faith is.

    I spent 6 months talking to atheists on hubs and forums all over the internet. I wasn't trying to convert anyone, just trying to get insights on their perspectives. Atheists view Christians as narrow minded, self righteous, opinionated, hypocrites. Unfortunately, they are right more often than not. If a Christian wants to minister to someone they need to know and inderstand how that person views Christianity or it will be difficult. More often than ot, I found myself saying "Holy Crap, this atheist is exactly right about their opinion of Christians."

    Christians have done a lot of good things in the name of God. Unfortunately throughout history, several Christians have done unspeakable acts; in the name of the same God. If a Christian doesn't get outside of their "bubble" that "everyone wants to believe in God, they are just waiting for me to tell them how wrong they are and how right I am" then they will never be an effective witness.

    In the Bible Jesus NEVER condemned the non-believer. He condemned the self righteous, hypocritical "religious" leaders of His day. With everyone else, he was patient, kind, and understanding with. Too many Christians do not tkae the same approach.

    Engaging in a non-confrontational discussion with an atheist can give a Christian great insights on their own faith and their own belief system. I was forced to "second guess" my beliefs and dig deeper into the scriptures and studies.

    At the end of my "experiment" I decided that my faith was mine. I didnt need to justify anymore than an Athesit needed to justify their belief; or lack there of. I could respect what they thought, and most of the time they respected my thoughts because I never attacked anyone or threatened to have my God send them to hell.

    All in all, it was a good experience and I made some good contacts and some good friends. And who knows what will happen.

    1. profile image0
      Motown2Chitownposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Incredibly well said, Victor.  I wish we Christians were quicker to either A) Discuss with the intent of actually understanding and B) Keep our mouths shut when we should. 

      It simply isn't the goal of every Christian (nor should it be) to convert an atheist/agnostic!  I think if fewer of our atheist/agnostic AND Christian friends believed that, we might actually be able to discuss.  Nor is it the JOB of every Christian to PROVE that God exists.  As you said, Christians are believers.  Some of us are scientists, some are not.  And, not all of us are Christians just because we're too dumb to understand the universe any other way.  I know that'll come as a shocker!  smile

      I do, however, believe that it is the goal of every Christian to answer any question when asked and to answer it honestly.  More importantly, it's the goal and the responsibility of the Christian to act, walk, talk, think, and behave as Jesus did.  Insults, name-calling, condescension, and argumentative insinuation weren't things He took part in.  Therefore, the Christian ought not take part in them either.  Just my take.

      And I've said this before, in a hub definitely, I'm not sure about the forums - but Christians do not hold the monopoly on hypocrisy.  Hypocrisy sadly is a part of the HUMAN condition.

      Again, very well stated!

    2. dingdondingdon profile image60
      dingdondingdonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Many Christians I have met have seemed very insecure and angry (and of course, the same is true for many atheists I have met). I think if more people took your tolerant, mature attitude to these discussions we would all come away with a much wider, more comprehensive view of things.

      I'm an atheist but I quite like discussing religion. I may not believe in it but I find it an interesting topic all the same, and I enjoy hearing the viewpoints of those who are believers. I think it's only when I or the other person starts forgetting to respect the other's views that things become nasty.

  26. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 8 years ago

    Victor with an attitude like that you would have no trouble communicating with this non-believer. smile
    I am an ex catholic/ ex C of E ex born again christian with a different outlook to you, but always willing to have a conversation with anyone who presents a moderate argument. smile

  27. lifegate profile image81
    lifegateposted 8 years ago

    To answer the question, No we shouldn't debate the Scriptures. There's nothing to debate. They are what they are. The forum is especially not the place. The devil loves it.

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The devil loves it?
      Well that cleared up any confusion about your post for me. lol

  28. frogtalk profile image66
    frogtalkposted 8 years ago

    Yeah, I get what you are saying.

    I think it depends, it seems the majority of non-Christians that create arguments against the Christian views are not likely to open up to the gospel. Thus it would be better to not throw our pearls to the swine.

    However, if someone is genuinely interested than I think she should invest our time into that persons questions.

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      "Pearls to swine"
      Yeah I get what your saying. smile

  29. C-Bless profile image59
    C-Blessposted 8 years ago

    I think the best way to win an argument with an unbeliever is to live your life as a Godly person.  Let your lifestyle be your argument because it's difficult to argue with a fool - they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experiencel

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Funny thing is, that is the advice I would give any non believer, just be yourself and live your normal moral life.

      I don't think I would call the opposition fools though. smile

      1. aguasilver profile image68
        aguasilverposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Hi Earnest, just passing through....

        " I  don't think I would call the opposition fools though. "

        It's a scripture quote!

        Psalm 14:1
        The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God...

        So in effect you would be correct, there would be no point in calling a believer in God a fool. smile

        1. earnestshub profile image88
          earnestshubposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          It was simpler for me, yes I know where it came from, I also know what it says about the person using it to claim authority to abuse "nicely" by claiming understanding from a bronze aged myth.

          "I didn't say it, the bible did"

          1. profile image0
            just_curiousposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Hey ernest. I saw your first comment about not calling believers fools (I always think that's your intent in the heat of the discussion) and raised an eyebrow, but your followup about Jesus saying not to do it was such a zinger I had to laugh. Good one.

            1. earnestshub profile image88
              earnestshubposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Regardless of my beliefs about religionists, they need no help from me to show their intent. It is on every page of these threads. smile

              1. profile image0
                just_curiousposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                As is yours, mine and everyone else's. I thought that is why we post. Did I miss something?.smile

                1. earnestshub profile image88
                  earnestshubposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Maybe you did. smile The morals.

                  I propose that my motives are honest in opposing anything that seeks to control and restrict free thought and the right to disbelieve any myth or story that is without evidence.

                  When others seeks with manic fervor to make people less than them I object on moral grounds.
                  Quoting megalomanic verses from said myth as truth that I must follow to avoid being a victim of their particular belief is where I draw the line.

                  1. profile image0
                    just_curiousposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    K.. I'm out of this thread though. It's very testy. And I think I may be contributing to the conflict, because I'm in agreement with you and you seem grumpy about it. smile

  30. profile image0
    zampanoposted 8 years ago

    "religious" debates are to HP what football is to the Brazilians.
    lol

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      It looks like that doesn't it. smile

      The thing is, if you pulled the equivalent number of players as a soccer team off these posts, there would be very few threads to reply to left. smile

      1. profile image0
        zampanoposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        hehe
        That would leave 2 guys playing penalties.

        1. earnestshub profile image88
          earnestshubposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          and the game would proceed much like it does here. smile
          Where can I get a whole box of red cards? smile

  31. Jaydeus profile image72
    Jaydeusposted 8 years ago

    One may think that discussing other views outside of your own would not only enhance one's understanding of said view, but offer insight into the unknown areas not previously explored.  That being the case for the advancement of knowledge, it is set in history's stones that Christianity continually negates the human urge to understand and contemplate things that boggle the mind and thus offers a soul-degrading solution to not think for ones self and only to question the authority of those that ask questions outside of the ''Christian'' box.   
    To decide that having conversation with those who have a different mindset of life is useless and ''the devils work'' is absurd and only secures the fact that you are a slave to a single thought, that thought being just a few thousand years old compared to the exponentially longer time frame of known human occupation of this planet.
    A better question would be is taking infant ideas seriously as compared to the 200,000 years of known human experience and exploration.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)