Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
It all depends on what is meant by the word “victory”.
1) Make arguments that an atheist can't answer?
2) Use the same arguments to provoke an atheist to aggression?
3) Lead the atheist to forget the arguments you gave at the beginning of the argument, so that the “argument” goes round in circles?
4) Make the atheist start interrupting you with his arguments?
5) Or still get the atheist to accept the faith?
All options are possible. But in fact, a normal believer, when entering into a dispute, should never set himself the task of winning. This is not the right motivation, not Christian. St. Gregory the Theologian spoke about the right attitude:
In a dispute about what?
About the presence of God? No.
To do this, he will need to present irrefutable material evidence of the existence of God.
About having faith in yourself?
Past again.
Neither telekinesis, nor resistance to poisons, nor abnormal medical abilities, believers do not possess.
The victory of the believer or atheist is determined only by polemical skill, but not by truth, which is in the middle.
“Truth in the middle” – this is the famous principle of the “golden mean” – in all disputes where extremes are defended, especially political ones.
The principle of the” golden mean ” recommends that you do not stick to any extreme extremes, they are not useful, you need to choose the optimal middle. This principle has already made it possible to optimally solve a huge number of scientific and practical problems.
I can't answer for all of them, because I don't have the opportunity to prove it, but I will firmly say to myself that I will not win! Neither theoretically, nor, especially, practically.
True, I saw a video on YouTube where a Muslim allegedly baffled one young atheist… But this can be explained by the following possible reasons:: 1. The young guy was not well versed in religious matters, 2. Sometimes it happens that “a good thought comes after”, 3. The guy could be a fake and then the video was shot for advertising purposes.
Further. On the Spas TV channel, I have never seen atheists change their views, as well as believers. Transfers always ended with a score of 0:0. And I have long had the assumption that after watching such dialogues, the faith of believers was even stronger, and the atheists even stronger strengthened their position.
.. There is no such goal for an atheist's misfortune; the goal of showing up to avoid misfortune is the right goal.
1 John 5: 4: For whosoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, our faith.
Easily!
Only on one condition – the atheist is obliged to make a commitment that he will accept the evidence of a believer for consideration! And if he wants to reject them, he must argue his point of view.
For example, a believer claims that God is Spirit-the Intelligent Energy of creation and the content of all things in the Wisdom of the Creator's Mind.
In short, God is Life!
So prove to me that Life doesn't exist!
And, at the next attempt at such proof, we will immediately face the fact that WITHOUT GOD-the Breath of Life-life really does not exist, but there is a corpse!
There is an alternative – EVOLUTION! But EVOLUTION is just a process … the same creation, in the sense of ADAPTING the previously created one to new conditions …BUT! Again – in THE WISDOM OF THE MIND OF THE ENERGY OF creation!
Where, who denies the existence of Reason in evolution, denies the existence of such in himself, as a product of evolution!
So, in the “dispute” about the Essence of God, you will have to prove his absence, not his presence! For God reveals his Essence to us by the testimony of LIFE!
In Judaism, Jews are forbidden to argue about their faith with non-Jews, no matter what position they take. In any case, as long as the Jew does not know enough so that at some point he will not stumble upon a thesis that he cannot answer. The ban stems precisely from the fact that your faith could not be shaken.�
Faith is one of the topics that may be interesting to argue about, but it is completely pointless. If you do not doubt your position, then you will not be able to argue. If there are doubts, you will eventually either get rid of them or change your position. So a non-believer and a non-atheist cannot argue with each other, no matter how hard they try.
To begin with, what is winning an argument for you? Changing the opponent's point of view? Finding a solution to an important issue for you and your opponent? Humiliating the person you're arguing with?
Depending on the answer to this question, my answer to your own will be completely different.
If you consider it a victory to change the opponent's point of view on a certain issue, then when it comes to religion, you can not even count. This is too much of an individual thing, not to mention the fact that it's one thing to come to an idea yourself, and another to recognize the idea that is being imposed on you.�
If we are talking about finding the answer or the second scenario, then in order to achieve victory, you will need to change your perception of information exchange in principle, to come to the conclusion that it is necessary not to make mistakes, and not to try to prove your case.You need to be ready to test your faith, to open yourself up to something new.And only then will you be able to find the answer to your question.�
If the final goal is important in the dispute, then I deeply sympathize with you. We are rarely aware of the fact that we are humiliating a person. Even less often do we understand the fact that we do this for the sake of illusory increase in our status in our own eyes, or rather in the eyes of the people around us, through whom we were taught to perceive ourselves. I will also add that I understand you, because you are just unhappy, not angry.�
In general, answering your direct question whether one person can beat another in a religious dispute, I will repeat what I started with, it all depends on your perception of a conditional victory and its conditions. I think that it is possible to put conditions under which one of the parties can win, including a believer, but I think I agree with the commentator here, it can be about winning a dispute about a certain thesis, and not about faith or the existence of God in general.
No, it can't.
And the main reason for this is that religion is an unsubstantiated fiction, which is based only on the faith of its worshipper.
….Cases of years gone by, covered in dust and oblivion
And whether it was, or not, what does it matter? Just humility…
So religious people should accept that their old fantasies are disembodied and unprovable. They have become ghosts of the past, which it is high time to let go.
While science is constantly moving forward, improving and updating..
In a dispute over what? We don't argue, you proclaim the Truth.
Titus 3: 9
1 Timothy 6: 5
1 Corinthians 11: 16
Yes. Correctly applying the techniques of sophistry and demagogy is possible. You can even prove that 2+2 = 5, and if a person is not too well versed in mathematics, then most likely it will be convincing for him (there are such examples on the Internet, where, simply put, both sides of equality are multiplied by 0). With religion, this is even easier, since the subject of the dispute is often not at all clear to both sides. And experienced priests can easily prove everything they need by finding reservations in any line of the Bible (especially when they later say that the Bible does not say that the truth is only in it).
Only the result of such a dispute will not be proof of the truth of religion, but proof that such a believer only knows how to better conduct disputes, knowing what methods can be used to gain an advantage over a not too influential opponent.
A truly religious person will not argue,because there is a command not to enter into disputes, but always to be ready to give an answer to anyone who demands an account, and to do so with meekness and respect.
(1 Peter 3: 15) Because faith is based on knowledge of facts and evidence. Anyone who believes in the one true God can provide information to anyone interested in these issues, including an atheist.
A well-known saying: “Truth is born in a dispute” – doesn't work. Truth is born where opponents respect each other. They try to understand the essence of the discussion, and even if they disagree with a different point of view, they are ready to understand that there is a different view of things. Not to prove or refute, but to make reasonable arguments. And do not be upset if the second party to the discussion does not agree with the first or vice versa. And if you prove your case with foam at the mouth, then there will only be a quarrel.
To begin with, it should be said that, as a rule, in an argument it is not the truth that wins, but the person.
That is, the one of the debaters who at that time will be more convincing, plausible, witty and, sometimes, even more physically strong.
At the same time, the truth remains not the main one.
Perhaps that is why there is a saying that those who argue are worthless.
Again, without an impartial referee, the victory is subjective, fake. And where can I find such a judge?
In addition, for example, among believers, there is such a concept as” the foolishness of preaching”, which does not allow believers to use special eloquence in their words, because it should not obscure the main postulate – a sign of the true Love of God, expressed in the sacrifice of Jesus, the Son of God, who died in our place for our sins.
Again, believers and atheists are different, i.e. there are both honest and dishonest.
If the dispute is fair, without violating the laws of the dispute, then this is one thing. But most often disputes are conducted with a violation. For example, the law of identity is often violated when both sides argue without understanding what exactly they are talking about.
At the same time, decent believers and atheists generally avoid arguments, because they modestly know that they do not know anything (knowledge is always not enough).
Of course it can! And we won more than once. Using violence, torture, fear, laws, and the help of the authorities. With such arguments, anyone can beat anyone.
And if it's about a free and equal dispute , then the question is, what is the dispute about and what is “victory”? What are the rules and who are the judges? Anyone can stand up and declare “I won” against anyone on any subject of dispute. This is very often the case when not only believers argue with atheists, but also any political fanatic or conspiracy theorist.
As an atheist, I can recognize myself defeated in a dispute about the order of Sunday services, or knowledge of the lives of saints. I can also admit my defeat in the argument about the expediency of protecting a pawn in the accepted queen's gambit.
But in the question of the existence of God or the truth of the provisions of certain sacred books and similar issues , I cannot admit myself defeated, because the believer will not use a scientific approach, and I will not use a religious one. These are parallel worlds and incompatible coordinate systems.
The only thing we all have in common is the real world.
But here science has long proved its advantage over religion. People's well-being is the fruit of science and technology, not prayers.
A believer does not argue with atheists, faith itself implies confidence that does not require proof, and the main person who argues is the one who doubts. Imagine that you are on a plane that crashes and you believe that you will be able to escape. Do statistics, facts, and other people's claims shake your faith? No, of course not, because you want to believe that you will be saved, the same goes for religion, but not everyone understands this and many atheists think that faith is a kind of theorem that needs to be refuted, which is quite funny when you understand what's what.