Page 1 of 1

1-on-1 debate:Nonpracticing Christians as atheists?

PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:39 pm
by CrazyAnglican
Here is the first of the one on one debates. Please do not post on this forum, Juggernaut and I have agreed to debate this topic alone. After the debate please read our posts and vote for the person you think had the more compelling argument.


Refer to the "Parley on religion debates" thread to find an explanation of what it is that we are doing and what rules we have.

I'll open tomorrow. Juggernaut will then open and be able to rebut my statements. Then I will close. Once I close, the thread is open for anyone who wishes to vote in the poll.

It might be fun to have a "spin doctoring" thread where others get to discuss how things are going, but I'll leave that up to someone else. I think Jugernaut and I would have to stay out of that until our arguments are done.

Juggernaut sorry about the truncated title.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:43 pm
by CrazyAnglican
Hi Juggernaut,

Our topic is that same as we discussed "Non-practicing Christians can be reasonably considered to be atheists". Probably more accurately phrased as the question "Can non-practicing Christians be considered to be atheists?" I'll begin tomorrow. I look forward to it.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:56 pm
by s.xkitten
*stomps foot* there's no who cares, GFY, f*ck the maker of this thread...how am i supposed to vote?

PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:57 pm
by Caleb the Cruel
s.xkitten wrote:*stomps foot* there's no who cares, GFY, f*ck the maker of this thread...how am i supposed to vote?

You're supposed to wait until they've debated before you vote.

You're another prime example of those smart people from the Rogue State, aren't you.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:05 pm
by s.xkitten
lol, love you to caleb...if its any conciliation, i didn't vote...i kinda got that part of the poll...i'm not that dumb, thank you....

PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:09 pm
by CrazyAnglican
Yes, I considered a wtf option, but figured not voting would sum that up nicely. Please keep the thread clear so that Juggernaut and I can debate.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:10 pm
by s.xkitten
*salutes* yes sir, right away sir....

PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 1:24 am
by Psilocbin
People argue over this all day, I come to this forum and guess what, you guys are bringing this shit here, no offense, it just gets annoying....I've tried convincing pple that there is a god, but it's as successful as telling a man to rip his own penis off.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:27 pm
by CrazyAnglican
A point of order Juggernaut every vote that is cast before my rebuttal must be ignored as the entire debate cannot be evaluated before its conclusion. Everyone viewing this thread, We are glad you are here and you are a vital part of this little game. Please refrain from posting or voting until my second post (my rebuttal) which will signal the end of the debate.

The debate begins now with my opening.

Can nonpracticing Christians be considered atheists.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:46 pm
by CrazyAnglican
Things are terrible for Theists! Our superstitious beliefs are dying out! At least that is what the current propagandists in the Social Forum would have us believe. I showed some data indicating that things weren't so bad for us. I mean, thanks for your concern, but we are actually doing well. :wink: My evidence was, an independent survey which showed that, far from dying off, the Christian Church is growing by 5% in the United States (The Pew Report). Christianity is thriving in Africa. Congo-Zaire has gone from 2% to 94% Christian in the past hundred years (Glimpses Bulletin # 151).

Now when I brought this to the forum, a funny thing happened. Nobody brought in conflicting data. Instead the conversation turned quickly to the unfounded assertion that non-practicing Christians should really be considered atheists. So, according to their reckoning, atheism really had a greater presence than the data would indicate. :? All of the sudden an atheist was telling me that empirical data is untrustworthy. I should just believe him instead, with no evidence, beyond an occaisional anecdote, to support his claim. (The fallacious arguments I refer to here are found on the "Continuation of Christianity Debate" thread).

The real problem with this argument is that the speaker presumes to know that a significant number of people are lying about their personal beliefs. This is a classic fallacy. It's "arguing from omniscience" (nobeliefs.com). There is no possible way for anyone to know this. In order to show anything close to this a significant number of Christians (say 50,000 like in the ARIS survey) would have to be observed in a study, over time. Even then, the only thing that could be logically stated would be that they did not adhere to their religion closely. The only way to be reasonably certain that anyone is a Christian is to ask them, just like the ARIS and Pew surveys did.

To say that a person, who professes Christianity, is lying about it is to assume facts that are not in evidence. We could go to anecdotal situations. For example, "I knew a guy who marked Christian on a survey but really wasn't" but this is not solid evidence. For this I could easily come up with many testimonies to the contrary. Without any true evidence that many people are lying about being Christians, we have to assume that they really are Christians, and not simply shy atheists.

Finally, an atheist is someone who does not believe in gods. A nonpracticing Christian is someone who, professes a belief in God, but does not attend church. There is nothing reasonable about considering these two different beliefs to be, in any way, similar. Saying that they are the same goes beyond that and is ludicrous.

The ARIS survey results
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions

The Pew Report
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html

nobeliefs.com
http://nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

Glimpses Bulletin #151
http://chi.gospelcom.net/GLIMPSEF/Glimp ... s151.shtml

PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:32 pm
by juggernaut17
The belief that non-practicing Christians can be considered even in the realm of a true Christian is nothing more than hocus pocus. In reality a "true" Christian will go to Heaven. This is to be accepted based on the fact that if you do not follow God's commands you are not a true Christian. And God's commands understandably are your pathway to Heaven.

Secondly, since this is Parly, I would like to define a non-practicing Chrstian as one who does not attend church, pray, or allow God to play a role in his lifestyle.

According to the King James Holy Bible, Mark 1:15 says, "And saying, the time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." This verse states a commandment from God. My definition for "repent" is, To affect (oneself) with contrition or regret for something done, basing it on the Oxford English Dictionary definition. Therefor God says regret your mistakes and change your lifestyle to fix it. Secondly it tells you to believe the gospel, which means "good news". Therefor, one must believe that God sent Jesus to save us of our sins.

James 5:15-16 states, "The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective." This clearly states that whomever prays to God, repenting and asking for forgiveness will be saved.

With this in mind there is a no way a non-practicing Christian can become a "true" Christian because they will not be able to enter the gates of Heaven without repenting, praying for forgiveness, and changing your life to revolve around God. Therefor, both a non-practicing Christian and an Atheist, are essentially the same because they will spend all eternity in damnation.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:59 pm
by juggernaut17
The fact that the Christian population has only increased by the 5% actually shows the decrease of % of Christians in America. Our Population is increasing by about 10.8% per year (http://www.census.gov/population/www/po ... tproj.html), which shows a net loss in Christians in the United States.

Secondly the fact the they are different, because one outwardly expresses his disbelief in God and another, for whatever reason "kind of" believes in God, but doesn't want to fully commit is ludicrous. They will both end up in Hell, and therefor making them virtually the same, when it comes to the afterlife, which is what Christianity is all about. Believing in God and His Son, and doing what he commands of us (ie the Ten Commandments), and in the end being accepted through the Gates of gold.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 4:57 pm
by CrazyAnglican
juggernaut17 wrote:The belief that non-practicing Christians can be considered even in the realm of a true Christian is nothing more than hocus pocus. In reality a "true" Christian will go to Heaven.


I'm not sure that I agree with you here. My argument is that non-practicing Christians cannot be considered atheists. Whether or not they can be considered "true" Christians is not relevant.


juggernaut17 wrote:This is to be accepted based on the fact that if you do not follow God's commands you are not a true Christian. And God's commands understandably are your pathway to Heaven.


This is a Judaic idea not a Christian one. Christ died for our sins and we receive remission for those sins by believing in Christ. In John 3:16-17 (NIV) it says "For God so loved the world that He gave his one an only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. But God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." Salvation is not a paycheck given to us for a job well done, it is a gift given to us by a loving saviour. Nonpracticing Christians have expressed a belief in God and to argue that their belief is somehow weak or even nonexistent is still to commit the fallacy of "arguing from omniscience" (nobeliefs.com). If someone states that they believe in God and that Christ is their saviour then they are Christian, whether they go to church or not. We have to take them at their word unless some evidence can be shown to prove that they are lying.


juggernaut17 wrote:I would like to define a non-practicing Chrstian as one who does not attend church, pray, or allow God to play a role in his lifestyle.


So a Christian who goes to church every Christmas, says "Thank God" when his boss walks out the door, and has a crucifix on the wall at home is a "true" Christian? This definition does not seem to be reliable.

juggernaut17 wrote:According to the King James Holy Bible, Mark 1:15 says, "And saying, the time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." This verse states a commandment from God. My definition for "repent" is, To affect (oneself) with contrition or regret for something done, basing it on the Oxford English Dictionary definition. Therefor God says regret your mistakes and change your lifestyle to fix it. Secondly it tells you to believe the gospel, which means "good news". Therefor, one must believe that God sent Jesus to save us of our sins.

James 5:15-16 states, "The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective." This clearly states that whomever prays to God, repenting and asking for forgiveness will be saved.


Nowhere in here does it say that church attendance is necessary to be considered a Christian. Repentance and belief are once again in the realm of omniscience.

juggernaut17 wrote:With this in mind there is a no way a non-practicing Christian can become a "true" Christian because they will not be able to enter the gates of Heaven without repenting, praying for forgiveness, and changing your life to revolve around God. Therefor, both a non-practicing Christian and an Atheist, are essentially the same because they will spend all eternity in damnation.


Are serial killers, rapists, and child molesters also to be considered atheists because they sin and are not repentent?

It is the professed belief in God that makes one a Christian. Whether you are a devout Christian or not makes no difference, in this instance. It is the professed disbelief in any gods that makes one an atheist. These are contradictory worldviews. Making an attempt to "muddy the water" by bringing in the possibility of some unknowable motive does not change this. A Christian is a Christian, whether practicing or not. An atheist is an atheist. The only reliable way to tell one from the other is to ask them and accept their answer.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:11 pm
by CrazyAnglican
Okay we are done. Thanks Juggernaut I really enjoyed it.

Everybody else, thank you for letting us have this debate, Please vote for which argument was the most compelling.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:42 pm
by s.xkitten
i'm supposed to give unbiased feedback, but i'm to lazy to read all this...so

crazy angelican person wins because thats who is ahead in the vote thing...i'll come back tomorrow to read it all...oh perhaps later tonight, if i'm bored...

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:02 pm
by strike wolf
Being someone who could be considered a non-practicing christian (I actually feel that I do not need to go to church to bring god it my life), I do not feel I can give an unbiased opinion to answer this poll.

Good point

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:06 pm
by beezer
strike wolf wrote:Being someone who could be considered a non-practicing christian (I actually feel that I do not need to go to church to bring god it my life), I do not feel I can give an unbiased opinion to answer this poll.


Good point, even though we all try to be as objective as possible we're all biased to some point. I still voted after reading both arguments. I'm hoping that maybe there will be more debates that aren't religious in nature.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:19 pm
by XenHu
Caleb the Cruel wrote:
s.xkitten wrote:*stomps foot* there's no who cares, GFY, f*ck the maker of this thread...how am i supposed to vote?

You're supposed to wait until they've debated before you vote.

You're another prime example of those smart people from the Rogue State, aren't you.


Whoa-ho!

Just saw that...

Caleb, why stoop so low?

:lol:

-X

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:20 pm
by s.xkitten
XenHu wrote:
Caleb the Cruel wrote:
s.xkitten wrote:*stomps foot* there's no who cares, GFY, f*ck the maker of this thread...how am i supposed to vote?

You're supposed to wait until they've debated before you vote.

You're another prime example of those smart people from the Rogue State, aren't you.


Whoa-ho!

Just saw that...

Caleb, why stoop so low?

:lol:

-X


lol...just noticed that, i see...

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:16 am
by MeDeFe
huh? wasn't it "starting point - reply - counterreply - finishing post"? CA starts, CA finishes, I feel something's missing... I know that there are 2 posts by juggernaut, however, one immediately follows the other, so I would like to consider them as ONE reply to CA's starting point.


You're not quite finished yet as I see it.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:30 pm
by CrazyAnglican
MeDeFe wrote:huh? wasn't it "starting point - reply - counterreply - finishing post"? CA starts, CA finishes, I feel something's missing... I know that there are 2 posts by juggernaut, however, one immediately follows the other, so I would like to consider them as ONE reply to CA's starting point.


You're not quite finished yet as I see it.



We had discussed that, and agreed to this format. It is a disadvantage to go first, because the other guy gets to read your position before formulating his. I went first in the opening round, and Juggernaut went first in the rebuttal round. He did not mention my opening in his opening. I did not mention his rebuttal in mine.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:23 pm
by CrazyAnglican
strike wolf wrote:Being someone who could be considered a non-practicing christian (I actually feel that I do not need to go to church to bring god it my life), I do not feel I can give an unbiased opinion to answer this poll.


An honorable stance thank you.