Even though many religious people believe they are required by their god to go out, spread a message, and convert others?
1 Like
Debating atheists about God’s existence isn’t spreading the message of God. It’s probably the worst way to go about doing it. Keep in mind who Jesus preached to.
Then I could ask, why does this thread have any activity at all?
Why “debate” most anything? Clearly, it is based on how interesting it is to another party.
We debate weight training philosophy ad nauseam.
In many cases, a person’s religion goes to the very heart of who they are, whether it seems rational to you, or not.
BTW, I have said, and will say it again, that the work of the Church is not to take the kingdom of heaven (a physical kingdom) by force. The Church is to strengthen the kingdom of God, which is a spiritual kingdom, and not a physical kingdom. The Church is looking for the coming of its King, who will bring with Him, the kingdom of heaven. Disclaimer: This is what I believe and in no way will I try to twist your arm to believe as I do.
This goes back to at least Napoleon who argued that the Pope only had spiritual authority over men and not temporal as well.
You could say back to Paul.
Romans 13:1, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."
I’m not saying formal debates, but many apologists like Aquinas and others didn’t think one could call oneself a Christian if they weren’t prepared to have a strong argument defending their faith.
A lot of conversations are driven by the fact that one, both, or all sides want to use force against those who differ. Debating religion(not State policy, etc., except in a theocracy) is not like that. A believer is offering his side in an attempt to help the non-believer convert, or at least to reconsider the denial the believer thinks will damn the non-believer to Hell.
What is the non-believer’s motivation? To talk the believer into what he(the believer) thinks will damn him to Hell? To talk the believer into not caring what happens to the non-believer?
It could be a number of things, some even being character flaws, of sorts.
- A challenge of thoughts and being able to express them rationally
- Just being a contrarian
- Honing up argumentative skills
- Defending my beliefs, or I should say unbelief.
It was any one of those for me, depending on the person I was addressing.
I disagree, this is what fighting accomplishes. Like physical battle, though I suppose you could imply force in evangelism via the threat of an eternal hell type of situation after dying and becoming a soul or whatever.
I think it depends on the context. Primarily, as stated, there’s usually no more motivation than disagreement through discussion the same as any other current event or social issue.
Broadly speaking, Zecarlo more or less touched on the issue of many, if not most, religious people using their religion to shape and mold conversations and thought around their version of right or wrong. RT Nomad mentioned this as well. If you’re going to project an opinion of right or wrong based on religious views as JShaving directly mentions, I want to understand your criteria for credibility and will challenge your personal beliefs for objective and observational based reasoning behind your publicly stated opinions - especially on a discussion board that exists to…. Discuss. In general.
If you want to believe what you do behind closed doors by yourself as you are suggesting then fine. Come to the table knowing your basis for understanding a topic is is just one in a pool of many.
This usually doesn’t happen though. Religions tend to have a bend towards absolutism and followers believe and project that they hold a literal truth - unless they feel like they could make a stronger point by coyly taking on a passive-aggressive victim stance or something. But this is still a projection.
So in tandem with discussion in general, I suppose you could also add challenging legitimacy of projected authority.
I will add that I find it interesting how your reply is very believer-centric.
It could also be that they are searching
1 Like
For legitimacy of projected authority 
Show me the supernatural is real, objectively, and then that Christianity’s interpretation of it is the only accurate one, and I’ll take parroted religious dogma as valid discussion points.
Defend against whom? Themselves, as in their own doubts, the devil, or other people? In today’s society, there is no need to defend your faith before other people as religious freedom is a right.
1 Like
It might be good to have at least some type of reasoning for why you think what you do when attacked by atheists who think you are a brainless sheep.
1 Like
I think Peter addresses this? Maybe Paul?
I don’t know of any scripture specifically addressing atheists. But Peter says we should make sure our standing with God.
2 Peter 1:10, "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."
But can think of a verse that I occasionally use on my fellow Christians who we are discussing a scripture and might venture into the “well… I just think…”
Ephesians 4:17, “This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,”
How exactly are atheists attacking believers?
Or Jesus when he said to pay the Romans the taxes they were due
I think I was recalling:
Peter 3:15: “always be ready to give a defense of the faith that is in you.”
A longer version from another translation I suppose: 1 Peter 3:15 “But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”
Maybe not addressing atheism directly but always feels pretty inclusive.
And to circle back to Nick’s question, I’d like to hear the defense if faith will be propagated as a universal objective truth and litmus test as opposed to the “hope” the Bible itself reconciles it with.
Definitely a perfect lead in for God’s commandment in Romans 13:1-2.
That is definitely the perfect verse. The preparation for a good defense will keep the person in the Book (or fellowship with believers.)