Article two of the charter

l3rian

JustHalf: my funny little jokes aside . number 2 stinks of discrimination, but I can see how a one-sided debate here would be to your benefit, considering that christians have consistently lost badly in any logical open debate about their religion :rolleyes:

JustHalf

Originally posted by l3rian
JustHalf: my funny little jokes aside . number 2 stinks of discrimination, but I can see how a one-sided debate here would be to your benefit, considering that christians have consistently lost badly in any logical open debate about their religion :rolleyes:

Wow, the conspiracy theories start up again!

The second article of the charter is entirely reasonable. I'm guessing you're taking some skewed view of it, based on some sort of prejudiced misunderstanding. I think the wording is quite clear, and I can't see how someone who "gets" the meaning would think it's unfair discrimination.

For your information, my faith isn't irrational; I couldn't stomach it if it was. And most debates I've been involved with that dealt with the truth or falsity of my faith have almost all run up against the old classic:

"Yeah, but because you can't prove or disprove God's existence, God doesn't exist."

If you think this is logical, there's really no point in arguing with you

Excelsior

I'll take you up on any debate you care to propose. I don't believe that I can "win", if by win you mean that you accept my position and become a Christian but I think you'll be pleasantly surprised that outside your small group of friends or your secondary school religion class, there are thousands of Christians of all denominations in Ireland very well able to defend what they believe.

I mean, it makes sense. The only other option would be that these thousands of people have such a low intellectual immune system as to render themselves totally stupid. How judgemental and narrow-minded would it be to disregard them in that manner?

Zillah

Originally posted by JustHalf
"Yeah, but because you can't prove or disprove God's existence, God doesn't exist."

If you think this is logical, there's really no point in arguing with you

If one must assume as to the existence or lack thereof of God, the only logical assumption is that he doesn't. There are an infinitude of other possible explainations for the "evidence" for God. Just like if you have to make a similar assumption for the existence or lack thereof of Goblins, one must assume no, as there is no evidence either way. You can't prove a negative.


Of course assumption is just stupid whichever direction you swing. Agnosticism is the only true scientific view point in a debate like this.

Excelsior

And a scientific view would be useless in a theolgical discussion on the existence of God. Its hardly an empirical event, in fairness.

The thread should maybe be locked now since Brian has had his say, has had his response and has been reassured that the debating possibilities are endless here at Christianity.